 |
Elevator Etiquette: Who Gets the Shaft? |
| No Comments » |
Elevator Etiquette: Who Gets the Shaft?
Game Theory and Economics in Everyday Life
By Ben Kling
There are some definite advantages to the vertical campus model around which Emerson is structured. For example, the greatest possible commute between classes amounts to less than two blocks. This is something we can all appreciate, especially during those cold New England winters (roughly October through March). Another bonus is that someone who, like me, possesses no spatial reasoning skills can find his/her way to class without a GPS strapped to their forehead. When you compare our setup to that of—for example—NYU, we’ve clearly got the better deal. But what we manage to subtract in foot traffic, we make up for in elevator traffic.
As Emerson students, we are forced to learn the delicate social nuances of the elevator ride. The time we spend in those little chambers is rife with potential awkwardness—a veritable minefield of faux pas. There are rules for cell phone use, eye contact, food consumption, and nearly every other action that can be performed in a 7x4x4 box. Although “Elevator Etiquette” could function as an umbrella term, encompassing all of these rules and their respective categories, it has become a totum pro parte that refers to a very specific branch of cable-lift courtesy.
For the uninitiated, Elevator Etiquette refers to a practice of self-sacrifice in the interest of creating maximum convenience for all. If you live on floor n and another passenger lives on floor n+1 (or n+2, depending on how much of an EE purist you are), you must, by the principles of Elevator Etiquette, refrain from pressing the button and directing the elevator to your own floor, instead riding up the extra floor(s) and taking the stairs down to floor n. This is supposed to spare the person from the higher floor a period of waiting while the person from floor n gets off, and is advertised as the optimal solution for the good of the whole.
Of course, the system allows for flexibility in situations involving multiple persons and multiple floors, as well as people who are carrying heavy items or are in a rush to get to class. For the most part, though, if the floor of person a is lower than the floor of person b,
if f(a) < f(b)
and the difference is no greater than two floors,
and |f(a)-f(b)| ≤ 2
person a must cede their right to a direct elevator ride.
These two terms can be expressed in a single if/then expression:
if -2 ≤ [f(a)-f(b)] < 0, then sucks for person a.
Nearly everyone at Emerson is familiar with Elevator Etiquette, whether they abide by it or not. The general attitude is that this double-edged sword of courtesy works—for the most part—to benefit us. Ya can’t live with it, ya can’t live without it. (Unless you live on the top or bottom floor, respectively.)
Those who allow others to circumvent the ritual feel and act as though have made a concession, saying things like “no, I don’t mind.” Indeed, the higher a student’s floor number, the more entitled to EE they feel. A resident of the 12th floor of the Little Building might consider it a sort of birthright—and understandably so, given the arduous nature of a two-minute elevator ride. Such proponents of the system would be much happier if this correspondent didn’t reveal to you, dear reader, the truth about Elevator Etiquette.
To understand this truth, we must understand the term allocative efficiency. The kind folks at BusinessDictionary.com offer a concise definition:
[A] situation in which (with the given state of technology) it is impossible to generate a larger welfare total from the available resources. In other words, the situation where some people cannot be made better off by reallocating the resources or goods, without making others worse-off. […] It indicates that a ‘just the right balance between pain and gain’ has been achieved.
If we look at an elevator ride as an economic system, it is easy to apply this concept. In the elevator, as in any economic system, “choices in resource allocation produce both ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ relative to the choice being evaluated” (Markovits 21). In this case, the sought-after resource is the direct elevator ride. This resource cannot be allocated to both person a and person b. Therefore, any decision will render each either a winner or a loser.
According to Markovits, “a change in policy increases allocative efficiency as long as those who benefit from the change (winners) gain more than the losers lose” (22). In a situation (A) wherein person a abides by Elevator Etiquette, the total inconvenience (or loss) for all involved is
one trip down the hall and down 1–2 flights of stairs for person a
(which might take one minute [and a significant amount of energy] to complete). The total gain is
one direct elevator ride for person b.
In a situation (B) wherein person a chooses to disregard Elevator Etiquette, the total inconvenience (or loss) for all involved is
one period of waiting for person b
(which might take about 10 seconds, and an insignificant amount of energy). The total gain is
one direct elevator ride for person a.
We can’t use units like ‘one period of waiting’ and ‘one stairs-trip’ to determine actual net-gain and net-loss. If we focus on time, however, using seconds as the unit, it is proven that situation B is more economically efficient for the whole. In addition, it is reasonable to assume that, in an economic system that replaces dollars with joules (a unit of energy), situation B remains the more efficient allocation of resources.
To simplify things and abandon units, the two direct elevator rides cancel each other out algebraically leaving us with a choice: (A) one trip down the hall and down 1–2 flights of stairs for person a, or (B) one (short) period of waiting for person b.
While situation B does favor person a, it is by less than situation A favors person b. In Markovits’ words, “those who benefit from the change (winners) gain more than the losers lose.” Not only is situation B economically better, it is also the best possible solution to the system, which can be referred to as the Pareto optimum. In the context of game theory (a type of applied mathematics used in strategic situations), since none of the players can improve their own outcome by changing their move, situation B is also an example of a Nash equilibrium, named for Jonathan Forbes Nash Jr., a pioneer in the field of game theory and the subject of the 2001 film, A Beautiful Mind.
So why do most Emersonians subscribe to such a silly and unnecessary ritual, despite the fact that it increases overall inconvenience with regard to both time and effort? Because of the socially constructed faux pas? (Is that a tautology?) Because we’ve become inured to it? Because it’s not really a big deal, and it would be stupid to delve into it—let alone write an extensive analysis of the process? All valid points. However, I think our compliance with this tyrannical standard is indicative of a more disturbing social phenomenon: the death of deviation.
William G. Zikmund explains in his book The Joyless Economy: An Inquiry into Human Satisfaction and Consumer Dissatisfaction, “Modern technology creates great possibilities, but it also pushes us towards standardization and uniformity, both of which inhibit our ability to exploit the possibilities it creates” (137). Most man-made systems—whether governments or elevator lifts—were created with the intention of conserving effort and making our lives easier. Yet a society of people whose engagement with these systems is passive, rather than active, cannot take full advantage of them. To accept something like Elevator Etiquette as the optimal solution without questioning it is to forfeit your ability—some might say abandon your duty—to improve the systems that govern us.
To those who remain in support of this silly practice: you are still encouraged to question whether what others say is right is the best option for you. You are still encouraged to exercise your freedom to disobey. You just might question if the elevator is the best option for you, and exercise your freedom to take the stairs.
***
Works Cited
“economic efficiency” BusinessDictionary.com. WebFinance, Inc. July 12, 2010
Markovits, Richard S. Truth or Economics on the Definition, Prediction, and Relevance of Economic Efficiency. New Haven, Conn.: Yale UP, 2008. Print.
Zikmund; William, G. “The Joyless Economy: An Inquiry into Human Satisfaction and Consumer Dissatisfaction.” Journal of Marketing (pre-1986) 41.000002 (n.d.): 137. ProQuest: ProQuest Health Management. EBSCO. Web. 12 July 2010.
