Is civility a positive survival behavior or an impediment to survival? Civility helps preserve the social order. Ignoring incivility (road rage perhaps) may encourage incivility but may also prevent incivility escalating to physical violence. Thoughts?

I think I remember Heinlein writing something to the effect that formal politeness was the "grease" on the wheels of society, protecting the parts from rubbing together and creating friction. Politeness seems, IMO, to be dying. I deal every day with people who think that the rules don't apply to them, and by yelling at me, making threats and by trying to intimidate me that I will break the rules for them. I don't respond well to threats or intimidation.

When I say "Thank you" to someone, I rarely get any response, much the less a "your welcome" or "thank you" in return. My Mom taught us that "please" and "thank you" were "magic words." I think she was right.

I guess I would say that yes, politeness and respect to other people is good for your survival. I feel fairly certain that my being polite and respectful to some less than savory characters I have run into on the street in NYC, DC and overseas, has helped defuse a potentially unpleasant situation. But I seem to be in a minority in trying to be polite.

My Mother taught me that it didn't cost anything to be polite.

Heinlein also wrote "an armed society is a polite society, because you will have to defend your manners with your life". Makes the case for a universal concealed weapon requirement. There seems to be an occasional element in the discussions that suggests that courtesy, empathy, kindness are perceived as signs of weakness. Rather they are signs of strength, of being sufficiently secure in your powers and your self to not constantly be offensive or defensive.

It would seem to me that manners would correlate positively with survival. Manners have many sources, among which are a mutual sense of respect and an awareness of our interconnectedness. People who lack that respect will isolate themselves from others on whom they depend for the necessities of life.

There may well be exceptions to this in the short term, but as far as long-term survival goes, people who do not respect the need to work with others in a positive way will bet a serious disadvantage.

Our first grandsons first word was "please." (His second was Caca, but we won't to there). But he is now nine, and lives in Central CA, where we have unfortunately been hanging out for the last three weeks or so, and he doesn't say that very often anymore. We have been in enough stores here, putting up with the purely crappy attitude of the locals, that I have considered going postal many times (I used to think that cops, and retired cops, should be allowed one free kill a year, no questions asked). In the last few years we have been in other states where this does not seem to be the prevalent attitude, so we have to believe that behavior is dependent upon location...

Without a modicum of civility in society, I'm not sure what the point of surviving is.

Everyone has a point where they draw the line.

Jeanette Isabelle

"...Everyone has a point where they draw the line..."

Then they go postal. Or move...

I have noticed that those who seem to focus the most on the barely restrained capability and barely concealed desire to inflicting violence, often justified as being tough and 'realistic' are also seemingly the rudest, most aggressively opinionated and self-righteous group of people on the planet. They are also some of the most self-defeating people I know.

If you think the people around you are rude, impolite and inconsiderate you might take the time to find out how they perceive your attitude. You might be seeing your own attitude being thrown back at you. A smile and a kind word can often change how people see you and often will change how people treat you. Word gets out and entire communities can become much more friendly.

"...If you think the people around you are rude, impolite and inconsiderate you might take the time to find out how they perceive your attitude..."

That kinda depends. A couple of years ago we were in Skagway, AK, waiting in line in a shop to buy a couple of tee shirts. The clerk was obviously not having a good day with the couple in line ahead of us. The we got to her, and she became one of the friendliest people in the world. Turns out that the other couple were "jerks". Sometimes you get out of a "relationship" what you put in to it...

There is a time and place for most things. I have found that there are only a few rare exceptions when the exercising of manners is a bad idea.

It is best to act barbaric when in the company of barbarians, otherwise, I find that I can attract a lot more flies with honey than with vinegar.

I came across this old episode of the Twilight Zone over the weekend and it seems wholely appropriate right now as part of this discussion, it was titled The Shelter, and it looked at what happens to people when the survival instinct is laid bare.

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v6258185ETg5NAhw

I do a lot of training of construction workers and flaggers who have to work in the right of way and have daily experiences with road rage. My final point with them is twofold.

Never pick a fight with someone that out-weighs you by more than 2,000 pounds

By using please, thankyou and I am sorry, you can significantly increase you lifespan on this job!!! as it is much tougher to get really mad at someone who is already apologizing to you.

It really is amazing what a difference politeness can make...

I personally subscribe to the "random acts of kindness"... When possible, I try to go out of my way to do something nice for someone I don't know, hoping that it may be passed on to another and another...

Civility flys out the door in many bad situations. Look at New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

Actually I found the majority of folks to be extra civil after Katrina. Most knew they were tired and stressed. So when somebody did something "uncivil", rather than reacting in kind, most gave the offending person a lot of slack and did their best to calm the situation. Onlookers did their best to intervene and talk the arguers back to "reality".

There were strong feelings, tensions and many arguments but they quickly resolved and usually with an apology from both sides.

