Monthly Archives: July 2010

Why Line Sorters?

In airports one often finds oneself standing in a central line that splits into many smaller lines.  For example, a single long line for security screening splits near its end into many small lines in front of each screening machine.

How should individuals in the central line be allocated to the many small lines? One obvious solution is to let individuals in the single long line choose the smaller line in which to continue.  Some people might choose badly, or be stressed by having to make a choice, but overall this approach requires little supervision, and competition between choosers should make lines roughly equally bothersome.  All else equal, if line A was consistently faster or more pleasant than line B, line A would attract more people until the added length on average cancelled A’s advantage.

Many airports assign employees to the task of sorting people into lines.  In some places the line sorter always tells people where to go, while in other places the line sorter usually lets people choose, and only sometimes intervenes to tell people where to go.  As far as I can tell, line sorters are never purely advisory; either then let you choose without offering advice, or they use their authority to command compliance.

On a recent trip, I had several occasions to observe myself being sorted from a single central line into a particular line, and then to track how long it would have taken me had I been free to choose a line for myself.  It seems to me that on average the lines I would have chosen completed faster than the lines to which I was assigned.  Now I didn’t collect formal data, and I could just be responding here to random luck, but I suspect not, because a theory occurred to me that would explain this pattern.

My theory: lines vary in speed due to variations in personnel, but line sorters prefer lines to take similar amounts of space.  Some employees just take more time when, for example, working a scanning machine.  When people notice that lines vary in speed, they naturally prefer the faster line, which will make that line longer in terms of the space it uses.  Line sorters then “correct” this imbalance by sending people to the spatially-shorter but temporally-longer line.  Sorted folks then regret being sorted, knowing that on average their trip would be faster if they could choose for themselves.

Now if there is limited space for final lines, it might make sense to assign someone to limit how fast people can move from the main line into final lines. I suspect, however, that informal custom would usually work fine – when the best final line got full, the main line would usually just stop and to wait for room in that best line.  If space were limited in the main line it could then make sense to assign someone to make sure all available space in final lines was used. But this should be pretty rare – it would usually be far cheaper to just have more space for the main line.

I suspect that what is really going on here is that orgs who manage lines are embarrassed by variations in personnel productivity.  It seems unseemly to egalitarian ex-foragers to let line-walkers publicly endorse some personnel as faster.  They’d rather pay to try to “hide” this variation, even though most folks in line will probably notice it anyway.

Another explanation is that variations in line length seem “chaotic,” suggesting that the line-managing org does not fully control the situation.  So “security theater” requires the illusion of control, via equal length lines.  This would better explain systematic differences between security and non-security lines. If true, this seems an interesting contrast to the “autonomy” literature, such as in medicine, where many say we should let people make decisions for themselves even when this hurts them a bit on average, so that they gain the benefits of feeling in control of their lives.

Added 1p: If some org personnel might conspire with folks in line, the org might reasonably want a random matching of folks with final lines. This doesn’t explain cases where folks can usually pick their line, but are assigned to lines when line lengths are especially mismatched.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: ,

Family Vs. Community

From an old thoughtful post by TGGP, [quoting Steven Pinker]:

Every political and religious movement in history has sought to undermine the family. The reasons are obvious. Not only is the family a rival coalition competing for a person’s loyalties, but it is a rival with an unfair advantage: relatives innately care for one another more than comrades do. They bestow nepotistic benefits, forgive the daily frictions that strain other organizations, and stop at nothing to avenge wrongs against a member. Leninism, Nazism, and other totalitarian ideologies always demand a new loyalty “higher” than, and contrary to, family ties. So have religions from early Christianity to the Moonies [...]

Successful religions and states eventually realize they have to coexist with families, but they do what they can to contain them, particularly the most threatening ones. The anthropologist Nancy Thornhill has found that the incest laws of most cultures are not created to deal with the problem of borther-sister marriages; brothers and sisters don’t want to marry to begin with. Although brother-sister incest may be included in the prohibition and may help to legitimize it, the real targets of the laws are marriages that threaten the interests of the lawmakers. The rules ban marriages among more distant relatives like cousins, and are promulgated by the rulers of stratified societies to prevent wealth and poewr from accumulating in families, which could be future rivals.

