Trust and Behavior, Taxi Driver and Stock Broker Scenarios
Hi everyone,
Please comment on the following two short stories. The purpose of my request is to allow you to tell everyone else about your-selves by offering your opinions on specific situations. That brings people of the same opinion together and might help us create a trusting community through the Internet. Please limit your responses to not more 175 words.
- A taxi driver found 31 diamond rings in his taxicab after dropping off his passenger, who left him a 30-cent tip on a $10.70 fare. Hours after dropping the woman off at her destination, the driver found that the woman’s suitcase was in the trunk of the taxi. He took the suitcase to the headquarters of the Taxi Workers Alliance, and found the sparkling diamonds, and enough information to contact the woman.
The driver first refused the woman's reward of $100, but then reluctantly accepted it to cover the fares he lost during the time he tried to find her. (Summary of a story By Verena Dobnik, Associated Press Writer Wed Feb 7, 11:43 PM ET ).
- How would you characterize the taxi driver's behavior?
- Stockbroker recommends to Client a stock, which, he says, is safe and pays annual dividend of 30%. Client is an inexperienced investor, 65 years old former high school teacher. He just received a pension payment and wants to save some of it. Client was referred to Stockbroker by an acquaintance.
- Is Stockbroker breaching his trust to Client?
- What if the same happens on the Internet?
I am looking forward to your responses.
Warm regards.
Tamar Frankel
The Taxi-driver and the Stockbroker
In a perfect world, taxi drivers would return any forgotten items --left behind by passengers-- in their taxis. But this isn't a perfect world, and I believe that the taxi driver's behavior is noteworthy (not only the behavior for returning the forgotten item, but also his non-acceptance of a "prize" or "reward"). He simply returns the suitcase to the suitcase's owner because that was the right thing to do, not because of any payment, prize or reward. The taxi driver accepted payment for the hours his time to deliver the suitcase, because that was fair, and the right thing to do in accordance with his principles and morals. I consider the taxi driver’s behavior to be rarer and rarer these days. He was very ethical, apparently a person with great principles and morals.
What does "safe" means? Is any stock "safe" enough for a 65-year old inexperienced investor, who had just received a pension payment? No, there is no such thing, specially for someone who can avoid losing this money. Given the age and situation of the investor, the stockbroker should have offered a more conservative investment to his new client, a safer investment, as much risk-averse as possible. In my humble opinion, the stockbroker has clearly taken advantage of the inexperienced investor, and has undoubtedly abused his trust to his new client. Regardless of whether his offer has taken place live (at the stockbroker's office) or over the phone or using electronic means --and despite the fact that the new client was referred by an acquaintance--, there was a breach of trust in the offer.
Taxi Driver and Stockbroker
1. The taxi driver clearly has strong moral values. He is also likely risk averse and would not want to risk the consequences of being suspected of theft.
2. A stock that pays a 30% dividend seems hard to believe, but if true would mitigate the risk of the investment, as the investor would break even on his investment in about three years regardless of the value of the stock. The stock issuer would likely be a mature company, such as a monopolistic utility that is cash rich. Regardless of whether stockbrokers have a fiduciary duty to their investor clients (there appears to be some debate on this issue), they should notify investors (both on the Internet and otherwise) that they are motivated (compensated) according to trading volumes, not according to their clients' return on investment.
Taxi Driver and Stock Broker
In respect to the taxi driver, clearly he did the right thing but TrustEnabler made a good point. The taxi driver may have had little option but to do the right thing or being effectively prosecuted for theft. I believe that is a way of creating trust online: “If you don’t do the right thing, you will get busted!”
In a similar manner with the stock broker: what applies offline should be applied online. If there is fraud offline, there are ways to tackle it, but if the same thing happens online, would we have the same guarantees? The goal is not just to have the same guarantees but to perceive them in the same manner.
Taxi Driver & Stockbroker
1. I would characterize the taxi driver's behavior as fundamentally, deeply human as in driven by desire for pleasure (feeling good about his actions and decisions) and avoiding pain/displeasure such as feelings of guilt, exhaustion or futility or as mentioned in other posts - punishment for theft. He accepted the reward reluctantly, rationalizing that he deserved the reward for practical reasons as opposed to accepting it as reward for good moral behavior. Accepting money for simply taking the right moral action could belittle the purity or authenticity of the moral decision.
