Is it better to walk on by?
- Thread starter Mr T
- Start date
- Status
solarz
Brigadier
Yes, exactly. I would not hesitate in helping someone here in Canada, but I would not do so without a lot of consideration while in China. In fact, most likely I would not risk it and just walk on by.
Things are simply different in China. The society, the (lack of) laws, the lack of free health care, the huge numbers of people from all walks of life congregating at sites like train stations, all of these contribute toward this attitude. By all accounts, you are more likely to run into someone trying to scam you for your money than someone genuinely in need of help.
Of course, this also depends on where in China you are. In places like the train stations and markets, there are so many thieves and scammers that you can't walk 2 blocks without seeing someone "in need". However, in places like upscale shopping malls or residential communities, where people feel safer, they would also feel more comfortable helping out others.
Correct Solarz, if one is not comfortable or feel safe in any country or city (Not only in China but also in other Asian, European, S.American, ME, African countries or the US etc.) just avoid getting into potential troubling situations. We all have our experiences, e.g. no problem for me when I was in Guangzhou, China - the ordinary people are very nice just like any where else. As for doing businesses, one has to be prudent not only with the Chinese but other nationalities too. I love Rome but I have to be cautious of pick-pockets, scam artist businessmen etc. Same with other cities/countries, we should be aware of the "going-ons" about the people both the ordinary folks & those we intend to do business with. Try to avoid "the Fu-Manchu", "the difficult Sumarai", "the boistrous Texans", "the slick Italians" etc. etc. Syndromes. There are the good and the bad in every race and nationality. One should not be naive or be bias. Meeting all sorts of people & nationalities personally will be worthwhile instead of reading or listening to only what is reported/said in the media.
Red___Sword
Junior Member
The most recent "old laddy scam" is vastly different from any other scam you guys (no offence here) has experienced, or heard of, of Chinese social "tricks", of which someone "just scam you to make a living".
The difference, is COURT VERDICT.
Now before some typical sterotype tring to take place as "Did China ever have a court system that using something like a verdict?" or something in line with that, to de-rail the subject and paint the commies with certain color - Let's concentrate at the main issue here:
1. Like hell Chinese people is going to court to settle something that is otherwise settle-able. Meaning, scamner or defenders, they don't go to court "only" for a scam.
2. Like hell Chinese people expect a court verdict (court decision) signifies the most morally height standard or politically right standard that "something should be like this, this is it, the court made it like this, let's BEAR IT!". Meaning, no, Chinese knows so well that, whatever court verdict, is just a compromise of "what is right" and "what to do to maximum the right" - A compromise maybe taken by the first and second party of the suit, but "me" as a third party by-stander, don't give too much shit about, if the verdict dose NOT QUALIFIES MY STANDARD.
3. Knowing the above two, Chinese people still believes under all kinds of pressure (I assure you, Chinese common people gives a damn heavy pressure to "how law / jurisdiction works") - that under this kind of "righteousness pressure" - Chinese court would always deliver a verdict that would some what SATISFY THE MAJORITY of people. - A trust, to China's court.
Now the most recent "old laddy scam" took place at:
1. A "mere" incident by no means "should" settle at a court, yet the benifitor (the old nanny being helped) took it to the court.
2. A black & white issue of "kind people helping people" being in the "process" of, the old nanny is going to get loads of compensation from, a total non-related person, a total non-related person who offered help - a total non-related person who offered help who himself is a poor guy.
3. The court makes the witch wins... in a row of three different cases, similar situation, same verdicts.
I say, the good members here at SDF didn't grasp what exactly pissed the whole Chinese society recently, and (allow me) ironically emphasise on "COMMON MORAL" of this and that, fail to "nail the ball".
- This stuff, is way out of "common moral" topic, way out of "nowadays people don't help each other much" kind of casual topic.
- This stuff, twisted the most foundamental moral standard of common non-political-savvy people, that, this is not a scam, this is morally defining "good deeds", "helping people", is punishible actions.
- thus, it is morally good, to turn youself away, from people in needs, especially old nannys. (Three cases, three witches, three god-spit verdicts)
Guys, please grasp the gravity of this issue, grasp the concern of the foundamental twists of moral standard of Chinese society - and people's worry, of that twists.
("fewer and fewer people offers help to total strangers these days"; "every country got kind people, and cold people".. - ARE NOT THE CONCERN here.)
The difference, is COURT VERDICT.
Now before some typical sterotype tring to take place as "Did China ever have a court system that using something like a verdict?" or something in line with that, to de-rail the subject and paint the commies with certain color - Let's concentrate at the main issue here:
1. Like hell Chinese people is going to court to settle something that is otherwise settle-able. Meaning, scamner or defenders, they don't go to court "only" for a scam.
2. Like hell Chinese people expect a court verdict (court decision) signifies the most morally height standard or politically right standard that "something should be like this, this is it, the court made it like this, let's BEAR IT!". Meaning, no, Chinese knows so well that, whatever court verdict, is just a compromise of "what is right" and "what to do to maximum the right" - A compromise maybe taken by the first and second party of the suit, but "me" as a third party by-stander, don't give too much shit about, if the verdict dose NOT QUALIFIES MY STANDARD.
3. Knowing the above two, Chinese people still believes under all kinds of pressure (I assure you, Chinese common people gives a damn heavy pressure to "how law / jurisdiction works") - that under this kind of "righteousness pressure" - Chinese court would always deliver a verdict that would some what SATISFY THE MAJORITY of people. - A trust, to China's court.
Now the most recent "old laddy scam" took place at:
1. A "mere" incident by no means "should" settle at a court, yet the benifitor (the old nanny being helped) took it to the court.
