4 ms·

"They’d look silly if they were to admit [shameless people] had found a better way of doing things." This isn't true. When someone cuts in line no one thinks '

"They’d look silly if they were to admit [shameless people] had found a better way of doing things." This isn't true. When someone cuts in line no one thinks 'oh, they found a better way - wish I thought of that'. And better for who? It's not better for anyone, including the cheater, when society ultimately becomes less functional. And it is cheating, just applied against social convention. As more and more people employ shamelessness the returns will diminish. If one football player cheats they score some points for a while and make a name. When all players cheat the game is over and fans stop watching.

jodrellblank 4y ago
> "This isn't true. When someone cuts in line no one thinks 'oh, they found a better way - wish I thought of that'." Somebody does; "inspirational speaker" Simon Sinek has a talk[1] segment where he's praising himself for how great he is because, after a charity run event when there were free bagels for the participants, he pushed through the queue and took two bagels and nobody stopped him. And he is trying to teach queuejumping to the audience as some kind of "think outside the box" concept. [1] https://youtu.be/K-E_KFDWMog?t=12 https://youtu.be/K-E_KFDWMog?t=12
- Sporktacular 4y ago
  Well, I guess there's one in every crowd. But still, it's not like everyone in the line failed to consider queue jumping. It's an obvious strategy, they just forgo it for everyone's benefit. Hence the outrage.
thebeastie 4y ago
you only need to look at the effect this is having on politics to see that it can drag us towards a miserable equilibrium where cheating happens because it gives an advantage even though the outcome is worse for everyone.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
afarrell 4y ago
It depends crucially on the game you want to play instead. The problem with this article is the example. When the article says: > It’s important to note that people were dismissive of Paris because validating her playbook would mean admitting that they were playing an inferior game. It has failed to establish conviction that Paris was playing a superior game. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Suppose however you are working on a design team for the Hyatt Regency in Kansas City, Missouri. You've found yourself taking longer than expected on verifying the structural properties of the walkway.The game your boss wants to play is "get this project done on-time and under-budget". The game you want to play is "do respectable reliable engineering work." You could feel ashamed about your work being behind and over-budget and take actions to wrap up the project. Or you could decide that your game is superior and act shamelessly to get more time/budget. Shamelessness as a strategy relies on well-founded conviction that you are playing a superior game.
- Sporktacular 4y ago
  That's an interesting way to look at it. I took it to mean ignoring the shame imposed for choosing a selfish path that makes things worse for everyone else. In your sense, sure, since shame is not serving a greater purpose.
- HPsquared 4y ago
  Life, the game of games. Which is the best game to play?
NoGravitas 4y ago
Well, it's a prisoner's dilemma, innit? Shamelessness (cheating) is always the ideal immediate option, even though it would be better if everyone cooperated. And given the high-stakes, winner-takes-all elements of life under late capitalism, no one can afford to not take the immediate win, even though it will make things worse in the long run, even for them.
qubex 4y ago
Economics actually teaches that the most efficient queuing system involves people joining at the front, because that way they endure the wait in proportion with their internal system of preferences. Societal sense of propriety literally leads to an inefficient outcome across the board because for cultural reasons we pretty universally join a queue at the back.
- yifanl 4y ago
  Queueing at the front would imply that there's a possibility of never being served. Queueing at the back never has that being the case. It seems to me that the math about the queueing isn't properly weighing that scenario.
- Sporktacular 4y ago
  Huh? Who prefers to stay longer in line? With enough queue jumpers the line collapses into a crowd shouting for service - a crowd that is bigger than the line. Meaning the average service rate has fallen - that is, a less efficient system.
- sojournerc 4y ago
  Because a queue is about fairness, not efficiency, we join at the back.
  - Sporktacular 4y ago
    Exactly. Probably why we shouldn't turn to economists for ethics advice.
- me_again 4y ago
  But then if you are in a queue already the most efficient response is to leave and rejoin at the front. Quite soon you don't have a queue, you have a brawl. Perhaps I'm missing something.
  - rawgabbit 4y ago
    I don't get it either. My understanding is that with a queue, we are trading our time to get what we want. Is he saying instead of trading time, we should fork out cash to jump the queue? Here is a TWO hour long documentary on Youtube that talked all the machinations/tweaks Disneyland made to queueing. TLDR, you have to stay at a Disney Hotel to really jump the queue, buy some crazy app, and make reservations months in advance. It is really stupid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yjZpBq1XBE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yjZpBq1XBE