2a. No. Client is free to research independently and substantiate/insubstantiate claim.
b. Difference on internet is fluidity of Stockbroker's identity. Harder to establish if he truly is who he says he is. Referral from acquaintance is only safeguard.
What do you mean by "trust"?
Taxi Driver: Odd, how we look at things so differently. I think the taxi driver was put in an impossible situation. If he took the diamonds, he would have to abandon his life. Not only physically, but emotionally. He was FORCED by consequences to give the diamonds back. Change the fact pattern to ONE diamond ring, and things get much more difficult. The taxi driver could keep the ring with a lower change of getting caught, and the value of one diamond ring would not change his social status. In that case, his decision would be an internal dilemma, not a public one. Giving back the diamond ring in that situation would show a much higher level of trustworthiness.
I find some of your answers much more troubling on the second issue. The fact that we expect “investors” to independently check investments worries me. The man in the fact pattern is a symbol of a typical, but humanized pawn in the capitalist system. We now believe that if people make bad choices, it is their fault for not doing research. The young and the old in society are targets of internet money-making schemes everyday. We sit in our ivory towers and allow the savvy to take advantage of them? We are not trust worthy. If money has replaced humanity, it is time for change. Survival of the fittest and caring about the underprivileged or disadvantage are not compatible theories. Let’s develop a system of protections that promotes business, but protects the weak. A system of trust. After all, the poor and middle class provide a massive market online--why alienate them?
Taxi Driver & Stock Broker
In regards to the Taxi Driver, I believe his behavior and decision to return the suitcase and diamonds was admirable. I agree with other responses that the type of person who would act as the taxi driver did is harder and harder to find in today's society. He is honest and trustworthy. I find some responses ironic, which state that he did what he did, because he had no other choice, meaning, he had to return them, or risk losing everything. I would disagree. He could have kept them, cashed in the value and not have worried about losing his job or livelihood, because he would have had the means to make up for it. Instead, he choose to do the right (although perhaps the hardest) thing, and return the goods.
As for the stocks, I do not believe the broker has breached any trust or duty to his client. If he, in good faith, has recommended this stock to the client, the client is under no obligation to follow the advice. It is just that - advice. As a school teacher, he could be well aware that a 30% dividend is potentially questionable and therefore, may be cuationed by his own internal instincts, to look further into the broker and the stock itself. The problem takes a spin however, when the Internet factor is thrown in. And what a difference such a consideration makes? The mere thought of the Internet playing a role in this situation automatically and instinctively finds me with the my guard up and my suspicions heightened. And how unfortunate, given the potential that the Internet offers us today - in terms of communications, relationshps and business endeavors, to say the least. I agree too, that given the Internet source, the validity and credibility of a stockbroker may be less easy to verify and thus, may be less trustworthy.
intersectionality of moral values and legal duty
These two scenarios illustrate the intersectionality of moral values and legal duty. In the case of the taxi driver, he had the legal duty as a licensed carrier to return the items to the rightful owner. Although he could have breached this duty with little risk to himself (and much more gain), he chose to return the diamonds. This indicates an individual operating from a factoring-in of moral values into the cost/benefit analysis. The loss factored was not the risk of losing his job or being arrested, but rather the uncomfortability that would result had he operated outside his moral framework. Operating from a moral framework is what defines our humanity and creates an atmosphere of trust. Yet, his behavior is exceptional as most people in his position would keep the diamonds. This is the problem with creating a trusting internet environment. Absolute anonymity creates a cloak of impunity that virtually eliminates the risk while widening the gain available to criminal enterprisers. As the moral fabric in modern day society is unraveling, people are losing their humanity by operating more from a strict cost/benefit analysis.
On the other hand, in the case of the stockbroker, morality interfered with his legal duty. The relationship of stockbroker to investor creates a fiduciary trust that is breached when the stockbroker influences the investor’s purchases. Here, the stockbroker seemed to be operating from a pure motive of helping an inexperienced investor to make a wise choice. However, should that investment fail, the broker has incurred liability for himself as well as his firm. Moral values may conflict with the duty to deal at arm’s length with investors and other consumers in the free market economy. Online transactions effectively eliminate this problem.
