To give you some background before I go into the content here, I had just concluded a successful interview (the first of two) and was stopping by the library on my way home. The trip from there was bizarre – random acts of generosity sprung up, seriously making me wonder whether the world was conspiring to be generous, or whether it was some kind of karma day.

Act I: A mother with a stroller

I held the door open. Seems ordinary enough, right? It all started here.

A mother with three kids, one of which was in a stroller, was trying to get out the front door. Maybe that entrance wasn’t accessible, because the door wasn’t opening for them.

So before I entered, I held the door open for them, allowing her to get her stroller out.

I entered the library no wiser that this was the first act of many.

Act II: Library

I only had to check in two books, and the library has self-serve check-in machines, to which I wandered when I entered.

It’s really an easy process, but the lady overseeing check-in still had to help the patron in front of me, for whom it was probably a first-time experience.

“Yeah, that’s it. You just push here on the screen and put your books on the table.”

My usual experiences with librarians are far worse.

Act III: Viva

Viva bus at a bus terminal; credit IRT.BMT.IND (Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0)

I ran across the street to catch the bus that was about to leave.

For those of you unfamiliar with this transit system, an individual with a ticket ‘validates’ the ticket on a machine before boarding the bus. That’s what I attempted to do.

The machine that takes in a ticket and validates it

I became frustrated because the machine wouldn’t take in the ticket – even after 4 or 5 tries, and even more frustrated because I was making the bus wait. I gave up, and boarded anyways through the door beside the driver. I genuinely intended to validate the ticket.

A minute or two into the ride, I asked the driver whether it was okay if I validated the ticket at my destination. His response surprised me.

“Sure… if you want.”

What the heck? Now, Viva is nicknamed “Free-va” because of the honour system on which fares work. Offenders keep their tickets without validating them – avoiding the fare – and are occasionally caught by enforcement officers.

Was this generosity, entrapment, or plain dereliction?

I fully intended to validate my ticket at the destination.

When the bus had taken me as far as it could, I got off and validated my ticket at that terminal. As the bus driver passed by – probably his coffee break – I showed the ticket casually, and he said:

“No problem, my friend.”

Whoa. What the heck.

Act IV: YRT

Staying on the theme of bus drivers, the story follows me as I transfer on to another bus. I recognized the driver when he pulled into the terminal, and he didn’t even bother to check my validated ticket, gesturing as though he knew I would always pay my fare properly.

The bus slipped out of the station and began its journey, only to be interrupted at the next red light, when the driver stopped and opened the door.

He recognized someone who was walking by, and invited her in. Probably friends or something.

They hugged, talked a bit – and though the light had turned green, I wasn’t complaining; it’s not like I had to rush. Then he gave her a transfer and she left.

Wait, what?! Did he just give her a transfer when she didn’t pay a fare?

Shock and realization occurred at the same time, when I discovered another act of generosity… or dereliction.

Epilogue

How does this kind of stuff happen? Do bus drivers decide to be really nice during the summer, and grouchy the rest of the time?

Was it karma? Or, perhaps, was it what happens when one walks out of a successful interview and notices only the good things occurring around oneself?

Deep questions to ponder. What do you think?

This social experiment involves two parts:

• A part in which I am the experimenter; in this, I will attempt to modify the behaviour of others
• A part in which I am the subject; in this, I will allow others to influence my behaviour and actions

See more after the jump.

Now you must be wondering what this experiment is all about.

Part I — Intolerance

This is the less dangerous part of the experiment in which I attempt to engineer the influences impacting those around me in order to direct people away from intolerance, to being more accepting characters.

Under normal circumstances, I would immediately reject such action as being immoral — certainly, trying to preach one’s morals to another is unfair to their beliefs. I would also ordinarily say that I am able and willing to deal with friends who have radically different views from me, but these are not normal circumstances.

Indeed, I have discovered that intolerance is one of those things that severely limits my willingness to deal with a person. This is rather unfortunate, as some of the best people are, themselves, ignorant and intolerant; intolerant of those with differences, not accepting of those who are in the minorities for which many unjustly blame social problems, and, at other times, entirely ignorant of the precious differentiations that keep us so wonderfully diverse.

