The Unseen Logic of the Queue: A Lesson in Human Choices

Individual Logic Meets Collective Failure

Jul 01, 2025

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existence."

— Albert Einstein

Something Un-Godly

Picture this: Earlier this year, my girlfriend and I were meeting up in Krakow, Poland. The promise of an eventual night train voyage to Prague only served to sweeten the deal. Double pints, delicious chocolate, beautiful galleries and museums, a new array of foods to try, and perfect memories together awaited us. Standing on my own at Edinburgh airport waiting to board my flight, these were the things that lit up my mind in eager anticipation.

But, lost only briefly in these daydreamings, something snapped me back to my senses, something un-godly, something unfathomable… The queue.

‘A queue?!’ you might say. ‘That thing where people systematically stand in a line?’

Indeed.

Humans can be very silly sometimes, or depending on how you frame it, too smart for ‘our’ own good. And on this very occasion, I noticed a phenomenon that reminded me of this fact—Let me explain.

Those of you familiar with the Prisoner's Dilemma might recognize it in action here. It was precisely the logic of this dilemma that piqued my interest that day. Standing there, in said queue, faced with the stark realization that everyone at my gate could have boarded about five minutes earlier—if no one had purchased priority boarding tickets (allowing holders of the tickets to gain first entry to the plane a little earlier)—I felt a pang of frustration with human nature. But my observation seems contradictory at first glance, right?

But the more contradictory it seemed, the more I toiled to unravel it—a clawing attempt to be victorious, even as I stood waiting in my queue of mere non-priority.

"Individually rational choices lead to a collectively irrational outcome."
— Robert Axelrod

The Illusion of Progress

Is it not funny how much our mind fixates on the seemingly everyday and mundane, just because you're a little frustrated? Frustration, for me, has been a key contributor to some of my more interesting insights. I was even close to calming down, but then we all took a few steps forward, only serving as a cruel reminder of how far from the front I still remained. So, back to my toil I returned.

My immediate thought was: ‘Why do airlines introduce a ticket to allow passengers to pay extra to be boarded earlier? What is the point?’ The obvious answer, of course, oh dear past Matthew, is money. They naturally capitalize on our inherent proclivity for consumption, especially when we can afford it. A sign of status, a hint of impatience, a guarantee of overhead space – these are all valid incentives to soften the blow of purchase, after all.

But all I saw were two queues. One with people waiting to get on the plane, and the other with people waiting on people to get on a plane, to then get on a plane.

What if we removed the obvious inefficiency introduced by the incentive to acquire more cash? Well, then you'd simply have a single queue of people waiting to board a plane. All passengers would ultimately board earlier overall, and spend less in doing so, ensuring a more efficient process for everyone. All things in balance, as they should be. What a beautiful world! But that's too simple.

Airlines themselves formalize this inefficiency. For instance, Ryanair's (An Irish airline) official policy for their 'Priority & 2 Cabin Bags' service explicitly states that customers 'can board the aircraft via the Priority Queue,' allowing them to 'avoid queuing... and get to your seat faster.' ( https://help.ryanair.com/hc/en-gb/articles/12888036565521-Ryanair-s-Bag-Policy )

So, why have the companies done this? As discussed, money. But if the airlines won't fix this, can the people, the consumers, do it? It would benefit us all, after all. What are the options? We could email en masse, demanding the priority boarding service be discontinued. But this likely wouldn't happen, as there are always those who genuinely feel advantaged by such a service.

What about simply not buying the priority ticket? Or, at the other extreme, what if everyone just tried to skip the queue? This is precisely where things get brilliantly intriguing, because now we've entered the world of Game Theory.

Understanding Game Theory

here I will outline three core concepts: the Collective Action Problem, the Prisoners Dilemma, and the Nash Equilibrium.

To grasp these interconnected concepts, let's consider a familiar system: the weather. Think of the Collective Action Problem as the entire complex phenomenon of "weather" itself—an umbrella term, if you will… all the atmospheric conditions, from sunshine to storms, that affect us. In essence, a Collective Action Problem describes any situation where a group of individuals would be better off cooperating to achieve a common goal, but fail to do so because individual incentives push them towards non-cooperation. The overall, suboptimal outcome is a direct result of these many individual, seemingly rational decisions.

Within this broader "weather" system, the Prisoner's Dilemma is like a specific type of weather, such as "rain." It's a classic model used in game theory, illustrating a scenario, typically between two (though it can be scaled up) rational individuals, where each person's best individual choice, regardless of what the other person does, leads to a worse outcome for both than if they had cooperated. The "dominant strategy" for each is to 'defect' – to confess, or in our case, to buy a priority boarding pass – even though mutual cooperation would yield a better collective result. My observation of the airport queue, with its individual choice to buy a priority pass, perfectly embodies the dynamics of a multi-player Prisoner's Dilemma.

Finally, the Nash Equilibrium isn't the weather itself, nor is it a type of weather. Instead, it's akin to a "weather forecast" that tells us what the weather will most likely be, given current conditions and known patterns. In game theory, a Nash Equilibrium describes a stable state where no player can improve their outcome by unilaterally changing their strategy, assuming everyone else's strategy remains the same. It's the point where, even if the outcome is detrimental for the group, no individual has an incentive to change their behaviour on their own.

Thus, while the Collective Action Problem represents the expansive scope of social dilemmas, the Prisoner's Dilemma is a particularly well-known and illustrative instance of that problem, and the Nash Equilibrium serves as the analytical tool predicting the stable, often suboptimal, outcome of such situations. These concepts, though distinct, are intricately related, each shedding light on different aspects of why collective cooperation can be so elusive.

