5 ms·

Where humans are involved, mistakes will happen. Trusting someone but verifying their work is a safe and sane pairing.

apetresc 8y ago
But the whole point of trusting is that you get to skip verifying. What's the difference between trusting and not trusting if you still have to put in the work of verification anyway?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- thaumasiotes 8y ago
  The difference is in when you begin cooperating. You can work much faster by immediately acting on agreements and later making sure the other party is attempting to hold up their end than you can by waiting until you can prove something about the other party and only then starting whatever it is you were supposed to do. Consider these different hiring schemes: 1. Hire whoever applies, and keep them forever, no matter what. ("Trust, don't verify.") 2. Hire whoever applies, and fire them later if they don't seem to be working out. ("Trust, but verify.") 3. Full background check and extensive additional vetting before an offer is made. ("Don't trust, do verify.") 4. Never hire anyone. ("Don't trust, don't verify.") Aside from the obvious pacing differences, note that what's verified (or not) in options 1/2 is different from what is verified in option 3. That's not a coincidence -- before you start working with someone, you can't assess whether they're doing a good job. You have to rely on more general (and therefore less reliable) markers of trustworthiness. (You may think option 4 sounds ridiculous. It isn't -- that is the historical norm for cooperation outside of very well-defined groups like your family or your tribe.)
stupidcar 8y ago
How is verifying everything because you don't trust people not to make a mistake operationally different from verifying everything because you suspect bad faith? To the supposed trusted party, the result is the same: you not taking them at their word and instead checking whatever they do. Even if you're being honest about only verifying to avoid mistakes, you can never prove it. This definition of "trust but verify" would be better reduced to "verify", since it essentially claims that trust is, if not impossible, not practically applicable in any situation.
- scarejunba 8y ago
  The trust part is me trusting you to want to do the right thing. The verify part is me checking that nothing went wrong - either through a mistake on your part, a misunderstanding on mine, or just the signal loss from the fact that human communication is imperfect.
  - stupidcar 8y ago
    You've just restated the original post and ignored my question. Again: how does this definition of supposed trust differ from distrust in any verifiable way?
    - scarejunba 8y ago
      It affects our interaction. Because I assume you'll act in good faith, I only add verification in the range of errors not in the range of malice.
      - stupidcar 8y ago
        It seems to me that the range of human error is rarely smaller than that of malice, so again I'm not sure there will be much apparent difference between an exhaustive verification of either sort.
        scarejunba 8y ago
        Is that true in your interactions with other people? I have not seen that be the case. The distribution is very different.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]

But the whole point of trusting is that you get to skip verifying. What's the difference between trusting and not trusting if you still have to put in the work of verification anyway?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
thaumasiotes 8y ago
The difference is in when you begin cooperating. You can work much faster by immediately acting on agreements and later making sure the other party is attempting to hold up their end than you can by waiting until you can prove something about the other party and only then starting whatever it is you were supposed to do. Consider these different hiring schemes: 1. Hire whoever applies, and keep them forever, no matter what. ("Trust, don't verify.") 2. Hire whoever applies, and fire them later if they don't seem to be working out. ("Trust, but verify.") 3. Full background check and extensive additional vetting before an offer is made. ("Don't trust, do verify.") 4. Never hire anyone. ("Don't trust, don't verify.") Aside from the obvious pacing differences, note that what's verified (or not) in options 1/2 is different from what is verified in option 3. That's not a coincidence -- before you start working with someone, you can't assess whether they're doing a good job. You have to rely on more general (and therefore less reliable) markers of trustworthiness. (You may think option 4 sounds ridiculous. It isn't -- that is the historical norm for cooperation outside of very well-defined groups like your family or your tribe.)

stupidcar 8y ago

How is verifying everything because you don't trust people not to make a mistake operationally different from verifying everything because you suspect bad faith? To the supposed trusted party, the result is the same: you not taking them at their word and instead checking whatever they do. Even if you're being honest about only verifying to avoid mistakes, you can never prove it. This definition of "trust but verify" would be better reduced to "verify", since it essentially claims that trust is, if not impossible, not practically applicable in any situation.

scarejunba 8y ago
The trust part is me trusting you to want to do the right thing. The verify part is me checking that nothing went wrong - either through a mistake on your part, a misunderstanding on mine, or just the signal loss from the fact that human communication is imperfect.
- stupidcar 8y ago
  You've just restated the original post and ignored my question. Again: how does this definition of supposed trust differ from distrust in any verifiable way?
  - scarejunba 8y ago
    It affects our interaction. Because I assume you'll act in good faith, I only add verification in the range of errors not in the range of malice.
    - stupidcar 8y ago
      It seems to me that the range of human error is rarely smaller than that of malice, so again I'm not sure there will be much apparent difference between an exhaustive verification of either sort.
      - scarejunba 8y ago
        Is that true in your interactions with other people? I have not seen that be the case. The distribution is very different.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]