This fits with my interpretation of the World Values Survey as saying that the two main dimensions distinguishing cultural values today is (1) wealth and (2) “families and personal relations” versus “larger community health and threats.” I suggested:

The central Asia history of invasion after invasion is deeply ingrained in their culture, while island and geographically peripheral cultures were less obsessed by it. It is ironic that the cultures like Russia with values focused on competing against other communities lost the last big community conflict, the Cold War.  Have China, Korea, Japan, etc. learned their lesson about over-centralization, enough to win the next big conflict?

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: ,

Blood On Our Hands

Ironically, rules to prevent blood from appearing on our hands, put blood on our hands.

Somewhere along the line, someone gave me the impression that boxing gloves made boxing safer. I learned to look down on ignorant ancestors or lowlifes who boxed with bare-knuckles. But in fact, we’ve known for a century that gloves make boxing far more dangerous:

The Marquess of Queensberry rules [requiring boxing gloves] took off not because society viewed the new sport as more civilised than the old, but because fights conducted under the new guidelines attracted more spectators. Audiences wanted to see repeated blows to the head and dramatic knockouts.

By contrast,… “In 100 years of bare-knuckle fighting in the United States, which terminated around 1897 … there wasn’t a single ring fatality.” Today, there are three or four every year in the US, and around 15 per cent of professional fighters suffer some form of permanent brain damage during their career. … A return to bare knuckles would be bloodier and less acceptable to mass television audiences, but one has to ask whether wheelchairs and life-support machines are any easier on one’s conscience.

Imagine proposing to your friends that they attend a bloody bare-knuckles fight, or mentioning to them that you had done so. I expect that for most folks, doing so would risk more social shame than for glove boxing. But why, if glove boxing is more dangerous?

Yes, perhaps most folks don’t know glove boxing hurts more, but how could such easily understood info of such wide relevance remain hidden for so long? It seems hard to escape the conclusion that we just don’t want to know.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , ,

Don’t Force AA

[Alcoholic Anonymous] research tends to come to wildly divergent conclusions, often depending on an investigator’s biases. The group’s “cure rate” has been estimated at anywhere from 75 percent to 5 percent, extremes that seem far-fetched. Even the most widely cited (and carefully conducted) studies are often marred by obvious flaws. A 1999 meta-analysis of 21 existing studies, for example, concluded that AA members actually fared worse than drinkers who received no treatment at all. The authors acknowledged, however, that many of the subjects were coerced into attending AA by court order. Such forced attendees have little shot at benefiting from any sort of therapy—it’s widely agreed that a sincere desire to stop drinking is a mandatory prerequisite for getting sober.

Yet a growing body of evidence suggests that while AA is certainly no miracle cure, people who become deeply involved in the program usually do well over the long haul. In a 2006 study, for example, two Stanford psychiatrists chronicled the fates of 628 alcoholics they managed to track over a 16-year period. They concluded that subjects who attended AA meetings frequently were more likely to be sober than those who merely dabbled in the organization. … “I’ve been involved in a couple of meta-analyses of AA, which collapse the findings across many studies,” Tonigan says. “They generally all come to the same conclusion, which is that AA is beneficial for many but not all individuals, and that the benefit is modest but significant.” …

That statement is also supported by the results of a landmark study that examined how the steps perform when taught in clinical settings as opposed to church basements. Between 1989 and 1997, a multisite study called Project Match randomly assigned more than 1,700 alcoholics to one of three popular therapies used at professional treatment centers. The first was called 12-step facilitation, in which a licensed therapist guides patients through Bill Wilson’s method. The second was cognitive behavioral therapy, which trains alcoholics to identify the situations that spur them to drink, so they can avoid tempting circumstances. And the last was motivational enhancement therapy, a one-on-one interviewing process designed to sharpen a person’s reasons for getting sober. Project Match ultimately concluded that all three of these therapies were more or less equally effective at reducing alcohol intake among subjects. (more)

So apparently law makes alcoholics worse off by forcing them into AA.  And none of the above evidence shows AA is actually helpful to voluntary alcoholics.  More on Project Match.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: ,

Open Thread

This is our monthly place to discuss topics that haven’t appeared in recent posts.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: