Research on Protecting and Rewarding In-Group Hate and Corruption (Hypothetical Thought Experiment)

Over the past 5 years we have been sort of exploring a concept to help consider ways in which we can maximize the outcomes of systems and reduce waste of corruption. It has led to the discovery of 5 stages as well as deeper knowledge of how such things work and some of the best ways to improve functioning. We know that trust has been declining and that in general is not a good thing. Consider two articles Feeling Bummed? and Why Unhappy?

If you’re asking me, I generally trust the average person and I do so because they for the most part seem to treat each other well (cross race and religion as a single people). There are those outliers and there are people who do bad things. Such people do create chaos in our cohesion and cause all types of issues for justice. Generally, only when something goes out of wack or someone makes extremely poor decisions then I might raise my eyebrow (In other words we shouldn't prejudge but be aware of choices and behaviors as goal directed).

Corruption takes away from trust and pushes people into the extremes socially and politically. Pulling people back to the center is important for creating long term trust. People on the fringes or who have something to gain financially or socially can engage in all types of poor behaviors. There are times when people do not act with integrity and then we must make changes to improve functionality that leads trust and happiness. How we do that is an open discussion.

Let us continue this hypothetical philosophical discussion on hate and corruption. Hate and corruption create dividing lines where they are not needed, reward bad behaviors, warp pro-social values, and clearly show that certain people are rewarded for bad actions. It wouldn't be wise to trust where these behaviors have occurred or there is a history of such behaviors occurring (One could trust and be open to trust but if outcomes are an indication of poor beliefs and behaviors then on deeper level trust would not be warranted. One should make a differentiation between good actors and poor actors. Good actors trusted and poor actors encouraged to find a less important occupation.).

In our philosophical learning example a group of people had a history of taking advantage of the sick, spreading rumors, and using employment to enrich themselves at the expense of others. Group aggression, corruption, and the protection thereof led to a default in decision making. Improving trust means we might consider accountability for bad actors, making adjustments to improve outcomes, reversing poor decisions, and standing up for shared values (hypothetically).

This publication seems to help understand a little deeper why such in-group behaviors occur and are often protected despite the poor outcomes they create. Keep in mind there are many ways to look at the same problem and this is a theoretical discussion on how to improve systems. It is important to not be complacent in one's values least they be forgotten to the annals of history. In-Group Loyalty and Punishment

 *This is a hypothetical philosophical thought experiment on hate and corruption for learning (freedom of speech and religion are part of that concept). It is meant to generate discussion, and different people will view these things differently. Take with a grain of salt