
Want people to do the right thing? Save them the guilt trip - canada_random1
https://psyche.co/ideas/you-want-people-to-do-the-right-thing-save-them-the-guilt-trip
======
aeturnum
I agree that framing issues in a way that allows people to avoid feeling like
they have done something wrong is more effective. I also think most activists
are aware of this.

I also think that crafting positive, uplifting messages requires a certain
level of societal support. Hard to know what one could buy to stop police
brutality right now, for instance. I suspect people will come up with things.

When I see a protest right now I don't think about a carefully crafted
campaign. I think about a tent revival[1]. Just like a tent revival, sinners
are welcome as long as they already want to repent, but there's not going to
be a lot there to make you feel good if you aren't a believer. I see the
Social Justice left as being in a phase like "young atheists"[2] or young gay
people go through when they first embrace their identity: loud and proud and
insistent that others recognize their validity.

I think a lot of people mistake preaching to the choir as preaching poorly to
the unconverted. It's not unique in any way to the left - people often mistake
messages that are intended for the conservative faithful as outreach and mock
it for its ineffectiveness.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tent_revival](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tent_revival)
[2]
[https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/8rjtsi/young_athei...](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/8rjtsi/young_atheist_phase/)

~~~
roenxi
> I see the Social Justice left as being in a phase like "young atheists"[2]
> or young gay people go through when they first embrace their identity: loud
> and proud and insistent that others recognize their validity.

Can this get expanded on a little bit? How does one recognise some else's
validity?

I get the simultaneous feeling that leaving them alone isn't what they want,
and me waving my hands and pronouncing them (eg, a young gay) valid is likely
to get a very negative reaction. Who am I to decide what is and isn't valid.
What exactly does that mean in a what-do-they-want sense?

My guess is they want other people to copy them so they can build a community,
but I'm sure there are other interpretations.

~~~
aeturnum
> How does one recognise some else's validity?

Actually a very hard question with a million answers for a million different
combinations of identity and scenarios.

At a high level I think recognizing validity takes the form of a social
acknowledgement that someone else as "as much" right as us to be in public
space. You can think about LGTBQ+ folks going out glammed-to-the-gills, or how
the modern gay rights movement started after police raided a gay bar for no
particular reason, or slut marches protesting sexual harassment. These are all
people doing things in public that are taboo in a way that's related to their
identity (gay people acknowledging their sexuality in public / people dressing
in revealing ways) and demanding they be treated with respect. Often even if
they are shouting rude things.

For a more heteronormative example you could think about the distraught parent
who might break social norms when their child is hurt or killed. If you're a
doctor and you have to tell the parents their child is dead and they scream at
you, you don't treat them like they're random people on the street. You
respect their validity and understand that they are dealing with a lot and
your feelings aren't top of mind[1].

It can also be as small as not asking where someone who is a little racially
ambiguous "where they're from" before you get to know them. Not because the
question is rude exactly, but because it's probably a question they get a lot
and it highlights the difference in your backgrounds.

[1] This is actually very hard on medical professionals even if we all
understand!

------
cousin_it
Guilt-tripping isn't morally neutral. It's manipulation, exploitation, getting
people to do what you want without giving them what they want. Doing it is
evil and makes you evil.

In my late teens and early twenties I constantly guilt-tripped people close to
me. It was my "thing". It hurt everyone a lot. Then one day I realized how
sick it was, and stopped completely. Now I never do it to anyone for any
reason, and push back whenever someone does it to me for any reason. I
recommend this approach to everyone.

~~~
bartread
> Doing it is evil and makes you evil.

Whoa: hold on just a second there. I don't necessarily disagree with your
wider point but we need to step away from this inflammatory and accusatory
language.

You said that you used to guilt-trip people constantly when you were younger,
and then you stopped when you realised how sick it was. Doing it didn't make
you evil: it made you immature, and then you grew out of it.

Except that - and I sort of hate that I'm pointing this out - you haven't
_entirely_ grown out of it because you recommend people not do it but then
brand them evil if they do. That's guilt-tripping, and it's manipulative and
inflammatory. (Still, we all have our off days and revert to type from time to
time, so please don't see this as a personal attack.)

Anyway, my wider point is this: part of maturing is developing better and more
effective social skills. Hence many people change a _lot_ between their late
teens and mid-20s.

Not everybody does though. If guilt-tripping and similar kinds of manipulative
behaviour become the pattern someone follows throughout their life (i.e., they
don't choose to grow out of these behaviours) that _might_ make them evil, but
let's try to avoid almost literally demonizing vast numbers of people who are
probably just immature.

