4 ms·

Perhaps, I think a key component of trust is believing those people are on my team and distrust is believing they aren't, whether the other people believe they

Perhaps, I think a key component of trust is believing those people are on my team and distrust is believing they aren't, whether the other people believe they are or not. So because I generally trust those institutions, yes, I don't believe they're against me. However, I think it's more of a perspective of who's on my team rather than clearly demarcated teams.

pdonis 5y ago
> I think a key component of trust is believing those people are on my team If this means you don't take an objective look at what those people actually do, and judge it by standards independent of any "team", I think it's a very dangerous strategy. The idea that "my team" should win, regardless of what it takes--that the end always justifies the means--I think has caused more human misery than any other idea we humans have had. If you find that your "team" is using unsavory and unpalatable means to achieve what you think is a "greater good", you should not accept the means--you should rethink the "greater good". Based on human history, it's far more likely that the "greater good" is a lot less than you think and will be more than outweighed by the damage done by the unsavory and unpalatable means being used.
- jimkleiber 5y ago
  I was trying to say that it is hard to trust someone (or an institution) when we believe that they are not on our team. I didn't mean to imply that just because I think they have good or neutral intentions towards me that they won't do something that will harm me or others. I strongly agree they could do things that most people would consider bad, evil, harmful, etc. I think most of us do things that both help and hurt people. Just as I'm against demonizing someone, I'm also against idolizing them, as I believe they both blind us to the good and bad people will do.
  - pdonis 5y ago
    > I was trying to say that it is hard to trust someone (or an institution) when we believe that they are not on our team. And I am saying that the whole concept of "our team" is a dangerous one. We all have to live in the same society. The idea that we should view things in terms of "teams", where our goal is for "our team" to win and for the "other team" to lose, is wrong. We need to all "win", because all of our fates are tied together by living in the same society. We can't "defeat" the "other team" without also defeating ourselves. That's not to say that we must always agree. Of course we will disagree about things, often strongly. But we should disagree as individuals with different opinions about difficult issues where reasonable people can disagree, not as "team members" who feel like we need to play for our own side and against the other. > Just as I'm against demonizing someone, I'm also against idolizing them To me this means you should be against the whole concept of "teams", since that concept by its very nature involves demonizing the "other team" and idolizing "our team".
    - jimkleiber 5y ago
      > And I am saying that the whole concept of "our team" is a dangerous one. I agree. I think more dangerous is "the other team." > To me this means you should be against the whole concept of "teams" In theory, yes, I don't like how we split into different teams and fight against each other, and would get rid of the concept of teams. In practice, I find that if I have to use the team concept (and this in-group/out-group dynamic seems to be strongly embedded in many cultures), then I try to get rid of teams by extending my definition of "my team" as much as I can, to include friends, enemies, strangers, other animals, and other lifeforms. I would like to eventually get rid of the concept of teams, gradually through expanding and integrating other teams into one huge team until there are no "other teams" left, and also getting back on the same team when we get into conflicts. Anyways, thank you for following up with me and helping me think through this and reflect on this more deeply.
      - donw 5y ago
        > I would like to eventually get rid of the concept of teams, gradually through expanding and integrating other teams into one huge team until there are no "other teams" left, and also getting back on the same team when we get into conflicts. This is how you kill a hundred million people without breaking a sweat.
        jimkleiber 5y ago
        Yes, that's one way to do it. Or one could just change their perspective to see the other people as people, focusing on the similarities rather than the differences. I'd argue that if one has so much hatred to try to physically get rid of the "other team" instead of trying to expand one's own definition of team, then that person is likely to subdivide people into teams once those people are gone. That's why I think uniting over a common enemy doesn't work, because once the enemy is gone, people just carry their anger and fear of others into seeing new enemies and splitting off into more and more teams. At least what I've found for myself is that it is much cheaper, quicker, and longer-lasting, to just redefine the boundaries of my team instead of strictly enforcing those boundaries through violence.

pdonis 5y ago

> I think a key component of trust is believing those people are on my team If this means you don't take an objective look at what those people actually do, and judge it by standards independent of any "team", I think it's a very dangerous strategy. The idea that "my team" should win, regardless of what it takes--that the end always justifies the means--I think has caused more human misery than any other idea we humans have had. If you find that your "team" is using unsavory and unpalatable means to achieve what you think is a "greater good", you should not accept the means--you should rethink the "greater good". Based on human history, it's far more likely that the "greater good" is a lot less than you think and will be more than outweighed by the damage done by the unsavory and unpalatable means being used.

jimkleiber 5y ago
I was trying to say that it is hard to trust someone (or an institution) when we believe that they are not on our team. I didn't mean to imply that just because I think they have good or neutral intentions towards me that they won't do something that will harm me or others. I strongly agree they could do things that most people would consider bad, evil, harmful, etc. I think most of us do things that both help and hurt people. Just as I'm against demonizing someone, I'm also against idolizing them, as I believe they both blind us to the good and bad people will do.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > I was trying to say that it is hard to trust someone (or an institution) when we believe that they are not on our team. And I am saying that the whole concept of "our team" is a dangerous one. We all have to live in the same society. The idea that we should view things in terms of "teams", where our goal is for "our team" to win and for the "other team" to lose, is wrong. We need to all "win", because all of our fates are tied together by living in the same society. We can't "defeat" the "other team" without also defeating ourselves. That's not to say that we must always agree. Of course we will disagree about things, often strongly. But we should disagree as individuals with different opinions about difficult issues where reasonable people can disagree, not as "team members" who feel like we need to play for our own side and against the other. > Just as I'm against demonizing someone, I'm also against idolizing them To me this means you should be against the whole concept of "teams", since that concept by its very nature involves demonizing the "other team" and idolizing "our team".
  - jimkleiber 5y ago
    > And I am saying that the whole concept of "our team" is a dangerous one. I agree. I think more dangerous is "the other team." > To me this means you should be against the whole concept of "teams" In theory, yes, I don't like how we split into different teams and fight against each other, and would get rid of the concept of teams. In practice, I find that if I have to use the team concept (and this in-group/out-group dynamic seems to be strongly embedded in many cultures), then I try to get rid of teams by extending my definition of "my team" as much as I can, to include friends, enemies, strangers, other animals, and other lifeforms. I would like to eventually get rid of the concept of teams, gradually through expanding and integrating other teams into one huge team until there are no "other teams" left, and also getting back on the same team when we get into conflicts. Anyways, thank you for following up with me and helping me think through this and reflect on this more deeply.
    - donw 5y ago
      > I would like to eventually get rid of the concept of teams, gradually through expanding and integrating other teams into one huge team until there are no "other teams" left, and also getting back on the same team when we get into conflicts. This is how you kill a hundred million people without breaking a sweat.
      - jimkleiber 5y ago
        Yes, that's one way to do it. Or one could just change their perspective to see the other people as people, focusing on the similarities rather than the differences. I'd argue that if one has so much hatred to try to physically get rid of the "other team" instead of trying to expand one's own definition of team, then that person is likely to subdivide people into teams once those people are gone. That's why I think uniting over a common enemy doesn't work, because once the enemy is gone, people just carry their anger and fear of others into seeing new enemies and splitting off into more and more teams. At least what I've found for myself is that it is much cheaper, quicker, and longer-lasting, to just redefine the boundaries of my team instead of strictly enforcing those boundaries through violence.