The Gist: Should You Shout "Help" or "Fire"?

Podcast Information:

• Title: The Gist
• Host/Author: Peach Fish Productions (Mike Pesca)
• Episode: Should You Shout "Help" or "Fire"?
• Release Date: March 13, 2025

Introduction

In this thought-provoking episode of The Gist, host Mike Pesca delves into the age-old question: Should you shout "Help" or "Fire" when confronted with danger? Bringing in psychologist Sadie Dingfelder, Pesca explores the origins, effectiveness, and scientific backing of this commonly suggested self-defense tactic.

Historical Origins of "Fire" vs. "Help"

Pesca begins by recounting the dubious historical advice traditionally given to individuals under threat. Sadie Dingfelder elucidates the roots of this advice:

[07:58] Sadie Dingfelder: "Absolutely. It was in my high school psychology textbook, but it was right next to the story of Kitty Genovese."

The infamous Kitty Genovese case, often cited as the catalyst for bystander effect studies, is revealed to be largely apocryphal. Dingfelder clarifies:

[08:37] Sadie Dingfelder: "Not at all true. It has been so thoroughly debunked... there was at least five books about it. Yes, and two documentaries."

Further tracing the advice's lineage, Dingfelder credits a 1912 French self-defense guide for the earliest documented instance of advising individuals to shout "Fire" to elicit a more immediate response from bystanders:

[10:22] Sadie Dingfelder: "...part of this idea is that no one wants to help a woman, or people are afraid to help... But if you yell fire, they're all going to immediately leave their houses because they do not want to burn down in their houses."

Scientific Studies and Evidence

Pesca and Dingfelder examine scientific studies that have tested the efficacy of yelling "Fire" versus "Help" in threatening situations. A key study from 1980 is discussed:

[14:27] Sadie Dingfelder: "They... had these students... saw someone drag a lady across the hallway... the phrase that the woman yells, either help, rape, call the police, or she would blow a whistle or she would say fire."

The results indicated that:

• 50% intervened when the victim yelled "Help/Rape"
• 36% when a whistle was blown
• 22% when "Fire" was yelled

However, Dingfelder emphasizes the limitations of this study:

[17:35] Sadie Dingfelder: "It's not a great study, but there's a lot of research on the bystander effect because of our friend Kitty Genovese."

Another notable study from 1973 involving seminary students revealed:

[18:15] Sadie Dingfelder: "Only 40% stopped to help that guy... and only 10% helped in the 'you're running late' condition."

These studies collectively suggest that the advice to yell "Fire" may not be as effective as commonly believed.

Discussion and Analysis

Pesca challenges the practicality and cultural specificity of the "Fire" tactic. He questions:

[12:27] Mike Pesca: "But if you don't, you could also just make. Clarify the situation."

Dingfelder concurs, highlighting the ambiguity introduced when yelling "Fire":

[19:19] Sadie Dingfelder: "Because the main thing that helps or prevents people to intervene is the ambiguity of the situation."

This ambiguity likely reduces the likelihood of bystander intervention, as individuals become confused about the actual threat.

Pesca brings up the historical context of early 1900s Paris, where fire was a more immediate and frequent hazard, making the advice more contextually relevant but less so today:

[11:23] Sadie Dingfelder: "Pre World One Paris... fires were regularly burning down entire city blocks."

Additionally, the cultural shift has reversed the perception of danger from being attacked to fearing a fire, further undermining the advice's contemporary relevance.

Conclusion

After dissecting historical origins and examining scientific studies, both Pesca and Dingfelder conclude that yelling "Fire" instead of "Help" is misguided advice. The tactic fails to provide clear communication during emergencies and may hinder effective bystander intervention.

[22:36] Sadie Dingfelder: "Yes, I feel that that's bullshit."

Instead, advocating for clear and direct communication about the nature of the threat is recommended to enhance the likelihood of receiving timely assistance.

Additional Segment: Police Shootings and Media Representation

In a segue from the main topic, Pesca transitions to a critical analysis of media portrayals of police shootings, referencing a recent incident in Brooklyn involving Officer Edmund Mays and Darrell Nichols. He critiques the New York Times for:

• Omitting critical details about the knife-wielding assailant
• Focusing on fare evasion rather than the immediate threat posed
• Amplifying protester narratives over actionable police tactics

Pesca argues that such media framing distorts public understanding of policing challenges, emphasizing the need for:

• Contextual reporting that includes all facets of incidents
• Balanced narratives that consider both police actions and bystander safety
• Recognition of the complexities involved in law enforcement decisions

Notable Quotes

• Mike Pesca:

  "[07:50] Rodrigo Duarte has taken a flight to the Hague... this is an inherently political prosecution and perhaps likely a righteous one."
  [Introductory content skipped]

• Sadie Dingfelder:

  "[07:58] Absolutely. It was in my high school psychology textbook, but it was right next to the story of Kitty Genovese."

• Mike Pesca:

  "[22:36] Sadie Dingfelder is the author of Do I Know You?... Sadie, Sadie, thank you so much."

Final Thoughts

This episode of The Gist challenges listeners to reevaluate commonly held self-defense advice through a critical and scientific lens, urging a move towards more effective and evidence-based strategies in perilous situations. Additionally, Pesca's analysis of media portrayals underscores the importance of comprehensive and unbiased reporting in shaping public discourse on policing and safety.

Produced by: Cory Wara, Michelle Pesca, Leo Baum
Your Feedback: Share your thoughts on this two-part episode at Oompuru G.

Note: Advertisements, promotional segments, and non-essential content have been omitted to focus on the core discussions of the episode.