Getting through traffic (and life): the DP-principle

As with everything in life, there are several ways of behavior when participating in today’s traffic. Being fortunate enough to live in one of the more prosperous parts of the world, almost all of my fellow countrymen own a car. And at times when I drive to work, it seems most of them are using it on a piece of highway very near to where I have to be. I mention this as an introduction just to indicate that the following is based on multiple observations, some of them in quite stressful situations.
The goal of participating in traffic is easy: to get from A to B in one piece and in a predictable amount of time. But although everyone has the same goal, the approach varies in two very distinct ways:

• One option is to concentrate on moving your own vehicle (and thereby yourself) as quickly to a location that is closer to your destination (in this example: B). Irrespective of the average speed in any lane, a driver with this type of behavior seems to drive always a bit faster and leave hardly any space between himself and the car in front of him. Let’s conveniently call this type of behavior Type I.

(When stating ‘he’ or ‘his’, the reader can also substitute ’she’ or ‘her’ since Type I behavior in traffic is predominantly but not exclusively male.)

• By definition the alternative will be Type II. Type II drivers have a completely different frame of reference: it is their intention to make the traffic flow as quickly as possible. Type II behavior may be inspired by altruistic motives but can also be explained easily from a position of self interest: when traffic is flowing easily, all participants will benefit and reach their respective B’s sooner. Type II is most discriminate at a crossing with multiple cars coming from at least three directions at the same time. A Type II driver (as opposed to his Type I counterpart) will never enter a crossing when the result of that action is a complete jam that can only be solved when at least one driver (usually a Type II) shifts in reverse. Nevertheless, crossings are jammed quite regularly in today’s traffic.

These types of behavior are not only observed in traffic but seem to describe a more general human condition. Describing Type I as the bold and ambitious and Type II as the shy and easy-going people is too easy and furthermore proves obviously incorrect in some very distinct Type I or Type II individuals. Personally, I think the main difference is the chosen frame of reference. In the traffic example, Type I is moving a car, Type II is facilitating traffic and using his car to do this; which in a given situation may cause similar or quite opposite behavior. Alternatively stated: Type I acts from his own frame of reference, Type II from a perspective outside himself (/herself) and I think it would be nice to perceive this as a Divine Perspective (hence the DP-principle).

The Divine Perspective on any traffic jam on a particular crossing rephrases a question like ‘how do I get across immediately?‘ to the frame of reference of an angel who asks ‘which car should I move to help this jam start flowing again?‘. (I suspect this divine role to be taken by a more operational angel-like-figure, since I cannot imagine any god to start guiding traffic.)

The beautiful thing of consciousness (that what separates us from the animals) is that we all can chose to act according to the DP-principle to assess any future course of action and decide on our own direction.
Although people will have a natural tendency towards Type I or Type II behavior, I have found some clear examples of both, and sometimes combined in one person. Some clear Type II colleagues (in the office) turn into severe Type I drivers when going home. Furthermore it seems that there is also a dependency on emotions or state of mind. Without doing the full scientific double-blind research, it seems fair to say that Type I/II behavior is connected to roles in specific situations, rather than to individuals.

Any scientific research in this area should be aimed on investigating the right mix of the two Types. Experience learns that having only one type of behavior seldom creates the best outcome. Hundred percent Type I behavior might get lucky but usually ends in sheer chaos or even war. On the other hand, while a Type II environment will not easily fall into internal conflict, it has only a small chance of actually getting things done. When we perceive the current state of civilization as an achievement, it is clear that is has flourished from both Type I and Type II behavior.
Research may in the end also prove that there are subcategories as well, since a Divine Perspective can of course be taken at several levels. From an even different perspective on traffic it is causing stress and pollution and should therefore be banned altogether.

ERegoS