~~~
adnzzzzZ
Branding some behavior as evil isn't guilt tripping, it's just branding the
behavior as evil. I agree with the person you replied to that guilt tripping
is an evil behavior. People do all sorts of evil behaviors without realizing
it, their lack of awareness doesn't make it any less evil.

~~~
TeaDrunk
Is it evil as in intentionally malicious? It's possible to harm people without
intending to harm them, in the way one can accidentally step on another's
foot, or an eager arm hits someone's face- neither of these are assault per
se. I've always taken guilt tripping as a consequence of unhealthy mindset
when approaching a concern.

~~~
adnzzzzZ
People's mistakes happen in the most offhanded ways. Swept along from moment
to moment, they fall into evil. Without reason, consideration or dedication,
the next thing they know they're on the wrong path as if it were the only one.

Yet by contrast, "I was doing the right thing without realizing it", "The next
thing I knew, I was doing good deeds", "In a moment of carelessness, I helped
someone". You never hear those things and you surely never will. Righteousness
cannot exist without intent and righteous action requires righteous intent.
You can't do the right thing unless you consciously try to.

Under this view, unintentionally malicious actions, such as abusing guilt
trips without being aware or caring about their harm, are still evil because
by default, to prevent them, you have to be aware and paying attention, and if
you aren't that's your failure to act righteously.

~~~
TeaDrunk
> Yet by contrast, "I was doing the right thing without realizing it", "The
> next thing I knew, I was doing good deeds", "In a moment of carelessness, I
> helped someone". You never hear those things and you surely never will.

I disagree with this statement. I carelessly do things and people tend to
thank me for my kindness and helpfulness, even though I was never intending to
do it. People will do the right things without realizing it all the time, in a
thousand little ways. I can talk to a friend just to talk, but to my friend,
it may have been a sudden, unexpected, and welcome reprieve from a dark and
lonely mental space. I can share an otter video because I think otter youtube
is great, and in doing so adjust someone else's viewing algorithm away from so
much unhealthy/addictive/extremist stuff on that site.

People's actions are rarely with real justice or malice in intention. Most of
the time it is nuances of grey, thoughtlessly. Humans don't have the mental
capacity that would be required of thinking otherwise.

~~~
adnzzzzZ
>People's actions are rarely with real justice or malice in intention. Most of
the time it is nuances of grey, thoughtlessly.

My point is that thoughtlessness is by definition evil and that working under
that assumption is better than not. You disagree and that's fine. We won't
really reach an agreement over this by arguing I don't think.

~~~
TeaDrunk
You haven't addressed the thing I'm confused about. I can do things
thoughtlessly and people thank me for being helpful. This goes against your
statement that goodness cannot happen without just intent.

~~~
adnzzzzZ
Righteous action requires rightful intent because it always requires effort.
Thoughtless action doesn't and is also subject to the whims of the
environment. In your examples, your "good" actions are nice, small things that
required nothing out of you, they just required you to act like how the
environment (other people) expects you to act. The more you increase the
effort necessary to carry out a "good" action, the more conscious effort will
be necessary, and the more the phrases I mentioned will become true.

Additionally, as I mentioned, thoughtless action is subject to the changing
environment. What is considered good now is different from what was considered
good 100 years ago and what will consider good 100 years from now. If your
actions are thoughtless you are simply a product of your environment, no
matter how warped and disgusting it may be.