Accountiblity
Hello,
The taxi-driver example provides a useful insight into another way that trust works. The taxi-driver's relucatnce to accept the $100 indicates that they have acted in an altruistic manner. However, if we did not have this information, it would raise the possiblity of the taxi-driver's behaviour being motivated by their trust in the legal system's ability to identify their violation of acceptable behaviour and hold them accountible for it i.e. fear of being caught and punished promotes acts which are desirable.
Accountibility is one way to force a degree of trust. With taxi-drivers, they are licenced and their routes/fairs are recorded. It would be a simple matter for the customer to trace who provided her with the service and make enquiries about the missing goods. This encourages to the taxi-driver to behave in accordance with generally socially-accepted norms. It is similar to the 'How's My Driving?' stickers found on most commercial transport in the UK. The fact that an individual can be held accountable for their actions means that they will modify their behaviour accordingly. This may lead to people not trusting each other, but trusting the organisations/structures in which they interact. However, taken to an extreme, this surviellance can lead to a panoptican society, where all interaction is predicated on the assumption one is being observed by an agent who can punish one for perceived violations. This would obviously distort inter-party trust.
Trust & Behavior
I would describe the taxi driver’s behaviour as resulting from altruistic motives. This proverb has been expressed in many different forms “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”, and speaks to me of an investment that we can make into society that surpasses natural reasoning or motives. AbbyR has brought up a good point on purpose; purpose brings productivity and a desire to adhere to a structure that will benefit oneself and others. I think when our motives are right, not just our actions, that is true fulfillment of the law. When our actions are right but not our motives we will always be looking for a means to express our suppressed motives in a way that will escape consequence and judgment from others.
In regards to the situation with the stockbroker I think that there is a responsibility of due diligence to investigate the stock and the stockbroker by the Client. This would be applicable in an f2f setting or online. The client alone is aware to the full extent of their financial situation and what they can afford to loose. I am not aware of the legalities of a stockbroker, but from a moral or profession perspective I would say that the stockbroker has not breached his Clients trust. By giving the Client all the options (varying from highest to lowest risk) the stockbroker is doing his job. The first stage of a business transaction of that nature is an exchange of information, and then both parties must weigh that information in light of their situation. As well, when I think of my own banking/investing experience my level of confidence begins with the company’s reputation, goals, and standards as a whole and not just the individual that is representing that company to me.
Taxi driver and stockbroker scenarios
To my mind, taxi driver's behavior was
1. Altruistic and professional, he was willing to help and be moral by doing the right thing and comply with the professional rules of conduct.
2. Rational, he realized that eventually his misbehavior would be detected and he would have to face the consequences. But if we think of the same scenario where in case the luggage is not returned, the possibility of detection is miserable, the only explanation would be the FIRST one.
In stockbroker case, I think stockbroker's conduct was unprofessional, depending on jurisdiction even illegal, because he tried to influence his client's decision. To my mind, any unprofessional conduct of supplier or seller is/should be considered as a breach of trust. I think the the same rule applies to online services.
Trust seems to play an
Trust seems to play an essential role in both cases.
Do we have to trust the taxidriver or not? At the moment you step in a taxi you expose yourself and your safety to the drivingstyle, the honesty and knowledge etc. of the taxidriver. At that moment most people have decided to trust the driver.
As follows from the above the driver has the duty to operate in honesty and not to abuse or misuse the trust that his clients put in him.
Do we have to trust the broker or not? The same seems to be true here. The 65-year old relies on the broker to invest his money, it is not just money, these are pension savings. Regarding the importance of pension savings I would say that we may trust the broker at that moment to offer the best services and advice. The broker has, in my opinion, the obligation to act as honest, integer adviser. Especially, if he deals with a 65-year old and even more if services are provided through the internet while not everyone is familiar with online provision of services.
Respect and Personal Choice
These two scenarios are fascinating in that they embrace human qualities and adversities we face in almost any situation in our daily lives. They embrace the qualities of trust, accountability, honesty, faith in others, personal beliefs or morals, ethics, respect and professionalism.
