The Waiting, Part 2

In this episode of the Stuff to Blow Your Mind podcast, Robert and Joe discuss waiting in line and psychology of queuing up.

Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:03):
Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, the production of
My Heart Radio. Hey you welcome to Stuff to Blow
your Mind. My name is Robert Lamb and I'm Joe McCormick,
and we're back with part two of our talk about
queuing and waiting in line. We've got lots more stuff

(00:23):
to get into today, a queuing psychology, the horror and
the anguish of cutting in line. It's going to be
a blast. But first we'd like to start with with
really a proper look at the British queue. Uh. This
is something that we even heard from listening, a listener
by the name of the about saying, hey, how come
you guys didn't talk more about about waiting in line

(00:43):
in merry old England. And so let's get into that
a bit. But before we do, I thought i'd just
thrown a quick quote from William Shakespeare quote I am
to wait, though waiting so be hell so be? Well,
what's soll um? It's from one of his sonnets. The
number is eluding me at the moment. Oh yeah, yeah,
son at fifty eight. Okay, let me suffer being at

(01:05):
your back. This is the abject one. Now to be sure,
he's not what he's not talking about waiting in line,
but I feel like it could apply to the modern
experience of waiting in line, because waiting in line so
be hell as well unless you make waiting in line
part of your identity, and then you can every time
you have to do it, you can get real excited
about how good at it you are. Yes, yes, uh,

(01:27):
And perhaps this is this is getting into the British
spirit of the thing. So in the previous episode I
briefly mentioned British criticisms of queuing as socialism. So I
thought I had to go and I thought I'd go
into this a bit more. Uh. Is it regards the
history of queuing in Britain, And I was looking at
an article titled Queuing Up in Post War Britain by

(01:49):
Joe Moran, published in twentieth Century British History, Volume sixteen
that came out in the year two thousand and five. Yeah,
I've read a number of things about queuing where where
this author, Joe Moran is cited, and he appears to
be kind of a historian of everyday life, which is
a field that I find a lot of interest in,
like um studying, not just like you know, the big

(02:10):
events of history, the wars and the political changes and
all that. But but what people had to do in
the little, less noted moments of day to day existence. Yeah,
a lot of times one of the big stuff is
going on, what are the little things? And oftentimes, and
this comes out in in this particular paper, you see
the larger events and the larger movements of the day,

(02:32):
you see it all filtering down to to the day
to day level, and in this case concerning waiting in
lines for things. So in the immediate post war period,
post World War Two, amid scarcity problems, you had queuing
and there was a sense of queuing as an absolute good.
It was the state. You know, you're you're doing your part.
It's important that we wait in line. It's important that

(02:53):
we work together and we socially organize in order to
make sure that we get what we needed in the scarcity. Yeah,
that's true. I mean, I think it really became part
of the British identity in the post World War two period.
But it was also a big part of the of
British sort of internal propaganda messaging during World War Two,
because there was a time when you know, you were

(03:14):
dealing with a lot of scarcity of goods within the
country as well, and there was a kind of national
messaging campaign that was like, hey, you know, do your part.
Good British citizens, they do their duty, they wait their
turn for things. You you display the British virtues of calmness, decency, fairness.
This is the British way. Yeah, it's like mine, name

(03:34):
the gap. It's just what you're supposed to do as
a as a proper British person. And you had a
number of authors of the day even commenting on this.
Author George Orwell wrote that a foreign visitor to Britain
would have been struck by the quote orderly behavior of
English crowds, the lack of pushing and quarreling, the willingness
to form cues. And then there's a famous George mis

(03:55):
quote from quote an Englishman, even if he is alone,
forms an orderly queue of one. Right, So sort of
writing it into the political identity or the national character
of of Great Britain. Right. So so for these authors
and many other commentators, quing behavior was sub political and
all about the greater good in a proper English fashion.

(04:16):
But queuing had been seen in a in a very
different light as well, not only as a sort of
creeping socialism, but as a byproduct of wartime scarcity that
damaged morale and impacted women more than men. Uh The
idea here being that the women would be the ones
going out during the day and waiting in lines for things.
And there were there were various voices talking about well

(04:38):
this this might be a detriment to their health as well,
like these women should not be standing in line for
long periods of time. Why do we have long lines?
So Marn rights that these cues, we have all these
other things going on to For instance, he writes that
these these cues were also a hotbed of anti semitism,
along with other resentments and accusations at other customers but

(05:00):
also against shopkeepers. Uh So, queuing, despite it being tied
in with these ideas of national pride and and necessity,
it was also highly unpopular and therefore rife for politicization.
So it became a divisive topic that politicians latched onto.
And this is where you get into the whole creeping
socialism thing. Yeah, it seems to me that queuing throughout

(05:23):
its history has often gotten charged up with political, social,
and moral baggage. Like people trying to use queuing or
aspects of queuing to make a point about some pet
issue they have. So you'll often see like politicians and
cultural critics um attacking queuing as symbolic of something they

(05:46):
believe to be nefarious. In some cases, like you could
have conservative politicians saying that it's somehow, somehow emblematic of
socialism or of government control. But there's another strain of
a similar type of thinking that I know I've encountered before.
I was trying to think of a really good specific
example to point too, and I couldn't, But I know
I've heard something like this from a general just kind

(06:06):
of anti conformity rant. You hear people say like schools
trying to teach you to conform. Man, they want to
turn you into sheep so that you can't think for yourself.
They want you to do what you're told and stand
in line and wait your turn. And to me, this
is such a tragic conflation of like unrelated issues. Obviously,
you know it's good to think for yourself and have

(06:28):
the courage to resist social pressure to conform to do
something wrong or immoral, But there's like nothing intelligent or
morally courageous about resisting waiting your turn for a service.
That's just being a jerk. Yeah, I agree. I mean
I don't think this is what um Pink Floyd's The
Wall was about. UM. So, if anyone out there wants