It is ironic that, in attempting to address this intolerant attitude, I am, myself, acting intolerantly toward them; I am not accepting their views as one ought to. And here I fall into the dangerous pit of self-justification. “Is this not truly better for the world? Does it not benefit those oppressed minorities to attack the behaviour that is harming them?” Unfortunately, this route of using moral excuses has been abused far too often. I am placing myself in danger of losing sight of some of the values for which I have always stood: acceptance, tolerance, and diversity.

You may be wondering what actions there are that I could possibly undertake to reverse the actions of bigots.

Yes, I use that provocative term of bigotry. My friends are not bigots; they are not entirely unaware of the radicalism of their views, nor would any of them believe that their views are any more right than those of others. Am I a bigot, or ignorant? for believing that my views of acceptance, tolerance and diversity are superior to the harmful actions of intolerance? for taking action to change the views of others? the views of those with whom I associate most closely?

Anyhow, to return to the subject and to answer, “what actions there are that I could possibly undertake?”, remember my previous writings. I have previously written how a shift in the interpersonal and environmental influences can collaboratively result in a certain result. Could I apply this theory to life? Could I apply it to subjects who are entirely aware of the actions I am taking against them? More importantly, could I live with myself if my theory proves realistic?

All these questions must be addressed by you, the people who will be impacted. You alone have the capability to determine whether or not I give up on this experiment, and if I decide to go forth with the plans, you will likely be changed. Do you wish that to happen? Would you give me the chance to tweak with your mind?

The comments section is the only place where you can share your answers to those questions.

Part II — Music

Anyone who knows me also knows my love for classical music and film soundtracks that are orchestral. For years, I dedicated myself to the study of an instrument, and the musical theory that is needed to best appreciate and operate the instrument. (I have since concluded those studies.) Yet these studies have shown me that there is a quality to classical music that is unmatched by anything of the modern or contemporary eras. Until this year, I have never seriously given legitimacy to the possibility of listening to contemporary music.

This shows several things about me, the subject:

• I do not often like to ‘fit in’
• My musical tastes are long pre-established
• “until this year” — there is a chance in reforming my views on music, as the influences of friends and acquaintances have already shown
• I am now more open-minded toward current music
• Any music that relates, even if insignificantly, to my established tastes will appeal to me

In this section of the ongoing experiment, I invite every friend and acquaintance with whom I deal on a near-daily basis to attempt and shape my musical tastes. This is no joke, and I will offer passive resistance to a change in my musical tastes only if the music is clearly distasteful (for instance, profanity, sex, drugs, violence… are themes that I cannot accept in music to which I listen frequently).

Please try.

The success of this part of the experiment will be defined by two things:

1. I accept and listen to styles/genres of music which are (a) not classical; (b) performed and recorded within the last five decades; and (c) also accepted and listened to by others who have played a role in shaping such musical tastes.
2. You have found a friend in me, whether as a result of my willingness to change, to adapt, and to adopt your preferences, or as a result of the changes themselves.

If I may satisfy these two goals of this part of the experiment, I will be content.

On a side note… subscribe by e-mail to get updates in the future!

ADDENDUM: Part III — Harry Potter

In the days following the initial publication of this post, I have realized that I have neglected another important part of my life that is already being heavily influenced: literary taste.

I have, of course, previously argued against Harry Potter, in Why Friends Suck, but now I will consider it — and if my friends are successful in influencing me in this part of the experiment, I will like Harry Potter by the end of the year.

This part of the social experiment calls on my friends, or at least the ones who are obsessed with Harry Potter, to make me a Harry Potter fan. If they are successful in doing so, it will demonstrate the power that friends have over each other. (Despite the fact that this sounds incredibly ‘corny’, it is true and has already been discussed in my previous writings.) At the same time, those who do not like Harry Potter are encouraged to present me with opinions to the contrary… so in the end, whether I like Harry Potter or not will reflect the success of one group over the other.

The Call to Action

You must comment, in support of, or in opposition to, my social experiment.

If I can gather the support for such an ambitious endeavour, I will launch into the project for the remainder of the year, and will publish notes detailing how this experiment could be improved upon to form a sound, scientific trial, as well as how any results from the experiment can be analyzed.

Please, I ask for your support in this matter. Tell me that my idea isn’t stupid. Tell me that you support my desire for sociological advancement. Most importantly, tell me that you will take part in the subtle social experiment.

