Exceptions
Some might say that society is built on rules. Laws set by governments, rules set by individuals and collective codes of behaviour that we are all expected to follow. But are there two types of people: those that follow the rules and those that make exceptions? How do we define a rule and what makes an exception?
In this week’s podcast, we discuss rules and exceptions. We discuss motorways, religion, the slippery slope, covid-19 lockdown restrictions, the psychology of rule setting, herd mentality, “the bubble” in poker and the Rule of Law Index. Finally we share our favourite arbitrary rules that have been imposed upon us.
A few things we mentioned in this podcast:
For more information on Aleph Insights visit our website https://alephinsights.com or to get in touch about our podcast email podcast@alephinsights.com
Transcript
Hello and welcome to the Cognitive Engineering Podcast produced by me, Fraser McGruer for Aleph Insights. In this series of podcasts we take a look at interesting topics and discuss what we think they tell us about analysis and decision making. I'm here with Omar Jamil, Nick Hare and Chris Wragg of Aleph Insights. And this week we're discussing the M27. Is it the M27 or M23? It's the M27. Brilliant. Of course it is, yes. Yeah, but could we talk for a bit about the differences between those two fine thoroughfares? Well, I don't even know which one's which. Same here. M23 goes down... Oh my God, I didn't mean it. Yeah, Omar, which one goes where? Sorry, go on, Chris.
Speaker B:Down from the M25 to Brighton. Well, no wonder you know that one. That was 27 or 23. M27 goes from east to west. One's a north-south, one's east to west. It goes from Portsmouth or Chichester to past Southampton. What do the locals call it though?
Speaker A:The M27. Oh God, I wish they'd give it the proper names. OK, you came up with this podcast subject, no wonder.
Speaker B:It's essentially a detailed exploration of British motorway naming conventions.
Speaker A:In the south and southwest of England. Correct. Right. Sorry, so motorways that I know. M1. Yep. Best one. M6, Manchester Way, Toll Road. I'm struggling now, I'm struggling. M11, out towards Cambridge and where I stand stood, that sort of way. Sorry, we've just lost 100% of our viewers. No, no, no. But we've gained a whole load more. Yeah, but you'll forget. You like the M1. M40. But you're forgetting about the A1M, which I like because it's like it goes through a little bit of its, it's just an A road and then suddenly it blossoms into this wonderful motorway and then we're back to just the A1 and off it trundles up to Scotland.
Speaker B:Yeah. Maybe we should get back. As much as I love motorways.
Speaker A:Thank you, as always, for listening. Yeah, Chris, keep going.
Speaker B:Right. So it's not specifically the M27 we're here to talk about. Oh no. But an accident on the M27, or rather a traffic delay on the M27. Okay. So we were driving back from, I think, London to our home in Bournemouth and we were driving along. We have to go along the M27. Because the M1 would take you the other way. Well, correct. It'd be in totally the wrong direction. Yes, as we've established. Anyway, so we were coming along and we were using Google directions and my wife spotted, oh, they've closed. Actually, there's a delay at the moment on the M27. We should come off at, you know, this junction and there's a diversion and that diversion will add, you know, like half an hour on to our journey.
Speaker A:I think it was a bit more entertaining when we were just comparing motorways. Let's just go back to motorways. Can we cut to the chase? No, no, no, no. You need to get the details. I like this. Otherwise, otherwise. I can feel the calm before the storm here. This is nice.
Speaker B:So driving along, diversion, off we went. And when we rejoined the M25, sorry, M27, an hour later, we come on and I can see all the cars going in the other direction, all jammed up. And that delay I checked afterwards was like a several hour delay, like you're stuck on the motorway for five hours or something or more, like not moving. And there was, as the slip road went up to the motorway, the police had put some cones out to stop more traffic going on. And there was one car, the other side, I mean, there were cars as far as you could see, but there was the car that was most adjacent to the line of cones that had gone on to the slip road that was stuck there now for five hours, which could have reversed out and gone on a detour and gone about their business. It's merry way. It's merry way, exactly. But instead, it was sort of essentially sentenced to this massive inconvenience just for being the wrong side of a set of cones. And I thought, oh, you poor so-and-so. Oh, couldn't they have let them reverse back off again, you know, because they're only one car ahead. But then, of course, the next car would have wanted to do so and so on. And I thought, right, how do you... You've got to have rules. And how do you draw those lines in the sand? What is your mechanism for doing so?
