DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Do what? Steal?
How many bad people are there?
- Thread starter DaveC426913
- Start date
offered IMHO only (again), and not offered as anything but a perspective or constructive feedback
in just reading the first post it is a little misleading when you consider the later posts where you narrow what you're asking to a specific scenario, especially considering the thread title. the first post, as it reads right now, would still require the definition of "bad", which you narrow a definition to in post #15 (linked)
it's not too much to ask, but in that very same first post you also wrote this:
so, it starts out good and you talk about the videos you saw, but then the post distracts away a bit when you put "I know at least one person who is a chronic abider". Then you explain what you do, and end with the above first quote.
in just reading the first post it is a little misleading when you consider the later posts where you narrow what you're asking to a specific scenario, especially considering the thread title. the first post, as it reads right now, would still require the definition of "bad", which you narrow a definition to in post #15 (linked)
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Fair enough.
I'm not irritated with anyone (not you or iceaura or others), if my posts come across that way. (I should probably add some conciliatory notes, such as "I agree, I am more interested in this other thing..." )
When I started I I deliberately left it open so as not to squash discussion too much, but I am trying to guide the conversation without strong-arming it or shutting anyone down.
But what's happening is it ends up being so vague that no one will actually commit to an answer "because reasons". A number that takes into account any reasons should be doable.
So I'm clarifying as it sort of drifts away from my question.
I'm not irritated with anyone (not you or iceaura or others), if my posts come across that way. (I should probably add some conciliatory notes, such as "I agree, I am more interested in this other thing..." )
When I started I I deliberately left it open so as not to squash discussion too much, but I am trying to guide the conversation without strong-arming it or shutting anyone down.
But what's happening is it ends up being so vague that no one will actually commit to an answer "because reasons". A number that takes into account any reasons should be doable.
So I'm clarifying as it sort of drifts away from my question.
yeah, I caught that.
I didn't think you were irritated.
if you don't mind: just offering some thoughts below that are relevant, IMHO
I do find the general topic fascinating, but mostly because of the justifications used by people to do "bad" things. Sometimes the actions are situational and a usually "good" person does a "bad" thing.
Sometimes "bad" is necesarry, so is that "bad" act really "bad"?
well, IMHO - the word "bad" is so subjective so the use of the examples is necesarry, but the examples actually just measures illegal actions, not "bad", per se
Sometimes "bad" is necesarry, so is that "bad" act really "bad"?
again, IMHO - I think it's doable for the term "illegal"
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I think I've got an answer to my question in this graph:
It's a pity neither the graph nor the post referenced the data source.
I'm a little confused about the key. What does "money versus no money" imply?
I see two possible interpretations:
- 'wallets returned but with money removed from them' v. 'wallets returned with money still in them'
- 'wallets returned that had had no money in them' v. 'wallets returned that had had money in them'.
Either interpretation is counterintuitive on looking at the data. They both suggest that wallets with money had a much higher return rate with the money than without without money.
Anyway, here in The Great White North, it looks like wallets were reported as returned "with no money" about 45% of the time, and "with money" about 62" of the time.
Which is pretty astonishing, if you consider that returning a wallet is an act than provides zero benefit to the returner - and zero consequences for not doing it.
Which means it is a truly altruistic act.
It's a pity neither the graph nor the post referenced the data source.
I'm a little confused about the key. What does "money versus no money" imply?
I see two possible interpretations:
- 'wallets returned but with money removed from them' v. 'wallets returned with money still in them'
- 'wallets returned that had had no money in them' v. 'wallets returned that had had money in them'.
Either interpretation is counterintuitive on looking at the data. They both suggest that wallets with money had a much higher return rate with the money than without without money.
Anyway, here in The Great White North, it looks like wallets were reported as returned "with no money" about 45% of the time, and "with money" about 62" of the time.
Which is pretty astonishing, if you consider that returning a wallet is an act than provides zero benefit to the returner - and zero consequences for not doing it.
Which means it is a truly altruistic act.
Norway doesn't surprise me.I left money in the phone booth and it was returned to me.
Holland too (it actually fell off my bike and was returned to the camp site)
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Funny thing is, the implication of altruism is probably a lot more positive than this data suggests.
Any wallets that were not reported as being returned also include any wallets that were never found at all, or never made it back to the owner for whatever reason.
If we were able to remove these false positives from the data set, we would get a better idea of how many wallets that were found were actually returned - which must inevitably be higher than this data suggest.
I've had my wallet returned more than once. Including one time when I left it in the bathroom stall on a trip in Nova Scotia. I hadn't noticed until we were 90 minutes away, and had to drive back for it.
I have returned wallets many times. Usually I track them down and return them in person.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I assume the % is the proportion of wallets reported missing that are returned (?). I don’t think so many people would think it worthwhile to report finding an empty wallet as a full one. Once the contents have been taken, there is little value in the thing itself. So I think the difference in reporting rate makes sense.
Actually I think a lot of people would report and try to return a wallet, because of the cards, travel passes etc that could really screw up someone’s life if they lost them. Whereas, especially nowadays, there is unlikely to be much cash in them. The average person is not going to misuse a credit card, as that feels like a real crime and could be traceable.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Yes. But does "no money" means "returned, relieved if its money" or "lost without any money in it in the first place"?
It's gotta be the former; it's the only interpretation that makes sense.
So that means, if someone finds the wallet, and its empty, they often don't bother trying to return it. But if they do find money, they take it and return the wallet.
Curious about the mentality there.
To wallet owners, the ID and personal effects are almost universally considered to be far more important than the cash.
What the data is suggesting then is that, when someone finds a wallet full of ID and stuff, they generally don't return it, unless there was money, in which case they try harder.
Exactly, so why would the presence of cash change that? Why would the absence of cash make it significantly less likely that a stranger would try to return it?
Sure, but why would that lack of money make it less likely that they would try to return it?
I wonder if it's some kind of penance/mercy:
"I found a wallet but it has no cash for me, so I owe them nothing."
"I found a wallet. I'm going to take their cash. But, as compensation, I'll get his wallet back to him. A win-win." Put another way: the "sin" of stealing is "canceled out" by the good deed of returning the ID.
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I wonder if by "money" they intend a shorthand for "contents".
But I agree all rather unsatisfactory, unless you can dig up the source and get some context to the graph.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Personally, I doubt they would be that inexact.
Although ... now that you make me think of it...
If this were a controlled, real-time experiment (as opposed to, say, a meta-study of police records) then the "lure" will have been contrived - it would be just money - as opposed to money and ID and personal effects.
And that would likely change the outcomes, in my view. Because a wallet - empty except for some cash - would be treated differently than a wallet with some cash and ID and other personal effects. A completely empty wallet is literally worthless to loser and finder alike - it might as well be trash. A wallet with cash - even if otherwise empty - is obviously imbued with ownership and even sentiment.
So, lets think about an experiment where they drop wallets in places containing nothing but a small amount of cash.
Yeah, that makes a lot more sense. I've heard of studies like this - they put a $20 bill as a lure on the hook and then leave it somewhere to see what people do. No complcaitions with ID or other personal effects - just cash or no cash.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Summary:
200 wallets
10 each, among 18 US cities and 2 Canadian cities
contents:
- $6US
- $200PHP (Philippine peso) worth ~$4US
- ID card, business card, loyalty card (all fake)
- ultrasound photo, puppy photo (all fake)
- "if found please call this #" card
wallets were distributed by hand-picked locals
Results:
Total test time: 3 days
Return rate: Returned: 66.6% not returned: 33.3%.
Money: Still contained money: 96%, money gone: 4%.
Income areas: Numbers were exactly consistent between high income areas and low income areas.
Gender: almost exactly half-and-half: 23:24
Town size: small towns returned: 8 big city: 6.
Order from least to most altruistic:
30%: Detroit
40%: New York City
50%; Seattle, LA, Miami, Dallas, Edmonton
60%: Huntsville AL, New London CT
70%: SF, Winnipeg, Washington DC
80%: Parma ID, Las Vegas
90%: Nashua ID, Hill City SD
100%: Chicago, Sault Lake City
Notable:
- At least four returners were homeless folk (any for every one, the money was intact).
- Two wallets were called in from Disneyland by security. They were super-confused at having had two identical wallets turned in, and were quite humourless upon hearing the explanation.
- One store owner liked the idea so much she put the wallet back in the bathroom. After the wallet was turned in six times, every time containing the money - she gave up.
- As far as the limited data shows, Americans are no less nice than Canadians.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
How do you know?
These people are doing randomized, controlled studies to rule out bias and prejudice.
If I were going to be satisfied with a single person's subjective experience I would choose my own.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Evil is absolute, it’s the wrong phrase to describe most people. Most people sin, but they are not evil people, nor are they an evil thing or evil itself.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Good thing no one's using it then...
Mostly, evil is just people who lack empathy, up to about 5% of the population.
Добро и зло - что под этим понимают?