(06:50):
just a really nice kind of deep dive into all
of this, I do suggest that mern article. He goes
into wonderful detail, but ultimately he surmises that you see
the shift over time from queuing and as an example
of the best of proper Britishness, to a symbol of
the British disease UH, and then ultimately to a less
politicized reality that can be beneficial or harmful depending on

(07:12):
the circumstance. UM. I want to read a quote from
him that I think drives home this kind of dual
nature quote. People have been complaining about UH, the disintegration
of Q discipline for almost as long as they have
been lauding the que as the essence of British decency,
perhaps because the myth carries such symbolic weight that it

(07:33):
cannot be sustained by the necessarily messier reality. The notion
of cues as the embodiment of fairness and equality has
also existed alongside other discourses which have seen them as tedious,
unfair and inefficient. So yeah, it's it's like you said,
the lines, the cues, they kind of become whatever you

(07:53):
need them to be, depending on what your argument is
and what the particular example is that was actually reading
a BBC News article from a few years back that
quoted uh this historian Joe Moran extensively uh in talking
about these various ideas about ques over the years, and
he brings up this very thing about how like some
of the same types of figures that you would in

(08:16):
previous decades have seen complaining about queuing as as a
sign of something wrong with the national character, are now
often seen complaining about the the decline of queuing discipline,
saying like complaining about bus stops and people are so
disorderly getting onto buses now. But I think in the
article Moran makes the case that actually what's going on

(08:37):
probably is the difference between queuing areas that have well
organized infrastructure that allows people to know where and how
to line up, versus queuing areas where people are forced
to self organized without any clear organizing principle, like you know,
stanchions to stand between or something. Yeah. I mean, I
guess a lot of it probably comes down to it,

(08:57):
isn't there like a George Carlin debt about how fast
you're driving, and you know, it's like you either think
people are going too fast or too slow, but it's
based on whatever you are doing. So a lot of
this is going to come down to what is your
experience right now? Standing in line? Is the line tedious?
Is the line along well? And then perhaps you're inclined
to apply that to queues and lines in general or

(09:20):
order in general. You know, like I could see where
one awful queuing experience could almost make you an anarchist
at least for you know, a couple of hours before
you calm down. But see, the funny thing is, I
think an anarchist should be especially in love with queuing
because queuing is a self organizing principle by which people

(09:40):
order access to things. So if you're an anarchist, queuing
should be like that. That should be like your go
to example of like how how you get things done
without top down control? Right? Yeah, yeah, unless you want
to say they are making you stand in line. This
is top down control. Uh, you know, in practice, because
there's the sign telling you to do it. Oh yeah,
I guess that's another very creation on what I was

(10:00):
talking about a minute ago. That like attitude that like, oh,
standing in line and waiting your turn is like that's
a you know, wake up sheep all kind of thing.
You're you're being a sheep by doing that. Um, that's
just like confusing that because there is social pressure to
do some things that are stupid and bad. Therefore anything
there is social pressure to do is stupid and bad. Yeah, when,

(10:21):
in fact, I just want to reiterate again, if you
are being a jerk about the line, you're the problem.
It's not everybody else. Now, one thing to keep in
mind about queuing is that for many of us, this
is just simply how we grew up. You know, we're
taught very early on, often in school the importance of
forming lines, Like that's how that's how you get your lunch. Well,
at lunchtime, right, is you form up into a line,

(10:43):
maybe two lines, You make your way down the hall
and you you you go through the cafeteria and you
collect your food, and there's an order to all of this.
And and frankly, like I think back on it, and
I can't imagine it going another way. Uh, but I
haven't really thought about this before. But this is a
you know, this is not going to be the case
with everybody. You're not gonna necessarily have been indoctrinated into

(11:06):
queuing and line forming early on in life. And I
was reading about this in an interesting article by David
Charosha title Teaching, Queuing Culture and Early Childhood from twenty nineteen,
dealing specifically with queuing in Indonesia. Basically, they write that
while Indonesians are generally considered to be a very polite society,

(11:27):
there generally isn't a queuing culture. Quote. Indonesians will only
queue if they are forced into the system, for example,
queuing at the bank with the ticketing system. And the
author goes on to point out that early indoctrination into
queuing culture is necessary for it to take hold, and
it has to be passed down generation to generation. So um,

(11:47):
I thought I thought it was interesting. I never I
don't think I've really seen that pointed out so much
to me, you know, I'm part of this just kind
of like growing up in a in a queuing culture,
you just kind of assume that this is this is
the kind of of of order that is in stilled
in in you at at an early age. Yeah, And
it'd be interesting to see what aspects in particular of
queuing culture are the ones that you know, you gain

(12:11):
that you learn in young childhood, and which are the
ones that are dependent on the individual circumstances you come across.
I don't know, but I would guess that that there
are certain kind of broad principles, like say, the incorporation
of the first and first out principle um that probably
depend on early learning and uh, and that there are

(12:31):
other things such as like how lines are physically organized,
or like how exceptions to the rule are handled that
might be more dependent on individual local circumstances. If that
makes any sense. Yeah, Like, wouldn't it be interesting if
we if we went really went elementary school and all
of our self organizing lines and we all put ourselves
in alphabetical order whenever we're you know, trying to get

(12:55):
that you know, croissant sandwich or whatever in line, then
there just be a rush everybody to name their children
things that start with like four a's. Yeah, well we're
gonna go by last name. What elementary school did you
go to? Oh? Well, then that just establishes like a
generational aristocracy of the people at the top of the alphabet. Now, um.

