4 ms·

I can't think of any examples in which it is good. I also think that is a mischaracterization of the problem, and of the solution. Our instinct is to trust th

I can't think of any examples in which it is good. I also think that is a mischaracterization of the problem, and of the solution. Our instinct is to trust those in our communities, and distrust those outside our communities. While that was useful in the past, two significant things have changed: 1. We are in a civilized society where it is to our advantage to begin relationships with trust rather than distrust. 2. We are not in separate communities fighting over basic resources, but in a large community where smaller parts work together. These changes mean that the problem stems from us not trusting each other, and fragmenting the larger community. The solution is for us to realize our limitations, and overcome them, by trusting those with whom we are unfamiliar, and working together as a larger community.

malvosenior 9y ago
I’ve come to the exact opposite conclusion. We live in a world driven by marketing/advertising, hyper politicalization of all things, dark user patterns, spy-ware, government agendas... Entering any relationship with a default of distrust and allowing trust to be earned seems very prudent in 2017 (and probably any other time period).
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  I think we can differentiate between trusting people's words and trusting individuals themselves. The distinction is that people who disagree with us are not out to do us harm. We can disagree and work together. Trust is a nuanced subject, which is the very fact the "Us vs. Them" attitude ignores. If we clump everyone who disagrees with "us" into one group, we turn a prudent critical attitude into blatant distrust. It is important for us to be critical of ideas, but not of people.
  - malvosenior 9y ago
    Interesting. Again, I have the polar opposite position. I can trust an idea because I can evaluate it on its own merit. I can’t trust a person because they’re inherently driven by emotion instead of logic. I may trust someone in some capacity but not another. For instance I might trust someone to feed my dog but not invest my money. I also see the problem with “us vs them” with the “us” side of the equation. I’m a unique individual who’s thoughts, wants and needs don’t overlap with any group. To me everyone else is a “them” until I build a personal relationship with them.
    - thomastjeffery 9y ago
      > I also see the problem with “us vs them” with the “us” side of the equation. As someone who is often mischaracterized in a "them" category, I have the same frustrations. For example, my dad, rather often, dismisses real conversation as me being a "liberal", a group which he refuses (possibly cannot) define. Rather than tackle the ideas themselves, he chooses to dismiss them, and, whether he recognizes this fact, uses "Us vs. Them" as a personal excuse. Because this is an instinct, we are all susceptible. I certainly do not want to blindly consolidate individuals into an undefined group, and dismiss their ideas. I would much rather trust a person's ability to have honest perspective that is different from mine, and learn from that perspective.
      - Danihan 9y ago
        At a certain point, other people's ideas just don't matter that much. For someone who has years of expertise, or who has spent decades fine-tuning his or her worldview based on real evidence and life experience... what need to they have of uninformed opinions or debate. At some point, it only slows you down. All that matters is what you can or can't achieve, and that comes down more to persuasion.
        thomastjeffery 9y ago
        If everyone is as belligerent and stubborn as you seem to be right now, then you are right that it is a waste of time. In my experience, that is not the case, and I benefit from hearing others' perspectives even if they do not persuade me. Some advice: you aren't likely to persuade many by ignoring their viewpoints or dismissing their character by grouping "Them".
anigbrowl 9y ago
I can't think of any examples in which it is good. Bad actors exist in the world and can and do team up. If you adhere to the view that Nobody Is Truly Bad that's nice but you won't be able to defend yourself or anyone else when attacked and thus raise the incentives for non-cooperators.There's a reason your body has an immune system.
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  > If you adhere to the view that Nobody Is Truly Bad I do. It is their actions and ideas that are bad. Even if you do not agree with me, I think it is important to show others trust until you have a real reason not to. What the "Us vs. Them" attitude does is ignore the potential for people in the "Them" group to have anything of value to the "Us" group, or the potential for both groups to work together.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    OK, but I'm talking about those cases where people have already provided reasons not to trust them. And I don't mean people who are affiliated with their group by default, such as people who happen to have been born in North Korea and whose opposition to the United States is thus an inherited position, but people who choose to affiliate with other actors. Put another way, sure, people are products of their circumstances to some extent, but they do also have agency, and insofar as they choose to be aggressive I consider them 'bad people' until they abandon such choices.
    - thomastjeffery 9y ago
      > OK, but I'm talking about those cases where people have already provided reasons not to trust them. That's perfectly reasonable. I was still focused on the "Us vs. Them" attitude, which doesn't apply here. If you haven't met or interacted with someone, but you choose to categorize that person in the "Them" group, that is unreasonable. It can be tricky when individuals seem to put themselves in your "Them" group. When that happens, it's probably a good idea to stop, and take care to define what "Them" entails, and how that individual fits there. If you don't, that person may be unjustly labeled by you, and you by them. When we label each other, and create meta-groups to dislike, that creates a divide that isn't helpful for either side, because each side is mischaracterized, and all nuance is ignored. > until they abandon such choices My advice is to be careful not to judge others solely by the things you dislike about them. The details you focus on are not the entirety of their character. If someone only finds friendship in a group that promotes ideas that you are opposed to, that person is likely to promote those ideas. If you befriend that person, you can begin on common ground, and work together toward ideas that you agree to be worthwhile. That person will thereby have less focus on the idea you don't like. None of us is perfect, and we can certainly all find faults in one another. If we all reject others for the faults we find in them, we will all be rejected.
pjc50 9y ago
There are generally high trust and low trust cultures within organisations as well as in societies: https://www.whatsbestnext.com/2011/06/low-trust-cultures-vs-high-trust-cultures/ https://www.whatsbestnext.com/2011/06/low-trust-cultures-vs-... Both are effectively stable equilibria, so it's hard to upgrade trust across a society. And where it's possible to profit from breach of trust it becomes profitable for a few to turn a society from high-trust into low-trust, which I suspect is happening at the moment in the West.

