Caution: This blog is totally unrelated to UChicago. But please comment on how this draft could be improved (if it were to be a supplemental essay).
There are unwritten rules that everyone follows or has heard at least once in their life. But of course, some rules should be broken or updated. Recently, for some totally unknown reason, I found myself thinking about unwritten rules that shouldn’t exist.
One unwritten rule that upsets me the most is the newly established Small Cafe lunch line. For all my academic career at North, the lunch line has always been extending along the side of the hallway, next to the wall with the alumni pictures. This year, however, instead of standing next to that wall, someone (probably a confused freshman) decided to stand closer to the middle of the Small Cafe, and some other confused freshmen followed and stood behind that original confused freshman. As a result, the lunch line, instead of extending along the wall like it has always been, was turned 90 degrees and cut the Small Cafe in half. Days later, people grew accustomed to this unwritten rule, and this lunch line will probably exist for the rest of the year. Furthermore, as these confused freshmens grow into sophomores, juniors, and seniors, they will probably keep their tradition, and this lunch line might just exist forever.
So why did this happen?
From Psychology’s perspective, it’s called “conformity”.
In 1951, Psychologist Solomon Asch conducted an experiment where participants were given three lines of obviously different lengths and asked to judge which line has the same length as the target line. The correct answer is obvious and objective. But here’s the catch: before the participant could give their answer, a row of “fake” participants in front of the real participant would uniformly give the wrong answer. The result was shocking: about one third (32%) of the participants who were placed in this situation went along and conformed with the clearly incorrect majority.
Interestingly in our case, less than ⅓ of the students at the lunch line were actually freshmens – the rest were all returning students, students who knew that the lunch line was going the wrong way! We know that it’s wrong, and all of us are probably annoyed by it. But nonetheless, no one spoke up, and everyone conformed. Furthermore, through our very act of standing on the back of the wrong lunch line, we are perceived by others as if we knew what we were doing, and we are setting an example for others to follow. By being part of the lunch line that we knew was wrong, we are spreading the message to everyone else that “Hey! I know that the lunch line goes this way! Come join me!”, thus unconsciously advocating the very thing that we despise.
Humans don’t trust their own judgments enough. We trust too much of what appears to be other people’s beliefs. In life, we ask directions from others (how do you know that they know the way?), judge ourselves based on other’s preferences (do they know you more than you know yourself?) apply to colleges based on their rankings (does US News know what colleges fit your interests and goals?). As seen in the lunch line, the people that we conform to might not necessarily know more than we do. Hundreds of intelligent North students have literally been following an example set by some clueless freshman everyday for 2 months! We need to have more faith in ourselves and think more independently. We need to do our own research and come to our own conclusions. We need to question unspoken rules. And if necessary, we might even need to speak up.
From Game Theory’s perspective, rules can lead to mutual gain.
Imagine it’s finally your lunch period, and everyone is starving! There is only one place to get lunch, and the amount of food is limited. Imagine if no rules exist. In such cases, a lunch line would not exist at all: out of hunger, everyone would run to the one food site, trying to hoard as much food as possible. You would have to fight for your food; for every bite, you risk injury. Don’t believe me? (if you questioned my last sentence, good job!) Think of what happens when someone finds a bool during Halloween. Clearly, competing for food doesn’t feel awesome. So, instead of pure competition, we began to collaborate: forming a lunch line while trying to be first in the line.
Another example of this is the “Bro Code”, or “Bros Before H*es”. Understandably, most men want to rizz up the baddest girl in the room. But as we all know, that ain’t happening. So, to prevent blood and broken friendships, and to ensure that every man gets a girl (assuming that the amount of males and females are the same), the Bro Code was invented, an unspoken rule that you don’t try to rizz up a girl with a boyfriend. We are still competing against each other, either by being the first to the lunch line, or being the first to ask the girl out; but now, we compete while following the rules. By establishing order, humanity saves a lot of the energy from fighting against each other, which leads to mutual gains.
Having rules is in general better than having no rules; but as the lunch line has demonstrated, the rules that we have today – spoken or unspoken rules that are ingrained into our society for decades – might not be the optimal solutions. Just like the new lunch line is likely to persist for years, some rules that we accustom ourselves to for life can be flawed. Humanity tends to leave these rules unaltered as long as the discomfort does not exceed a certain threshold. But if we want to further optimize our rules, we need to challenge our comfort zone, which surely leads to temporary discomfort.
