Canada, as many other Western countries, is a high trust society. A basic definition of a high trust society is as follows: High-trust societies display a high degree of mutual trust not imposed by outside "contractual, legal or hierarchical regulation", but instead are based upon "prior moral consensus". So, one way to interpret this is to say you believe people will do the right thing based on moral principles the entire country shares, not just because there is a law out there that will punish them if they do otherwise. You could also say that members of a high trust society believe that we generally want to engage in talks, actions and work for mutual benefit and that we do not want to achieve our own goals by directly harming someone else in a premeditated way.
Nevertheless, people still harm each other even in high trust societies- some would say especially in high trust societies. However, we can ask what a definition of harm is, and include manipulation in there too. Because well, in first world societies, manipulation is the white glove approach to harming people for your own gain and we see it way too often. Phishing, CRA scams in Canada, computer virus tech support pay us with Google Play Store gift cards type of scam all over North America, courses that overpromise and underdeliver... the list goes on. Basically, the way I see it (and I am not the only one), the higher the society's trust level, the less force and physical harm has to be used by those who want to get something out of you in a bad, harmful way. Nevertheless, they still try.
Why does all of this matter? Well, dearest readers, it matters because, should we enter an economic downturn, the number of people who will try stuff will increase exponentially. As they compete for their "market share", they will become more sophisticated about it. This is where my TikTok clip story from the beginning comes into play. That little girl knew she could be physically and/or mentally manipulated. She was taught that, she humbly accepted it. She has no hubris, no ballooning self-confidence to think that everything she accepts from others is legit simply because she accepted it, that no one manipulated or tricked her. So, she refuses all communication and interaction once she spots a possible setup and she does not second guess herself. Frankly, we need more of that today. Many times, we need too politely yet firmly extricate ourselves from situations. Freedom of discourse? How about freedom from discourse. Freedom of speech? How about freedom from speech.
I will give you an example that many people who lived in places like Eastern Europe often talk about. In many Eastern European countries, you cannot just approach girls in the street and hit it off (regardless of what some casting couch companies would have you believe haha). You need to find someone to make an introduction, a chain of relatives or friends or acquaintances to connect you with that person. Otherwise, you are pretty much a creep and you could get kneed in the nuts, pepper sprayed or curb stomped by tall burly concerned citizens who watch out for their country's women.
Now, personally I prefer something in the middle. I like the whimsy of chance encounters, new things, new experiences, new ways of thinking and looking at the world, but at the same time I do also like the ability to give a firm no to something, put my hand up as a stop sign, or give neither give nor accept opinions on topics of my own choosing. I also think that a society as a whole should not push you to the extreme of one or the other, of low trust or high trust. Either way, you end up with chaos in the streets. By that logic, if we deem ourselves a high trust society, that is not a good thing- not a good thing at all. An analogy of an email inbox with no spam or junk mail folders and filters comes to mind. We simply cannot have that.
What is the solution then? A hardcore swing in the opposite direction is not the solution, as we have already established that both a low trust and a high trust society would result in chaos in the streets. Instead, I like to rely on Game Theory as a practical guide. Originally devised last century in the 40's and applied to economics, it demonstrated that "economics is much like a game, wherein players anticipate each other’s moves, and therefore requires a new kind of mathematics". It is about looking at all scenarios where the choices of competing participants interact to affect the outcome. In every case, each participant's identity, preference and available strategies are clearly defined, and then you calculate possible outcomes based on that. If you fail to understand enough about a participant's identity, preferences and available strategies, your speculation on what will happen when they interact with you or other people is flawed at best. So, it comes down to knowing what to look for, and the quality of information you have versus quantity. It comes down to focusing a lot on a smaller number of people. It comes down to knowing what to know about yourself, and knowing what to look for in others.
One outcome of this, dearest readers, is that you may just stop looking for an apple in a basket of oranges. Or, you may pick an orange that is apple enough for you, because both oranges and apples are sweet and sweet is what you want. Or, you may decide you never wanted apples or oranges in the first place and will not accept either under any circumstance.