(13:16):
One thing to keep in mind about this, uh, this
example from Indonesia and this this author's work, is that
you know, when when we're talking about this, we're generally
dealing in in you know, generalities, we're dealing and if
you say, like, how how are English people at standing
in line? Well, you know that's a very broad statement
to make. But there's there's still some interesting insight to
be had from looking at some of these generalities that

(13:38):
have been pointed out by authors, um about queuing cultures
or the lack of a queuing culture. And I was
looking at one titled A Global Guide to Queuing Philosophies
from Wimbledon to Salpallo uh. And this was on Courts
by an author by the name of Rosie Spinks, with
the tidbits about the various cultures are added by different
reporters who have experience with the sighted countries. So I

(14:03):
recommend reading the whole article. And I assume again these
are all generalities and subject to the problems of being
very general about queuing cultures. But I thought I might
run through them and just give you like the quick
just couple of words summarizations on them. So let's start
with England. England good at queuing, okay, not not really
a surprise. Germany, the article says, not as good as

(14:26):
you might expect. Mexico, this was interesting, good, but you
have this added element of heat. A lot of the times,
if you're dealing with really intense son they say that
you're gonna end up with special rules and expectations coming
into play, like did you bring a fan to the line?
That sort of thing, and are you the only one
in the line with a fan? So that's interesting you

(14:47):
think about environment and all of this. Now with mainland China,
they point out that their start generational differences. For older generations,
it works in spirit, but reality favors the bold. So um,
if there's a chance to cut line, perhaps someone will,
but younger generations will be more likely to cue and
are not concerned about being quote last in line. I've

(15:10):
actually read that in the past couple of decades there
have been like a lot of public messaging campaigns in
China having to do with queuing as like a sort
of part of your civic duty. Specifically, I remember reading
about some of these campaigns in the lead up to
the Beijing Olympics in two thousand eight. Yeah. Now I
should also point out, um, you know there there you

(15:32):
also have areas like Hong Kong where there is a
strong queuing culture, and perhaps part of that is the
British influence. Um, India, there's a queuing culture, but according
to this article, it's it tends to be a compact
queuing culture. So uh and maybe that's just has to
do with with major centers of population and the necessity
of forming lines that are going to be maybe you know,

(15:53):
have a little less space in them. America, the United States,
they say queuing is everywhere, but the exact rule rules
vary depending on where you are, which I think that
you know, vaguely matches up with my experience. Yeah, i'd
say so. Yeah. Malaysia cues form but easily break into disarray.
Poland they say there is a queuing culture with older

(16:14):
generations having lived in a time of long lines, so
you're gonna have, you know, varying attitudes towards what lines
are and what they mean. Italy, the author points, I
had never heard this before, but they this. The author
says that Italians sometimes talk about being bad at queuing,
but they're actually not that bad at queuing. I cannot
speak to this. I've never been to Italy, uh. But

(16:38):
with all of these I'd love to hear from anyone
out there who has direct connections, uh to to any
of these cultures or has traveled there. Perhaps you can
shed a little more light on some of these ideas.
UM Brazil pretty solid queueing culture in major cities. South Africa,
strong queuing culture. This was an interesting Thailand strong queuing culture,
but with some interesting extra rules. So they UM an

(17:01):
author by the name of Adam Passik who shares a
photo of people who have deposited their shoes and books
on on the floor to signify their place in line
while they wait for an office to open. So it's
kind of it is. It is very smart. It gives
you a chance to sit down, but you just place

(17:21):
your shoes or I think in one case it looks
like a book or a folder. Uh, yeah, it's mostly
shoes in this photo, because if I remember correctly, there
are some taboos in Thailand against the placing of books
on the ground, So I'm not even sure that's a
book in that photo. But anyway, it's mostly shoes. But
it also kind of looks like the people that were
in line have evaporated and vanished and left only their

(17:43):
shoes behind. That's the rapture at the Bangkok DMV. Yeah
kind of uh. In this article they say that in
the Philippines it seems like queuing culture is highly influenced
by social standing. And in Nigeria you have a queuing culture,
but some people may choose to sit or hang out nearby,

(18:04):
you know, instead of standing in line the whole time,
and have someone who is standing in line, uh, physically
to hold their spot for them. So lines can be
deceiving when you first arrived, do you find out who
all is actually waiting? In a way, this makes sense
right if you have, especially say the line is is
out in the sign or something, and you have, you know,
an elderly person that doesn't want to stand in the

(18:26):
whole time, you get somebody to hold their place, that
sort of thing. Sure. Yeah, this raises a question of, um,
what do you consider, like what counts as strict adherents
to queuing culture. Does it count as strict adherence to
queuing culture if you're just doing it in the abstract
meaning there's strong enforcement of an organized first and first

(18:47):
out principle, or does it also entail physical ordering of
your of your body in terms of the first and
first out principle? You know what I mean? Yeah? Yeah?
For example, another type of very ation on this one
that sounds like it adheres to the first in, first
outqueuing principle in the abstract of like how the waiting
system functions but doesn't take the form of a single

(19:10):
file line. Uh. This example is that. Uh. And I
was reading about this in an article for the BBC
by David Robson about how in Spain and in some
Spanish speaking countries, a common alternative to physically standing in
line is the kines ultimo principle, so that that you
would go into say a cafe, where various people are

(19:33):
waiting for service, and instead of standing in line, you
ask kins ultimo, who is last, and then that person indicates, yeah,
I'm the last person in line, and so you know
that that person is now the person who you go after,
and they know the person ahead of them, and the
person ahead of them knows the person ahead of them,
and so everybody will still go in order, being just

(19:55):
kind of hang out and wait for the person you
know who is ahead of you to get their service
and then you're next. So interesting to me and that
it's still functionally a single file, first in, first out queue,
but without the physical line, kind of like what you
were describing people might do in Nigeria. Yeah, I will
say from my own experience, I find it particularly confusing

(20:16):
when you have two different queuing systems going on at
the same time. I don't know if you've ever had
this experience, Like if you you show up somewhere and
there is some sort of there they're they're doing both
pre arranged appointments and walk in at the same time.
Because then it creates confusion. It's like, well, who is next?
Is that the person who is scheduled for this time
or the person who is ahead of me in the

(20:36):
physical line? You know, it creates this ambiguity, uh that
it does not seem good for the whole waiting experience. Well,
it's funny that you bring up ambiguity, because I wanted
to get into the concept of the dangers of ambiguity
with reference to cutting in line. So are you ready
to talk about cutting in line? Rob Let's talk about cutting?

