User talk:195.60.30.209

I have just read a New Scientist article giving evidence that the bystander effect may not be true at all. I think it would make a very interesting addition to the article on the Kitty Genovese murder - (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese) because not only would it support the idea that the New York Times reporting was wrong at the time, but that at least now, things seem to be different in the way the public respond to attacks. The New Scientist article summarises research based on videos taken of public attacks (presumably available because everyone has mobile phones nowadays). The research shows that in 90% of attacks at least one person (and typically several)intervene : "Now, Richard Philpot at Lancaster University in the UK and his colleagues say the effect might not actually be real. They looked at surveillance footage of violent situations in the UK, South Africa and the Netherlands, and found that, in 90 per cent of cases, at least one person (but typically several) intervened and tried to help."

The link to the New Scientist Article is :

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:195.60.30.209&action=edithttps://www.newscientist.com/article/2207693-bystander-effect-famous-psychology-result-could-be-completely-wrong/?utm_medium=NLC&utm_source=NSNS&utm_campaign=2019-0627-GLOBAL-NSDAY&utm_content=NSDAY

If you want to read the original you should be able to sign up to read the online article free of charge : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:195.60.30.209&action=submithttps://www.newscientist.com/registration/

Hope you find this interesting

Treewalker978 (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)