\begin{rant}
I think I am being uncontroversial in claiming that the following should be obvious: When at an airport (or dropping someone off at the airport), don't pick a fight with airport security. I'm not saying not to be annoyed with (or angered at, insulting by, etc.) some of the bullshit or to calmly ask for appropriate clarifications. I'm just saying that one shouldn't pick a fight when one isn't provoked. Simple.
OK, so one of my family members was dropping me off at the airport on Tuesday and our car was magically chosen for a very quick inspection (to open the trunk for a very brief look to make sure that we didn't have any dead bodies or counterfeit drugs in there). Fine. My reaction would be to have preferred not to be chosen but to take it in stride. The officer asked something like "Can I took a look in the trunk?" Notice the phrasing. It wasn't quite accurate because although he phrased it as a question, there wasn't really a choice involved (unless, of course, we were willing to just leave without my being dropped off). Now there are situations in which I might be anal if somebody phrased things this way (although in conversations I really only care whether I correctly understand the intended meaning), but this would not be one of them. My relative, on the other hand, decided to (a) try to answer no, (b) ask for a clarification and---in an extremely pissy manner---comment about the illusion of choice when there isn't any because of the inaccurate phrasing, and (c) be generally obnoxious. The officer asked very politely initially, so there wasn't any provocation with attitude, etc. (I have occasionally had interactions with rather insulting border patrol people, but my standard procedure even then is to suck it up and just do whatever action I think will get me through fastest. For such things, I am always attempting to do whatever optimizes how fast I get through---so not starting fights when they don't already exist is a good example of something I might do.) After the extreme pissiness, however, the officer was justifiably annoyed and was much less kind about things. We got through, and the look at the trunk took maybe 1/20th the amount of time as the unnecessary argument. Also, if one is going to express displeasure at such stuff (which I can understand), one can do it without picking a fight! Is it really so hard to be calm and polite when something doesn't quite go one's way? Sigh...
One of these days when I am at my parents' home, I swear I'm going to find the adoption papers that they've been hiding from me all these years...
\end{rant}
3 days ago
4 comments:
While I agree with you on the without picking a fight point, I have to disagree with the "as fast as I can pass through". This way, people who are payed tax payer's money are allowed to step over both the procedures and the boundaries in place for them to do their work. So by sucking it up, you are allowing them to do a lousy job while at the same time they believe that they are doing it the best way they can. Sometimes people turn to abusers because we allow them to.
OK, but what's my incentive to take one for the team? The way, I see it, if I do that I get hurt very seriously (by, e.g., not being allowed into the country and missing important conferences, visits to home, etc.) and the positive impact of many people doing this never comes into play. So I can see how coordinated efforts can have a positive impact here, but unless I am convinced that there will be such coordination at that kind of level, I am strongly disincentived to do anything but try to make things as painless for myself as possible. (Hence, while I agree with you in principle, in practice one essentially has a prisoner's dilemma situation.)
I view the problem by a slightly defferent angle: If everybody expects that I do my job right, I expect the very same thing from everybody else too. So not following the procedures is unacceptable. Allowing it to happen only for convenience is more dangerous because as time passes, it will backfire. The December's riots in Greece are a result of this behavior: Nobody did nothing when the policemen were going out of their way when doing their job (because they were in a hurry, or they simply did not want to get involved). The death of the 15 year old was the tip of the iceberg that caused the riots. Responsible citizens break the prisoner's dilemma. We were not.
It takes a whole group of responsible citizens to break it and hence the coordination is necessary. An individual doing something symbolic with potentially high detriment to themselves does not make things less detrimental for the group. So again, I agree in theory, but in practice that just doesn't have the desired effect. If myriad people somehow coordinate (and maybe that's possible), that is different, but given the knowledge that others are 'defecting' I don't help anybody at all by doing anything else and I potentially hurt myself substantially. So the ultimately horrible outcome isn't prevented in any way by an individual strategy and one might hurt oneself severely in the process. (I would also argue that it isn't mere convenience, but the the options really do include not being allowed in the country, etc. if one makes such a stand. The local detrimental effects have a pretty good chance to go well beyond a minor inconvenience, so it seems to me irrational to use a different strategy. It is still fair to say that that is irresponsible---I certainly won't argue against that opinion---but then the key is to find a way to make the responsible choice also the rational one so that one can get enough people doing it to make a difference.)
Anyway, as you can see, I have my cynical hat on as usual. :)
Post a Comment