Of course this was not always the case, but by far, it was the most common. Still stress was very evident and only the patient understanding of those involved kept things from escalating out of control.

It was not all similes and roses, but it was not constant open hostility either. Folks did well and deserve credit for their strength and understanding.

This is a topic that I haven't realy thought about untill now, Nomad, thanks for the insight of katrina, as the news only shows the bad things. (think of it, how many times have you heard "shots fired" and how few times do you hear "so and so helped a child find their parents"), only the bad stuff

"I used to think that cops, and retired cops, should be allowed one free kill a year, no questions asked."

Why just cops?

Sue

"...Why just cops?..."

Ya gotta start somewhere. Just a foot in the door so to speak...

I'm pretty sure that anyone in any service industry would appreciate one gimme a year.

To quote the Talking Heads, "I hate people when they're not polite."

From Psycho Killer - appropriately enough.

On another forum there was a gentleman who was of the opinion that the people in NOLA were all scum and that they resorted to raw violence and strong-arm robbery as soon as the chips were down. He cited a video clip that showed a man holding up a young child and asking for diapers and baby food. This was cited as an example of an unprepared thug.

I posted back that there might be many reasons he was unprepared and that he obviously wasn't acting like a thug. A lot of people were caught unprepared, including the Airforce and National Guard, because the flooding came after the Hurricane had passed. The danger was assumed to have passed. Things went from relief, sunshine and clear skies, to over-the-head dark waters in minute. It is not unlikely that if you had a closet full of survival gear and happened to be in the wrong spot where the water came up very quickly you might not have been able to get to it. Assuming you didn't have a boat a BOB might not of helped much if it wouldn't float.

The second point is that he was asking for help. He wasn't threatening or ordering or demanding help. He was asking. Not exactly thug behavior.



In at least one documented case one of the well celebrated 'shootouts' was a case of blue-on-blue. A team of undercover cops, in plainclothes and muscular, got in a shootout with uniformed officers. Shots were fired. There were reports of other cases of macho, testosterone driven police and paramilitary forces, including Blackwater mercenaries billed at about $1500 a day, running into each other with drawn guns.

There was also much talk at the time of people shooting at helicopters. So much talk and assumed danger that helicopter operations were curtailed in some areas. After the fact the helicopter crews were questioned. Many said they heard shots. None claimed they were actually shot at. None of the helicopters had bullet holes or other evidence of hostile action.

So where did the gunfire come from? Some of it was from panicked and hostile police. Some from panicked homeowners. But this is the south. Lots of people have guns. At the time, and seeing people desperate for help, it occurred to me that a lot of that gunfire was probably a distress signal and intended to get attention. Lots of southerners hunt and most remember that he standard distress signal is three shots.

Sounds to me like this might be another case of people seeing what they expect. A lot of people, and a lot of the police coming from outside the area, expected a war zone. To them gunshots were signs of violent intent. Did they mistake a distress signal for violent intent and needlessly suspend helicopter operations? I think so.

In a survival situation you have to make the right choices based on the correct information. To determine what is really going on you have to reach beyond your expectations, biases and prejudices.

I haven't seen the video but maybe he was holding up his child so people would pity him and help him out.

"I haven't seen the video but maybe he was holding up his child so people would pity him and help him out."

That is likely. The kid is probably either a relative or friend's relative. But it still doesn't change anything. I never claimed he was a saint advocating for orphans.

He can be assumed to be looking after someone close to him. But the point remains that even though he looked to be a large and healthy enough specimen to commit violence he wasn't forcing or intimidating anyone in his attempts to get help. You have to give him credit for that.

A bad situation, lots of stress, he is clearly distressed and frustrated but he isn't throwing a fit or getting violent. He is maintaining some degree of control. Not too shabby for a guy likely coming out of a poor community with a dysfunctional and violent culture. I man who likely has no survival training and who has never even contemplated a disaster. A man completely out of his element who has probably lost everything he owns. But hanging on and doing the best he can without hurting anyone.

Disasters can bring out the worst in some people but from what I've seen personally, it usually brings out the worst in people who were rat-bastards to begin with. Disasters usually bring out the best in most people. From all reports, even New Yorkers were uncharacteristically polite to each other for a few months after 9/11.

Hi. I'm new here, though I've been lurking around and reading. I'm getting into hiking to get back into shape, and fight off my sedentary lifestyle, with an eye toward getting away from my local trails to more open spaces as I get better conditioned. I've learned a lot.

So, although I'm stepping into this thread a few days late, it's really one of the first I've seen that I feel qualified to comment on. :^)

First, on New Yorkers: I've only been to the city on two occasions. The first one was a class trip in '86, the second was doing some sightseeing while visiting my brother, who has defected to New Jersey, in the early to mid '90s. Granted, I didn't cover the whole city, not by a long shot, and mostly touristy areas, but I found the New Yorkers in New York to be far more polite than their counterparts in my home state of Florida, many of whom (though not the majority -- it's the loud ones who stand out) seemed to love to make a point of showing off "NY attitude." I also lived for a year in upstate New York, a whole other animal, indeed. I'd have to rate it one of the friendliest rural communities it's been my pleasure to live in.

