Asklemmy

47179 readers

728 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

What percentage of people you've met do you consider a genuinely good person? Someone you could trust your life with if need be? (lemm.ee)

submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) by ReanuKeeves@lemm.ee to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

84 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Edit: I don't mean someone that will sacrifice their life for yours, more someone who would go out of their way to rush you to the hospital or something

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 15 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

The answer is contextual, just like people are contextual. Sometimes, my circles are all busy or stressed out and we can’t really be there for each other. Other times, strangers have saved me, like the couple that took me in when lockdowns started and I was far from home.

Have you heard of the Stanford Prison Experiment? Or the Princeton Seminarian experiment? Or the Milgram Experiment? All of them confirm that people are contextual. That’s lesson 1 in psychology, but we humans easily forget it. We focus on the person and forget the context. That folly of ours even has a name: Fundamental Attribution Error.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 17 points 4 days ago

Fwiw Stanford was basically a scam. The story as it's usually told is a lie, and its results are in serious contention, even beyond the usual replication issues psychology studies have.

Milgram is a good study, and even seems to have survived multiple replication attenpts, but its results are often overstated in their broader applicability. Notably: there are issues around the idea that it is "authority" that causes people to comply, as is usually claimed, instead of a belief in "expertise" or trust in the system (e.g. that a university-authorised study is obviously not going to kill people). Still, the conclusions are good enough for the purposes of your comment here.