2. A black & white issue of "kind people helping people" being in the "process" of, the old nanny is going to get loads of compensation from, a total non-related person, a total non-related person who offered help - a total non-related person who offered help who himself is a poor guy.
3. The court makes the witch wins... in a row of three different cases, similar situation, same verdicts.
I say, the good members here at SDF didn't grasp what exactly pissed the whole Chinese society recently, and (allow me) ironically emphasise on "COMMON MORAL" of this and that, fail to "nail the ball".
- This stuff, is way out of "common moral" topic, way out of "nowadays people don't help each other much" kind of casual topic.
- This stuff, twisted the most foundamental moral standard of common non-political-savvy people, that, this is not a scam, this is morally defining "good deeds", "helping people", is punishible actions.
- thus, it is morally good, to turn youself away, from people in needs, especially old nannys. (Three cases, three witches, three god-spit verdicts)
Guys, please grasp the gravity of this issue, grasp the concern of the foundamental twists of moral standard of Chinese society - and people's worry, of that twists.
("fewer and fewer people offers help to total strangers these days"; "every country got kind people, and cold people".. - ARE NOT THE CONCERN here.)
We call this the bystander effect, and China is not unique in this regard.
EDIT: Darnit, both Engineer and airsuperiority beat me to it. In regards to the polling itself, in addition to Engineers aforementioned self representation biases, the way in which the sample was conducted and the way in which polling questions were asked also matter (they can either reinforce or mitigate some trends). Until we can see the methodology for the polls (which to me is already somewhat suspect, since it was done online), it's difficult to say if only 7% of respondents actually answered that question with the intention of "we don't care". While you can say "turning a blind eye" is a pretty good indication of it, the initial interpretation could be a lot less cold-hearted than it seems. For example, you could probably catalogue a large number of respondents as citing the reason "staring too long would have caused a car accident". Whether that's a valid reason or not is up to question, but at the very least a well conducted poll would dig deeper to find the reason in order to assess whether the responses reflect the attitudes and orientations the question is meant to test.
For example, one of the common reasons found for the bystander effect is that everyone believes everyone else will help, resulting in no one helping (a type of collection action problem where responsibility is diluted beyond a threshold for action). With a person driving, this reasoning could be extended to include that they would simply not be the best person to help.
In any case, I would be interested in comparative data regarding the frequency of these effects in China compared to other countries, to see if certain cultures/norms/etc are contributing causal variables. If I remember my readings correctly though, country's with higher crime rates or lower ratings of social trust tend also to have higher bystander effects.
EDIT: Darnit, both Engineer and airsuperiority beat me to it. In regards to the polling itself, in addition to Engineers aforementioned self representation biases, the way in which the sample was conducted and the way in which polling questions were asked also matter (they can either reinforce or mitigate some trends). Until we can see the methodology for the polls (which to me is already somewhat suspect, since it was done online), it's difficult to say if only 7% of respondents actually answered that question with the intention of "we don't care". While you can say "turning a blind eye" is a pretty good indication of it, the initial interpretation could be a lot less cold-hearted than it seems. For example, you could probably catalogue a large number of respondents as citing the reason "staring too long would have caused a car accident". Whether that's a valid reason or not is up to question, but at the very least a well conducted poll would dig deeper to find the reason in order to assess whether the responses reflect the attitudes and orientations the question is meant to test.
For example, one of the common reasons found for the bystander effect is that everyone believes everyone else will help, resulting in no one helping (a type of collection action problem where responsibility is diluted beyond a threshold for action). With a person driving, this reasoning could be extended to include that they would simply not be the best person to help.
In any case, I would be interested in comparative data regarding the frequency of these effects in China compared to other countries, to see if certain cultures/norms/etc are contributing causal variables. If I remember my readings correctly though, country's with higher crime rates or lower ratings of social trust tend also to have higher bystander effects.
Last edited:
airsuperiority
Captain
Where's Red Moon?
Red___Sword
Junior Member
Pal, you got something to say, don't hold back, I can take it.
If this is only a humor, no, I don't know. He and me are under different task grounp. Our upper-levels meets only once per half year, and distributes the intented operational fields to each team, after that, free style.
bladerunner
Banned Idiot
Whats equally disturbing is in all parts of the world is the discovery of deceased persons of years plus in apartments by people finally getting around to wondering about the said person.
Gee one would think unused bank accounts , utility services uncollected mail, would arouse suspicion, let alone relatives or friends not noticing the sudden abscence.
Gee one would think unused bank accounts , utility services uncollected mail, would arouse suspicion, let alone relatives or friends not noticing the sudden abscence.
It is very interesting to read the varied experiences of our fellow commentators. We all have our experiences. Let's briefly look at Red Sword's experiences about China & the "old lady scam". Yes, there are all sorts of problems where the laws in the country are concerned. Those doing business or have done business there would know - can be very confusing and bad as there are differences in legal proceedings depending on which province you are in. I believe there are efforts on the part of PRC's government to streamline the laws as China hopes to be a responsible member of the global community. We have to observe if this developments. As for the crafty old lady, well we have scamming ones too in several of our countries and the many genuinely nice & very poor old ladies who are destitutes. Yes, we have to take care for the scam artists. There are several in my town, and boy are they good "actors & actresses" & disgustingly diabolical at time. I do walk on by on meeting them. I am sure like me, my friends like Red Sword & the others in this forum have met genuine poor people & destitutes that are crying out for help. They would melt the hearts of seasoned Veterans & discerning people & "Can we walk on by?" God bless all of us.
I remember the BBC Radio 4 speaking about a man in London who, when he hadn't paid his rent for four years, was investigated by the local authority and found to have died from natural causes all those years ago.
- Status