4 ms·

> "Daddy said don't ever trust nobody, they always tryin' to get ya" ... Or else "My father always said to just trust people, and they'll trust you back" But i

> "Daddy said don't ever trust nobody, they always tryin' to get ya" ... Or else "My father always said to just trust people, and they'll trust you back" But in fact, both of these are wrong! Our ability to fully develop affective empathy, and thus to intuitively and effectively strive for win-win outcomes in the way that's constantly required of us by any modern society, is critically reliant on a basic foundation of intuitive trust; on the other hand, "just" trusting anyone with no fall-back of any sort simply invites abuse by unscrupulous or even actively malicious (i.e. socially predatory to the point of dysfunction, without even the most cursory interest in - or for that matter, the understanding of - the wellbeing of those they interact with!) actors, and might even leave us utterly unable to effectively counter such abuse even when we can acknowledge that trust has, in fact, failed. The one effective policy is "trust but verify", and with the right attitude it can work in a wide range of communities!

sonnyblarney 7y ago
I kind of disagree. There are communities in which you should basically not trust anyone by default. There are communities in which trust is generally a given. (Obviously, both within reason) There is also the possibility that people 'have it wrong' (i.e. cynical of a community that is trusting, and overly trusting in a bad neighbourhood) My grandfather made windows as part of his business in the 1950's, most of his customers were farmers. He would trade his work often for livestock, say 'a pig' or '1/2 cow' or whatever - but he would get paid during slaughter season often many months away. There was no contract, just a handshake, and he never had to worry about the farmer taking the animal straight to the butcher. (This is before super common refrigeration, and everyone it town had a 'locker at the butcher's). In some ways, there can be fairly deep trust, depending on the context. I don't disagree with the other respondent's point about chemical changes either, but I suggest that a lot of our behaviour is simply learned.
- 0815test 7y ago
  > My grandfather made windows as part of his business in the 1950's, most of his customers were farmers. ... There was no contract, just a handshake, and he never had to worry about the farmer taking the animal straight to the butcher. Interesting. This sort of almost unnaturally-deep trust is actually very common to small, stable communities, with sky-high levels of social capital and a deep shared understanding of common obligations. It might be that having such stable communities around is an exceedingly-convenient catalyst to "jump-starting" broad-based social and economic development; a sort of "primitive accumulation" stage in the historically-materialistic sense where it's social capital that's being accumulated, not resources. Economic history would certainly seem to point in that direction. And it raises some uncomfortable questions about the future, since many people think of "late stage capitalism" and its social correlates as being highly corrosive of that trust-inducing social capital.
  - sonnyblarney 7y ago
    Yes, but I should add that 'everyone knows everyone' and so while I do like to think of this situation as a 'noble thing' ... if you do bad things, there's no escape from your reputation. Which can be difficult as well, as there's all sorts of behavioural pressures that come from that. I should add that some of this exists today. The local mechanic, if he knows you, will surely do a deal something like that. Also, there are favours for favours. For minor things he will definitely not charge. I don't think he's keeping track of favours, but certainly there is that. As for the 'corrosive' aspects of social organization ... I think as we gain more wealth, we tend to be nicer and more trusting. I wouldn't say most of my modern, urban friends are distrustful for the most part. You can see generally among the 'professional class' a fairly high degree of conscientiousness ... I'm hopeful we'll become more like that.

sonnyblarney 7y ago

I kind of disagree. There are communities in which you should basically not trust anyone by default. There are communities in which trust is generally a given. (Obviously, both within reason) There is also the possibility that people 'have it wrong' (i.e. cynical of a community that is trusting, and overly trusting in a bad neighbourhood) My grandfather made windows as part of his business in the 1950's, most of his customers were farmers. He would trade his work often for livestock, say 'a pig' or '1/2 cow' or whatever - but he would get paid during slaughter season often many months away. There was no contract, just a handshake, and he never had to worry about the farmer taking the animal straight to the butcher. (This is before super common refrigeration, and everyone it town had a 'locker at the butcher's). In some ways, there can be fairly deep trust, depending on the context. I don't disagree with the other respondent's point about chemical changes either, but I suggest that a lot of our behaviour is simply learned.

0815test 7y ago
> My grandfather made windows as part of his business in the 1950's, most of his customers were farmers. ... There was no contract, just a handshake, and he never had to worry about the farmer taking the animal straight to the butcher. Interesting. This sort of almost unnaturally-deep trust is actually very common to small, stable communities, with sky-high levels of social capital and a deep shared understanding of common obligations. It might be that having such stable communities around is an exceedingly-convenient catalyst to "jump-starting" broad-based social and economic development; a sort of "primitive accumulation" stage in the historically-materialistic sense where it's social capital that's being accumulated, not resources. Economic history would certainly seem to point in that direction. And it raises some uncomfortable questions about the future, since many people think of "late stage capitalism" and its social correlates as being highly corrosive of that trust-inducing social capital.
- sonnyblarney 7y ago
  Yes, but I should add that 'everyone knows everyone' and so while I do like to think of this situation as a 'noble thing' ... if you do bad things, there's no escape from your reputation. Which can be difficult as well, as there's all sorts of behavioural pressures that come from that. I should add that some of this exists today. The local mechanic, if he knows you, will surely do a deal something like that. Also, there are favours for favours. For minor things he will definitely not charge. I don't think he's keeping track of favours, but certainly there is that. As for the 'corrosive' aspects of social organization ... I think as we gain more wealth, we tend to be nicer and more trusting. I wouldn't say most of my modern, urban friends are distrustful for the most part. You can see generally among the 'professional class' a fairly high degree of conscientiousness ... I'm hopeful we'll become more like that.