2 ms·

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

• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• thaumasiotes 7y 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.)