News Lily:
Run out of fresh things to read? Try Newsyndicated
| |
| science | technology | opinion | other | worldnews | music | politics | humor | Us_News | The_Economy | pictures | psychology | geekery | lolwut | Culture | All Stories | |
| Sharing is Caring... |
|
|
Home |
About Us |
Register |
Submit Link |
Upcoming |
Top Stories |
Random |
Comment Roll |
Epic Comments |
Blog |
RSS
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
37 |
Disaster Psychology: Protect the Women...If There's Time
By Ryan on 2010-03-03 | 7 comments |
| Natalie | 2010-03-03 | ||
|
I think this "finding" isn't very well-thought out. If you're sinking fast, there's no time to sort people and get the women and children on lifeboats. It's not an altruism issue.
Reply to this |
| Ryan | 2010-03-03 | ||
|
I think you're spot on. I imagine that during the end of the Titanic going down, people devolved into animals and would have done anything, even kill each other, to get to lifeboats. I don't think there is a really a difference between the two scenarios, the Lusitania was just the last 20 minutes of the Titanic. Have you ever been near somebody who thinks that they're drowning? They'll literally crawl on top of you and push you under water to keep themselves afloat. The same thing is happening on these boats. I don't think the gravity of the situation really set in for the first couple of hours after the Titanic started to sink, so people were still able to be chivalrous. Reply to this |
| Commander Cody | 2010-03-03 | ||
|
I'm sure it's a primitive instinct to save women because it makes evolutionary sense to save women. If only one man survives and fifty women survive the man could could get them all pregnant. If only one woman survives and fifty men survive only one of them could reproduce with the woman at a time. Reply to this |
| anonymous | 2010-03-03 | ||
|
This is probably why men evolved to be larger than women. It makes sense. 10 women and 1 man can produce 10 offspring per 9 months. 10 men and 1 women can produce 1 war and 1 baby per 9 months.
Reply to this |
| Natalie | 2010-03-05 | ||
|
That's not what I meant. It's not unchivalrous if you don't have time to find a lady to help because you're drowning. It's not particularly chivalrous if you're following crew member instructions not to get into lifeboats until the women and children get in.
Reply to this |
| Ryan | 2010-03-05 | ||
|
Hmm...I'm not sure I follow you. I'm just commenting on that societal norms happen when things are normal. When the shit hits the fan, however, so do they. In the case of the Titanic, nobody went into full on panic mode until near the very end. Up until that, things were normal, the band was playing, and men were trying to show off to women by letting them on the boats first. The Lusitania saw the gravity of the situation set in much more quickly. I guess a good analog would be a theater that is on fire, vs a theater where the movie has ended. Up until the last few minutes of the Titanic, the people just thought the movie was over...on the Lusitania, they knew it was on fire the whole time. Reply to this |
| Natalie | 2010-03-03 | ||
Love this comment:Well, you cant exactly do a double blind controlled study by sinking two ships in the modern day, with identical passenger rosters, and seeing whether the fast sinking affects survival rates. The cost would be astronomical not to mention the IRB nightmares it would cause!Ok it's kind of silly to be transferring comments from the article to here, but it was funny. Reply to this |