The Indicator Hypothesis
By D. T. Arcieri and C. D. Arcieri
State University of New York, Farmingdale, USA; James W. Young Middle School.
A very wise man once said, “There are two types of people in this world: givers and takers”.* This made us reflect. Although it seems simplistic, this categorical approach to defining fundamental human qualities does have merit. One look at the myriad behaviours of strangers in public, or friends and family in more private settings, clearly underscores this premise. People do behave many times in unmistakably generous or selfish ways. Some open doors for you, but others cut in front of you in queues. Some bake cookies while others eat them all.
But can givers and takers be identified unambiguously independent of overt behaviour? Certainly, complicated and subjective measures would not serve this purpose. For example, having individuals fill out long psychological questionnaires aimed at differentiating the thoughtful from the thoughtless would, no doubt, result in a skewed ratio favouring the former over the latter. Therefore, a simple, objective measure would be of more value with respect to the accurate placement of individuals in one category or the other.
Suggested in this study is a singular marker: the use of the indicator when driving. Automobile drivers, for the most part, can be categorised as either those that signal or those that do not. As signalling is the legal, safe and courteous behaviour, we believe that those who use their indicators are most likely givers.
Since not signalling is illegal, unsafe and thoughtless, we take that as sign that the driver is a taker. The purpose of this study is to identify individuals as givers or takes based on whether they signal or not. More importantly, the cumulative data will tell us what percentage of the population are nice and thoughtful as opposed to rude and selfish. The authors sat on a street corner up the street from their house for half an hour. In that time they counted how many cars turned using an indicator and how many did not. The analysed data (seen in figure 1) shows that 68% used their indicators and 32% did not.
But can givers and takers be identified unambiguously independent of overt behaviour? Certainly, complicated and subjective measures would not serve this purpose. For example, having individuals fill out long psychological questionnaires aimed at differentiating the thoughtful from the thoughtless would, no doubt, result in a skewed ratio favouring the former over the latter. Therefore, a simple, objective measure would be of more value with respect to the accurate placement of individuals in one category or the other.
Suggested in this study is a singular marker: the use of the indicator when driving. Automobile drivers, for the most part, can be categorised as either those that signal or those that do not. As signalling is the legal, safe and courteous behaviour, we believe that those who use their indicators are most likely givers. Since not signalling is illegal, unsafe and thoughtless, we take that as sign that the driver is a taker. The purpose of this study is to identify individuals as givers or takes based on whether they signal or not. More importantly, the cumulative data will tell us what percentage of the population are nice and thoughtful as opposed to rude and selfish. The authors sat on a street corner up the street from their house for half an hour. In that time they counted how many cars turned using an indicator and how many did not. The analysed data (seen in figure 1) shows that 68% used their indicators and 32% did not.
We can thus conclude that: if the driving population of our small town reflects society in general then 32 % of Americans, and possibly all of humanity, are takers. This is clearly a bummer and probably the fundamental reason the world is such a mess. Not that we can do anything about it. But it’s good to know, anyway.
On a more practical level, identifying takers before they strike will be advantageous to givers. For instance, if the car behind you does not signal when turning into the movie theatre car park, then don’t sit next to that driver in the theatre. Obviously a taker, that person will talk during the movie, answer their ringing mobile phone and crinkle sweet wrappers right behind you.
* Personal communication from Norman Dietz, D.T.’s father-in-law and Christian’s grandfather.
On a more practical level, identifying takers before they strike will be advantageous to givers. For instance, if the car behind you does not signal when turning into the movie theatre car park, then don’t sit next to that driver in the theatre. Obviously a taker, that person will talk during the movie, answer their ringing mobile phone and crinkle sweet wrappers right behind you.
* Personal communication from Norman Dietz, D.T.’s father-in-law and Christian’s grandfather.
More stories from the Null
 |
Cure for ADHD Found |
 |
Boffins Bottle Eau D'Estuary |
|
 |
Solar Panels to Power USA |
 |
New Species Of Sifaka |
|
Share this