If your environment rewards small good actions, you're not actually acting
righteously, because you're just reproducing what's expect by your
environment. When the environment turns sour and what's considered good starts
becoming more and more warped, you will not have the will to resist it because
your actions are thoughtless and not righteous. You will fall into evil, like
everyone else, swept moment by moment, without caring about what you're doing
as long as the environment responds well.

------
PeterStuer
The carrot and stick ... it's complicated.

Some people will respond better to one or the other. Also, the carrot of
'feeling good about yourself' has many nuances.

An anecdote:

We used to live in a village that had a few kilometers of semi-rural 2 lane
road leading to it. Even though this road was outside city limits, it had many
driveways and side streets on it so the speed limit was 50 km/h. At the time
we had 2 cars, one regular family car (VW) and one luxury car (BMW).

I always drove at the 50 km/h speed limit. However, when I drove the VW 70% of
drivers would overtake me, while when I drove the BMW nearly all drivers would
fall in line behind me. This was consistent over years, and extremely obvious
once you noticed it. Apparently people are influenced by the behavior of
others, but how that influence is achieved can depend on subtle factors.

Another example: For decades there where 'informational feel good' campaigns
trying to get drivers to stick to the speed limit on the town's ring road.
Decades without any result. When finally a plethora of speed cameras were
introduced, the speeding problem was solved in a few months.

~~~
atoav
I think the best approach is usually a combined one. Think about drinking and
driving.

Just shaming/punishing people for it isn't going to solve it, if there aren't
e.g. pull factors like practical solutions to avoid driving when drunk,
recognition for people who don't drink when driving needs to be done etc.

I think often the worst thing is existing culture. So things like: "It is not
manly/cool to wear a seatbelt." Would a Hollywood action hero wear a seatbelt?
Certainly not!

Things like these are very hard to get rid off and take time and maturity.
Endangering yourself and others is neither cool nor manly, it is a mechanism
to show others how invincible you feel you are: the modern day equivalent of
banging on your chest. Ironically people who are actually strong and secure
rarely ever need to do all that chest banging.

~~~
DarkWiiPlayer
> I think often the worst thing is existing culture. So things like: "It is
> not manly/cool to wear a seatbelt." Would a Hollywood action hero wear a
> seatbelt? Certainly not!

In one TV show called "Forever" (spoilers, btw.) there's a nice scene where
one of the characters is driving a car at gunpoint and gets out of the
situation by driving into a wall and releasing the bad guys seatbelt right
before impact.

There's nothing inherently uncool about seatbelts; it's just a matter of how
it's presented. "Heroes don't need seatbelts to drive a car" makes as much
sense as "Heroes don't need guns for a gunfight".

This proves that the rules of coolness can sometimes be shifted away from
valuing recklessness. The same effect might be possible for other areas as
well.

------
renewiltord
Wait, this is great. It means the guilt trip is very good at entrenching a
viewpoint. So if you want to fuck someone over, find something he's doing
that's hurting him and guilt trip him till he doubles down.

You can do this at the whole society level: for instance, no society that
underemploys some large fraction of its populace will effectively compete
against an equivalent one with efficient workplace participation.

So you can then blame them for all sorts of things. Guilt trip the Arabian
nations for low participation of women, the Mississippis of America for low
black participation. They'll double down and not correct. Then you beat them
by just being better at using your people.

Sadly the article only hypothesizes this and doesn't talk about concrete
evidence for the entrenching effect but one can hope.

~~~
raxxorrax
> Wait, this is great.

Slave labor can be more "effective" than workers with rights.

~~~
colechristensen
Debt is much more effective than slavery. Unless misery is your goal, you can
do a much better job at extracting value from people and keep a population
working for your benefit with debt. It has a way of making both sides feel
like what is happening is “right” while having the same effects.

------
darth_avocado
"you're wrong" \- Best way to win over someone you disagree with

~~~
didibus
I've been trying really hard to replace all my usage of "you're wrong" with
"yes and".

Another good one I'm trying recently is: "You're right to think that given the
information you know, and here's some more information you should consider."

Oh and: "That's a great hypothesis, here's another one."

~~~
jagrsw
> I've been trying really hard to replace all my usage of "you're wrong" with
> "yes and".

