Re: the airplane proposal, I would worry that people are too panicked in an evacuation to think through the scenario rationally, and would still grab their stuff out of instinct, possibly even slowing down evacuation by trying to then re-stow it. It's also not a repeat game in that a single person is very unlikely to evacuate an airplane multiple times, so people wouldn't be able to learn from their mistake (unlike the examples in your post with children). It's a great idea for rational actors, but I don't think people are rational actors in an evacuation. It still might be worth experimenting with the idea though to see if it works.
It's a holiday. The cousins are over, and the kids are having a great time. Unfortunately, that includes rampaging through the kitchen. We're trying to cook, so there's a "no cutting through the kitchen" rule. Imagine enforcement looks like:
This doesn't work! The kid got what they wanted out of this interaction, and isn't going to change their behavior. Instead, I need to make it be not worth their while:
Other examples:
Sneak candy, spit it out and forfeit dessert.
Use sibling's tablet time, lose your own.
Interrupt, be ignored.
The general principle is that if you want to limit behavior the combination of the gains from rule-breaking and penalty from punishment need to put the kid in a worse position than if they'd never broken the rule.
This isn't just a parenting thing: it's common to say that "crime should not pay", and many legal systems prohibit unjust enrichment. One place I'd like to see this implemented is airplane evacuation. If the safety announcements included "In the event of an emergency evacuation, any carry-on luggage you bring will be confiscated and destroyed. You will also be fined." we would have more JAL 516 (379 occupants, zero deaths) and less Aeroflot 1492 or Emirates 521.
Comment via: facebook, mastodon, bluesky