annoying lady on the subway

[kensuguro]

What do you think about this situation...

I'm on the subway, fairly crowded. A person gets off at a station, and now there's 1 open seat. The car's still fairly crowded. There's a lady standing, pretty young, mid 20's, who seems extremely frustrated that no one is sitting down. Her frustration maxes out, and she's shaking her head, she blurts "someone should take the seat. Or it'll be empty" at THE WALL. And to my amazement, she continues to stand, RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE EMPTY SEAT. Then we get to world trade center, and everyone gets off.

It's a short series of events, but I've been running it through my head, over and over, to try to understand what may have driven her to behave the way she did. First of all, I don't think she was completely out of it. Not totally out of her mind, or drunk, or high. So, whatever her mental process was, would fall under the general scope of "normal operation" and should have some sort of a thought process going on. (though normal means different things for different people)

For "someone should take the seat" portion. I guess I can see that. Many people feel other people "should" be this way or that way, to varying degrees. Perhaps she feels it much stronger than a casual "should" feeler. On the Myers Briggs scale, this would fall under the Judgement axis, where the measure depends on how much effort one exerts to externalize one's internal image of how something "should" be. She would score pretty high on the Judgement scale. Her effort to externalize her ideal of "empty seats should be taken" pushed her to the point of frustration, and blurting out nonesense to a wall.

Next is, the notion of "someone should take the seat" itself. That's definitely not a fact, but a byproduct of a belief system. But there could be different types of underlying belief systems. One could be of efficiency. An empty seat amidst a car fairly full of people is inherently inefficient. So the mechanical inefficienty itself could be the basis of a "should". In a slightly different tone, it could also be a "waste". Another view would be a more self centric view, where if one person sat in the seat, there would be more room to stand, and therefore more room around me. That could also be turned into a less self centric one, where if the person sat in the seat, there would be more room for everyone who is standing. Of course all this is living on top of the fundamental "nobody fucking cares who sits or who doesn't" truth of the matter.

After blurting out nonesense, the lady continues to stand. This decision, or lack of decision is what puzzles me. The force that drove her to bring up and emphasize the problem was higher than average. But after doing so, that force did not convert to solving the problem herself. All she needed to do, was to take the seat, and call it a day. You bring up the problem, you solve it. Simple. But humans aren't that simple, are they. Perhaps with these "should" people, the "should" only applies to other people. Maybe they don't see themselves a part of the scene, but as a third party who only observes and notates problem situations. This also explains the lack of action, because the observer third party is not in the scene, and therefore cannot be an active agent in the situation. (then why exist?)

This brought me to a horrifying realization. The talk but not exist thing is.. it's blog, it's fb, it's tweeting. Your'e the observer, nothing more. And by noting the event.. I dunno, what does that accomplish. Entertainment? The outlets seems to legitimize being an observer. They exist for observers. Is it journalism? Journalism can be a very active agent if done right. Is just talking about it better than ignoring? How meaningful is it to sit in front of a pile of trash and talk, tweet, fb update, blog, text about how someone should go over there and pick it up. What if all that energy, the combined energy of everyone wasting time talking and writing about a problem, was directed towards solving the problem, and not just documenting it? (actually, I just documented a problem, but hopefully provoked some thought)

[dawman]

That's commonly referred to as displaced aggression.
She obviously knew of her psychological limitations and wisely choose a wall to yell at.

[hubird]

nice observation

I take it differently, dawman

1. she, being a young person, doesn't need to sit down so urgently, and doesn't like the 'grab it' attitude in a group.
2. as she is in front of the empty chair she feels she has to tell that she doesn't need it. A social defined consideration.
She also may not want people thinking she would like to take it but hesitates. She makes a decisive choice, as she likes to be clear about herself.
3. She tells that to the wall to make her announcement not personally to someone in particular, as it's New York after all: liberty above all, and also it says she's not after any contact with someone, it's just what it is: take that seat anyone.
4. If she really yelled or just chose a loud enough level I don't know, but if she yelled it probably was because she had to overwin herself.
When 20 you are still working on your self iamage. I would have done the announcement differently, but I'm not 20 anymore...
She could just be an ordinary person, used to yelling like nothing.
But that contradicts to the rational announcement.

It could be that after her announcement no one dares to teak the seat, but that wouldn't be her responsability.
Gambling I'd say: a strong, selfsupporting but social and independent person who is able to take the lead in the public domein and knows to communicate the anonimous character of her announcement.


BTW, there is good scientific reseach and thinking done about the logic of human behaviour in the public domein, like it's called here.
I checked a book about it recently, and I was amased by the results already.
The silent 'rules' are totally different from private situations, and seem to be nestled in our genes even.
There are also links to sciences like social science and 'public domein archtecture'.
The latter studies the logic of design of urban area like boulevards, innercity shopping centra, big squares etc. (like the planned reconstruction of the public area of Las Vegas) can evoke or repress specific (asocial) behaviour.
They say Plaza Venetia (what's the name) has the perfect dimensions, in line with the human length and the design of our eyes (viewing corner etc.) .
Anyway, I'm drifting...

Interesting 'case' you presented, Ken

[jksuperstar]

There is the possible third aspect, in a rule-bound personality like Asperger Syndrome (or somewhere along the autistic spectrum).

1.) The chair isn't taken. it is available, and should be taken by someone. Rule broken!
2.) She didn't need the chair. That's a non-verbal cue typical of the personality.
3.) Overcoming her own typical social awkwardness, comes as an outburst.
4.) But she manages to maintain her usual avoidance of eye contact, which shows as facing the wall.

Can you tell me about her mother?

[garyb]

she didn't need the seat and was disturbed that no one else would take it, no big deal. i'd have told her to sit down, as a gentleman, or to sit the f*ck down, as a New Yorker.

[dawman]

That's no shit.
On the State line where all States have billboards marking their territory, New York should have a billboard that says "Welcome To New York.........Now Get The Fuck Outta Here."

[kensuguro]

I tend to agree with jksuperstar. Probably something at work that's a bit more than the typical "annoying lady" syndrome. Maybe a "annoying lady ain't afraid to show it.. just a lil bit" syndrome.

I like hubird's view. A different angle than mine. Where I tried to get in the person's head (the inner world), hubird's observation takes in to account the force that is applied from the context (social) toward the inner world. (context shaping some aspect of behavior) Definitely a vital viewpoint.

I always find trying to "figure out" the strangeness in a strange person, because most of the time, there is a rational that is only visible to the strange, and under that rational, the strange behavior is completely normal. And many times it's taking time to think about, and understanding these things, or at least the patience and attempt to do so, is what leads to a peaceful confrontation. Not using authority or coercion to make the "correct" the strangeness, or to make it go away. As a coder, I deal with many strange people, and so it's always good practice to know more strange people and what's causing it. Many times, once you know the root reason, it is easy to alter the situation so to make the root signal go away than to alter the person's hard wired thinking. Dunno if that's coercion, or a very round about way of "helping out".

[hubird]

works 97% of the times for me
if you put the mony on the last 3% you could be more safe, but you will miss a lot along the road.

[garyb]

well if she's just schizophrenic, then you really aren't in the same world and there's nothing to do.

the behavior doesn't seem to be that strange to me though, except that she was vocal enough for it to affect you...

to me, the microscope, whether physical or mental, is pretty rude as it deconstructs the actual human experience and ignores the active system of being for the purpose of making life viewable from the most simplistic set of parameters possible. that might be helpful for establishing control systems, but it does nothing to fix the madness of the city or the madness of a subway ride through it.

why do experiments or be passive-agressive? just sit down of tell her to sit if she gets annoying, or do the thing that New Yorkers do best, tell her to shut up(maybe she needs someone to fight with) or do the thing that New Yorkers are REALLY good at, ignore her and all of her suffering.

[ChrisWerner]

Because she is a female there could ALWAYS be other reasons for her behavior.

I can imaging that she was disappointed and hurt in her pride that nobody took the seat where she stood besides.
More and more self observations started in her, am I not pretty enough, am i too young, why will the f### nobody sits beside me.

[wayne]

Why was that annoying though? She seemed annoyed herself - could be an outbreak of contagious annoyance! On the public transport system!!

[Neil B]

haemorrhoids?

That might make it hard to sit down and put me in a bad mood

Sometimes there are simple solutions

Sorry Ken, I'm in flippant mood

[wayne]

My money's on the figs, NB

[dante]

Or maybe she a practical joker and there's a piece of bubblegum on the seat

Not so strange to me. My wife has wandered up and down the house saying 'someone should do the vacuuming

Or how bout this : humans do weird things.. Like... Instead of talking to the neighbours, someone invents a series of ones and zeros to talk to strangers half way around the world. Then, within a few years, everyone else around the world is doing it.

[Neil B]

humans do weird things.. Like... Instead of talking to the neighbours, someone invents a series of ones and zeros to talk to strangers half way around the world. Then, within a few years, everyone else around the world is doing it.

And they're texting the neighbours you don't talk to anymore

[dawman]

Rectal Bagworms must be excruciatingly painful.

[AlfordCheri]

That's why I always wear headphones while in the subway I have enough shit going on at work and at home to pay attention to weirdos in the subway

[yayajohn]

OCD, probably clinical. In her world the seats are always taken everytime she rides the train. She most likely complains about it all the time too which is why she was so upset because if she sat down in the seat then she wouldn't get to complain and that also is something that would be out of place in her OCD world. She couldn't fix the problem because it would just create another problem. If you followed her around you would probably see lots of other similiar situations. A little bit of OCD is good - also known as "attention to detail". Too much OCD can be debilitating - hence the "D" for disorder.

[hubird]

could be

yet...Ken was looking for the rationality behind her behavior.
not for an illness
but reading over the way Ken describes her there could even be drugs involved.

[dawman]

Tony Shaloub of the series Monk has a disorder where details and perfection are always required, and I do so love his show. He's always straightening stuff up, etc.