(21:00):
So I started off by thinking about the question, Okay,
what do you actually do if somebody cuts in front
of you in line? And in thinking about this, I
was struck by how rarely that has actually happened in
my life, Like, it is such a rare occurrence that
I struggle to think of specific examples that that come

(21:22):
to mind. I guess when it has happened, it hasn't
registered as something immensely important to me, um but it.
But it's also just so rare uh. And I think
in my experience what it is is that it's very
rare for someone to blatantly cut in front of me
in a situation where the rules of the line are clear.

(21:43):
I think the issue with perceived line cutting arises much
more often in situations where there's some kind of ambiguity
in the system of ordering access. And here's my example. Okay,
you're at a restaurant and there's a long wait and
so be uh. You and the person you're there with
you decide you want to try to get a seat

(22:03):
at the bar because the bar is first come, first serve.
And you see there's another couple that's sitting at the
bar and they're about to get up and leave, so
you position yourself to grab their seats when when they
get up and you're standing there waiting and waiting and waiting,
and then finally they get up, but then somebody jumps
in right in front of you and grabs the chairs.

(22:24):
What do you do? Like this is difficult because the
rules are ambiguous, Like you could go and try to
protest and say, hey, actually we were already waiting on
those seats and you just got here, but that person
could say, well, I didn't see you, and I got
the seats first and their first come, first serve, and
and in a situation like this, there's no clear way
of resolving it, like you can't appeal to a rule book.

(22:46):
So usually what it just means is the seats go
to whoever is more selfish, unreasonable and willing to make
a scene. Yeah, this is true, and but I totally
agree with you. Like the moments where I have seen
something like line kind occurring, they tend to be situations
where there is this ambiguity, like it line formation, Like
to say, a bunch of people showing up to say, well,

(23:08):
I think an example that that I think that I
can easily draw on was going to a mass vaccination site,
um where you had a really well maintained line system
and queuing system. But what do you do when you
haven't arrived at the queue yet? And uh, and what
do you see when you you see other people going
towards that spot? You know, I like, I know that

(23:29):
I'm walking at a you know, click faster than a
lot of people. I'm just gonna get there first. You know.
It doesn't mean that I'm cutting in front of them likewise,
but I could see where people might think that it's like, oh, well,
he's really making a bee line to get in line there.
But we're talking about just starts with the crowd assembling
and in forming the line right when it's not clear
what the boundaries of the line are yet, Like is

(23:51):
this the line now or does it only count as
the line once we get over there? Right? Another case
would be really long lines that they kind of break
down at places, like maybe there's a period in the
line where things move really fastly, really really swiftly, and
not everybody's moving at the same speed. I've seen that
create a situation well where some people just walk faster
and they're going to be ahead. But is it cutting?

(24:12):
Is it not it gets up kind of being this
gray area, or it can be depending on how the
queue is maintained. I think another big example of this
kind of ambiguous space with with access to things comes
with like parking spaces. Uh, you know somebody, somebody cuts
in front of you to get a parking space that
you're waiting to turn into, but you know you were

(24:33):
blocked because the person was backing out of it or something,
and and in those cases people can get really mad.
But I guess you do have to admit, well, there's
just like there's not an established rule book here, and
especially if like a person didn't see you waiting, I
don't know what can you do? Well, here's one okay,
when someone is holding a place in line for someone else,

(24:55):
I find I sometimes like to to to think, like, well,
what is the cut off line for not offending somebody?
Because I would offer be the case where like I'll
hold a place in line while my wife and my
son go and do something else, you know, because a
little kid's not gonna want to stand in line, so
maybe they'll go look at a fountain or something, and
then they come back. And so people might think, oh,
I just thought I had one person ahead of me.

(25:17):
I thought one order of ice cream was ahead of
even know, but it's three orders. So at what point
does it become just too much like you have, say
three family members come back, four, five, seven? Or is it?
Or if it? What if it's clear that it's not
family members but just friends, then does it become potentially irritating?
Or what if it what if it appears to be

(25:37):
people who who know each other but we did not
arrive there together. Yeah, yeah, yeah, totally. Um So, I
think it's it's obvious that a lot of conflict about
line cutting arises in situations where there's a lack of
clarity about the norms for organizing access or when there's
a lack of clarity about how to handle exceptions. Um So,

(25:59):
I mean this lee to me to believe that if
I don't know, if you're designing some kind of system
and you want people to have the most satisfaction with
their line waiting process, I would say tend tend towards
really clear rules for how the line works. Is people
really do get get mad in these ambiguous situations when
they don't go their way. But anyway, coming back to

(26:21):
the idea of cutting, Okay, So all of these ambiguities aside.
What if somebody just actually cut right in front of
you in a normally organized line, just clear and blatantly,
they just get in front of you. What would you do.
I'm interested in your answer, But maybe first we should
look at a look at a study about this and
then come back to it. So the famous American psychologist

(26:43):
Stanley Milgram, you know, he's best known for his controversial
experiments in the nineteen sixties on the suspension of personal
morality and obedience to authority. You know, his uh, his
famous experiments where he would have experiment ers uh pretend
to be receiving electric shocks from the test subject in
response to like failed answers on a on a quiz

