SarcasticNews: People reacted in a crisis according to habit, not rational decisions

[jack]

In a recent crisis which was serious but fortunately involved no fatalities, a hastily-convened emergency court of people who have loud opinions on twitter was formed to second guess the victims.

Most of the people involved were humans who had not been in a similar situation before and found their judgement being clouded by shock and fear, and mostly reacted according to ingrained habits as opposed to rapidly evaluating the situation rationally and taking the logically best course of action.

"That wouldn't happen to me," said BackseatBella who had never been in that situation. "I know everyone SAYS that, and when they get a life-or-death situation find it doesn't really work like that. But that's just stupid, they shouldn't!"

"It's easier to blame people for things that LOOK like they're being stupid, you know?" said OutrageOlly who is practised at making up his mind quickly. "If you say 'they experienced smoke but they shouldn't have choked' you look out of touch, even an arsehole. There's a risk people will sympathise with the victim. But if you say 'They shouldn't have let their panic influence their decision' you look like you're just stating common sense and everyone piles on."

"This always happens", would have said DoctorMia who had experience with that sort of situation had she been asked. "If you want people to act differently, you need to train them really intensively, and it's just not the most cost-effective way of preparing."

"The victims must have been at fault, everyone on twitter said so!" said someone on twitter.

Comments

[gerald_duck]

I don't know what topical event prompted this, if any.

But if it was the takeoff engine fire on that BA plane, I'll simply note that in the photos there were a lot of people taking very big bags with them in the emergency evacuation. /-8

[mathcathy]

"the victims must have been at fault"

How poignant and frequent that statement is.

[wild_irises]

I chatted for a bit on Monday with a friendly acquaintance whose profession is providing disaster preparation in medical settings. She said exactly what DoctorMia said, "People have to be trained really intensively," and that preparation involves a lot of communication practice.

*sigh*

[woodpijn.livejournal.com]

I was pretty sure it was *about* the people taking bags with them in the evacuation. I don't quite understand how your comment follows.

[gerald_duck]

Maybe. Jack can, presumably, say for sure.

Googling now reveals lots of people being angry about that, but I didn't see anyone mentioning it yesterday, hence assuming he was talking about something else.

On the other hand, I saw the photos and immediately boggled at how selfish and stupid people can be. What they did was bad. I'm at home to the idea that panic or ignorance could explain their selfish and stupid behaviour, but not that they could excuse it.

So, yeah, I was trying to point out, by contrast with jack's don't-judge-people-harshly stance, that some things are so clearly wrong that we should say so unequivocally. If it turns out the clearly wrong thing is what he had in mind as a not-clearly-wrong thing, that's… unfortunate.

[jack]

It was inspired by that case, because it seemed lots of people are automatically outraged by similar cases without regard to the facts, but I didn't link to it because I wasn't sure if the criticisms would turn out to have been correct in that particular case (it seems maybe they have, although I've only really read one article about it).

[naath]

But can you guarantee that you *wouldn't* pick up your jacket on the way out of a burning plane? People often go onto auto-pilot during evacuations and the "normal" thing to do when leaving a plane is "take bags".

Yes, stopping to collect big items of wheeled luggage is stupid, and dangerous; but calling people nasty names because they did the wrong thing in a panic isn't very nice. If we want people to not do that then calling them names doesn't help, perhaps explaining more carefully would, or perhaps airlines need to change on-board baggage policies if it's clear that people en-mass are not reliably going to do the right thing.

[gerald_duck]

No, I can't guarantee it. Though I suspect the odds of my doing so are far lower than the proportion of those passengers who had bags with them in the photos.

However I'd like to think that if, in the heat (hah!) of the moment I did something like that, I'd afterwards have the grace to admit I'd done something bad, stupid, dangerous and selfish.

To a certain extent, this is why various religions — including the one I subscribe to — place such great emphasis on taking messages to heart and incorporating them into one's being, rather than merely applying them as a rationalistic behavioural post-filter. "I'm a good person. I value your life over my change of clothes. Unless there's an emergency, of course." isn't as inspiring as it could have been.

At a practical level, I'd make sure the cabin crew were trained to re-iterate the instructions about sharp objects, high-heeled shoes and carrying things during an evacuation. On the other hand, at least one report suggests they did emphasise those instructions and people ignored them. If so, my instinct is that they should be punished so people know that's Not OK.

[naath]

My "at my seat" bag (on trains, since I haven't flown in years) doesn't usually have a change of clothes, or even my toothbrush. It has my *passport* and my *money* and being in a foreign country with no clothes is probably surmountable (clothes are generally available for sale) but being there with no *proof of my identity* or *means of buying anything* is seriously scary.

Which I guess is because I'm a gurl so (most of) my clothes have no (functional) pockets.

[gerald_duck]

That BBC article seemed to include a few people making similar comments, which depresses me.

Yes, being in a foreign country without any money or proof of identity is scary, but not compared with being dead. This is a life or death situation we're talking about! I really don't think it's defensible to stop and retrieve your passport and money while someone burns to a crisp.

Also, I've accidentally been without my wallet before now, and I've had a broken arm before now. The broken arm was worse. You don't want to be carrying anything when you go down the emergency chute.

What's more, being stuck on an airport runway next to a burning plane without passport or wallet is a very different proposition from being stuck on a city street corner without passport or wallet. If you point to the flaming wreckage and say "my money and ID are in there", people will believe you and cut you some slack.

Also, if the fire doesn't spread to the cabin, you'll get your stuff back in due course. And if it does spread to the cabin, all the more reason to GTFO ASAP!