TaN: One major reason why there is increasing incidences of unethical practices is because EQ develops slower than IQ. It is probably human nature to be easily impressed with intellectual prowess when, in truth, emotional maturity is not only more important, it is a whole lot more reliable as a measurement or gauge of a person’s maturity and responsibility.
IQ only refers to the intellectual development or capability – where it mostly involves words, sentence construction, grammar, pronunciation and diction, and other aspects of speech communication. In other words, the data gained in the course of living to serve as a knowledge pool to be drawn from.
EQ pertains to the emotional development or maturity – where it involves our ability to distinguish and recognize the important things and to make the corresponding decisions and behavior that will be most advantageous. It undertstands the complexities of relationships between things and events.
IQ, to be beneficial and advantageous must be supervised and guided by EQ. To illustrate, when a child is told that if s/he does something good, s/he will be given a slice of cake (as a reward) and if s/he will not eat it at once but wait an hour, s/he will get another cake, most kids will eat the cake without hesitation. IQ is shown when the child performs the good deed to get the reward. The EQ is exhibited when the child waits an hour in order to get the second slice of cake – because kids with undeveloped EQ will eat the cake and not wait the hour for the greater reward.
How does this connect to the incidences of unethical practices? Most adults are only able to apply their IQ but not their EQ – otherwise they would be able to understand that good ethics (inclusive of social concerns and of environmental considerations) will redound to greater returns in the long-term. They fail to comprehend how everything is interrelated and that man cannot – try as he will – detach or remove himself from nature. He is totally dependent on one another and on the environment for his very existence – let alone his flourishing and elevation. Most have such a myopic vision of all things and events around him – failing to understand the concept of “What goes around comes around“, “the Butterfly Effect“, “Sir Isaac Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion: For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction“, “Karma“, and “Natural Equilibrium“.
There is the saying, Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional. By “refusing to grow up”, we unwittingly doom ourselves (and others) to damnation – where ethics is very much a part of, for ethics is in every action and decision we make.
TaN: Changing for the sake of change. It used to be that a business would introduce a product and if the public buys it, they make a neat profit else it would be a flop and the company would have to absorb the loss. There would be no “intimidation”, no “collusion” (with government, usually through legislation or via an agency established just for the purpose), no “media marketing spin” (to dampen or even reverse the damage to reputation or credibility), and other strategies that are designed or intended to establish or reinforce a market foothold for a product or service that otherwise (frequently) did not gain public acceptability.
It is sad and pitiful that business and commerce these days have embraced the concept and the technique of changing for the sake of change. It has come to the point where business (i.e., selling) can no longer be conducted unless consumers are “coerced” into making purchases. The most effective tactic is to develop consumer dependence on your product, establish an “informal” or “practical” monopoly – either by your own efforts or through the “assistance” of government regulations and agencies and of legislation (like the IPRs and the BSA) – and introduce “new innovations” or versions (like what Microsoft is doing) and dropping or discontinuing previous ones in order to “persuade” “loyal” (read: captive) consumers to shift or patronize the new products and discard the previous (but still useful) ones.
By discontinuing support for the previous products, consumers are left with no alternative but to acquire the new ones because: (1) they have become addicted to or dependent and (2) have been instilled with FUD or the fear – the “F” in FUD – that the previous products will fail or will severely and negatively impact business operations and profit. Again, consumers are “left with no alternatives” because they have been “conditioned” not to trust their better judgement/s and are limited in their information. These make up the “D” (for doubt) and the “U” (for uncertainty) of FUD. This tactic have consistently been successfully applied and priven by many businesses (i.e., those with dubious and questionable reputations and even among the more reputable ones who are able to keep a respectable facade).
Another marketing ploy is to pressure consumers by making them either feel insecure, outdated or out-moded, or not up to speed with the times. Products are introduced along with the notion that it is innovation and that not to have it is to be out of step with modernity or that one is poor – as if being poor is a crime, an embrassment, a disgrace (when, in truth, it is the persistent or insistence of remaining in poverty and not the state of poverty itself that is “criminal” or wrong); in other words, to shame consumers into buying so as not to feel left out, not to be seen as poor, not to feel ostracized. This technique “esnures” a market for the product or service. It is very unfortunate and pitiful that a lot of people are precisely so gullible or in so much need to be noticed, to be accepted, not to feel left out that – unwittingly or not – they permit themselves to be hoodwinked or become a captive of such a nefarious marketing ploy.