trust v/s law

Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.
– Pope

Why make laws, restrictions, borders ?

No matter how great the laws are, if bad people can find a way to trick the law, why make them at first place.

No matter how great innovations like internet, television, mobile phone, credit card, banks and stuff are, bad people can find a way around to misuse them.

Here’s the reality of the information age: No matter how much money rewards you give people in exchange of intrinsic motivations (freedom, mastery and purpose) they will refuse you. That age is gone where money was everything in business. In this new digital age, freedom, purpose and mastery is the new currency. Trust is the new goal.

Suggested reading: Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us by Daniel Pink.

I read about a study conducted by researchers from a book ( I tried to search this study to read it again in order to be more accurate but I can’t remember from which book I read it ). So the irony of the study is that if people want to buy something to eat, they are told to take the food from the food stall and put the money mentioned on the label in a basket themselves though a signboard. There is no one around the food stall selling stuff or anyone for safety of the stall. People can easily steal the food and run away without paying a buck. But the result shows something different and fascinating. I don’t remember the exact numbers but I know that around 90% of buyers paid money for the food comparing to the 10% steal. So this shows that 90% of the people are honest. Only 1/10 of the people have the desire to steal if provided with the opportunity.

I think this depends on balance. One factor is the quality of the opportunity given. How good the opportunity is? How many people are stealing food? I am sure that if someone mentioned on the signboard this “48% of the people didn’t pay for the food” there will a flood of steals. I don’t think that their will be anymore than slight change in the amount of motivation if the above statement is change to this: “Please pay for the food because 48% of the people didn’t pay for the food” as Dr. Robert Cialdini, In the field of influence and persuasion he is the most cited living psychologist in the world today, in his book Influence:The psychology of persuasion showed that people go with the crowd. The other factor might be context. Someone who hasn’t eaten even a slice of bread for days is obviously a hundred times more likely to steal than someone from a rich family. It depends on balance, How much money she has ? How much she has the desire to steal or to buy ? What is her present status ? Her honest ? Her character ? ….. I think you get the point.

So why differentiate between legal and illegal as people will do anything if they have to, depending on the balance of the factors influencing their context ? It’s like a burning platform test.

I think we need to make people aware of what is right and what is wrong, what hurts other and what doesn’t hurts others etc.

So the solution I think is grow the people not the laws.

The solution is to strength trust not restrictions.

Remember what sir Pope said “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.” So all we need is great balance in order to grow people good. If someone has a burning desire to steal the food from the stall as she might be the victim of hunger we need to grow her character and make her aware what is right and what is wrong, how much is it right and how much is it wrong, what will be the consequences of it and other things like that. We can’t control natural calamities or randomness. But we can control character. We can control ideas and innovation which can change the context of the people who forces them to act irresponsibly.

Suggested reading: Switch: How to change things when change is hard By Chip and Dan Heath (full book).

At last, one more worth thinking about quote.

Widespread distrust is the society……imposed a kind of tax on all forms of economic activities, a tax that high-trust society do not have to pay.

                                   – Francis Fukuyama, Economist

two solutions to the world

One is analysis-paralysis-kind-of-people and the other is risk-taking-kind-of-people.

In analysis paralysis, we want to know everything we can no matter how much time it takes to ensure that everything will the way planned without any chance of failure. Where we keep on gathering information then thinking then thinking hard, asking hard question about almost everything, trying to articulate every possible situation we can imagine in order to not let anything go wrong, we search for perfection and then finally we execute, we take action thinking there is no possible way down, we are going to find success.

The other is Risk taking. In this solution we don’t care how we know, how much we need to know to find success. But while taking risk we do know that a lot more chances of failure than to go it right. By knowing probably,statistically there are less changes to go it right than breaking it down we know that failure is inevitable and there is all the possibility to fail so we accept that and hope to find a way around setback, learn from it to try again.

With the first solution we can play very few turns but with high possibility (By higher I mean not 100% chances because it is really impossible, you have all the right to believe anything you want to) of success whereas with the second solution we can play a lot of turns but with less possibility of finding its way to the intended destination.

What do you think which is right solution to achieve your stuff ?

Which is faster way to success ?

By which solution you can find more overall lifetime success ?

There are a lot of analysis-paralysis-kind-of-people but only few are successful.There are only few risk takers but almost all are successful.

I suggest you to take the hybrid solution like I am trying to do.

For now I believe this much is enough to make you think. Think!