I was thinking this morning about the way society seems to be regulating itself down to the lowest common denominator. And it got me thinking about how we get there – in our attempt to be empathetic or compassionate to a few, are we unfairly limiting, or even punishing the many? It comes through in so many small every day events.

For example:

• Pharmacies will no longer dispense more than a very limited supply of all drugs, just because a few people are tempted to abuse a very limited number of drugs. So we all now have to make unnecessary repeated trips to fulfil a single prescription.
• Major transport routes that will have a huge economic benefit to millions are scraped because of the displeasure of a few hundred or thousand – of whom are quite fairly financially compensated. And in this, the media plays a major role in over sensationalising the disadvantages to the few. They rally the masses on pure, unfounded or unbalanced propaganda.
• Immigrants expect local communities to change their cultures to suit theirs – making little effort to change their own ways.
• Schools lower the IQ level of lessons to the lowest demographic.
• Even policing and privacy seems to favour the criminal rather than the victim, offering them more support and privacy. Ever been a witness in a case and tried to get name suppression?

This reminds me of an incident where I was out at a local bar having a few drinks, and upon preparing to leave noticed that my mobile phone had gone from the table. I didn’t believe it was stolen – more that someone had mistakenly picked it up believing it to be theirs. Being unsuccessful in my attempts to locate it, I decided to phone the mobile carrier and ask them to switch it off. And of course, they obliged as standard practice. I then thought that perhaps by finding out where calls had been made, I could then identify the person who had it. So I asked the carrier for this information. I was politely told that this would be a breach of privacy of the person with my phone and they could not provide this information…seriously!!!  Here I was trying to be understanding that this was a mistake and not a theft and they wanted to protect the perpetrator instead of the victim. I wasn’t feeling quite so empathetic or compassionate at this point. After asking for the supervisor and reminding them that I was the owner of this account, and of the phone, and that I also paid for every call, making all calls also owned by me. I finally gained the information needed and tracked down the culprit. It was an honest mistake but it did stand out as being a rather ridiculous extension of how privacy is often acting as a barrier to communication, rather than a protection mechanism. Or protecting the wrong side of the relationship.

We also see this type of paradox online today – where regulators require website owners to assure the privacy of personal information, regardless of the fact that most of that information is freely available, and provided by the owner, on social media sites.

So just how far do we go with empathy and compassion?

Author: Gail La Grouw. Insight Mastery Program Director, and Strategic Performance Consultant for Coded Vision Ltd.