passing out in the name of science

mass psychology is a subject i do not know enough about. i write this because i noticed, approximately three minutes ago, that:

a. it was about half an hour since the last thing i could remember
b. the floor of my laboratory smells odd
c. Pandora plays shit when i'm not there to control it
d. god damn it not again.

it happens far too often, and i have no idea why: every so often, i get knocked the fuck out. could be because as a hacker i have a compromised immune system; could be because as someone on whom longterm and continuing analgesia has taken its inevitable toll, i have a really compromised one; maybe a magic man done it. that kind of medical knowledge is out of my depth until i get around to FOI'ing my medicals off the public health service in my country, and that takes time.

in the mean time, i have one big bone to pick. my laboratory isn't actually mine: it's a public place. there are other people there (albeit not as frequently; that's why it's "mine"), and there's cctv as well. so why don't people notice when the local security ask-a-mask falls off its chair, bounces slightly as it hits the floor and doesn't get up? i mean, i'd expect at least a laugh. it's pretty funny - i'm not kidding, people bounce, and i always seem to either spill cola on myself or fall into some inadvertently suggestive position, or both. so this is my question for mass psychology: does the same logic that applied to the case of Kitty Genovese apply here?

for those not in the know, Kitty Genovese is one of the few people i "remember" in the sense that people "remember" Princess Diana - that is, purposefully. she was killed in front of upwards of 20 witnesses, who watched from their New York apartment windows as an attacker returned twice to finish the knifing, all assuming the others would call the police. i'm not comparing myself to her - that would be wangsty and disrespectful, and it would imply that my illnesses and addictions aren't partly my own fault, which they are. what i'm interested in is whether the number of people in the lab, or watching the cctv, is the reason why none of them decide to, i dunno, kick me or draw on my face or pick me up and take me off to Wales to steal my remaining kidney or something, as well as deciding not to see if i'm not dead.

so, i propose an experiment design: actors stage a fit or a KO, whatever (both have happened to me in labs without interference from other users) in labs (several, randomised across the country, repeatedly.) this is done in less densely populated labs in the first round, more densely populated ones in the second, or the other way round if people prefer. each time, the actor staging the fit is equipped with a hidden camera, whose recording of the event is later analysed and the data on the number of subjects who appeared to notice it, the number who offered assistance, and the time said assistance took to manifest are noted. same goes for maleficent acts (unless actor gets taken to Wales, at which point i'll jump off the Brig o'Dee).

let's call the number of people noticing n1, those helping or hindering n2 and the time t. my experimental hypothesis would be that all three would increase as the number of people in the lab, p, decreases. the null would therefore be that they'd stay the same.

of course, deception is unethical (yeah...) thus, we'd have to just put me in the lab and knock me the fuck out, artificially if necessary. thus in turn this proposal: i'll do it. you can put me in a lab and chuck enough morphine through my resident cannula to make me fall over, then record the parameters as above. i wanna see whether i'm right or not.

progress will be published if i ever obtain a secret camera, actors, etc. so, uh, if anyone wants me, i'll be passing out in the name of science.



Anonymous said...

You're proposing doing the experiment in the wrong place. I've been in computer labs when the fire alarm goes off; if people won't unplug to run the fuck away from a fire, they're unlikely to do so merely to pick up your hacker ass.
(Sidenote: as a proto-hacker, I'd also be wary of picking you up. I know what's in my own pockets sometimes.)

Lepht said...

i wasn't expecting machineheads to pick my sorry ass up; security's fucking paid to do that. it's been about two years since i wrote this post and still nobody's done anything, out of interest; i think they're used to me.

and you're right about my pockets.


Ian said...

hang on. in your hypotheses statement, is it:

H0: n1(more dense)=n1(less dense)

Ha: n1(more dense)<n1(less dense)

etc. where n1 is the number of people who notice, or is it

H0: p1(more dense)=p1(less dense)

Ha: p1(more dense)<p1(less dense)

where p1 is the proportion of people who notice? because if you are just talking about the number of people, i would think that it would increase simply because the total number of people is larger; it would be the proportion of people that would probably increase.


Bolttz said...

I believe this would be quite an interesting study. Although, I think it should be also performed in an open environment for the general public, to try to get an idea of how the general masses react.

Post a Comment

[pls no ask about the vodka. debate is always welcome. remember, Tramadol fucks you up]