When the thugs arrive, when the Nazis and Crooksclang arrive, who will stand up to them? That’s a question raised by Rutger Bregman in his new book, Moral Ambition. The Dutch Bregman was fascinated by the example of Niulande, a small Dutch town that hid its inhabitants of nearly 100 Jews from Nazi occupations. “The concentration of hidden people was higher than almost every part of Europe.”
So, what encouraged the citizens of Nieuland? Psychologists have examined the determinants of such heroism. One influential study was conducted by Pearl and Samuel Oliner, author of altruistic personality, rescuer of Jews in Nazi Europe and founder of the Institute of Altruistic Personality. Oliners interviewed hundreds of people who protected Jews in Europe during World War II. You can understand Sam Oriner’s interest in topics. He was a Jewish man, born in Poland in 1930, lost his entire family and was hidden from the murderer by a sympathetic Catholic farmer at the age of 12.
A similar project was carried out by psychologist Eva Vogelman, Conscience and Courage During the Holocaust: Rescue Jewish Rescue. Still, Bregman said these studies of heroic conduct do not find many indicators of heroic personality types.
“The hero of resistance will be shy or confident, stupid or serious, young or old, respectful or scandalous, rich, poor, left or right,” writes Bregman. There were several predictors, including mental independence. However, the hero looked almost like the others. The only obvious distinction was important. They took extraordinary risks to save others, but the others did nothing.
Later analyses by sociologists Federico Varese and Meir Yaish focused on a variety of explanations. What if courageous altruism was a matter of situation, not a matter of personality? And there was one situation that stood out in particular with the data. The secret to being a hero? It was to stand up someone in front of you and demand heroism.
In Nieuwlande, the person was often a resistance force of two, Arnold Dewes or his friend Max Leons. At one point, Arnold and Max stopped by for coffee with the farmer and his wife, and immediately raised questions: would they hide a pair of Jews from the Nazis?
When the farmers began to protest, Max Breezy said, “They are men and wives – very sweet people. After a while they appeared. Max and Arnold stood up, “So it’s settled down. Good night!”
What a rude. How expected is it? However, the Jewish couple survived.
Of course, it is not surprising to observe that people are influenced by the demands of others. Social behavior is often contagious. In March 2013, millions of Facebook users changed their profile photos to equal signs as a signal of support for equal marriage rights between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples. Various factors predicted whether people would do this, but the key variable was simply that people would likely switch after some of their friends switched.
Switching profile images is a low-risk, low-test show of support for the cause. It’s not in the same category as opposing SS by hiding someone in your home. Back in the 1980s, sociologist Doug Macadam elicited the distinction between high-risk and low-risk behaviorism, claiming that his fellow sociologists were too pleased with the will to ignore the distinction.
McAdam studied the 1964 Freedom Summer project. In the project, unpaid volunteers, who are almost white, traveled to America’s Deep South, registering black voters and assisting in other civil rights causes. Some of them were murdered, many of whom experienced threats or serious violence. These were people who voluntarily took fatal risks, like those who protected Jews from the Nazis. It lasted hundreds, while hundreds of others, naturally, fell out. It was not the commitment to the cause that set these two groups apart, but the close personal connections with other volunteers, although they were all committed. With friends it’s hard to quit and easy to be brave.
In 1986, McAdam was unable to distinguish between “friends” from friends who followed each other on Facebook, Instagram and Strava. But the difference is real. In a 2010 New Yorker essay in front of current unrests about smartphones and social media, Malcolm Gladwell argued that weaker social media networks may be best suited to increase awareness and support for signaling, but not so good at motivating truly brave and committed behavior.
“The Save Darfur Coalition Facebook page has 1,282,339 members,” writes Gladwell.
A few weeks ago I insisted that spending too much time thinking about Donald Trump or borrowing phrases from it is not healthy. Oliver Berkman“Living in the news.” There is a risk that this seems like a recommendation to be selfish. To emulate Eric Hagerman, who lives on an Ohio Pig farm and purposely avoids news and wears headphones when visiting a cafe to avoid meeting people talking about politics. After Hagerman was featured in the New York Times, he was called “the most selfish person in America.”
However, Berkman has more sympathy for Hagerman, who was reportedly devoted to much of his time, and his savings are restoring the wetland area for public enjoyment. He may not be putting his life at risk, but he was solving real problems. It may be more important than changing your Facebook profile picture.
Hagerman scandalized his online opinions by separating himself from the news. But what really seems to motivate the brave and most altruistic behaviour is not the connection to the news. It’s connections with other people.
Written for and first published Financial Times May 16, 2025.
A loyal reader may enjoy the way to add the world.
“No one makes daily life statistics more appealing and fun than Tim Harford.” – Bill Bryson
“This funny, crazy book about the power of numbers, logic, and the true curiosity” – Maria Konikova
A storefront was set up in a bookstore US and England. Links to Bookshop and Amazon may generate referral fees.