(27:05):
or something, uh, and have an authoritative guy there in
a lab code telling them to keep doing it even
though the person complained that they were in pain and
all that. Um. And so that that's his most famous
work and most controversial. There are a lot of questions
about what kind of conclusions people should actually draw from
those studies and the ethics of them and so forth.
But later in his career, in the nineteen eighties, Milgram

(27:28):
actually carried out experiments to test people's reactions to line
cutting scenarios, which seems somehow suitably perverse, sort of like
in line with the previous experiments, right. Uh So these
were published in UH in an article called Response to
Intrusion into Waiting Lines in the Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology in nineteen eighty six, and it was by Milgram,

(27:51):
Hillary J. Liberty, Raymond Toledo, and Joyce Wackenhut and uh.
In this article, they quote explored the relationship between the
spatial can figuration of the queue, which is viewed as
a social system susceptible to experimental analysis, and the means
by which its integrity is defended. Confederates intruded themselves into

(28:11):
a hundred and twenty nine naturally occurring waiting lines, and
the defensive reactions of the queers were noted. Wait, so
he just he just sent people out to mess with
folks waiting in line to cut in line. Yeah, he said, Well,
there were multiple So sometimes there would be multiple confederates,
there were different experimental set up. Sometimes some of the
experimenters were actually in the line, sometimes they weren't. Sometimes

(28:34):
they just have one cut in a line. I'll describe
a few of the specifics here, but the general idea
here is that Milgram sent out the experimenters into various
natural queuing areas in New York, for example, lines in
train stations, and I think also in betting parlors, which
sounds especially um And then they would just have them

(28:56):
cut right into the line. They would cut in after
the third person in line and before the fourth without
giving an excuse. I think sometimes they would just say, quote,
excuse me, I would like to get in here. And
people did not like this at all. They recorded all
kinds of reactions. There were hostile glares, shouting telling people

(29:17):
to get to the back. About ten percent of the time,
other people in line physically reacted like pulling or shoving
the violator out of the line. Uh, it's about one
in ten cases. Uh. And yet also a substantial number
of the line cutters got away with it. I don't
know what the number on that was overall, but it
was like it wasn't a tiny minority like it may
have even been in a majority of cases the person

(29:39):
cut in and just got to stay there. Well. Yeah,
I mean, it seems like there's so many things to
take into account if this were to happen. I mean,
on one level, I have to think about with what
confidence they're doing it right. And you know, since you
have a system in place, then if someone is treating
themselves like an exception, I feel like for my part
of one of the things I might consider is, well,
maybe they're supposed to cut in line, you know, like

(30:01):
maybe they have a reason, maybe they work here and
they need to just check with the teller real quick.
Or perhaps they're and a thought like maybe they're undercover
cop or something, and they're just like, you know, this
is maybe not related to the rest of the clientele.
This is really important. I want to come back to
that in just a minute, because I think you're onto something.
But then the other thing, and this is you know,
brought up you brought up the physical um interaction, the

(30:23):
idea of someone grabbing them and pulling them back like
that's that feels like a huge step to take because
you're you're laying hands on somebody, You're you're bringing its
escalating to a level that could have dire consequences for
for numerous people in the scenario. And so you know,
if even if I realize that the person who just

(30:43):
intentionally cut in line in front of me, you know,
has no rightful excuse to do it. I would have
to think, well, do I want to get involved with
this any further, Like, it sucks that they cut in
front of me, but it would suck more if I
got into an argument or even a physical confrontation with them. Yeah,
I mean, it's funny how the norms go both ways.
I mean, I would say, do not ever just cut
in line. That is unbelievably rude. But if somebody cuts

(31:07):
in line in front of you, you do not need
to escalate this to the level of violence. You know,
you don't put your hands on them. You also don't
need to call the cops. I mean you might if
it's a really important situation, you might try to get
the stores manager or whatever it is. But this is
not a situation that merits escalation to a physical altercation. Plus,
I'm not the kind of person who just breaks into

(31:28):
conversation with strangers anyway. And if I do, I need
a pretty good idea that this is going to be pleasant, Like, oh,
they're wearing a T shirt with a band I like
or a movie I like on it. This is a
good sign that we have. We can have a pleasant
interaction for a few seconds. But if if the whole
relationship has been has started with them cutting in line
in front of me and seeming to do so intentionally,

(31:50):
then this, this relationship is going nowhere. Oh. I mean,
that's another thing is you might assume that like if
someone were too cut in front of you accidentally and
you think, oh, this person might be totally reasonable if
you just let them know, hey, actually the line starts
back there. That would be a different thing than somebody
blatantly just jumping in in front of the fourth person

(32:11):
in line and saying I need to get in here.
At that point, I think, okay, this person there's something
wrong with them. This person is very unreasonable, and you
probably just don't want to get into it with them.
But on the other hand, if they seem to have
done it accidentally, they are a couple of ways that
could play too, because it might be well, maybe this
person is I don't know, less aware of their surroundings.

(32:31):
There could be some underlying circumstance, or they're just having
an extremely distracting day, uh you know who knows. And
then and then also I mean, maybe maybe they need
this win maybe they I don't want to be the
person to to break it to them that actually the
line starts back there, because now we're having a negative interaction, right,
And I think a lot of people in the scenario

(32:52):
actually behaved just like we're talking about. Like, like I said,
a lot of people gave sort of hostile looks, but
ultimately didn't do anything, like didn't try to shout at
the person or remove them from the line physically. Part
of it also may come down to the bystander effect.
I'm guessing where there are multiple people behind you, somebody
needs to to boo this man for cutting, But I'm

(33:14):
not going to be the one to boo him. Surely
one of these people behind me will be the booer.
So one of the findings of this experiment was that people,
due to some extent, look to other people in line
for queues as to whether and how the rules of
the line should be enforced. That was discovered by they
found that if they put experiment ers in the line,

(33:37):
So now the actors in this experiment or not just
the line cutter, but also some other people who have
just been following the rules and waiting in line ahead
of time. Uh, and they have, those people do nothing
in response to an intrusion in the line. Other line
standards are more likely to just let the cutter skate
by and do nothing. Also that so that they were

(33:58):
showing to some extent, if there are other people around
and they don't react, you're less likely to react. I
don't know if that necessarily counts as exactly the bystander effect.
I mean, there's clearly I think there's some overlap with
the bystander effect, but that people don't always know intuitively
or don't trust their own instincts about how norms should

(34:19):
be enforced. And so when you see somebody do something
that looks like a violation of norms, probably the first
thing you do is look around and see how other
people are reacting, Like are they starting to yell at
this guy? And if they do, then you might join in,
But if not, you might just assume like, well, I
don't know, I mean, I don't know what's going on. Well,
we're talking about like public outreach and public campaigns, So

(34:41):
you can imagine one that is, you know, like mine
the gap, you know, wait in line and honor the
cue or whatever it happens to be. But unless you
have a specific bit of propaganda that's saying like if
you see somebody cutting in line, boo that man ruin
in a chorus of booze, and you know, and unless
there's some sort of messaging like that, you just don't
know how to respond, right, So clearly, clearly we have

(35:04):
a strong inclination to take our cues from other people
in a in an informal uh system of social norms,
like a self organized line. But then there's some other
things they found too in the Milgram experiment. Perhaps no
surprise here, but people behind the point of intrusion were
much more likely to put up some kind of resistance
than people ahead of the point of intrusion. So clearly

(35:27):
there is some element of self interest at work. The
people ahead of the intrusion were more likely to you know,
just feeling maybe that's maybe none of my business. Also,
perhaps not surprising, resistance was greater when there were two
line cutters than when there was one. So if two
people are kitten in there after the third person, you're
really more likely to get people yelling at you. Yeah,

(35:50):
because you know what you're talking about two people that
are together or two people just independently. Actually, I don't
know what all the permutations they did on on that
part where I mean, I think what it was was
the two were entering the line at the same time. Okay,
I mean I could see it would I could see
where I would escalate things either way because either these
two people were cutting in front of front of me

(36:10):
and they're together and they're like working together to corrupt
the line system, or if it's just two random people,
it's like, what are we doing here? We suddenly there's
just there's just people showing up and just jumping in line,
cats and dogs, you know. Yeah, um, I want to
read another thing from their findings, Milgram at all right.
Quote results suggested that the underlying structure of the queue

(36:31):
is composed of replicated segments, and the defense of the
queue is local rather than systemic. And I like that
because they essentially found that, you know, sort of parts
of the line each have their own local militia to
defend that part of the line. You may be less
concerned about violations to the order of the line that

(36:52):
happened farther away from where you are in it. Like,
if you're the back of the line and it's a
fairly long line, you really don't have much for room
complain about people cutting at the very front. Perhaps no, maybe,
Now there's a follow up in nine by Schmidt at All.
It was a paper called Intrusions into Waiting Lines? Does
the Q constitute a social system? This was also in

(37:15):
the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ninety two by
Burned H. Schmidt, Laurette Dubai, and uh France la Clerk,
and they tested quote whether a waiting line should be
viewed as a social system with norms, roles, and obligations
for cures, or whether behavior in a queue can be
explained solely by individuals personal interest and cost versus benefit calculations.

(37:40):
So does that question make sense? Is a line just
a bunch of people who are each trying to get
as little waiting time for themselves as possible, or is
it more like a society that has some like understood
rules that people will try to enforce. However, however it
affects their own personal waiting time. Yeah, that that that
makes sense. And what the authors here found is they said, Yeah,

(38:03):
it really looks like like lines are more like social
systems with norms and rules, more like a sort of
mini society than just a you know, a pure like
efficiency maximizing game where people are trying to get out
on their own as fast as possible. And one example
they gave of this is that people in line will
will quite significantly make a distinction between a quote legitimate

(38:26):
intrusion into the order of the line and an illegitimate one,
even if the weight is the same length. So if
you have somebody coming in who gives some explanation, that's like,
you know, they're a service provider and they have to
get in in front of you in line to do
something here in the line. People understand these exceptions and
incorporate them just fine, even if it means waiting an

(38:48):
additional amount, uh the same amount that they would wait
if somebody made some kind of illegitimate intrusion into the
order of the line. So people are like understanding reasons
for things, and they're acting out norms based on those
reasons rather than just trying to get out as fast
as they can no matter what. How is this not
like a nineteen eighties Stephen King short story, because I

(39:11):
can think of multiple works that he did, where be
it like The Mist or The Dome where you have
a system where people are put into a certain situation,
and then like a social order, he emerges out of
the that predicament. I could see an entire at least
a short story, really bad one though usually it's a
bad one. But but yeah, just waiting in line, especially

(39:32):
if you there's some mystery as to what you're waiting
in line for. And that's that's perfect stuff for for
some sort of especially in nineteen eighties theres Kings short
story You can't have a healthy line without a Mrs
Carmody inciting the line against cure number four. Um, okay,
but oh another thing that I thought was interesting, So

(39:53):
as to the rules that people play within a line.
You might think, okay, a line is homogeneous. Everybody in
the line is basically waiting, you know, they're all doing
the same thing, but they're actually In this study, they
found there seems to be an implicit special role for
the person directly following the intruder in dictating the overall
response of people in line. Quote, the cure right behind

(40:16):
the intrusion point has a special obligation to respond to
the intrusion. Is this ring true to you? Yeah, I
mean I guess. So it kind of comes down to
the individual versus the group, Like if the individual is
not offended, then it's then perhaps the group has less
room to be offended. Maybe, I mean I would think
that Again, it probably comes down to people looking for cues.