Speaker A:Well, things are more developed in the rest of the country because our motorways, where I live, are made of tarmac and stuff, but yours are made of sand, it sounds like. But anyway.
Speaker B:Well, yeah, I think the problem is, what happens is the motorway surface, because it's made of tarmac, melts when there's an accident and then they just have to shut it down because it's obviously not safe to travel on.
Speaker A:So let's pose the question. I sort of interrupted you stupidly there. What's the question? Frame it for us.
Speaker B:Well, the question is, there are decisions that society makes all the time where there has to be a cut-off point in that thing. So it's, you know, let's say you're handing out the tax thresholds, right? You know, other sorts of areas to do with, you know, only people above a certain height can go on a roller coaster ride. All those kinds of things. There has to be a cut-off and you're like, well, would, you know, 0.1 of a centimetre make a difference? But there are these sort of situations where a rule is made about some seemingly arbitrary measurement and then that has to be adhered to. And the question is, is that right? Those kinds of decisions, are they right? But if you are going to make them, where do you draw your line in the sand?
Speaker A:Yeah. How do we navigate it? And this reminds me, I've banged on about this before, about, you know, my kids is a really good example. My son's with the summer born, three months premature when they go to school, year cut off, all that business. Yeah. But I think you there, that example is absolutely perfect for what we're talking about. But your beef isn't with the line so much as the rule. So I think, you know, you were saying, no, it should be nine months from conception, not, you know, a certain number of months since they were born or something. You're suggesting that the rule should be based on when we think conception happened. Well, it is essentially. I bet you're going to describe it and it'll turn out that's exactly what it's based on. Well, of course, in one sense, yeah. But what's your proposed rule? No, it's not about the rule. It's about the authority behind the rule that I don't like. Right. See, now, I knew this would happen because I think this is an incredibly common category of argument that I get into with people. Go on. And well, I think there's really fundamentally two types of people when it comes to these kinds of rules. But there's the look, we've got to draw a line somewhere. You must understand that a line must be drawn. It doesn't always. But I mean, the fact is, either you get to go on the roller coaster or you don't. So some things really are binary. You've got to sort things into two piles. And at some point, it's going to be something which is very similar to something in the other pile. But there has to be. Right. Versus the kind of mindset of people are like, no, no, I'm different for this reason. And you're different for that reason. And here's my reason. And this is why I should be able to. Oh, yeah, I am. But I'm quite mature. Rarely have I heard you sound be so wrong. Keep going. Oh, I know I'm 17 and six months and not 18. But I should be allowed to vote because I've got this. I'm actually much more knowledgeable. I'm quite tall for five foot two. Yeah. Do you really believe what you've just said, though? So I haven't even said it. I'm just describing a certain kind of debate. OK. And I'm and what I'm saying is that the problem with the people who are the exceptions people is that they fail to think about the consequences of their exception. What it means is they think, oh, I'm I'm just going to get over that line. No, what they're doing is moving the line. And then lo and behold, that line will be next to someone else. And that person then will, with the same legitimacy, say, oh, yeah, but, you know, I actually I'm different for this reason. And hey, Preston, the line moves back and it moves back and it moves back. And where are we? Chaos. The barbarians through the gates. Oh, quick question. What was your job before you started doing Aleph Insights? I was a manager of intelligence analysts. I was an economic advisor. You were a civil servant. Yeah, that's true. Yeah. Yeah. OK. Which sounds like this sounds like quite a sort of civil servant sort of. The blob. But the problem is you get this in board games as well. You get the people like, oh, actually, you shouldn't. I can't just do that. And you think, no, because if you do that. A five's nearly a six. Yeah. If you do that, then don't you realise what it will do to everything else? And I just feel like the exceptions people are not imaginative enough to realise that what they are doing is actually changing the rules, not not sort of somehow making a little exception. So obviously, I think I finished. Obviously, you're completely wrong, but we'll come back to that later. Sure. OK, because I want to hear Omar. I mean, I can't remember where we've got to in this. We're talking about motorways, weren't we? Lines, rules. Yeah.
Speaker C:Yeah. I find the lines that we draw for ourselves are quite interesting because there are lines in the sand that we draw for ourselves in our moral landscape, if you like, and how they change. I find that quite interesting. So there's obviously this whole thing in terms of the lines being drawn for us that we're not supposed to cross. But quite often, there are lots of lines for ourselves that we arbitrarily draw. And I particularly find it interesting how they change over your lifetime and the way your, I don't know, your sense of morality changes or how your circumstances change and how that shifts the line in some respects.
Speaker A:Can you give us some examples?
Speaker C:Yeah. So so I was brought up in a in a religious environment as a Muslim. And you're obviously surrounded by a lot of Muslims, unsurprisingly. And there's a really interesting thing about eating pork. So there's this line that a lot of people draw in in terms of never eating pork. The same people would be drinking, they'd be taking drugs, they'd be doing everything else that's breaking all the laws, if you like. But there's something about eating pork that is a line they will never cross. And I find that quite interesting. And I remember the first time, I'm an atheist now. And I remember the first time I almost forced myself to eat pork and had quite a visceral reaction to it in some ways, because I would have been after a lifetime of what I'd call indoctrination. I found that quite interesting, this line that nobody wants to cross.
Speaker A:Dare we dare we ask what the first pork treat was that you had?
Speaker C:It was actually crispy bacon. So that was actually... Oh, you went right straight in there. Yeah, unfortunately it's all downhill from there.
Speaker A:It's interesting you should say that because when I lived in the Middle East, and that's one of the things I noticed, exactly what you've said is that people were sort of drinking and doing all sorts of things they shouldn't have done. But the one thing that people tended was pork, and it was very visceral. And I think it's the sensory thing going on. Sorry, I don't want to disrupt Omar, but just a little kind of footnote to that. When I went to Abu Dhabi, I think it was about 15 years ago. Anyway, I think the Sheikh or the Emir or whoever the big boss guy was, had just died. And it was also happened to be Ramadan, right? And so we went to a Western hotel. And they said, well, yeah, actually, normally, you could have here's our pizzas. Normally, you could have pepperoni. But we're not doing that. We like we're not doing the pork now because of the morning and because of the Ramadan. And I was like, wasn't it just as like haram as it was before? Like, but somehow now we've got to shift that rule up a bit. And now suddenly pepperoni goes by the wayside. Sorry, Omar.
Speaker C:That's a really interesting point, actually, because this is something I used to do. So you know, this is this is why I find this idea of lines in the sand quite, quite interesting, because I've shifted mine quite a lot. So for a long while, I was I've been drinking for a long time. But I will stop drinking about nine o'clock. Yeah, I think just get ready for this. But I will stop drinking during Ramadan, right? And there's no rhyme or reason for it. Just just out of respect. It's a bit like lentils. Exactly. It's some strange thing around that. So and that's sort of doing that eventually as well. But there is that's what I mean by in terms of shifting these these lines that I've drawn for myself. Nobody else was making me do it.
Speaker A:Yeah, yeah. But also what we're talking about then potentially maybe is the intersection between the general lines out there and our own lines. And either of those can shift. And it's quite I think it's nice we've talked in terms of in terms of lines of the sand, because of course, sand famously shifts.
Speaker B:Yeah, well, this has just made me think of something Omar talking about those particular examples about the type of drawing a line in the sand for something that is essentially binary. Right. So you either you either eat pork or you don't eat pork, you don't eat a bit of pork, if you see what I mean. So it's not it's not like a continuous variable. You're either you're either vegetarian or you're not vegetarian, although obviously there are gradations in in in all of that. But I think it's it's conceptually and psychologically easier for us to say absolutely not. You know, and when you're talking about self-discipline, you sort of go, OK, I'm going to give up smoking, not I'm going to cut down smoke. I mean, people try that. But but, you know, I'm going to I'm going to give it up. I'm not a smoker as opposed to I'm only going to have five cigarettes a day and then I'll move it down to four cigarettes a day. Bit like virginity. But anyway, keep going. Well, in that you're either in or out of some club. Yes. But but but I think so. I think that's that's perhaps easier to to deal with. The ones that are the most contentious and the most difficult are those those ones where there is a slider and it's not just a or a or b, you know, where where somebody and it does feel arbitrary because you're like, why five foot two? You know, if I'd worn my other shoes, I'd be going on that roller coaster now.
Speaker A:Yeah. Because sorry, just to say, Nick, we'll bring you in. But because actually, I kind of don't want to argue because with you, Nick, because it's just kind of too much. Well, you get really angry about this issue, which is typical of kind of. No, no, no, no, no. Don't try and set me off again. OK, that's what you're trying to do, because actually what we're what we're talking about here from both of you is just we're trying to as individuals in a society, which all we're trying to do is make sense of the world and our own behaviour. And the way it operates and how do we do that? Well, it's just by putting overlaying on it certain habits and methods and rules and so on in. But of course, we're trying to add that sort of simplicity or navigation for ourselves in what is a necessarily a chaotic world. And that's why, Nick, you know, in the example we were talking about earlier on about all these exceptions to the rules, I'm different and all that. That's why I don't. It's because the reality is messy, right? It's fuzzy. Anyway, this is my olive branch. I'm trying to hold you, Nick. No, but no, but no, you're right. And I think I think things that are truly, truly binary in nature, like in terms of their classification, what are they? You know, it's are the exception. So, I mean, yes, actually, there is a class of people who don't eat meat at all, right? It's not like height where everyone's got some amount of height and the next person is. But actually, I'd say that that that binary things are rarer. The most things are continuous. I mean, you could talk about something being more or less a chair, you know, or someone being more or less. I mean, nearly all. It's different to ones and zeros. But the point is that allocations of things aren't. They are really binary a lot. Either this ticket entitles you to get on that train or it doesn't. Either your kids are in this year or that year, right? Reality has boxes and the thing is either in the box or it isn't, right? When it comes to those sorts of decisions. No, because that's not reality. Look, so you bought your ticket. You bought your ticket and you lost it because you got mugged. But you've still got to get the train. This is the situation where you don't have a ticket. This ticket is valid till 10 o'clock. Do you have a right to go on that train? The ticket says it's valid till 10 o'clock. And you, Fraser, classic Fraser, get on at 10.04. And you go, it's only 10.04. I'm only four minutes late. Like, please make an exception. And they would quite rightly say no, because then the ticket would really be till 10.04. And the next thing you're going to be turning up at 10.08. What if you were late because you were saving? I don't care. You know, right. Exactly. That is not your or the railway's. That's not my or the railway's. That's the difference between us. I think fundamentally.
Speaker B:Well, I'm glad which, sorry, Chris. I think fundamentally the sort of discrepancy is that the world is messy, right? It's not binary. But in order to engage with the world, we needed to be ordered. And we do, you know, you can't have 200 year groups, right, for your school kids. You have to, in order to manage things, you have to put someone in that year or someone in that year. And, you know, there are only a certain number of those. And so the world is messy. But in order to manage that world, we impose order. And I suppose that's what we're butting up against, this sort of conflict between continuous reality, you know, continuous variables in reality and binary or, you know, categorical variables in our way of managing the world. Because we can't manage that level of chaos, basically, otherwise.
Speaker A: fore, you know, I was on like: Speaker C:Yeah, I think so. I think I have to say, I quite like life being grey. And I quite like people being grey. And I feel like life and world is a smooth, continuous thing rather than the categorical things that we really like to impose on it. So I'm somewhat of the opinion that there should be exceptions, actually, to the rules. Because people are complicated and things are complicated. And I think we have to, we're not machines, we're not robots. And I think there has to be some fluidity in terms of how we treat people and how we treat the rules in some ways. I'm not saying you go around breaking all the rules, but there has to be some level of understanding around this. There's been recent cases of COVID restrictions and the rules being broken around them.
