Let the Other Guy Merge

In the wake of terrible terrorist attacks, there are bound to be various reactions, a veritable Venn diagram of the understandable, irrational, inexcusable, and all other stripes.  I read one today about how, if you encounter someone who believes that the answer to terrorism isn't violence, you should punch that person in the face repeatedly until they agree with you that violence is awesome.  Or some such bullshit.  And unfortunately, that Venn diagram circle with "Understandable" written on it encompasses many, many responses.  It's understandable.  You want to fight back.  Who wouldn't?  You want to kill all those terrorists dead and then there will be nude volleyball and free beer for all.  Right?

It's hard to find fault with the idea, at its base level.  Terrorists do something violent.  We can't let them get away with it or they'll keep doing violent things.  How else can we punish them but with violence, because catching individual terrorists is tough and frequently violent anyway and in most cases futile because terrorists commit suicide in order to do horrible things.

Terrorists are, for want of a better metaphor (and this one came to me first so it's what you get) the asshole drivers of the world.  They seem to care not at all if they put themselves in danger of injury or death, they don't respect laws, they have selfish agendas, and they cause more problems for other people than they do for themselves.  And they get away with it.  Gah!  Those asshole drivers always get away with it.

So imagine yourself in a traffic jam (probably caused by assholes too; is there nothing they won't do to ruin your day?), being good, maintaining your lane, not suddenly cutting around people.  You're a good driver.  You don't take advantage.  And this entitled asshole in his red sports car, clearly more important than everyone else as he talks on his cellphone, weaves around into the lane that's about to end and then tries to merge ahead of you.  Not a cop in sight.  He's going to get away with it, the asshole.  He's going to endanger his own and your life in order to get ahead.

What do you do?  If you're like anyone reasonable, you honk.  You even pull forward so he can't get in.  By God he's not going to cut you off.  And you do it!  He's left stalled at the merge point waiting for some other fool to let him in, while you make it out ahead.

And you've just broken the law.  Yep, there are laws on the books which say you shouldn't do that.  Not that you're likely to be caught or punished, but you just lowered yourself just a bit.  You are no longer a good driver.  You are a mostly-good driver.

And what's worse?  Traffic scientists agree that you're perpetuating the problem.  The most efficient method, least likely to cause traffic jams (not to mention safer) is merging late and doing a zipper merge.  Don't believe me?  You can ask the DOT.  Or don't take their word for it and ask any number of other traffic studies.  Not only that, but an effective way to disperse traffic jams is to keep your following distance nice and wide.  In other words, the sensible thing to do is to let the asshole get away with it.

Why?  Well, it turns out that the traffic jam probably wasn't an asshole's fault anyway.  It was probably caused by a sufficient density of cars, all good drivers like you, which made them a bit too close together, at which point somebody, probably not an asshole, hit their breaks a bit too hard causing a cascade of braking which led to a traffic standstill.  That's how maintaining good following distance can help break up the jam; if you don't have to apply your brakes as much, people behind you will similarly be able to maintain forward motion, leading to a reverse cascade (in the best circumstances) which frees the snarl.  And that's why merging late and zipper merging work too: because all lanes are being used to their maximum capacity, density is lowered, and when people zipper merge properly, there aren't stoppages, leading to smoother traffic flow and preventing the cascade.  And crazily enough, at least according to this very interesting site and others I've read, it doesn't take many people behaving properly to have a large effect on a jam.

But suppose the initial brake was caused by an asshole either being an asshole and slamming on his brakes or causing someone else to do so with his asshole driving?  Shouldn't the traffic gods somehow punish him for his behavior with a jam?  Turns out, not so much.  The initial asshole will get away with it regardless; he'll be long gone before the traffic piles up.  And if everyone drove more in accordance with the law (which mandates following distances that are generous to say the least) the jam might not happen anyway.  So mostly-good drivers have to shoulder at least some of the blame here.

But what does that have to do with our original asshole, the one who's not merging late and zipper merging, but rather cutting you off?  Shouldn't he have to pay?  After all, no one else is in his lane, so the system isn't working.  Thing is, someone will have to let him in, and by making him stop completely you're forcing someone else to stop completely where you might have been able to slow down rather than stop, particularly if you preserved the proper cushion to allow merges.  You're not just driving illegally, you're forcing someone following you to inherit your problem, but now bigger.  You're... kind of being an asshole.

