Comind and Integrity

Introduction

In this section, we will define integrity and examine what makes a society or an individual more or less integral.

Definition

Integrity is the quality of adhering to the rules one claims to follow.

This definition is very close to that of Wiktionary.

A concept related to ...

a set of rules

Example: An integral accountant is one who adheres to accounting rules without cheating. When we speak of an integral person, it is often in the context of a specific set of rules.

a normal level

Like any relative concept, each individual sets their "normal level" where they see fit. Without a point of comparison or a shared standard, misunderstandings can quickly arise.

The importance of integrity

It reduces unpredictability, making planning easier. For example, in a non-integral society, the state might announce that certain people won't be laid off while knowing they will be.

Whether it’s an individual or a state, a lack of integrity reflects a desire to exploit others from a non-cooperative perspective. This is why the lack of integrity is always a troublesome issue.

Factors influencing integrity

Static Factors

Level of structure

The more sophisticated a system is, the more structure it requires. For instance, a group of friends can function without explicit rules, whereas 100 million people will need a constitution and laws. The level of structure does not determine integrity in itself but its significance.

Level of harmony

This refers to overall harmony, meaning the entire system. For example, coherent rules like “You must adhere to employment contract terms; mourning is not a valid reason for absence” may not align with human psychology.

The more harmonious a system is, the fewer contradictions there are, and thus individuals have very little motivation to deviate from the rules.

The implementation of rule adherence

A rule that lacks implementation, meaning it is not accompanied by a system of incentives to ensure compliance, has only a symbolic effect. Generally, a symbolic effect alone is insufficient. Therefore, implementing rules is a factor of integrity. This is even true on an individual level. For example, if someone has a rule, "I do two hours of exercise a day," they are far more likely to follow it if they are motivated by the satisfaction of accomplishing a challenging yet beneficial act than if they lack this motivation. Dynamic Factors.

Intelligence

Here, intelligence is understood as the effectiveness in making decisions that benefit the group

Let’s illustrate this with two examples:.

Positive example

A company operates quite harmoniously but notices small items being stolen

Consulting a psychologist, they understand that the financial link is insufficient and that individuals enjoy receiving a reward of their choice. This allows employees to have a tangible representation of the company's material benefits. Choosing their own reward expresses the freedom they have in the company, which is also significant. The company changes the rule from "No stealing" to “Stealing is prohibited, but employees may take items under certain conditions if declared and within a set limit. ” This change increases the harmony of the rules and improves employee well-being as their needs are acknowledged. Negative example.

Individuals find ways to cheat in awarding public contracts to receive commissions

This practice spreads, and no countermeasures are taken to correct it. A living system (such as a group of people) evolves.

Integrity prevents deviation from the group’s objectives. Thus, adapting effectively (while maintaining harmony) is necessary to maintain a good level of integrity. Inertia.

Being integral offers an advantage in social relationships

An integral group inspires trust in other groups or individuals. As this is an advantage, it is defended. Consequently, a group with a reputation for good integrity will tend to protect it. Conversely, a group with a reputation for low integrity would need to make significant efforts over an extended period to change its reputation.
This effort is particularly challenging as it involves combating non-integral practices that allow some members to derive illegitimate benefits. Similar to decay, it is easy to drift toward lower integrity but far more difficult to "heal" and regain higher integrity. Integrity vs.

Pragmatism

There is a common belief that integrity and pragmatism are opposites. For example, an integral person with the rule "You shall not kill" might be unable to save their children from a murderer because they couldn’t kill the aggressor. This is only true when rules are poorly designed and followed blindly without considering their purpose.

This is why Comind has only one rule: to prioritize the long-term common good. This rule can still be misused, for example:

Banning cars entirely because they are harmful to the planet.

We live in a complex world, and we must not dismiss the importance of short-term benefits. Moreover, flexible regulatory systems can be found (see this example).

Pragmatism, in the sense of effectively addressing local needs, is a good way to be guided by the logic of circumstances and make small or large discoveries. This relates to the concept of serendipity. Since everything evolves to remain integral, continuous improvement is necessary, and for improvement, testing and analyzing those tests are essential. Mistakes may occur when using pragmatic but poor long-term solutions.

This is why Comind should not be intrusive in trying to force integrity but should only provide harmonious rules that allow individuals to thrive within a coherent framework.

The level of integrity as a diagnostic of a group’s health

We have seen that the level of integrity depends on the harmony of rules with the rest of the system. Harmony, in turn, is a critical criterion of good design.
Even with implementation mechanisms that include strong incentives (like degrading punishments), good integrity cannot be achieved if individuals face contradictions.