Comments on: Thirty-Eight Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call the Police

By: Tommy G

Tommy G — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 16:11:14 +0000

Interesting article and email experiment. However, the title of the article and the related story printed in the NY Times, has recently been disproved in the book, Superfreakonomics (chapter 3). The liberal media, even back in 1964, don’t just report the news — they oftentimes create it!

By: violeta

violeta — Sat, 05 May 2007 11:58:16 +0000

Last year I was really shocked when a toddler starved to death in the town where I live. His mother had left him alone in the house and went downtown to run some errands. She suffered an epilepsia stoke and died on the street. She was taken to the morgue and labeled as NN. Two weeks later some neighbors finally decided to enter her house to find the body of her son under the bed. He had hid there and finally died when her mother never returned home.
Ever since that I use this article in my classroom to get my studets to talk about this and try to raise a little civil consciousness.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 13:22:07 +0000

Fritzgerdan… there simply must be a parable that illustrates how people do not want facts to get in the way of the point made by another parable… or maybe this is it…

By: Fritzgerdan Malit

Fritzgerdan Malit — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 10:35:24 +0000

The story of Genovese’s murder became an almost-instant parable about the supposed callousness, or at least apathy to others’ plight, of either New York City, urban America, or humanity in general. Much of this framing of the event came in reaction to an investigative article [2] in the New York Times written by Martin Gansberg and published on March 27, two weeks after the murder. The article bore the provocative headline “Thirty-Eight Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call the Police”; the public view of the story crystallized around a quote from the article, from an unidentified neighbor who saw part of the attack but deliberated, before finally getting another neighbor to call the police: “I didn’t want to get involved.”

Other reports, cited by Harlan Ellison in his book Harlan Ellison’s Watching, stated that one man turned up his radio so that he wouldn’t hear Genovese’s screams. Ellison says that the report he read attributed the “get involved” quote to nearly all of the thirty-eight who supposedly witnessed the attack.

While Genovese’s neighbors were vilified by the article, in truth “38 onlookers who did nothing” is a misleading conception. The article begins:

“For more than half an hour thirty-eight respectable, law-abiding citizens in Queens watched a killer stalk and stab a woman in three separate attacks in Kew Gardens.”
This lead is dramatic but factually inaccurate. None of the witnesses observed the attacks in their entirety. Because of the layout of the complex and the fact that each attack took place in a different location as Genovese attempted to flee her attacker, it would have been physically impossible for a witness to have seen the entire attack. Most only heard portions of the incident without realizing its seriousness, a few saw only small portions of the initial assault, and no witnesses directly saw the final rape and attack in an exterior hallway which resulted in Genovese’s death.

By: Fritzgerdan

Fritzgerdan — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 10:31:36 +0000

The story was exciting and quite frightening yet thrilling. I still don’t get the ending of the story. Until now people keep on investigating the so-called “syndrome” of the neighborhood. It is sometimes called “someone else’s problem.” This story is one of the most wonderful stories I have read. I want more.

By: Ari

Ari — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 21:21:25 +0000

It’s also called the bystander effect. Is an image we, a society, demands on someone to be proper, right? I mean, a large portion of ‘me before you’ is instinct since way back. But, as The Lottery by Shirley Jackson explained, traditions change with time. What used to be necessary isn’t always ethical in today’s society. People’s emotions have not evolved at the same rate as we have physically and technologically.

It’s funny… In my law studies class, the majority believes the witnesses should not be punished but at the same time believing being cought with weed is worse and ‘needs’ harsh punishment. I wonder, am I missing something?

I stumbled upon your blog while searching for more information on Kitty Genovese for I am writing an essay on “the only sure and valid aim – speaking of art as a weapon -is the humanizing of man.”

I’m hardly 16 and I still can’t believe the lack of empathy people posess.

By: Itzy Sabo

Itzy Sabo — Sun, 05 Mar 2006 16:00:55 +0000

I am not advocating removing people from the CC: list if they need to be updated. However, there is a sharp contrast between To: and CC: recipients.

The correct way for handling the case you describe is to address the email to the person who needs to act, and copy the others. If I receive a message where I’m the only one on the To: line, but I see a whole bunch of people on the CC: line, there is no diffusion of responsibility because of the contrast in the way I was addressed — it’s obvious it was meant for me and the others don’t need to act.

If the recipients on the To: and CC: lines appear randomly distributed, then there is diffusion of responsibility, as the distinction between To: and CC: has disappeared. For this reason, when using Reply-to-All, it is often necessary to re-arrange the recipients between the To: and CC: lines.

People who do not pay attention to the distinction between To: and CC: are losing out because it can save lots of time and stress. (BTW I know a number of people who route CC: messages to a special folder which they read only at the end of the day.)

By: Eric Abell

Eric Abell — Sun, 05 Mar 2006 15:28:27 +0000

I only have one problem with this technique-

What happens when you have a large group of people working on a common project, and one person decides to remove several other people from the cc list?

Now, it becomes a situation where information is lost. Those people that were removed from the cc list so that responsibility would not diffuse, are now ‘out of the loop.’ Their effective participation in completing the project has been restricted since they have not received important pieces of information.

Very few people I know choose to distinguish between whether they are listed on the To: line or the Cc: line. All that matters is that it somehow arrived in their Inbox.

I believe email is not an effective communication medium for anything but the most trivial of subjects.

By: Silvia

Silvia — Sat, 04 Mar 2006 21:44:32 +0000

I ‘ve read a very interesting article in Reader’s Digest. Before Pearl Harbour’s attack there were a few signals different people noticed of an uncommon activity but they ignored them. If all them were addressed the attack would not happen but even if one of them was communicated and the appropriated action followed, things would have a different course.
When I want to ask a question to a group of friends I use a template and do it induividually. Otherwise, nobody answers me!

By: Cordelya

Cordelya — Sat, 04 Mar 2006 00:36:05 +0000

Douglas Adams calls this phenomenon “someone else’s problem”.

By: Greg Barron

Greg Barron — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 01:49:20 +0000

Very nice post. Like Moshe I like the guidelines a lot. I hope that someone looks into Liza’s idea of cultural differences.
Best,
Greg (previously at the Technion, now at Harvard Business School)

By: Liza Farachdel

Liza Farachdel — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:47:43 +0000

I actually thought it would be interesting to try the Technion experiment in another country, for example, the US or the UK, and see if the response rates were similar. If not, it would signify that culture issues might also play a part in the final results.

By: Yoav Markiewicz

Yoav Markiewicz — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 07:18:45 +0000

Great post. I think I know a couple of people I am going to forward this post to….

By: Moshe Rubin

Moshe Rubin — Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:38:55 +0000

An excellent, interesting post with practical suggestions (i.e., addressing your e-mail effectively) at the bottom. I’ve been a steady reader of your blog, and I await other articles like this.

I use Outlook rules, too, but found your rule for specially color-coding any e-mails where you’re the only recipient a valuable tip.

Good luck!

Moshe Rubin