How does it work with e.g.?

    
    
      A: 2+2=5
      B: Yes and....
    

I've seen this advice in some local guideline for holding effective meetings,
but there are certain scenarios where saying

    
    
      'yes and' or 'this might be true from your POV, but please consider' 
    

feels more like trying to manipulate someone than just trying to figure out
something (agree on sth), esp. when it's a technical discussion.

~~~
didibus
A: 2+2=5

B: Yes, and I believe it's 4.

This is a mutually respectful dialogue. You don't pretend to know better.
You're just each sharing your ideas, and if they conflict, you'll open a
dialogue into why they think it is 5? And here's why I think it is 4. And then
you can both try to resolve the conflict and see why you think differently and
what the correct answer actually is now that you've considered both.

In your example, it might seem a bit silly, because of how certain we all are
that 2+2=4. That said for anything less clear cut, you can really see where
saying "Yes and" is better.

A: Unit tests are more important than integ tests.

B: Yes, and I believe integ tests add more value than unit tests.

That said, it really depends who you're talking too. If someone is super open
minded and welcomes disagreement and are constantly trying to test their
knowledge, you probably won't need any of this. But if someone is less
receptive, less confident, has a big ego, etc., Then you do need to manipulate
their emotions to have them be more receptive.

~~~
cutemonster
> You don't pretend to know better

What if one really knows better though, eg talking about life at a place where
you've been, but the other person never was there and is just guessing?

I'm thinking a problem then can be the bystanders / co-workers: now they're
going to think 5 is a fairly ok answer, when you didn't very clearly disagree
about that?

Especially if the other person sounds self confident.

Any thoughts about how to strongly disagree, in a polite way, when the other
person is crazily wrong in a slightly harmful way?

But I think too that in most cases, especially when talking one and one, the
Yes-and or sth like that probably is a good approach

~~~
didibus
> Any thoughts about how to strongly disagree, in a polite way, when the other
> person is crazily wrong in a slightly harmful way?

If the other person is actually trying to misinform, it'll be hard. If they're
really genuine, I think doing the above gives the bystanders enough info to
choose for themselves. Like, you still should disclose the information you
have, so say you have been there, and that it wasn't at all like that from
your first hand experience, etc.

The thing is, you won't convince everyone, but you'll have a better chance at
convincing others if they hear you out and consider what you're saying openly.
So that's kind of the idea here.

~~~
cutemonster
Maybe instead of "yes, and.. " one can day something like "interesting to
hear. That's actually very different from how things were when ..."

> if they hear you out and consider what you're saying openly

Yes I agree

------
Barrin92
_" The potential of positive self-directed emotions has largely not been
embraced by activists. The worry could be that it might make those engaging in
the cause appear self-satisfied or selfish. But these studies suggest that,
instead of focusing on ‘doom and gloom’ messaging that zooms in on people’s
shortcomings and risks alienating them, policymakers and strategists might
find that positive messaging, speaking to people’s positive sense of self,
might be a more powerful lever of behavioural change."_

getting results like this from giving study subjects a questionnaire is nice,
but is there an actual real world, macro example of somehow inducing positive
self-images on a large scale and seeing the desired effect?

I think negative, external reinforcement has a much stronger real-world case.
One only needs to look at the behaviour in countries like China or Japan,
where guilt and social punishment has been used as a tool for probably
thousands of years, with actual results. Singapore's a place that is well
known for getting people to do the right thing, I'm not sure they managed to
do it with pats on the back.

And to pick up the examples from the article, environmentally-friendly
behaviour, haven't we seen real results after we began, often with aggressive
campaigns, how ruining the environment is both wasteful and harmful, having
turned symbols of excess into symbols of shame?

~~~
josephg
(This is pop-psych so take it with a grain of salt.) One way it’s been
explained to me is that guilt and shame are tools for suppressing action and
passion. They’re really good tools to get someone to stop doing something; but
terrible tools to get someone to start. To start a new initiative you want to
be motivated. But guilt/shame are tools of _disengagement_. They suppress our
capacity for proactive action.