Logic Has Taken Off

What finally made me feel like I had managed to sink my teeth into this observation enough, was when I started to apply the Nash equilibrium. I started to get excited if I am being honest, a bit like a dog with a bone—I simply love silly little realisations about human nature such as this:

No one purchases a priority ticket = Faster boarding for all, free of charge.

Everyone purchases a priority ticket = Normal boarding speed, but you paid for the privilege.

Boom—I present to you, an absurdity.

Perhaps this is shocking and rather amusing only to me, as I stood there amidst this now seemingly mystical and abstract human construct. But regardless of whether this truth surprises you or not, what does it tell us of, well, us?

"No player has anything to gain by changing only their own strategy."
— John Nash

Have you ever noticed similar absurdities in your own life, where seemingly rational individual choices lead to a collective headache? I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

Us

Well, it would appear that en masse, humans seem by design to prioritize their own advantage, or in other words, self-preservation. In search of an explanation for this, I'm often tempted to reach for evolution when toiling with such conundrums of human nature. After all, the very drive of evolution is self-preservation!

Although we could all benefit if no one purchased priority tickets, that ideal scenario requires taking a risk. The risk lies in trusting that everyone else will also forgo their individual advantage. If that trust isn't rewarded, and even one other person does purchase the priority pass, then your desired advantage of early boarding (without paying) is not reached, and you're left behind.

To achieve such a collective advantage, an element of trust is fundamentally required. But does the individual risk outweigh the collective reward? Our very nature often provides a conclusive, and frustrating, answer: no. We frequently witness humanity failing to collectively do that which, if everyone participated, would benefit all. Indeed, truly spontaneous large-scale collective action, solely on the basis of shared benefit and without external incentives or enforcement, is remarkably rare.

This realization now takes my imagination into countless other scenarios, prompting me to consider how game theory principles highlight the often profound logic behind seemingly unprofound everyday human reasoning.

"Rational, self-interested individuals will not act to achieve their common interests."
— Mancur Olson

Serious Implications and Our Shared Predicaments

This seemingly simple observation from an airport queue, driven by the logic of the Prisoner's Dilemma and the broader Collective Action Problem, echoes far beyond the boarding gate. This isn't just about paying an extra twenty quid for a few minutes of perceived advantage; the same fundamental dynamics play out with far more serious, even existential, implications for us all.

Consider, for instance, climate change. Every nation benefits from a stable global climate. Yet, each individual nation faces an incentive to continue emitting greenhouse gases (their "priority ticket") because reducing emissions carries a short-term economic cost. No single country wants to shoulder the burden if others won't, fearing it will disadvantage them economically. The result? A collective failure to adequately address a crisis that threatens us all.

Or think about the overuse of shared resources, often termed the "Tragedy of the Commons." Imagine a global fishery. Every individual fishing boat has an incentive to catch as many fish as possible to maximize its profit. But if every boat does this, the fish stocks collapse, destroying the fishery for everyone in the long run. Each boat's rational, self-interested action leads to a collective depletion that harms all.

Even in public health, we see it. Consider vaccination. If enough people get vaccinated, the entire community benefits from herd immunity, protecting even those who cannot be vaccinated. Yet, for an individual, there might be perceived risks, or simply the thought, "If everyone else gets vaccinated, I'll be protected anyway, so why should I bother?" If too many make this individually rational, yet collectively detrimental, choice, herd immunity falters, putting everyone at greater risk.

Finally, consider the modern dilemma of parenting and teenage smartphone use. Most parents would likely agree that excessive social media use or unchecked smartphone access can be detrimental to a young person's mental health, development, and social skills. Ideally, perhaps all parents could agree to limit their children's phone use or delay smartphone adoption significantly. However, each individual parent faces the immediate, pressing fear of their child being socially excluded if other children do have phones and are active on social media. This individual fear, a powerful incentive, often overrides the collective desire for a healthier, less digital childhood for all, leading to a pervasive, and often problematic, reliance on smartphones among young teens.

Landing the Logic

These are not easy problems to solve. They rarely fix themselves, precisely because of the Nash Equilibrium – that stable point where no individual has an incentive to change their behaviour unless others change theirs too, or unless there's some form of external enforcement or binding agreement. Governments, international treaties, and strong social norms often emerge as attempts to shift these equilibria from suboptimal collective failures to more cooperative outcomes.

As I gnawed relentlessly on this symbolic illogical bone, the line ahead of me finally began to move with purpose. The gate attendant's voice, a cheerful blur in my intellectual haze, announced the final boarding call. My queue of non-priority had shrunk to just a few souls. With a quiet satisfaction that went beyond merely getting on the plane, I was finally at the very front.

As I stepped onto the aircraft, the distinct aroma of recycled air and anticipation filled my senses. I turned down the aisle, ready to find my seat, knowing that a night train to Prague with the person I love—and indeed, a thousand more fascinating human puzzles, awaited.

The queue, once a simple line of frustration, had become a profound lesson and thought experiment—One that I thought would be fun to share with you.

A testament to the complex, often contradictory, but always intriguing logic of human choice.

Yours in thoughtful inquiry,

Matthew.

If this exploration of unseen logic resonated with you, consider restacking to give me a hand reaching more people! Also, consider subscribing to The Dallas Digest for more insights into the curious corners of human nature and society.

Share The Dallas Digest