The most significant factor for me in each of the stories is respect. Each of the individuals had a personal choice to make. Do they act in a manner which would be self-serving or do they do the honorable thing and do what is right. Each of the people who were in a vulnerable position (the cab passenger or the client), could have been taken advantage of. There are always loopholes which are available for people to get away with doing bad things. What stops this? Personally I believe it is a combination of respect and choice.
Respecting oneself and respecting other people regardless of age, race, religion, weight, etc., influences the choices you make. Acting respectfully does not rely on another person’s actions but acts independent from outside influence.
distinguish different levels of trust
As for the Stock Broker 's case, I think there are two different levels of trust in this story,both from the client's point of view. One is trust of people, the other is trust of his judgement.
1. trust of people, which means weather the broker is giving the true judgement according to the information he had already got and not cheating the client. Advising on stocks is common in my country(China), especially among relatives and acquaintance. On this level, the only thing the client need to consider is weather the stocker had any bad attempt on him, if the stocker himself buy the same kind of stocks in large amount, perhaps he should trust him on this level.
2.Trust of his judgement, which is totally irrelavant with his quality or personality . The client can trust the stocker not cheating him, while as the same time question his judgement
Then we can discuss the internet case, the difference is that the first level of trust may reduce due to the instinct untrustness of strangers.
stake VS trust
Another point came into my mind when I review the second story is that weather we easily trust people depending on the risk we take.
As for the 65-year old man, the stake is too large , for that is his pension payment , in that case ,he might be more suspicious to trust the broker not because of anything of the broker but the reason himself.
So trust in a sense not only directe to others, but may be influenced by the objective status of ourselves as well.
Shared Individual & Collective Responsibility
I sooo agree with you Iris “So trust in a sense not only direct to others, but may be influenced by the objective status of ourselves as well.”
....We create our realities projecting our sense of reality outwards. I think therefore I am (Descartes)...On the topic of trust, we project our insecurities on to our surroundings sometimes perceiving threat where there is none. So it would seem that a requirement for a trusting online community would be a sense of security within each member. Each individual obviously has the most control over their own personal sense of security in the group and the world in general so they have the most responsibility for owning and being cognizant of their sense of security and sense of trust. Authentically communicating when they are sensing a failure in trust would build trust in a community. Joseph Conrad in his novel, Heart of Darkness, says, "We live as we dream, alone"...which to a certain extent, i agree with, however, I do believe in our interconnectedness and the power of group energy as well. A trusting/trusted community has the shared responsibility to take necessary steps to create safe environment. Creating trust is a 2-way dance between the individual perceiving the world around and the world around perceiving him/her. Clearly articulating motivation, intention and purpose would help to foster a sense of security. The more communication the better. Timely responses with feedback and conscious explicit acknowledgement of previous communication and points therein would foster trust. This online community clearly states its goals and what it intends to do to reach them. Some sort of stating of a purpose or mission that all members invest in intellectually/emotionally creates a sense of commonalty and trust. Also the way that we have all been discussing the goal and our understanding of how to make it happen has built trust between us I think as we share our understandings. Speaking of lots of communication – greenpeacemaker & TrustEnabler – you still out there?
Comment about the taxi driver
Thanks for shunter's reply:)
About the taxi driver's behavior, I would like to summarize it as " being kind not at the expense of himself." I guess as long as we are human beings, we all had potential good quality and will be willing to offer, as long as that does not influence our own interests.
I guess it is the same concerning trust. We can offer limit degree of trust easily as not to affect our own interests, and as I mentioned in the broker's case, if that involves our own interest, then everyone will be hesitate and cautious.
I would rather like to say that this it universial characters regardless of personality, just like the economics based their theory on" all human beings are rational".
More on the Taxi Driver/Broker Question
Hi Everyone,
Tamar, I feel that your examples of the taxi driver and stock broker provide a potentially excellent example of consciousness and the ability to take perspectives. I wanted to make some extended comments and engender discussion, but wanted to respect your request of a 175 word limit to the main thread. I encourage participants and others to post to Tamar's original thread to resolve the questions posed. If you have specific comments or criticisms on the viewpoints in this thread I encourage those! Therefore, I offer the following in the context of a related thread.