(40:38):
People don't know how to react to something, and they're
looking for cueues to get from other people. And it
seems like the most natural place they would look for
that queue is what is the person right behind the
intrusion doing, and that that person would have a lot
of influence socially over your idea of what the correct
kind of response is. Yeah, I mean also depending in

(41:00):
the queuing culture, perhaps that person who just joined the line,
maybe maybe they were taking a bathroom break or something,
or maybe you know, they were they were holding a
spot for them, or maybe there were shoes on the
ground and I just didn't notice it, you know anything.
These things could be Uh, it could be part of
the equation. Yeah, I think that makes sense too, because
you might assume that the person right there in the

(41:21):
line has some kind of information that you don't. Yeah, well,
maybe they're together. Maybe maybe maybe it's two people that
are going to see the movie together and one just
had to go buy some popcorn. Or something. How offended
can I be that now they're there are two people
where there was one before. But this does bring me
back to the question of what counts as a legitimate

(41:41):
excuse in cutting in line? Right, Like, if so you're
waiting in line of the grocery store or you know whatever,
a service point. You know, you're trying to check out
at a store, and somebody comes up to you and says, hey,
can I get in front of you in line? Because
and you know, they say something, what kinds of excuse
is are legitimate to you? And would make you say

(42:02):
like yeah, okay, And what are the other mitigating circumstances
that would affect that well? I I think of lines
that have formed to use a toilet as being a
great example of this, because there there's a biological um
factor here that cannot be ignored, and you're going to
have room for age also to play into it. So

(42:24):
if it's like a young child that's doing the PP dance,
you know you're gonna nobody wants to be responsible for
a child paying their pants, So you would say, yes,
please go go ahead of me, take both of you,
take this child ahead of me, and go use the facilities,
or if somebody were to explain it to themselves to
to to you and be like, hey, I am about

(42:45):
to just have a terrible incident occur. Uh, you can
spare us both this if you just let me in
front of you, then you would be like, yes, by
all means, I am not having an emergency. If you're
having an emergency, you should definitely go ahead of me. Yes.
That's interesting because I was just thinking about how my
reaction to somebody asking to get in front of me
on line in line might actually have more to do

(43:06):
with what's going on with me than what's going on
with them. Like I, I would tend to think I
would be happy to let people in front of me
for something basically, no matter what their excuses in most cases,
if I'm not in some kind of dire situation myself.
But if I'm in some kind of dire situation where
like I've got to get out of here right now,

(43:28):
you know, I've got to get this done, and that
that would be the thing that would make me reject them,
not the question of what their actual excuses, because in
most cases, if I'm checking out at a store or something,
it's like, well, if fine, I don't care. Yeah. The
more I think about it, though, I think that something
like explosive diarrhea is always an excuse to get to
the front of the line. I'm having trouble coming up

(43:48):
with a single case where someone would say, excuse me,
can I cut in front of you? I'm about to
have explosive diarrhea a case where I would say, no,
absolutely not. But if it's like a mine for the
hot dog stand, well then they need to they need
to pick up lunch. But then they need to go
somewhere else. Yeah, okay, But I don't know. I guess
in some cases I might be like, look, i'll talk

(44:09):
to the line, Um, you go use the bathroom. We
will find a space for you. Um when you get back.
I don't know. I mean, I guess that's a situation
where the social order of the line has to provide
thank thank you, thank you. So concerning the idea of
a legitimate excuse for line cutting, I wanted to refer

(44:31):
to a classic study in the social psychology of queuing.
This widely cited and pretty interesting. Uh this one this
time is from the Harvard psychologist Ellen Langer. It was
actually by Langer, Blank and Channawitz, published in nineteen eight
called the Mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful action the Role of

(44:52):
placebic information and Interpersonal Interaction. Again, this was in the
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. And I found a
good summary of of this whole study in another paper
by A. Kleinberg at All in two thousand eighteen, and
so this is the Kleinberg at All summary of the
study here. Langer at All in nineteen seventy eight asked

(45:13):
subjects in their study to make some copies. Just as
they were about to do so, a confederate asked to
jump in front of them. In some cases, the confederate
gave no reason at all, quote excuse me, I have
five pages? May I use the xerox machine? In others,
a reason was given, quote excuse me, I have five pages.
May I use the xerox machine because I'm in a rush.

(45:36):
The third condition had the veneer of a reason, but
it actually had no informational content. Quote excuse me, I
have five pages. May I use the xerox machine because
I have to make copies. People complied at similar rates
to both the actual reason and the pseudo reason percent

(45:57):
and ninety three percent, respectively. For six with no reason.
What explains this finding? People see a situation they have
seen before and their automatic response kicks in to avoid
the effort of processing the rest of this setting. Consistent
with this view, when the costs of complying go up
when the Confederate wants to copy twenty pages, not just five,

(46:20):
compliance to the pseudo reason is similar to what it
is in the no reason condition. Um So, I thought
this was really funny when I first read it, that
that people are just as likely. I mean, it's equal
numbers to let you cut in front of them as
long as you say because something, even if the because
statement is utterly inane, I may I use the xerox

(46:41):
machine because I have to make copies, right, unless you
have a stronger because yeah, then we know, what's the point,
You're just gonna be like, oh okay, yeah, you have
an exception you should go first. So I guess this
is this one is actually a little bit less about
queuing and more about how we uh whether and how
we incorporate information in making decisions at the spur of

(47:03):
the moment. But I like how when you think about this,
this could I think be applied to other scenarios. Where
where people have some excuse they want to get ahead,
and as long as they appear to have an excuse,
even if it's not really an excuse at all, you'd
just be like, yeah, okay, what I don't care, Yeah,
I think something. I was thinking about this. Thinking about

(47:25):
it in relation to traffic, It's kind of like if
you're in the fast lane and you were going let's
say you're already going five to ten miles over the
speed limit anyway, Okay, you're pretty going, going pretty fast,
you qualify as fast, but then somebody comes up behind
you and they're going really fast. Now, sometimes this will
um inflate the ego a bit, and you may think

(47:47):
I am already going fast enough. I will not get
into the slow lane because then I will be stuck
behind the tractor trailer rig for the next mile or two. No,
I am staying here. And you may ride behind me
and um and ride you know, dangerously close to my
bumper and uh occasionally flash your lights, but I will
not move. Uh. That's one way to go about it.

