We all have varying ideas on when and how much bystanders should get hooked into a complication but are any of them a perfect amount for every situation? Is there a exact amount of aid a bystander can bring that won’t enlarge the problem? I don’t know if there is an answer to those questions but a solid median can be found between making something worse and not helping at all. Bystanders should step in when the need arises but avoid getting involved where they aren’t needed. Some people think if you weren’t part of original problem, there is zero need to ever jump into the situation. They don’t think you should intervene because you will only make the situation more complicated. Although you never make it worse or make people angry by getting entangled in the argument, you also never prevent fights from happening to anyone involved. It might seem like you are keeping yourself out of drama, but people may be even more upset you didn’t step in to help. If you live like this, you won’t ever be making a difference in people’s lives and you will just be seen as someone who only cares about themselves. …show more content…
They believe whenever there is trouble you should immediately take action to prevent crime and wrongdoings. They think every problem should have an outside perspective. This will help solve some disputes and help people but in others it will only cause more drama. People will become angry that you are trying to fix every little problem you see in them and they won’t want to ask you for help when they really do need it. They will be angry that you are always in there business and they will just want you to leave them alone. Other people will take advantage of you and bring all their little daily struggles to you and expect you to solve them all on your own. You will end up spending all of your time on other people and in their problems and you won’t have time to solve your own or even have time to