Speaker A:And all the people...
Speaker C:This is the general public, it turns out. There's cases of like, for example, there's a pensioner who went to, during the lockdown, he went to his allotment because he was really struggling mentally. And there happened to be some other people at the allotment and they had a few people standing outside the shed. And they've been given like a £2,000 fine based off that. Because if you just interpret the rules and the law that was passed, they're saying, yeah, this is the fine you're going to have to pay. But there's no acceptance of the grey aspect of they were really struggling with the mental health. They weren't really doing any harm in terms of by being there and being open air. And actually, so that's the point in terms of exceptions to the rules. We have to be a bit more accommodating, perhaps. I'm with Omar.
Speaker A:Before you come in, Chris. He's done a good job, I must say. Yeah, yeah. A good job. I'm almost persuaded. I want you to be my advocate. That's nice. Actually, this really reminds me, and it is very Aleph-y, which is the last time I felt this heated sitting here was... Oh, it's not the hot dog incident. It is. What is a sandwich? And it's the same thing. And that's why I really sort of... What's the word when you... Against authority. When you butt up against. I think it's that. Yeah. Which is someone saying, these are the rules. And I'm looking at the rules going, this is just clearly absurd. You're like at the end of Annie Hall where Woody Allen gets the parking ticket and he just says, look, I'm sorry, I've got a real problem with authority. It's probably... And he's just tearing it up in front of the policeman. Yeah. And ends up being put in jail. Yeah. It's just, yeah. Yeah, no, absolutely. Chris.
Speaker B:Yeah, I think this is... And the example I gave, it was the police laying out the cones. But I think this Kafka-esque issue is very emotive. And lockdown is a brilliant example of the psychology of rule setting, right? These were the most stringent rules any of us have ever experienced in our lives. It was the greatest imposition on our personal freedoms that we're ever going to see in the, you know, in our lifetimes, I would guess. And the thing that I'm interested in is, yes, there were, you know, a large percentage of the population would have had exceptions. You know, there was all the business about, you know, funerals and grieving relatives or people visiting ill relatives, you know, who didn't get to see them. All, you know, lots of exceptions. But whether the decision making was right or not, at the time, the decision was that it was an all or nothing that you... And the reason for that, there's a lot of work done around the psychology and, you know, the way behaviour works and group behaviour works. And this notion of exactly that issue of, well, if they can do it, why can't I do it? And, you know, something like that would unravel very quickly. And you see the same kinds of that sort of sense of mob activity and, you know, rioting where potentially only one set of rule, you know, somebody takes something and isn't punished for taking that thing. Then before you know it, you've got looting going on. Or, you know, so there is this sense, you know, Nick talked about the fallacy of the slippery slope. But I think, you know, there is a model of behaviour which is about contagion and, you know, for things like rioting. Whether that's accurate or not, we can perhaps look at. But there is this sense of herd mentality. And that's why the line's there. And that's why the line has to be enforced. Because potentially everybody has an exception of some degree.
Speaker A:Yeah, everyone will want one. You too. I mean, yeah. Quick, start presenting you and Omar like the sort of rebellious Che Guevara types who are, we're the kind of, you know, authoritarian militaristic dictator. I don't need to present us as that. You are already doing that for us. You would lead to rampant, unchecked social breakdown. I mean, it is a discussion about anarchy to some extent. You can take the guy out of the civil service. But no, I'm sorry, without the likes of me, all the lines would immediately get pushed into nothingness. No, it is. Actually, just as a bit of fun, just for a moment. And I just want to give you, we'll do a bit of fun in a minute. No, no, no, no, no. This is, there's going to be more fun later. But there's some intermediate. Fun right now.
Speaker B:No, you can't have fun until after 23.2 minutes on the podcast.