Thank you.

Anatomy of a Secret

Secrets are pieces of information known only to an elite — that is, confined to the knowledge of a (usually small) group. A secret is divulged willingly when the following conditions are met:

• Person A trusts person B to exercise “good judgement” in the application of the information
• A trusts B to keep the secret “secret”, known only to a small group
• A is the source of the secret OR A is not under obligation to keep it entirely secret to the existing elite

Additionally, secrets are willingly divulged with the following restrictions:

• B will not reveal the information to anyone unless A approves
• B will not harm or attempt to harm A directly or indirectly

(On a side note, it is entirely illogical and unreasonable for B to impose restrictions on A with regards to the secret, since the propagation of the secret will not harm B, who is not the source of the secret.)

At first glance, secrets appear to be good because they require trust (already proven to be a good concept) and establish a purpose-driven relationship. However, the reality is that secrets are built on the basis of a lack of trust.

By definition, secrets are known only to a small group, of which the members are ‘trustworthy’ according to the judgement of the source. This implies:

• The knowledge is NOT known to a much larger group

The primary reason that secrets are kept is that the information could be misused in some way to harm the source of the secret. This implies that those who know will NOT misuse the information, having gained trust. This also implies that those who are denied knowledge could misuse the information — this suspicion is termed ‘mistrust’.

‘Mistrust’ is the belief that those who may be trustworthy have an ulterior motive or intend malice. The application of this hostility takes place in the divulging of secrets.

Much more insight follows the jump.

Inclusive Secrets

The term ‘inclusive’ here refers to the secret ONLY being known to the persons who are ‘included’ in the elite. The selection of the elite thus follows a policy of inclusion: ONLY allowing — for instance, B and C — to know the details, because B and C meet the criteria and can accept the restrictions; in short, because A trusts B and C.

The problem here is that inclusion of a small group means exclusion of a much larger group, and those who are not included are not included because they are implicitly untrusted. This demonstrates hostility.

Exclusive Secrets

However, I would argue that secrets — sometimes necessary but often eliminable — are best kept in the ‘exclusive’ manner. The term ‘exclusion’ is often used in reference to bad behaviour, but you will shortly see that a policy of exclusion is preferable to inclusion.

Exclusion depends on keeping a group outside the loop. (Therefore, the secret is no longer known to an elite but to all BUT an elite; in many senses, we are escaping the sense of a ‘secret’.) It depends on a preestablished trust of ALL humans and the optimistic initial premise that no one intends malice. If there is evidence to support the belief that persons X, Y and Z would not use sound judgement in applying the information, then there must be the explicit understanding among A–W that X, Y and Z cannot be trusted for those reasons. As long as A–W do not share anything with the untrusted X–Z, then no harm will come to A.

Why does this work? It works because it is actually based on trust as a precondition; in other words, it establishes a good relationship with B–Z until that trust is broken. It appeals to the moral centres in all humans to never abuse trust. Furthermore, it establishes the willingness to not abuse the information because any misuse will lead to the realization of the disincentive — future exclusion.

Should Secrets Exist?

My arguments for exclusionary practices may indeed be interpreted as arguments against secrets altogether. I argue that all persons are inherently good, and that the practice of trusting everyone encourages appropriate behaviour.

Unfortunately, my arguments depend on the unspoken presumptions that:

• All persons follow rational courses of action
• Mutual trust is valued by the majority

(Fortunately, these presumptions may be proven to be ALWAYS correct, although in a document far more complex than this one.)

To better understand whether or not secrets should exist, we must ask and answer the question: what does someone have to gain from misusing the information? Well, the answer is quite simply a strange form of amusement. Interestingly, causing harm (through misuse of information) for the purpose of amusement is clearly not a moral or rational action, therefore those who are irrational do not satisfy the presumptions above; perhaps this indicates to us that our initial blanket trust should extend to all rational beings. In such a case, things do work out.

Conclusion

It must always be true that no one knows everything about another person. So, in a sense, there will always be secrets. However, it is not necessary to limit knowledge to a small group for the purpose of self-protection; rather, exclusive practices will reduce mistrust and distrust among the members of a community and should theoretically boost trust, improve relationships, and reduce harm.

If you liked this post, you may wish to subscribe by e-mail: