annoying lady on the subway
Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2013 7:25 am
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)
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)