(48:08):
But then for my part, and sometimes my mind entertains
that sort of thing. But other times I'll read more
reasonably think this person is driving maybe a little dangerously,
and I would rather that person be in front of
me than behind me, and I should just let them go,
even if it is going to inconvenience me a little bit.
When I'm stuck behind a tractor trailer rig and I

(48:30):
kind of feel like that would be the case with
somebody who really wanted to get in front of me
at say the Xerox machine. Do I really want that
person behind me looking over my shoulder, like waiting on me,
like that's gonna especially if I don't really know how
to use the machine and go. I want to I
want to have a calmer experience with a Xerox machine. Right.
The awkwardness of having this person looking over your shoulder

(48:52):
and and trying to get out behind you maybe like
factored in at a higher cost in your brain than
the time cost of just letting them go. Yeah, and
it's just five copies, So what's the harm? Right now?
All of this this is partially because I just watched this,
and I think you just watched this as well, But
the the the excellent sketch comedy series. You should leave

(49:14):
with Tim Robinson. I think you should leave. I think
you should leave. Yes, I think you should leave with
Tim Robinson. Um. So many of those sketches are situations
where there's some sort of like a weird, awkward social
interaction and one side or the other is vastly overreacting
to what's occurring. And I feel like you could you
could basically adapt this Xerox machine sketch uh without even

(49:37):
altering it much into a very entertaining Tim Robinson sketch
because I have to make copies. Yeah, I didn't think
about this, but so many of the Tim Robinson sketches
are about situations where there's some kind of ambiguity in
the rules and someone exploits that ambiguity to a ludicrous

(49:58):
degree and then has a monstress overreaction to people's reaction
to their exploitation. Uh, Like the nachos scene from the
first season where she has did you come over here?
And and to tell him to ask me not to
eat the fully loaded nachos and he's just saying as yeah.

(50:20):
Or there's a there's a second season sketch where the
professor that the three four students are having dinner with uh,
he wants to eat what the other person ordered. So
you know, there's this whole this pushing of the boundaries,
like it's joking. Yeah, I'm just joking. And then ultimately
can I have a bite of that? And he has
a bite it, and then he's like, I'm gonna keep
I'm gonna eat. I'm just joking. Though he eats it,

(50:43):
but he was just joking. Oh that's good stuff. Now,
I will advise you know, the Tim Robinson Um comedy series,
I think you should leave. It is not for for everyone,
it is not for all ages, and it is sketch
comedy in general, I guess is you can be wildly uneven. Uh,
and I definitely find that show to be wildly uneven. Um.

(51:04):
It's like some sketches are are ingenious in their stupidity,
and some I just I feel like I just to
just totally blow past me and I don't understand what
the point was. Um, But you know, again, that's part
of sketch. I think in the first season some sketches
that just totally blew past me the first time really
grew on me in subsequent viewings. That's yeah, I think

(51:27):
it's kind of a masterpiece of well. Yeah, sometimes like
the non like something that's really nonsensical if it's repeated enough,
it takes on an order and since uh and so
there are certainly examples of that in the show where yeah,
you tell one bad joke or or one weird but
maybe not particularly funny joke, Well, okay, then nobody laughs.

(51:48):
But if you keep doing it, if you just keep
doing it, and you just ramp up the intensity, then
you can get somewhere and uh and it can work brilliantly.
It's definitely one of the greatest original to Netflix things
up there. The Dark Crystal. For me, I'm sad we're
never going to get more of but glad we got
there and there might be more of it. Um. Oh really,
I thought that they had said that there was going

(52:09):
to be no more. Well, there's not gonna be any
more of it on Netflix, but I think that the
Giminson Company has has has or is looking into ways
to continue the story. So who knows what will that be? Wonderful?
I believe I have not been, but I believe the
Atlanta's own Center for Puptry Arts currently has an exhibit,
an updated Dark Crystal exhibit using pieces from the TV series.

(52:31):
Oh wow, I'm gonna check that out. I'd seen their
other Dark Crystal exhibit, which was which is great. Yeah, yeah,
this is kind of a part two of that nice
All right, Well, we've we've we've drifted away from the
topic at hand here, but we're going to return to
the line in a third episode. We have more stuff
to talk about, uh, not only waiting in line, but
just sort of waiting in general, like how does it,

(52:53):
how does it affect us? How does it affect our
moods and our perception of time. We're gonna get into
that and more in the next step episode of Stuff
to Blow Your Mind. In the meantime, would of course
love to hear from everyone out there, and we've been
hearing some great stuff from folks about waiting in line.
So keep it coming. And if you want to listen
to our show, you can find core episodes on Tuesdays

(53:13):
and Thursdays, and the Stuff to Blow your Mind podcast
feed artifacts usually come out on Wednesday's Listener Mail on
Monday's Weird House Cineam on Friday, that's our time to
set aside most of the science and just talk about
a weird film, and then we have a rerun on
the weekend. Huge thanks as always to our excellent audio
producer Seth Nicholas Johnson. If you would like to get
in touch with us with feedback on this episode or

(53:34):
any other, to suggest a topic for the future, just
to say hello, you can email us at contact at
stuff to Blow your Mind dot com. Stuff to Blow
Your Mind is production of I Heart Radio. For more
podcasts for My heart Radio, visit the iHeart Radio app,

(53:55):
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you're listening to your favorite shows.
The point four point four