The higher any person evolves--cognitively, morally, behaviorally, spiritually, etc.--the more perspectives they can take. As I read these examples I felt the taxi driver perhaps reflected a level of awareness that allowed him to take the perspective of the woman who'd lost her suitcase. Perhaps he simply said to himself "how would I feel if I'd lost my suitcase with valued possessions in it?" The ability to actually take this perspective--really take it and "be" literally in the other person's shoes is, despite how simple it may seem to some of us, a dramatic breakthrough in conscious awareness that simply is not present in individuals who cannot take multiple perspectives.
A brief exercise that we can all draw upon from personal experience in resolving is this: you buy something at the store and receive too much change. Do you keep it or do you go back and give them the money? More importantly, why do you do one or the other? What is your honest motivation?
Some of us may say, "well, what the heck, the "gods" blessed me today and gave me a windfall," or "ahh! good karma!" or perhaps, "I SHOULD take this money back because it is not right to keep it." Perhaps all of these are valid view points--to be sure they all reflect different levels of consciousness whether we wish to accord this as valid or not. There are many other perspectives as well, for example "serves them right, capitalist pigs, at least I got a little bit back from the unjust system that enslaves me," or "Hmmm, $5 isn't much money, but I wonder how that impacts the person working the register. Will they be responsible if the till is short at the end of the day? Might they even be suspected of stealing?"
Your perspective will tell you your level of awareness and the moral development you have achieved. If you believe the money is yours under a "finders-keepers" viewpoint your moral development is at the archaic level--capable of taking only your own perspective. If you believe that it "serves them right, capitalist pigs", your moral development is at the ethnocentric level--"they" are not in your in-group and you therefore accord them no rights. If you believe that you "should" return the money you are operating at either the mythic level (it is the right thing to do based on pre-given rules "from above") or you may be at the higher rational level (it is the right thing to do because society can't function if we don't do what is right). If you give the money back because you are concerned about the impact of the transaction on the store owner or the cashier you probably have a post-modernist pluralistic viewpoint. If you return the money because you take a global perspective on your own personal role and responsibility in co-creating the way the global world works, then you probably have second-tier moral consciousness.
The key to understanding the relevance of all this is that these are different stages of development, whether moral, cognitive, behavior. Your worldview depends on your developmental stage. And, what constitutes good morals, good intelligence or rationality or good behavior is dependent upon your worldview. My contention--in accordance with Integral theory in general--is that it is not fair to impose one's viewpoint on others in a coercive manner BUT it is neither wise nor good for humanity in general to simply allow lower developmental stage values to run roughshod over the planet. We must be willing to make distinctions and we must be willing to stand for expansion of the highest, multi-perspective viewpoints in the world. Yet, we have no right to enforce any one worldview--even the most enlightened--on all people all the time. This poses tremendous challenges upon anyone who, from a higher perspective, wishes to partake in the creation of new values-creation for a global network like the Internet.
The stock broker example is potentially more complex. To me the question turns on his "belief" about the particular stock in question. If he believed the stock was safe and matched the investment needs of his client, then to me the advice is reasonable--unless his belief is entirely based on a subjective profit desire and not based on his objective experience and at least some research on the company. If he merely relied on a tip from another person, then to me his recommendation is shaky--especially if we accord a higher level of responsibility to stock brokers--such as a fiduciary relationship to clients.
Still, I would resolve the matter by focusing on the broker's motivation juxtaposed against his or her values and world view. If the primary motivation is the profit through making a commission on the sale and there was little or no independent assessment about the value of the stock, then to me this person is operating on a lower level of awareness--where his cognitive and moral abilities are overshadowed by his profit motives. Motivations such as this, divorced from higher moral values lead to far more problems than benefits in the world. Therefore, to me, they should be accorded less value--and thus less protection--than higher-values-based conduct.
For anyone interested in a real-world example of profit-lust gone crazy and ethical/moral values being sublimated in favor of easy money, simply research and read about the growing "scandal" forming around the mortgage industry in the US as it comes to light that tens of thousands of Americans were put into extremely poor mortgage loans in order to generate massive profits for brokers and some lenders, and without regard to the consequences to borrowers. What makes this a "scandal" versus an economic problem is the rowing evidence that brokers knowingly put people into loans they knew would turn "upside down" if the real estate market did not continue to grow at a record pace.
