on March 3rd, 2010 in 
Introduction:
I recently did a survey to emulate this speech by Rebecca Saxe.
For actual survey and results please refer to end of article.
The survey was given out to approx. 250 people (MBS Class of 2011, MBS Class of 2010 & my Facebook friends. Total people count = 580; Total approx. UNIQUE people = 250). The respondents represented a lot of variety - nationalities, age groups, professions and a healthy mindset (if the MBA hasn’t yet taken its toll, that is). I believe that the set of respondents represents future, responsible leaders who will be shaping the fabric of our society.
I got 106 responses in 53 hours, but was able to analyse only 100 responses (curse SurveyMonkey basic account).
The scenario described two siblings going to a chemical factory and drinking coffee.
Sally and Paul are siblings. Their father works in a Chemical Plant. One day they go to the Chemical Plant and sit in the control room. Paul asks Sally to make some coffee.
Sally goes into the Kitchen area and…
What followed next were the label on the pot, Sally’s actions and the consequences to Paul. Paul has no choice but to drink the coffee and bear the consequences. Depending on what the situation was, respondents were asked to choose a suitable course of consequences for Sally.
Note that although the questions have 4 choices each (included for variety), the courses of action are really only two. Should Sally be set free or imprisoned? The remaining two choices just vary the degree of punishment and not the course of punishment awarded.
The first evident structure of the questions is:
| Label | Sally’s action | Actual stuff | Consequences for Paul | Consequences for Sally |
| POISON | Mixes it in the coffee | SUGAR | HAPPY | 27 – Set Free
73 – Imprisoned |
| UNLABELLED | Mixes it in the coffee | SUGAR | HAPPY | 98 – Set Free
02 – Imprisoned |
| UNLABELLED | Mixes it in the coffee | POISON | DEAD | 87 – Set Free
13 – Imprisoned |
| SUGAR | Mixes it in the coffee | POISON | DEAD | 94 – Set Free
06 – Imprisoned |
Look closely.
- When Paul is DEAD, the vast majority of the people believe that Sally should be set free. Great !?!?
- Sally’s ONLY ACTION is to mix stuff in the coffee. Therefore, the consequences she faces are NOT a result of her actions!
What? There is something wrong with these 100 respondents, isn’t it? Or is there?
So we must introduce another column – Sally’s Thoughts, that is responsible for changing the consequences faced by her. Let me explain. What if Sally were a robot – who did not know how to read and write, who only knew how to mix white stuff in coffee. Then?
So we (future leaders) judge people by their thoughts and not the actions that they do.
Let’s introduce Sally’s thoughts into the picture.
- In Q1, what if Sally KNEW that the white stuff was SUGAR?
- In Q2, what if Sally THOUGHT that the white stuff was POISON?
- In Q3, what if Sally KNEW that the white stuff was SUGAR?
- In Q4, what if Sally KNEW that the white stuff was POISON?
So, it seems that we judge people not by their actions but by what we believe their thoughts were, while the actions were being performed.
However the LAW believes otherwise. The law relies on proof. Proof of intentions and thoughts. If all the respondents were sitting in a court of law as jury they would probably be more inclined to lean towards what was seen as proof, rather than what Sally thought. Why? Simple. Sally could have been lying.
But as individuals, as this small exercise proved, we are able to surpass the possibility of lying by what we believe Sally thought.
This is a very important deduction. Human beings are the result of tens of thousands of years of evolution – physical as well as emotional. Somehow, we have in our minds a mechanism to detect (and assume it to be true) the intention of an individual irrespective of his/her actions! This, is the definition of instinct. So this exercise might as well have been carried out to see how people react to situations where instinct and tangibility are in opposition.
The apparent conflict of Sally being imprisoned even though nothing happens to Paul is the best example, exemplified by you all!
What are the insights here?
Can we put this result to any use?
- At a subconscious level, we are good at judging people’s motivations behind their actions.
- At a conscious level, we are put into conflict with what we believe about a person and what the proof points at.
- The society as a whole (Groupthink) judges a person by proof rather than their motivations.
Scary?
Not really if we can put this into an Argyris’ double loop and be conscious of someone’s actions:
- When forming an opinion about a person, stress on what you know about his/her thoughts rather than actions.
- I believe if enough people do this at a personal level, we can change the nature of crime and punishment in our society!
Thoughts?
RAW Survey Results