~~~
breakfastduck
This rings true to me.

You see it, especially with racial issues, that when (mainly white activists)
shame other white people for being white (and ergo automatically racist),
those being shamed generally retract even further away from potentially
engaging with the issues

------
dcolkitt
Once again modern psychology confirms the intuitive wisdom of Dale Carnegie.
The very first maxim in _How to Win Friends and Influence People_ is "don't
criticize, condemn of complain". And the reason for this:

" _When dealing with people, remember you are not dealing with creatures of
logic, but with creatures bristling with prejudice and motivated by pride and
vanity..._ "

~~~
hackeraccount
I like Adam Smith's version in The Theory of Moral Sentiment. People want to
be loved and to be worthy of love. People will act if they think they're
actions will promote both of those things.

It kind of gets at the limitations of flattery too - people will re-act
positively up to a point (they want to be loved and what's flattery if not a
declaration of love?) but if they suspect that they're not worthy of the love
being offered then they'll reject it.

Guilt trips are frequently the reverse of that. They put too much emphasis on
what it takes to be worthy of love but not enough that doing whatever if it is
will cause the person to be loved. But then again if you believe someone is
doing something wrong it's possible you might make that person understand
they're doing something wrong - it's a lot harder to convince them you'll like
them for not doing it. People understand resentment too much I think.

------
werber
Anecdotal, but in Detroit we don't have recycling pick up. One of our
recycling centers started making recycling an event, you show up, organize
everything by it's proper number and you get a free concert, and then they
also throw pretty awesome parties (pre-covid, for everything) for the full
moon and Detroit specific events. It's not perfect, but it was exciting to see
people recycling for fun

------
Xc43
Life is unfair & no one wants to feel bad.

I am not white nor black.

I have been innsulted by social justice individuals for defending my friend
who was being insulted by them.

Whether right or wrong, insults are not the way to cooperation. Everyone is
challenged differently and some less than others. What matters is not my
prestige or wealth compared to another, what matters is that I am content and
live with dignity. I will never be treated as another nor do I want to, I am
me. I have dignity and although I am not fully content of my situation, I am
joyful because I have faith what I am doing is right and will lead to
contentment.

The problem is an identity centered around attributes. The solution is an
identity centered around objectives.

Color is minor. Respectfulness is not. For being treated without respect by
SJWs I now avoid them. I have dignity as they do. I will not tolerate being
mistreated.

Stupid is the idea that attributes physical or spiritual as sufficient to
determine your tribe. Goals are better. People change, spiritually and
physically.

Goals are ideas in action. If I had to write a hierarchy of identity defining
objects I would go with: 0) Goals (what I want) 1) Spirit (what I think) 2)
Body (how I look)

As far as I understand, it is already like that. Looks trickle from ideas
which trickles from goals.

That is why a common enemy is a cause for union. i.e. a common goal. This is
why the race to the moon united americans (common goal, again).

------
SubiculumCode
If only dentist would follow this practice

~~~
drdeadringer
I cannot agree with you more.

The last thing I need from a dentist, and the first thing I will get from a
dentist, is a lecture about what brought me in to the dentist.

I know why I need to go see a dentist. I don't need them to repeat back to me
what I've been telling myself but with a flavoring of guilt-trip, I need to
know how bad it is and what to do to move forward.

~~~
antisthenes
You need to cut them some slack too, they're just human. Every doctor will
think the part of the body they're responsible for is the most important.

If people actually followed all the different doctors' advice, they'd be
healthier, sure, but only because they spend every waking moment taking care
of their X body part.

~~~
drdeadringer
Point taken. Thank you.

------
pyuser583
Best way to get people to do the right thing: pay them to do it.

~~~
acituan
> Best way to get people to do the right thing: pay them to do it.

This is strictly not the best way because it both requires the extra cost of
reinforcement to be administered, and tragically fails for anything we haven’t
installed that mechanism for. It is practically impossible to install
reinforcement points for every single agent and for every single thing they
do.

Intrinsic motivation is simply much cheaper, making people _want_ to do the
right thing by their internalized codes, by reinforcing the frame in which
they see themselves as moral people, reinforcing the benefits of reciprocity
and gift economy.

This is why purity codes are much stronger in rural communities where most of
the transactions are not through money but good moral standing. Granted, those
codes themselves can easily get outdated, and distributed moral standing
calculations basically limit the practical group size to a function of Dunbar
number, but the alternative of codifying desired behavior in monetary or legal
terms is just too blunt and easily gameable.

------
bredren
I believe Andrew Carnegie called this recommendation for influencing others
“give a bad dog a good name.”

~~~
lern_too_spel
You probably mean Dale Carnegie, author of How to Win Friends and Influence
People, and not Andre Carnegie, steel magnate.

~~~
abraae
Indeed. Andrew Carnegie's missives were less noble, and more fitting of a
steel magnate:

"Immense power is acquired by assuring yourself in your secret reveries that
you were born to control affairs."

~~~
aurelius12
Wow. I feel like I just read a line from some kind of James Bond comic book
villain. I know he was serious, and that he's probably right, but still, wow!

------
ccleve
Lovely. A psychological study on how to manipulate people into supporting your
social agenda.

How about using, you know, reason? Treating them like adults? Give them pros
and cons so they can make a rational decision?

~~~
Nursie
> Give them pros and cons so they can make a rational decision?

If that actually worked we wouldn't be having this conversation. People,
particularly in large groups, use emotion, tribalism and ego protection over
reason.

If reason and fact worked well to change minds, we wouldn't have idiots
"rolling coal".

~~~
throwaway316943
People “roll coal” because they perceive your ham handed attempts at reasoning
with them as an attempt to force them into a sudden change that will probably
have some immediate negative consequences for them. It’s a defensive reaction
provoked by attacking them.

~~~
skrap
I don't think that's the full picture. I think people "roll coal" because they
get pleasure from causing frustration by their actions. It's all about "owning
the libs" or similar.

I drive a prius, and several times I have seen coal rollers cross several
lanes of traffic to sit in front of me with their stacks spewing. They don't
know anything about me other than the brand of car I choose, but it's enough
to make them go out of their way. It's got to be a positive reinforcement
mechanism.

I think the reason why you can't have a rational discussion is that it will
play directly into this cycle! Give someone a choice between an uncomfortable
analysis of their own behavior versus a pleasurable peel out with yet another
frustrated do-gooder in their wake, and they'll choose the latter each time.

Honestly I think they'll just have to get bored before they stop.

~~~
throwaway0a5e
>frustration by their actions.

Frustration _among the people they perceive to be trying to screw them over_
is the key part you're missing.

>They don't know anything about me other than the brand of car I choose

Whether you like it or not the things you do, including the car you choose to
buy, send a signal. The signal happens to not be accurate in your case.

~~~
Nursie
> Frustration among the people they perceive to be trying to screw them over
> is the key part you're missing.

Right, but the original conversation was in respect to giving people the tools
and information they need to make good decisions.

At this point those tools and that information has been out there for a long
time.

So if they perceive that people are trying to screw them over, then we've just
come full circle and proved the point - Treating them like adults and giving
them pros and cons so they can make a rational decision _has not worked_.

------
anang
I think what makes it harder with social movements is that they’re often
rooted in anger. I’m sure “fund social programs” would have a wider appeal
than “de-fund the police” (which is sort of two sides of the same coin), but
people are angry at the police so that’s where the focus is.

I think getting through that anger and encouraging people to find a positive
and affirmative way to express the same sentiment is an extremely difficult
task, and really asking a lot of people.

------
known
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility)
!=
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility)

------
pinopinopino
Ah, propaganda 101: "If you want to influence your enemy, make sure he/she
sympathizes with you". I also read an interesting article about this, that
conservatives do care about the environment if you give it the correct
emotional cue.

E.g. instead of saying they have to save the environment for the future
generation (which perhaps generates a guilty feeling), we want to preserve
nature to keep it as it is (which they view as a positive thing, preservation
of that which is good), they suddenly gave a lot more money to the cause.

Same here in the Netherlands, conservatives here fight for gay rights. Simply
because it is part of our tradition. They also fight with all their might for
Black Pete, look it up, because there is the constant blame game being played
and they feel that the tradition is attacked. And how much I love the
tradition, the current Black Pete has some stereotypes baked in. And am I a
nationalist and conservative, a rare breed in my country ^_^

I am curious what happens if there is a positive sound. E.g. tell them to go
back to an older tradition, Black Pete as ferocious demon helper of Saint
Nikolaas. Would they still oppose change? My guess would be that there is less
of an issue then and people will experiment with new image.

Perhaps something to try out locally.

~~~
rimliu
I don't really get this obsession with preserving the status quo. It is not
universally good and by doing so we may prevent good things from happening.

~~~
pinopinopino
Just like how changing things is not universally good. Let's not get into that
discussion ^_^ I am a mixed bag on that anyway, sometimes change is good and
sometimes preserving things is better.

------
hliyan
From a systems point of view, the conclusion makes sense: one is an unstable
equilibrium in your mind (guilt vs. desire) while the other sets up a virtuous
cycle.

------
jimhefferon
Asking people what they would do in a given circumstance is without value. You
have to observe what people actually do.

------
monadic2
...in the context where collective problems are foisted on the individual.

I ain't gonna start ragging on individuals less for individual failures.
Communication is the only way forward.

------
sundvor
You want _all_ people to do the right thing? Fine them if they don't. It's the
only thing that's helped us get the virus under control.

Greetings from Melbourne, Victoria, currently on stage 4 lockdown because
enough people are selfish and don't care (unless threatened).

EDIT: (Leaving my original text unmodified above) Agree that this sounds
crass, and probably not very cultivated by HN's standards, but it's from the
point of view of extreme frustration with the situation - having done all the
right things myself, only to see it undone by others who just don't care.

I _did_ observe significant changes of behaviour after the fines started
getting press coverage. I believe it is indeed incredibly hard to reach out
and educate the masses, but when the health of our society depends very much
on the last few %s doing the right thing, and this segment is so hard to get
to, then drastic measures do have a play. It definitely ought to be backed up
by other educational efforts though.

This crisis is making me think hard about where we draw the lines on
individual freedom, when they can cause harm to others. Also, having said the
above, a number of breachers were in the upper echelons of society financially
wise - so it's definitely not a clear cut thing about who needs to start
caring more.

~~~
njsubedi
Yes, same goes for following traffic rules. You cannot just fix the traffic
problems by patting people on the back for stopping at the red light. You need
to fine people as much as possible; the higher the fines, the lower the cases
of traffic rules violation.

~~~
throwaway0a5e
Sure you might get the traffic on I95 to actually go the posted limit of 55
with North Korea-esque enforcement but if your goal is to prevent traffic from
having an absurd differential it's probably better for everyone to increase
the number on the sign.

Same goes for intersections that violate people's expectations of what should
be a stop vs a yield.

Traffic is all about making interactions predictable so people know what to do
and how to do it right. Reducing variance in behavior is far more important
than what the speed is or how any given traffic control device is treated.

Traffic rules are all about dumbing down these complex fuzzy patterns into
something we can codify, enforce and build consistent signage/markings for.

With the number of un-legislated edge cases ratcheting up fines is a recipe
for resentment among the populace (possibly leading to different voting
patterns not in favor of whoever driving the push for fines). Strict
enforcement usually comes with the nasty side effect of being regressive and
having demographically uneven outcomes. Lax enforcement results in variable
behavior. For example some people stop religiously at a certain sign, some
people don't, body language indicating someone is going to do one and then
they do the other can lead to unpredictability in the eyes of the other road
participants (e.g. pedestrian trying to cross there) and bad outcomes.

The modern thinking (borne out by studies) regarding traffic is that the best
approach is to make it easy and natural for people to do the right thing. Want
people to take a stop sign seriously instead of mostly yielding, turn your Y
intersection into a T. Want to slow people down without reducing visibility?
Paint narrower lanes.