But if we allow assholes to get away with it in the name of the common good and not stooping to their level, doesn't that mean that they win?  Doesn't that, in fact, incentivize being an asshole?  Pretty soon all the assholes in the world will be taking advantage of you, getting where they want to go while you sit twiddling your thumbs.

If that happens, two very interesting things occur.  One, if becoming the "asshole who doesn't merge early and cuts in at the last minute" becomes easier, soon everyone will be doing it and, wouldn't you know it, the density of traffic is reduced just like they said it would be.  And that's with everyone being selfish.  Pretty soon the two merge lanes have no comparative benefits.  People just stay in whatever lane their in.

But then won't the assholes dominate?  No, because of the second part of the equation: mutuality... I mean, the zipper merge.  Sure, you let one asshole in front of you, but then it's your turn, so you get to go, and then the guy in the other lane, and then the first lane again, and so on until hey, we're all merging.  The lanes no longer have an asshole status, merging  late is the proper thing to do, and suddenly there's no way for the assholes to game the system because all they can do is stay in their lane and merge in like everyone else.

But what about the inevitable assholes who merge ahead of their turn, or who decide to game the system and merge early because it looks like the other lane is moving faster.  Well, here's the part that's going to hurt the most.  If we're all following at the proper distances and respecting the rules... there's very little we can do about those assholes.  They will be able to drive at 100 MPH, weaving through traffic, and merging ahead of their turns with impunity.

So the assholes win.  What a depressing prospect.  But what do they win?  For starters, an asshole who merges ahead of turn gets at most one car ahead of where he would be (yes, all the assholes in this discussion are men because, let's face it, statistics bear out that men are giant assholes on the road).  And an asshole who weaves through traffic might be able to do it and achieve some gains, but because he's not cutting people off, he's not as much of a menace to others.  Plus, if everyone else is abiding by the rules of the road, those assholes are going to stand out like a sore thumb, making it more likely (that's all you'll get) that they'll be spotted by the 5-0.

What else?  Well, because we're all letting the assholes get away with their small gains, we're safer as above, but we also get the satisfaction of knowing that even if an asshole does something in his nature, he doesn't cause a traffic jam.  We're able to adjust.  We all get there a bit faster than if we'd been stuck in traffic.

Well all of that was cool, you're thinking.  But while I see the parallels you're trying to draw with terrorism (mostly because you spelled it out at the beginning and then beat it over the head) you can't seriously expect me to make foreign policy decisions based on a metaphor with traffic patterns.  What kind of pinko commie-lib running-dog...

Let me just stop you there.  Because that's not what I'm doing.  Hopefully you can enjoy the fairly artful way that traffic and terrorism match up, at least in metaphor, but I'm not trying to change your mind about what to do about terrorism because of traffic science.  I wanted to look at something deeper.  Because when you say, "Kill all the terrorists!" you're having an understandable reaction.  As would you if you pulled up to block the asshole from getting ahead.  You're looking for a world where justice works.  And you're putting yourself ahead of the common good, even if what you're doing winds up serving the common good (debatable in the terrorism case, not so as we've seen in the traffic case).

We all want to live in a universe where the evil get what they deserve.  We want justice.  That's what people crying for blood want, for the most part.  Sure, there are the lunatic fringe who want super-justice, like killing off everyone in the Middle East, or maybe they don't even see it as justice and they're just racist.  But the vast majority of people want justice and safety.  Just like the vast majority of drivers are good drivers.

So when we see someone hurting others and seemingly getting away with it, our first instinct is to bring them to justice so that it can never happen again.  That's two impulses really, but they feed one another.  In our traffic metaphor, I bet we've all wished that not only would the asshole have to wait but that something terrible happen to him.  It's a dirty little secret, but we've all been there.  And yes, there are the nutcases who, either out of a sense of justice or rage or just insanity, decide to do more than just block the asshole.  That way road rage lies.  But we're human, so we accept that we're wishing someone ill and don't follow through with it.

The difference in stakes and perception is instructive here.  We perceive the terrorist threat to be almost existential and mammoth, whereas an asshole getting to be an asshole another day is just a minor annoyance.  But statistically, that asshole is more dangerous than any terrorist.  Would it then be right to execute him on the side of the road in order to keep the good drivers safe?  But in any case, whether our perceptions are right or wrong, it's understandable that we wish for justice and a cessation to any further threats by the same asshole, whether terrorist or driver.