On politeness in terms of survival: It can be positive or negative thing. You need to learn basic interpersonal communication skills, and learn to (as much as possible) read a situation for what it is. When I pass anyone on the sidewalk (I walk/bus a lot), I always nod, smile, and say "Hi." Most people respond well to this, though some avoid eye contact on approach. That points out one survival benefit of politeness: If you are a criminal looking for a victim, who are you going to pick? The person who stands up straight, looks you in the eye and greets you, or the hunched over person, less aware of their surroundings, who acts meek? Most will pick the latter. So, basic politeness is GOOD, on many levels, really.

Then again, there's another situation where being too polite doesn't net you anything in terms of survival, and could be detrimental. I think we've all probably been approached in parking lots by either beggars or scammers doing the "gas can shuffle" (Usually use a gas can as a prop, beg for a couple bucks b/c they "ran out of gas.") As a general rule, these types aren't directly confrontational, because it's bad for business. On the other hand, people looking for a victim to rob or car jack may pose as one of these types to get close enough to you to hurt you. Whenever I'm approached by one of these people, I very firmly tell them, "No," and instruct them to "Leave. Now." Just like that, cave man speak, including gestures with my offhand, palm out for no, which most people will read as "stop" and pointing away for "leave" -- even deaf people get the gestures with the right body language behind them. I repeat the second part every time the person attempts to say anything. I do not give them the opportunity to speak. Doing so only leaves yourself open to being distracted.

The actual bums/scammers get the message and may grumble a bit then leave. There may be some of these who aren't rational and might try to get violent, but these are rare and can usually be talked down. Those trying to close distance to do you harm will be informed in no uncertain terms that you aren't a victim, and they should seek easier prey. If they were intent on doing you violence, they would certainly have done so anyway, and you decrease your chances of being a victim. If the person in question wasn't intent on violence, the chances of this response causing escalation are slim.

Of course, there's another situation where you need to walk the line between politeness and survival, and that's when you're confronting multiple people. Someone with two or three friends or more backing them up is far more likely to escalate an encounter if the friends lack the common sense to stop them. Here, discretion is the better part of valor. However, I wouldn't take it too far. Generally showing a willingness to deal with multiple people who are too rowdy/aggressive is unsettling, and you can throw them off their rhythm by acting unexpectedly. Your goal here is the opposite of the above, you want to engage the leader or spokesperson of any aggressive group verbally, because it opens the opportunity to cause a mental disconnect that gives pause. You use that pause to de-escalate the situation. Something as simple as making the leader ask you if you want some trouble, and then answering "No, man, it's cool," and putting out your hand with a positive body language will end a confrontation quicker than it started. Nine times in ten, the person will automatically take a handshake and then you part ways. Of course, you also now have their hand should they get rowdy. I've used the rythm breaking as described here on more occasions than I care to admit, and it's worked for me.

Which brings me to my final bit of advice: Don't believe a darn thing I just typed! You don't know me, or my background, and you most certainly aren't me (about six feet and over two hundred pounds with a military bearing), so how I handle situations may differ. I very much give the impression when I'm interacting with people that I'm law enforcement. That's because I spent the first six years of my adult life as a Military Policeman. So, regard this as food for thought, and do your own interpersonal communication and situational awareness/crime prevention training, it's a very good skill set to have for survival among humans.

Welcome Newguy! (and I say that even tho a Military Policeman wrote me the first ticket I ever got)

Welcome BrianB, you and I tend to cut against the common grain I think. Every New Yorker I've ever met in New York City has been a great individual, polite, willing to go the extra mile to show off their town, never took me, a rube, for a cent. Same with Chigagoans, approached the right way they've got pride in their city to light up the midway. Maybe its the luck of the draw, never coming up against anyone who wants to take us down, but probably it does come down to interpersonal skills and giving people enough leeway to decide to treat you like a human being. Anyway, I'd rather believe in my own fictional Jedi mind tricks rather than some innate hatred in other human beings, neither is exactly true.

I will confess to a different feeling of brotherly love in right field of Yankee Stadium versus Wrigley Field - in one I was glad not to be wearing a Mariners cap, and kept my cheering down a bit while the visitors cleaned up on the Yankees. After all it doesn't happen every day, or half the days. But the fans can't get over the Jay Buhner trade in right field, ever.

"...Same with Chigagoans..."

I'm not gonna even bore you with how I was treated when walking State Stree in Chicogo on Christmas eve of '65. But then, I was in uniform, and the Viet Nam war was unpopular...

Shisshhhhhhh - you're NOT supposed to tell folks - let them be surprised when they get here - it's a little gift we give tourists... Beside, what do you want to do, ruin our reputation? Geeez