Back to the stock broker issue: Does it make a difference if the transaction is done entirely online? To me it doesn't make a difference objectively. However, I think your question raises an outstanding and important issue: are human morals more lax in the online world where we "touch" others only indirectly through technology? Would the broker "feel" worse about recommending a risky stock to a person he had met personally versus a person he has "met" only online? And would this bad "feeling" constrain his lust for money more in the real-world versus the online world?
I believe this may be the case. I've read some of the posts advocating greater security or risk of punishment when undertaking potentially immoral conduct online. Of course--as some of the posters have mentioned--we cannot agree globally on what these moral standards really are. Therefore, my personal view is that imposition of moral-standards-based punishment for online conduct lacks legitimacy unless and until there is some global standard for each type of behavior. My view--as articulated in other posts--is that this is nearly impossible given the vastly different levels of cognitive and moral consciousness in humans across the globe.
Is pornography bad because Allah or the Pope say so? Or, is pornography bad because it exploits people? Or, is pornography bad because it may lead to destructive behavior against others? Or is pornography bad, but nonetheless partially protected because we have to have a wide-lattitude for free "speech"? Your worldview gives you your answer. And the distinctions, differentiations, proscriptions and punishments will be different based on the level of turpitude some specific activity is perceived to have within your worldview. So, how can we regulate this globally? More importantly, how can we regulate it uniformly? And the same holds true for online gaming, hate speech, plagiarism, quasi-libelous blog speech and many other forms of online interaction.
Therefore, I would resolve at least business/commerce-related issues more by way of granting privileges for using the Internet in commercial situations much the same way local and state governments regulate business--it is a privilege to operate a business in the sense that a state can shut your doors for a veriety of reasons. Since the prevailing use of the Internet seems to be commercial (excepting of course e-mail communication which in sheer volume far outpaces business transactions) then regulation ought to be commerce-based. If you cheat somebody, you lose a privilege to transact further business or at least face a fine of some type.
We can assess such forms of "cheating" more easily on a global basis than we can fairly assess and punish behaviors in a moral context. The reason is that humans globally can understand the idea of trust in a fiduciary context, but we cannot come close to agreeing on moral standards. I'm not suggesting draconian standards about products and services. Rather, I'm suggesting that e-commerce rules and regulation can be imbued with quasi-fiduciary standards that differentiate between making a judgment-based mistake (recommending a stock that doesn't perform as well as you expected) versus making a value-based malfeasance (recommending a stock you have no idea about because you want to make a profit and could care less if the client makes money or not).
Edward Rholl
President, Transformative Law
www.transformativelaw.com
in response to Diamonds and stocks
Dear Tamar,
I think you touch on two fundamental issues of greed and need. In both instances, it could be classified in the first category, however in the second scenario it may be more towards need. Allow me to explain:
Diamonds in a suitcase at the back of a taxi don't happen very often. And it sure surprising when it is found the concept of 'finders keepers doesn't come in'. To them be offered $100 and out of kindness not to accept- is not really what a conventional freemarket individual would do. However, if the taxi driver is as you describe, then it is out of pure honesty and lack of other motivation than to return the items to the original owner, out of his duty to his job, his work and himself. For what purpose and why this lady had those diamonds in that suit case I guess would be relatively insignificant, for those diamonds could be replaced with other items expensive or inexpective. It was his intent and motive to return 'lost' items that was most significant.
Whilst in the second situation, the individual is a pensioner and I think that subjectively creates an imagine of someone who having retired is living on limited funds. IT provides a greater cause or argument for them to possibly want to invest. I do question your scenario as to how or why it should in fact be a breach of trust to the client. A stockbroker merely does their job which is to advise on stocks and shares, so on balance it would in fact be contrary to his profession to not advise if he know a client had some money which could be well invested. That is ofcourse that is infact the case. So based on your two scenarios, which I think the latter is more believable, I find that as commercial transactions they are valid, but in reality may be different.
Kind regards,
Helen
Well the taxi driver's
Well the taxi driver's behavior is perfect to me, although I doubt there are such people. Yes he should accept the 100$ for his efforts in finding the suitcase owner although he had to face a huge temptation.When it comes to brokers story i think the man should search for more informations in online stock trading to backup his lack of experience and then re discuss the terms with the stockbroker.