I'd like to delve deeper into justice vs. retribution at some later point, but for now let's just assume that retribution doesn't enter the picture.  We are wholly moral and we only desire justice and safety.  Nor will I delve into, "Justice is mine, sayeth the Lord."  We're understandably helping ourselves in this regard.

But notice what happens to the driver who desires justice and puts himself ahead of the common good.  Firstly, he damages the common good.  Secondly, he becomes something of an asshole himself.  And thirdly, and this didn't really come up during the discussion of the metaphor but, he doesn't actually stop the asshole.  For one thing, maybe it doesn't work.  Maybe the asshole, despite our hero's best efforts, manages to cut in anyway, but much more dangerously because the space has tightened up.  Or maybe the asshole only loses one car length and is able to cut in behind our hero.  What has our hero actually accomplished?

Again, I'm not at all saying that traffic solutions and counterterrorism are equivalent, or that you can use lessons from one in the other.  Well, maybe I am saying that a little, but not so much as to suggest that because the best strategy in traffic is, in essence, appeasement, it follows that the same is true in terrorism.  I'm merely asking for you to look at two similar situations, both governed by human nature.

Suppose, for sake of argument, that the two metaphorical partners do mesh up in the real world, and that not seeking justice is the way to go with terrorism too.  There are all kinds of other solutions besides kill 'em all, but we don't have to pick one; we merely have to say that in this circumstance as in traffic, retributive action (the technical term for what you're doing when you keep someone from merging because they're being an asshole, not having to do with the justice vs. retribution thing) is non-ideal.  Your response might be, "So we're just supposed to let terrorists get away with it?"

Yes, it's true that the cooperative approach in traffic still allows assholes to succeed in being assholes.  And here's where I finally get to the crux of my argument: sometimes you've got to let them.  Eventually the cost-benefit ratio will even out and being an asshole will no longer be a reasonable thing, but that supposes two things: first, that everyone is reasonable, which they aren't, and second, that there will be some non-zero period of transition where assholes are going to get away with it a lot and you won't be able to stop them because the system won't have hit equilibrium.  The first point means that yes, there are always going to be some assholes, which means that terrorism is going to be a thing forever, because some people just don't give two shits.  And the second means that yes, terrorists are going to continue to be able to attack us, not as checked as we'd like, for a while if we let this play out.  Possibly too long.

But again, that's presupposing that terrorism is a simple model, which it isn't.  Traffic has a wrong thing to do and a right thing to do.  Terrorism has many possible solutions, all of which may be viable in certain places and times and to certain extents.  Hell, though I've argued pretty forcefully against it here and elsewhere, violence may be the answer.  It may not be an answer which leaves us any better than our enemies, but it might stop terrorism eventually, putting us in a new equilibrium where terrorism isn't a thing because we've literally killed everyone who could be a terrorist (again, my doubts).  I'm not arguing solutions here.  I'm just saying that right now, we've just been cut off by an asshole.  We're in traffic and it looks like he's going to win.

And here's where we finally get to the reason why I'm posting this in a blog devoted to homilies.  No matter what we decide, we're going to have to get used to the fact that even in the best solution, the asshole might succeed in being an asshole sometimes.  Does that mean he wins?  Not necessarily.  But it likely means that, at least for a while, traffic jams are going to happen.  And we have to let them.  We have to let the other guy merge.  We have to, dare I say it, turn the other cheek.

Because if there's one thing that can be certain, it's that without examining our options, we have no idea what the best solution is, any more than I would have known that merging late and zipper merging was the best solution without looking into it.  And this is a way more complicated problem.

We seek justice, but sometimes the world is seemingly unjust.  And in the face of injustice, all we can do is turn the other cheek, or we wind up going off half-cocked and killing everyone.

And that is why we will continue to go off half-cocked.  Because the brutal fact of the matter is that humans would rather get quick justice than lasting common good.  If we get this pissed off about merging, why should be be anything but irrational in the face of terrorism?

If you've read my metaphor and digested all the bits and pieces of it, now it's time for my opinion: the current traffic jam we're in might be able to be traced back to an asshole or it might simply be a well-meaning mostly-good driver, but that doesn't really matter.  What matters is that we continue to live in this traffic jam, passing it on to cars which haven't even been built yet, because no one is willing to let the other guy merge.  And every time someone brakes hard to stop an asshole from getting ahead, it just creates a situation where more and more people are going to get fed up with dealing with the traffic and try to be an asshole themselves, because while we don't promote it, we're certainly not stopping it.