http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-how-%E2%80%9Csocial-proof%E2%80%9D-helps-smart-investorsI think that here we have an unusually high concentration of folks who have unusually low susceptibility to social proof. It's worth understanding the concept though: people have a tendency to believe what they think other people believe.
In the Kitty Genovese scenario, nobody does anything because everybody waits for someone else to do something, before acting.
If one hero will act, then others will join in. If someone would have gone after Moser (the attacker), probably some other guys would have as well. In fact, that's how you get mobs and riots; that's the other side of the coin. When people see other people misbehaving, they think it's not only "OK" but cool to do what they see other people doing.
The Kitty Genovese incident was not as bad as it's reputation; one man did do something--he yelled at the attacker to "leave that girl alone". She contributed to her own demise by running behind an apartment building, where the attacker finished her off, instead of staying on the busy street where there were witnesses. But she was probably confused and scared by the lack of help. In any case failure to act (and follow up) was not a matter of cowardice or "not wanting to get involved", as reported by a shocked editorial in the New York Times, but instead was a matter of "social proof", which is a strange but well-documented phenomenon.
The same thing happens when someone has a heart attack in public, or is otherwise suddenly stricken. People will walk past someone having a heart attack and try to ignore them, even if (s)he calls for help.
According to Cialdini, who wrote the book mentioned in the article, the correct way to avoid Kitty Genovese scenarios is to pick out one person--typically someone who looks like he might want to be a hero and might be sympathetic--to do something specific. "You in the blue shirt, come here, I need your help". If he doesn't respond, try someone else--but you should get a response the first time, actually, as long as you socially ENGAGE one specific person. Once that person responds, you're in business, and several other helpers might join in.
"Somebody help me" won't work.
On a much larger scale, and what the author is really alluding to, is that no matter how unusual or even dangerous an economic situation is, average people will NOT generally respond to it, if the mass media creates the impression that everything is business as usual.
THEY MIGHT PRIVATELY WORRY ABOUT IT, but if they don't see other people acting or commenting about the situation, they won't act either.
It's the same with disasters. People were incinerated at the Beverly Hills Nightclub because they saw other people remain at their seats even as the fire spread out of control. People were agitated and confused, but failed to act, because they did not see others reacting either.
The situation in the story sounds more like impromptu entertainment than social proof, actually. I suppose running for it was probably the right course of action under the circumstances but there were other ways to defuse the situation if he knew them. What he actually did accomplish is interesting in its own right: it's called a "pattern interrupt".
If someone is acting out an unconscious response--in this case, a rip-him-to-pieces mood--if you interrupt the execution of that response, it does a couple things. One is that your brain does not pick up where it left off. That's why the man broke off the attack--but then initiated a new one. It's a fairly bizarre effect. Dr. Milton Erickson who I think is the one who discovered it used to reach for another man's hand as if to shake hands, thereby activating the other man's handshake routine, but then instead of shaking it he would grab the hand and use it in an ideomotor demonstration that would leave the other man in a confused and suggestible state (for example, he might leave the man with his arm extended, not knowing what to do next, frozen in what's called a cataleptic state--I've seen this, it's odd...). I went looking on youtube for a demonstration, but unfortunately most of them are not very good: they're not utilizing the element of surprise which I think is a key to making the technique work.