But will it be worth it? I’ll leave it to you guys.
But as for the new lunch line, it surely will.
Conformity is such an interesting topic, because it separates our rational and emotional minds. My rational mind knows that Line C is the same length as the given line, but if I was told that the last five people in front of me were absolutely sure that it was really line A, my emotional mind would make it much harder to choose Line C. I really like the direction you took with this prompt, and I could tell that the lunch line is something that not only answers this non-U-Chicago-Supplement but is also something you were passionate about (Even thought I can’t remember the lunch line ever NOT cutting the cafe in half). If by some unknown force this post was actually part of a U-Chicago supplement, and I was a hypothetical reader, I may be a little put off by the lingo you used (Rizz, Bro Code, Bros before Hoes, Baddest girl, or even Ain’t). Yes, that language could be a way for you to give your writing personality, you don’t want to be a dictionary definition of Gen Z. Regardless, good post.
Frank,
This was an interesting read. I’m writing this in my AP Psych class and there are a lot of rules that I’m following right now. I’m sitting down, taking notes along a presentation, and pretending to pay attention. At the same time, though, I’m also breaking a rule: writing this comment.
But these rules – like sitting in class and following the directions – are they really optimal for our learning? Is it best for our public education system to simply give lectures, tests, and projects? Should SAT scores really be used to measure one’s intelligence? And why should tests and quizzes even be present in every single class? Ultimately, I think that your blog’s focus on questioning the rules is an important cornerstone for a lot. This is a microscopic view – taking a look at things on the individual level.
The game theory aspect is also somewhat interesting. That’s the macroscopic view – how do rules and laws benefit society as a whole? It takes away each individual’s particular view and instead focuses more on the society as a whole (tests, for example, are a net positive than a world without them, but for some individuals, it can be a detriment).
As individuals working in a larger, macroscopic society, though, I think the first approach works better – seeking out rules to decide if they should or should not apply to ourselves. If we vest some power in some organization (like a club), then it’s best to hold onto both views – taking into account special cases (you want to be flexible!), but also be ready to set rules and organization for the club/org as a whole.
Great post, though for a supplemental essay, I’d recommend adding in a stronger transition between the two kind of what I did in this comment – the transition is currently a little bit choppy!
Kai Liu
Hi Frank,
This is a fascinating topic! I remember watching a video of someone recreating Solomon Asch’s experiment last year in my Intro to Psych class and feeling very surprised that someone would give an answer that they knew to be wrong, just to conform to the other participants. Then I realized that I would probably do the same thing. Humans are social creatures- we want to belong to a group and are willing to do many things in order to feel accepted by something larger than themselves.
As for suggestions towards improving the essay itself, I second Gabe’s suggestions on the second to last longer paragraph. I would rewrite it to avoid using slang, or better yet, find another example. There’s definitely other examples of conformity that you could write about that would better serve the same purpose. For example, the idea of “the fear of missing out” or social media trends, fad diets, and so much more.
Otherwise good job, and thank you for sharing!
Hi Frank, this was an interesting and engaging read. When I first read what you were talking about with the lines, I realize that you are right but I did not really remember the line changing form until you mentioned it in this post, it does extend through the tables instead of the walls now, which shows that you are pretty introspective guy or I am just not aware of what’s going on. I thought this was an interesting phenomenon and when you were talking about unspoken rules I think you are right that we need to question and start a movement from yourself if you think it is necessary. When I first thought about unspoken rules I thought about sports, particularly the NBA, when your up 7+ points at the end of the game you have to hold it, or else it becomes disrespectful, although I do not strongly disagree with this rule, more people should be allowed to question it and other unspoken rules similar to this. Lastly, I want to comment on your thoughts on the first in line and the bro code and rules in general. I kind of disagree with your idea that it is for mutual gain that we have rules for these, and instead it’s more for fairness purposes as being first in line vs being toward the middle or toward the end in the lunch line is not really gaining for the person in the middle or last in line, it’s more benefiting the person first in the line, so it is not really mutual gain it is the gain for mostly the person first in line. I think fairness is more tied to rules because we have to decide who loses and who gains more, so we establish that what is most fair for everyone in almost any situation is the person who comes first in line gets the most benefit or gets the most food. Similar to this is what you talked about the bro code, trying to talk to a girl with a boyfriend is more on the respectful side and fairer side to the person who originally got the girl than it is with you benefiting from it and I would say that the main person that benefited from it is the person talking and getting that girl in the first place.