jodrellblank 4y ago

> "This isn't true. When someone cuts in line no one thinks 'oh, they found a better way - wish I thought of that'." Somebody does; "inspirational speaker" Simon Sinek has a talk[1] segment where he's praising himself for how great he is because, after a charity run event when there were free bagels for the participants, he pushed through the queue and took two bagels and nobody stopped him. And he is trying to teach queuejumping to the audience as some kind of "think outside the box" concept. [1] https://youtu.be/K-E_KFDWMog?t=12 https://youtu.be/K-E_KFDWMog?t=12

Sporktacular 4y ago
Well, I guess there's one in every crowd. But still, it's not like everyone in the line failed to consider queue jumping. It's an obvious strategy, they just forgo it for everyone's benefit. Hence the outrage.

thebeastie 4y ago

you only need to look at the effect this is having on politics to see that it can drag us towards a miserable equilibrium where cheating happens because it gives an advantage even though the outcome is worse for everyone.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

afarrell 4y ago

It depends crucially on the game you want to play instead. The problem with this article is the example. When the article says: > It’s important to note that people were dismissive of Paris because validating her playbook would mean admitting that they were playing an inferior game. It has failed to establish conviction that Paris was playing a superior game. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Suppose however you are working on a design team for the Hyatt Regency in Kansas City, Missouri. You've found yourself taking longer than expected on verifying the structural properties of the walkway.The game your boss wants to play is "get this project done on-time and under-budget". The game you want to play is "do respectable reliable engineering work." You could feel ashamed about your work being behind and over-budget and take actions to wrap up the project. Or you could decide that your game is superior and act shamelessly to get more time/budget. Shamelessness as a strategy relies on well-founded conviction that you are playing a superior game.

Sporktacular 4y ago
That's an interesting way to look at it. I took it to mean ignoring the shame imposed for choosing a selfish path that makes things worse for everyone else. In your sense, sure, since shame is not serving a greater purpose.
HPsquared 4y ago
Life, the game of games. Which is the best game to play?

NoGravitas 4y ago

Well, it's a prisoner's dilemma, innit? Shamelessness (cheating) is always the ideal immediate option, even though it would be better if everyone cooperated. And given the high-stakes, winner-takes-all elements of life under late capitalism, no one can afford to not take the immediate win, even though it will make things worse in the long run, even for them.

qubex 4y ago

Economics actually teaches that the most efficient queuing system involves people joining at the front, because that way they endure the wait in proportion with their internal system of preferences. Societal sense of propriety literally leads to an inefficient outcome across the board because for cultural reasons we pretty universally join a queue at the back.

yifanl 4y ago
Queueing at the front would imply that there's a possibility of never being served. Queueing at the back never has that being the case. It seems to me that the math about the queueing isn't properly weighing that scenario.
Sporktacular 4y ago
Huh? Who prefers to stay longer in line? With enough queue jumpers the line collapses into a crowd shouting for service - a crowd that is bigger than the line. Meaning the average service rate has fallen - that is, a less efficient system.
sojournerc 4y ago
Because a queue is about fairness, not efficiency, we join at the back.
- Sporktacular 4y ago
  Exactly. Probably why we shouldn't turn to economists for ethics advice.
me_again 4y ago
But then if you are in a queue already the most efficient response is to leave and rejoin at the front. Quite soon you don't have a queue, you have a brawl. Perhaps I'm missing something.
- rawgabbit 4y ago
  I don't get it either. My understanding is that with a queue, we are trading our time to get what we want. Is he saying instead of trading time, we should fork out cash to jump the queue? Here is a TWO hour long documentary on Youtube that talked all the machinations/tweaks Disneyland made to queueing. TLDR, you have to stay at a Disney Hotel to really jump the queue, buy some crazy app, and make reservations months in advance. It is really stupid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yjZpBq1XBE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yjZpBq1XBE