Speaker A:On a scale of zero to 10, of 10 massively authoritarian, zero total or one total libertarian. Just as a quick straw poll, it would be interesting. Where do you think you are on that line, Nick? I'm almost total libertarian. No. Yeah. This is not true. It is. But you're just the one who's banging on about rules. We've got to have rules. You have to have rules in a libertarian society. Come on, give me a sense. No.
Speaker B:I think Hobbes says that, you know, it's about the maximum degree of non-interference compatible with the minimum demands of social life. So he's a five. Well, no, I think he's a two. I think probably he's saying, you know, there should be as little imposed as is possible to enable society to function properly.
Speaker A:Yeah. I mean, I'm a two as well. Nick's clearly about a nine and a half, despite what he thinks. Omar? I'd say probably about a four. Four. Listen. Chris is also a nine and a half. Fraser, you're not engaging with the issue here, which is that not having a rule is a rule. If I take my, are you allowed to take your kids to school and say, here's my kids. I know they're only four, but I want them to go straight into year 13. No, you're not. Right. There's a rule there. And it's because you have to have a rule. I mean, you could do that. You could say, well, I'll tell you what, we've got these 15 year groups. You could just bring your kids up and put them whichever one you want. Obviously, that would fail everyone. Right.
Speaker B:But also some people might say, well, I want to be told which year I should have.
Speaker A: ubble. Here's your, you know,: Speaker B:So I was just going to sort of say, you know, we've talked about our own differences on that scale. But I also think there's an element of societies at whole or cultures at whole having elements of rule adherence or not, the extent to which they're libertarian or, I suppose, rule enforcing. And so the World Bank do something called the Rule of Law Index. And it basically scores you on things like likelihood to be a victim of crime, the perception of adherence to rules, some policing data, contract enforcement, property law. They boil this all down into essentially an index for, you know, which countries are most rule abiding. And what would you guess as the top two or three or four countries? You know, Scandinavia, it's going to be Scandinavia.
Speaker A:So this feels like a trap where I'm going to say, so the most respectful of authority, is that kind of what we're talking about?
Speaker B:Well, it's actually defined as, you know, where is the rule of law most adhered to? I think you want to say North Korea, but it's going to be Norway.
Speaker A:Well, it's not going to be one of the North, because North Korea just don't have a choice. I mean, I know if we were talking about deference, that would be something like South Korea. Assume it's what he just said it was, those things, those indicators. Yeah, okay. So it's, this feels like a trap. So just say a country, Mr. McGruer, I've done it. I've given two. But North Korea is just such a clearly awful answer. I said Scandinavia, North Norway. Okay, no, no. You haven't said a single country yet. Sweden, Denmark, Finland. There, I've done five now. All of which are going to be horrifically wrong. Canada, New Zealand. Okay, all right, Japan.
Speaker B:There we go. Japan's up there. Japan's 17th, right? But the Scandinavian countries are top. Of course they are. It's just too, you know, so unimaginative to say that. Well, quite. But the point is, we, you know, we already had a preconception. UK and US are next to each other on the 21st and 22nd. And the index goes from, I think, plus two and a half down to minus two and a half. And Finland is 2.06. And we're about one and a half with the US.
Speaker A:I feel like everyone above us is a SWAT and too authoritarian. And everyone below us is a chaos. Well, this is Yes Minister, Yes Prime Minister, right? You know, we should make a cut off exactly where we are.
Speaker B:That's my point, right? There's even a slider on how, you know, how much countries like drawing lines in the sand, effectively. Yeah, yeah. But interestingly, Italy is 0.27, right, which kind of corresponds to that stereotype of, you know, rules being less followed in countries like Italy. So I just thought that was an interesting dead end.
Speaker A:But you did your job. You did your job. Okay. Sorry, you were going to say, so you were going to round it off, though, with something, were you? I cut you off. Probably. I can't remember. You cut me off like a line in the sand. See, a friend of mine who's... Hold on, that was the end bit. But go on. No, it's just that a friend of mine, just about Italy, actually, which is it just, so a friend of mine whose parents were Italian, told me about this concept of the furbo. And it's, I think it's an Italian, like, almost like a kind of stock character. But the idea is, it's a kind of, it's the guy who gets round the rules. An admirable, almost like the Robin Hood, but it's a sort of very Italian version of that, which is, you know, the guy who finds a clever way round the rules. I think Br'er Fox is another similar thing, isn't it? It's like kind of a character in folktale who takes all the rules and works out how to subvert them. And they're always the heroes, aren't they? Overcoming the man. Hello? Which makes me think, actually, there's a similar thing in Brazil. And maybe that's why I like that country so much. Although I do find the place exasperating, which is, there's something called jetinho, which means a little way. Like, so they say, sempre um jetinho, there's always a way. There's always a little sort of shimmy you can do and get round stuff. And that really resonates with me. Can I give my solution before we... No, it's very simple. Solution to what? Er, my solution in general. I've got a general solution to this. A general theory of solution. It doesn't involve camps with barbed wire or anything like that. Go on. I bet you won't. Right. You're going to say you hate it, but that'll fit in with my general... Here it is. Right. You've got to have these completely inviolable rules that you absolutely enforce 100%, 100% of the time. But then you should allow exceptions. Right. You should allow exceptions. But you shouldn't ever say that you allow exceptions. And you shouldn't ever have a policy that you allow exceptions. But you still should. Right. It's a bit like that thing. I can't remember who said it, but that you should... We should just basically say, you know, you should never, ever torture anyone. But that sometimes you should. Right. But you shouldn't. But you should. Sometimes. Right.
Speaker B:And I think that's the... That's my solution. Isn't bolstering your argument that you're not authoritarian? Sanctioning torture.
Speaker A:No, I just think that's like... Only when it's for their own good. Don't... When you have an exception, make an exception. Make it absolutely clear that it's an exception. Do not start moving the rule around. Right. There's a separate argument to be having. Is the rule good or bad? But the point is that you don't start... Don't do that thing of, well, let's just move the rule a little bit further away and a little bit further away. Look, keep the rule where it is and secretly and without making a policy of it, go, that's all right, sir. It's only 10.04. I'll let you off. That's... Finally. There you go. That's my solution. Some kind of common sense here. Actually, weirdly, Nick, that's exactly a rule that I... Not imposed, but that was a way of doing things that I did myself once when I was a sort of... I want to say head teacher, not really a head teacher, a centre manager of a language school. Where we had lots of kids coming from a certain country and they were all like... They were perceived as being good kids from that country. And sure enough, they are. But the person, my boss said to me, listen, most of them are going to smoke. And it's really important that we as a company be seen to be imposing rules and following rules. But let's not kind of criminalise them, as it were. They're good kids. It's just that they smoke. And so we'll have a... It's sort of turning a blind eye, basically. And that's precisely what we did, you know. And it worked. Until the school burnt down. Until it burned down. Great. Yeah, yeah. I want to finish off with a question. And actually, I was going to have... I was going to say... I was going to say, right, guys, should we have this question or should we have that question? I'm going to give you both questions and you choose which one you answer. Right. But you must only choose one. And you're not going to make an exception where you answer both. If you feel comfortable doing that, Nick, you can.
Speaker B:I'm just going to answer my own question. Right. There we go. Classic.