malvosenior 9y ago

I’ve come to the exact opposite conclusion. We live in a world driven by marketing/advertising, hyper politicalization of all things, dark user patterns, spy-ware, government agendas... Entering any relationship with a default of distrust and allowing trust to be earned seems very prudent in 2017 (and probably any other time period).

thomastjeffery 9y ago
I think we can differentiate between trusting people's words and trusting individuals themselves. The distinction is that people who disagree with us are not out to do us harm. We can disagree and work together. Trust is a nuanced subject, which is the very fact the "Us vs. Them" attitude ignores. If we clump everyone who disagrees with "us" into one group, we turn a prudent critical attitude into blatant distrust. It is important for us to be critical of ideas, but not of people.
- malvosenior 9y ago
  Interesting. Again, I have the polar opposite position. I can trust an idea because I can evaluate it on its own merit. I can’t trust a person because they’re inherently driven by emotion instead of logic. I may trust someone in some capacity but not another. For instance I might trust someone to feed my dog but not invest my money. I also see the problem with “us vs them” with the “us” side of the equation. I’m a unique individual who’s thoughts, wants and needs don’t overlap with any group. To me everyone else is a “them” until I build a personal relationship with them.
  - thomastjeffery 9y ago
    > I also see the problem with “us vs them” with the “us” side of the equation. As someone who is often mischaracterized in a "them" category, I have the same frustrations. For example, my dad, rather often, dismisses real conversation as me being a "liberal", a group which he refuses (possibly cannot) define. Rather than tackle the ideas themselves, he chooses to dismiss them, and, whether he recognizes this fact, uses "Us vs. Them" as a personal excuse. Because this is an instinct, we are all susceptible. I certainly do not want to blindly consolidate individuals into an undefined group, and dismiss their ideas. I would much rather trust a person's ability to have honest perspective that is different from mine, and learn from that perspective.
    - Danihan 9y ago
      At a certain point, other people's ideas just don't matter that much. For someone who has years of expertise, or who has spent decades fine-tuning his or her worldview based on real evidence and life experience... what need to they have of uninformed opinions or debate. At some point, it only slows you down. All that matters is what you can or can't achieve, and that comes down more to persuasion.
      - thomastjeffery 9y ago
        If everyone is as belligerent and stubborn as you seem to be right now, then you are right that it is a waste of time. In my experience, that is not the case, and I benefit from hearing others' perspectives even if they do not persuade me. Some advice: you aren't likely to persuade many by ignoring their viewpoints or dismissing their character by grouping "Them".

anigbrowl 9y ago

I can't think of any examples in which it is good. Bad actors exist in the world and can and do team up. If you adhere to the view that Nobody Is Truly Bad that's nice but you won't be able to defend yourself or anyone else when attacked and thus raise the incentives for non-cooperators.There's a reason your body has an immune system.

thomastjeffery 9y ago
> If you adhere to the view that Nobody Is Truly Bad I do. It is their actions and ideas that are bad. Even if you do not agree with me, I think it is important to show others trust until you have a real reason not to. What the "Us vs. Them" attitude does is ignore the potential for people in the "Them" group to have anything of value to the "Us" group, or the potential for both groups to work together.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  OK, but I'm talking about those cases where people have already provided reasons not to trust them. And I don't mean people who are affiliated with their group by default, such as people who happen to have been born in North Korea and whose opposition to the United States is thus an inherited position, but people who choose to affiliate with other actors. Put another way, sure, people are products of their circumstances to some extent, but they do also have agency, and insofar as they choose to be aggressive I consider them 'bad people' until they abandon such choices.
  - thomastjeffery 9y ago
    > OK, but I'm talking about those cases where people have already provided reasons not to trust them. That's perfectly reasonable. I was still focused on the "Us vs. Them" attitude, which doesn't apply here. If you haven't met or interacted with someone, but you choose to categorize that person in the "Them" group, that is unreasonable. It can be tricky when individuals seem to put themselves in your "Them" group. When that happens, it's probably a good idea to stop, and take care to define what "Them" entails, and how that individual fits there. If you don't, that person may be unjustly labeled by you, and you by them. When we label each other, and create meta-groups to dislike, that creates a divide that isn't helpful for either side, because each side is mischaracterized, and all nuance is ignored. > until they abandon such choices My advice is to be careful not to judge others solely by the things you dislike about them. The details you focus on are not the entirety of their character. If someone only finds friendship in a group that promotes ideas that you are opposed to, that person is likely to promote those ideas. If you befriend that person, you can begin on common ground, and work together toward ideas that you agree to be worthwhile. That person will thereby have less focus on the idea you don't like. None of us is perfect, and we can certainly all find faults in one another. If we all reject others for the faults we find in them, we will all be rejected.

pjc50 9y ago

There are generally high trust and low trust cultures within organisations as well as in societies: https://www.whatsbestnext.com/2011/06/low-trust-cultures-vs-high-trust-cultures/ https://www.whatsbestnext.com/2011/06/low-trust-cultures-vs-... Both are effectively stable equilibria, so it's hard to upgrade trust across a society. And where it's possible to profit from breach of trust it becomes profitable for a few to turn a society from high-trust into low-trust, which I suspect is happening at the moment in the West.