Miscellaneous desk
< January 2	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 3

Turning corners

As we turn a corner into a new year, I have a question that I've often wondered about.

I'm walking along a footpath in a shopping area, and I turn a corner, to find a person coming in the opposite direction. We almost collide and we both have to temporarily adjust our trajectories. Usually there's a "sorry" or two exchanged. Then we proceed as planned. Since this has happened to me thousands of times, and by definition to thousands of other people who've narrowly missed colliding with me, I must assume it happens to most everybody.

My question is, since we've had plenty of practice in turning corners, why do we never seem to remember what often happens, and approach the corner a little more gingerly in the awareness that there could be, probably is, a person coming straight at us from the other direction and we're going to have to take evasive action? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It never happens to me, because I always approach corners gingerly in the manner you suggest. --Viennese Waltz 08:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When and how did you learn to do that? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, it's just something I've always known that I should do. --Viennese Waltz 09:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Piriorities. It is more important to cut corners to walk a shorter distance than to avoid a potential collision which may not happen.
Sleigh (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Googling the subject, I'm not seeing anything useful. But humans failing to learn from past mistakes is certainly not a recent phenomenon, especially in situations that are merely inconvenient rather than potentially life-threatening. Like VW, I often (though not always) give corners a wide berth so I can see if anything's coming. Humans often seem to be focused on the here-and-now, and your walking path can reflect that , as Sleigh suggests. Maybe the sidewalks should have lane stripes as the roads do? That might not fix it, but it might serve as a more conscious reminder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mention one instance in which humans exhibit behavior that they feel is beneficial, but is often not beneficial. There are many other examples:

When elevator doors open, you should expect that someone may want to get out of the elevator, but most people crowd the door and try to get on, blocking those trying to get off, creating a situation just like your corner-cutting example.
When boarding an aircraft, you should make room for people to approach the boarding gate, but most people crowd the boarding gate, creating a wall of bodies and luggage.
When waiting to turn left at an intersection with a red light (make that right if you drive on the left side of the road), you should stay back so people turning right can see around the front of your vehicle to see if traffic is coming. Many people creep forward more and more, even though they can't pull into the intersection until there is a green light.

Why do they do that? I use these examples because you can easily find studies on these topics, such as this. The basic reason is that humans are very selfish and suspect that everyone else is trying to take their stuff. You have to get on the elevator first because someone might steal your favorite spot on the elevator. You have to crowd the gate or you might lose your spot in line when your turn comes up to board. You have to creep up on that red light or someone might slip in front of you after you turn. You have to cut that corner real tight with your cart or someone might get into that aisle in front of you. 216.59.42.36 (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your examples do not tally with my personal approaches to these situations. I always stand back at elevators, on the assumption that someone will want to get out, and I stand well away from the boarding gate until it's my time to board. I don't drive, so I can't speak to the third example. --Viennese Waltz 13:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you've said. So what? As Sherlock said, "You can, for example, never foretell what any one man will do, but you can say with precision what an average number will be up to." Your remarking that you don't fit the pattern does nothing to help explain that pattern. Another related topic is "last second" merging in traffic: selfish behaviour that is well-deserving of summary execution, but also apparently goood for traffic overall. (cite). Matt Deres (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these are loose examples of what can be analyzed in Game theory as a non-cooperative game. Take the crowding the elevator example. The best outcome for the group is if everyone waits away from the door, and lets everyone get off with plenty of room, and THEN gets on the elevator. BUT the best individual outcome is if everyone ELSE gives plenty of room, and you wait near-ish to the door so you can guarantee that you are the first one on, and thus get prime elevator real-estate, and avoid being left off in case there is a big crowd. However, everyone else knows that the best strategy is to be the only one to wait nearest the door, so EVERYONE tries to be that person, and now we're all crowded around the door (yes, I know Viennese Waltz never does this, but "my experience" is not a synomym for "average human behavior", and game theory has studied this behavior intensely, and has reached predictable conclusions. Personal experience is not the singular of data). Basically, in situations like this, if only one person is selfish, they win BIG, which makes everyone selfish, thus we all lose. In terms of Nash equilibrium, these are all formally similar to the prisoner's dilemma, which is any non-cooperative game where everyone being a dick is bad for everyone, but being the only dick is supremely good for you, so everyone is a dick and we all suffer. The reason this happens so often is that it is a stable Nash equilibrium: Any person who deviates from the "being a dick" strategy to the "being nice" strategy in large crowds finds themselves missing the elevator, not getting on the train, not being able to turn left for several cycles of the red light, etc. These behaviors are self-reinforcing in similar situations, even when there is no threat of "losing" anything; i.e. we learn that rushing to the front is necessary in crowds, so we tend to do it even when it wouldn't be necessary, like cutting all corners short. --Jayron32 20:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Kind of like a cousin to the paradox of saving. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see a difference between the blind corner and elevator situations. With the elevator, as soon as the doors open it is visually obvious that there's someone inside who may well want to come out, and anyone outside who decides to barge in regardless of that possibility, is being what is generally known as a dick. With the blind corner, by definition it is blind until one actually turns the corner and discovers one is already almost at the point of collision with someone else (sometimes we actually collide, objects get dropped etc; the stuff of chance encounters in numerous romantic Hollywood films). What intrigues me is that, no matter how many times we have this experience (pace Viennese Waltz), we seem to forget it has ever happened before or that it could ever happen at all, and just march blithely on, and get surprised all over again, just like the previous thousand times. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just a matter of pace though, it's best to simply stay well-clear and away from blind corners whenever possible. There are lots of reasons people may fail to do this however, from there not being enough room to maneuver (often due to poor floor or pathway design and/or crowding) to being distracted (talking to someone, tweeting , looking the wrong way. partial blindness...) to daydreaming to being so hurried they are wanting to take the shorter distance of the inside track. Move too slow you become an obstacle, too fast a hazard. Even though I keep attentive, avoid the corners and/or dance around them with my shopping cart its still difficult to not have an occasional awkward moment or two in most crowded places where I live hence it's not just a matter of forgetfulness... more like being overly challenged, I think. --Modocc (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You said "We almost collide". I think "almost" is key here. With no actual collison, there is little or no harm, and low motivation to remember the "danger" and change behaviour. If you did collide often and got hurt or blamed then you would probably be more careful. Maybe you are already careful enough to usually avoid real collisions without thinking about it. I'm in the extra careful group which usually also avoids near-collisions but maybe I'm just wasting time and attention on being too careful. Your health is also a factor. If you easily fall or have a fragile body then you tend to be more careful. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]