Speaker A:Yeah, nice. And Omar, you do it. So, choice of two questions. One, what's the most pointless rule on which you feel... most arbitrary rule that you feel has ever been imposed on you? Other question, what's your favourite motorway? Yeah, well, I can answer the first one. But I must say, I think, I suspect I've mentioned this at least once and possibly 25 times before. But when my son was a baby, he was one. And we went to visit the memorial site at Pointe du Hoc near the... I remember this, I love this one. Yeah, it's just... And our car, the ignition just stopped working. So we were in this car park. It's, you know, it's in the middle of nowhere, really. And so we went into the kind of reception booth. And I had my phone. Oh, yeah, that's the other thing. So our phones were almost out of charge. This is at Normandy. Yeah, yeah, Normandy. Just to clarify. So we needed to phone AA, but our phones were almost dead. And I was like, to the point where if we'd have used them, they would have conked out. So we needed to phone, wait on the, you know. So I had my chargers and went into the, you know, the visitor's reception centre. And there was a plug right there. So being British, no slight on our intolerable French cousins. But being British, I asked the lady at the booth, I said, I was like, would you mind if I, you know, obviously, I'm just going to plug this in over here where there's a plug, which I'm clearly allowed to use. And she's just like, no, no. You just, for no reason at all. So I said, oh, could I maybe use your phone? Because we've got, and she said, no, there's a payphone in the village. And I said, well, where's that? And she said, it's only three kilometres away. And there we were with our baby son. And it was like, there's a phone on her desk right there. Oh, I still get angry about it. Did you keep your cool in the moment? I simply, well, I feel like I behaved in a very British way, because I simply poo-pooed her nonsense and plugged my phone in anyway. Good for you. Made a phone call. And just what was she going to do? Come and kick me out. What did she do? She came and kicked me out. No, she didn't. She got grumpy, closed her thing down, and then started ostentatiously shutting down for lunch. Classic French thing to do. And so I think she was using that as an excuse to turf us out. But I had just enough time to call the AA, who then set in, imagine a Wes Anderson chain of events of people phoning other people, until eventually the nation of France was rescued because a moustachioed Frenchman in a massive flatbed truck turned up about half an hour later, got out a hammer, banged something in the engine. Hey, presto, it worked. Anyway, so I'm still furious about this woman. It's like, no, you can't use... So it's fine. They should have a rule that says, no, you can't just go in there and use their plugs. But she should have made an exception. Yeah. I'm done. Yeah. It's band of brothers, we happy few. Yeah, it makes you feel proud. Yeah. Guys?
Speaker C:Yeah, I'll go with what was it, a useless rule or an annoying rule, perhaps. So I lived in the US for a couple of years. And this was a Thanksgiving Sunday, like one o'clock in the morning. I was driving back home. And I pulled up to a junction. And I could see there was no one there, literally, like for miles. And there was a stop sign. And I didn't stop at the stop sign. I just rolled through the stop sign. You madman, yeah. And there was a there was a police car on just hiding. Lucky day. Exactly. And I was thinking, why? Why do I need to stop at the stop sign where there's literally no one around other than the police, it seems. So for me, that's the really pointless rule of stopping at the stop sign. Keep going. What happened? Tell us, keep going. Well, the police officer just said, like, where have you been? And I was like, well, I've just been to a friend's house. And they said if I had anything to drink, which I did. But that was like hours ago. And I think I just hammed up my British accent as much as I could to say, oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize I had to stop at the stop sign. Silly old me. What's that word over there? And I think a man should get, you know, let off without a ticket or getting shot. Nice. Good. That's a bit of a bonus.
Speaker A:We've only just met, but you're a man after my own heart, because I'd have done exactly the same thing. Charmed your way out of it. First, yeah, well, first of all, I'd have done exactly what you did to get yourself into arbitrary trouble. But second, I'd have played that exact same card. And I've done that indeed myself. Chris?
Speaker B: mpact that, you know, sort of: Speaker A:Yeah. And crying babies that, yeah, because they couldn't get their formula. Anyway. So my answer is, I can't give you an answer because this is why you should pity me more than you already do. Because my mind is just fizzing at the moment because all day long, every day, I'm always coming up against these sort of rules that I feel I'm being burdened with. And I, as we said, I'm butting up against, I don't like it at all. So I'm in this constant state of tension and agitation. So therefore, my answer is the M1. That's right. Yeah, I like it. And it really is actually the M1. Yeah. Although maybe the A1M. Anyway. Right. We'll stop there. Strangely answers both questions. It does actually. Yeah, good. Yeah. We'll stop there. I really did enjoy that. That was great. And I do enjoy the other ones when I say I've enjoyed that. But I really did enjoy that one. That was lovely. So thank you, as always, for listening to the Cognitive Engineering Podcast. I'm Fraser McGruer, being here with Omar Jamil, Chris Wragg, and Nick Hare. Thank you very much. Bye-bye.
