One of the men goes for her phone. The other grabs at her hands. Ozturk screams. Shock and fear ripple through her voice. Two masked women join them, tugging at her backpack, peeling the straps from her shoulders. “I’m going somewhere, I need to call someone,” she pleads. “We’re the police. Relax,” one of the men says in response.
They surround her. Then, one by one, they pull their neck gaiters up to cover their faces. “You don’t look like police,” a voice off screen says. “Why are you hiding your faces?” The questions continue, but the figures don’t respond. Instead, they cuff Ozturk, cross the street, and put her in an unmarked SUV. She is gone.
Maybe we need to start a fund to reward any bystanders that attempt to intervene in a safe manner. They could do things like ask for badge numbers, take videos, ask for the warrant, and just generally get in the way. Maybe stand infront of the vehicle that the person is put in to slow down the progress.
Maybe we need a app that will notify people that something is happening so they can flood the area even more with people who will stand in front of the vehicle.
That used to be Twitter if you knew the pages to follow. It was effective for calling for action at specific places/times during protests, it was no surprise Musk bought it and ruined it. With all major tech companies aligned with fascism it would be tough for a new app like this to become popular.
I remember a story at the beginning of the Arab Spring. A student journalist tweeted, “Arrested” to his few followers and it went viral. https://mashable.com/archive/twitter-get-out-of-jail
Well, you don’t want it to be from a company. You want it to be opensource and decentralized so the government can’t shut it down.
In a platform full of coders… Surely one of you will build this app, yeah?
I understand you’re trying to increase the odds that people will intervene and that this horrible kidnapping would not be successful.
However, the fund for rewards is not the way to go.
Psychological research about human motivation shows that expecting external rewards reduces personal motivation (or, as psychologists would say it, extrinsic motivation can hinder intrinsic motivation). When humans do things because they expect external rewards, they stop doing it for the sake of it and expect higher and higher rewards over time.
Pay children to draw and they lose their interest in doodling or drawing for fun. Pay your team members for being kind and they will be less kind overall.
So what can we do? You talk to people. You understand their concerns and wishes, and you have them understand your concerns and wishes. You use frames that they already have in their head so that they can see your point of view. You set implementation intentions.
It’s a matter of values and the capacity to do the behavior.
Of course, if you’re in a dictatorial regime, stopping a state-approved kidnapping will be illegal and get you in lots of trouble. That’s why activism also seeks to change root causes. What kinds of root causes? That will depend on who you are. Some people blame the electoral system in the USA, so maybe changing that could help. Other people will blame other causes and therefore will suggest other changes.
This may be abstract, and I wish I had the time to make it less so. Unfortunately, I don’t have time right now, but you can check out sources that talk about this. Check out Drive by Pink to learn about motivation. Check out Don’t think of an Elephant by George Lakoff to learn about moral reframing. Check out Rethinking Positive Thinking by Gabriele Oettingen or Tiny Habits to learn about implementation intentions.
While all that maybe true in the case of an activity that happens over and over… the odds that any one person is close enough to one of these events more than once is extremely small. I doubt any of that research covers this kind of situation.
You have a good point! It does sound like my suggestions only help for repeated behaviors. For example, Tiny Habits seems to indicate that it’ll work for habits but not for novel situations.
You explicitly mention that it’s unlikely that research covers situations that are entirely novel and rare. Do you know about schema theory or relational frame theory? I ask because both of those theories explicitly deal with how entirely new information (such as entirely new situations) is processed in the human brain and how, depending on the schemas or relational frames that a person already had, the person will react in different ways.
But we don’t have to go into the theoretical weeds. The popular books that I mentioned earlier deal with novelty. For example, Lakoff shows how, inside the head of any person, a small set of beliefs can end up guiding most of the person’s moral thinking and therefore their choices. Not only that, but even the book titled Tiny Habits has sections dedicated to one-off behaviors. Heck, the book Drive deals with teams that are at the bleeding edge of knowledge and techniques, technologies and workflows that no human has ever dealt with before, and yet the book is able to show how there is a set of evidence-based principles that consistently motivate (or not) those very teams.
The fundamental issue is whether humans are able to recognize a situation and know what to do about it. Our brains have been endowed with the capacity to derive thoughts, to think up entirely new situations, to imagine scenarios. We can use that to increase the odds of responding effectively to situations we have never been in before.
So somewhere in there I lost what you are suggesting would increase the likelihood of multiple people attempting to peacefully intervene to stop these abductions. Also, I find physchology writing to be hard to read. Not sure what they need to do to make these things more readable though. But even though the topic interests me, I just can’t seem to read a book on the subject.
I guess you’re so far down the 1933 way that you’ll hear a lot of people say “we had no idea a. what was going on / b. things were so bad” in a couple of years…
More like a bail fund
Well yeah, and a legal defense fund.