Positive Reinforcement

A quick word about warning signs, if I may. In the gentleman’s toilet here in the Merlin Yangon office there is a sign saying: “Please do not pee on the floor. Thanks.” I’m not one to argue with the suggestion; it’s a rational request, and a polite one at that. Mostly I try to keep true to such directives myself. There must be some people that don’t agree quite so comprehensively since there remains, or rather appears newly every day, a small puddle of pee into which every man must wade before he can relieve himself.

As I consider this issue, and why this request (and the toilet) is so often missed, it occurred to me that – just maybe – these gentlemen are acting somewhat reasonably. Let me explain. As far as I can tell from recent theories on the structure of the brain, humans are not very capable of using sequential logic to any proficient degree; we are, each of us, parallel computing machines. Even if we have a clear sequence of reasoning in our minds, i.e. don’t pee on the floor, we remember only the important terms ‘pee’ and ‘floor’ before we consider the negation, thereby making us more likely to link those 2 ideas together. When you think of the times you are asked “don’t think of the number 2” or “don’t drop that plate” – you are absolutely more likely to think of the number 2 or to drop the plate. It’s why I dislike being told: “don’t f*&k this up” or “don’t be a prick”. So I can forgive these men for ignoring what otherwise might be considered a straightforward request.

Your dear friend the computer would have no problem with it and could even, with the right programming, understand “do not not not not not not not not not not not pee on the floor” in a flash. We humans are, sadly, not computers blessed with such linear logic skills at the best of times, and certainly not when carrying a full bladder. This is made evident by the toilet I refer to.

Actually, even computers would fare no better had they stood in the same cubicle. This is because the request only describes what not to do, and not what to do. The poor computer is told not to pee on the floor, but then where oh where should it pee? On the ceiling? It needs a direct command. Also, the statement employs internal negation, which is standard in the English language, but not clear in formal logic terms. Ok, I’m not to pee on the floor, so what am I supposed to do on the floor? Spill some coffee? Have a party? Kneel down in awe? Obviously what we need to do is move the negation of the toilet sign request outside the equation, so that there is some person ‘P’ who wants you to ~(pee+floor), rather than (~pee+floor). It’s so obvious. Humans, computers, you’re both forgiven.

I really don’t blame the peeing men. It’s genuinely – truly – complicated to ask someone to not pee on the floor. They, like the rest of us mere mortals, are not mentally designed to consider this sort of thing, not without some effort anyway (although I seem to have the found the time in my clearly busy schedule to do it). I humbly request therefore that, please, dear designer of the signs, if you want something to be done about the splashes of yellow use some straightforward, non-complicated statements. I quietly suggest a sign saying “Please pee inside the toilet bowl. Thanks”, and I suspect there would be a reduction in the floor pee and, consequently, less wading for the rest of us. And any advanced computers out there might also be able to do the same too.

Thanks.