6 ms·
There's something incredible about how much trust there used to be in society.
by j-bos 1y ago
There's something incredible about how much trust there used to be in society.
- ksenzee 1y agoI don’t know whether it’s “everyone trusted everyone” so much as “everyone expected really bad things to happen anyway.” Like, if there’s a good chance I might lose this kid to diphtheria, or drowning in the river, or whatever, sending them on a trip alone doesn’t feel too dangerous by comparison.
- wredcoll 1y agoI suspect this is more true than we realize. I have this idea that if one of us were talking to a bill and ted from 2200 or so, one of their questions would be something like "so 40,000+ people died in america alone from car crashes, and everyone knew this and just ignored it???" It's amazing what you get used to.
- necovek 1y agoI don't think anyone discussing today is saying things like "wow, kids died from diphtheria in 1900, everyone knew this and just ignored it?" So really, people in 2200 will talk the same way we do today: "oh, look at all the advances we made that reduced personal transport deaths from 40k people to 1k". Humans have been assuming risk to gain particular value since we've existed, so only unaware people would say that we are ignoring it (or you wouldn't have the numbers to run your agenda in an unrelated discussion).
- ArekDymalski 1y agoI think people in 2200 will be looking at us the same way we look at the 1940ies folk with their "doctors smoke Camels" ad. Mix of indulgence, contempt and commiseration.
- ochrist 1y agoIt's a stretch to say that everybody just ignored it, when a lot of things were invented and implemented like seatbelts, speed limits etc.
- Nition 1y agoI have a similar thought re "work sucks"/"nobody wants to work anymore", where actually maybe work and people are the same as ever but being at home is more entertaining than it used to be.
- esseph 1y agoPeople have been putting this in newspapers for hundreds of years. Everytime I read the phrase I just groan and move to the next thing to read.
- thaumasiotes 1y agohttps://www.jesusandmo.net/comic/step/ https://www.jesusandmo.net/comic/step/
- frollogaston 1y agoFor this old timey example I agree, but from like 2000 to 2025, I have noticed a decline in trust in the US. People are also more trusting today in certain parts vs others, or in some other countries, and it's not because of lower standards.
- parpfish 1y agoHalf-baked thought: when something bad happens now it’ll be all over news broadcasts and social media. I think it’s pretty well established that fear mongering will skew your perception of something bad happening, but something I hadn’t considered until now is that it can make the bad thing worse. In addition to dealing with whatever tragedy befell you, there’s a layer of judgemental shame piled on top (“how could they be so careless to let this happen? They must be a bad, neglectful parent”)
- saalweachter 1y agoI feel like it's connected to a rise in flim-flam. The con man has to convince you not to trust institutions and authorities, when those institutions and authorities tell you his product/service/investment opportunity is fake.
- 9rx 1y agoIt is unlikely there has ever been a "everyone trusted everyone" moment in human history, but even today we rely on "random strangers" to move children to and fro every single (school) day. Such trust in people isn't out of the ordinary even now. I doubt parents put their children on the school bus because "something bad is apt to happen anyway", rather "it is just what you do" without any further thought. The postal service carrying humans isn't what we do these days, so it stands out as a curiosity. If it the story was, instead, about a bus line or taxi service, it wouldn't seem unusual at all.
- allan_s 1y agothe postman in those days was not a random stranger, he was certainly the son of the Smith from the village next door that your cousin went to school with. And even if he was a total stranger at the beginning of his career, after twenty years of delivering your mails every day, you knew him, you had discussed with him, he was certainly invited to drink coffee or beer during his service by some old retired farmers, so he had acquired your trust.
- allan_s 1y agoI think it's more that communities were smaller and more consistent. People didn't move that much. Your neighbors were your lifelong neighbors, and the postman was your lifelong postman, so you knew him, and your neighbors knew him, so they didn't lack trust in anybody—they had trust in their local "social network," both toward specific individuals, and because of the implicit "peer pressure" that kept everybody in line. I.e the postman would have not been able to run away with your child without the whole community being after him.
- kube-system 1y agoI don't think these newsworthy stories about isolated cases of this happening were in any way representative of society as a whole. You can today and you always could find instances of people doing unusual stuff.
- gwerbret 1y agoI think you can still get a real sense of overall societal trust from such stories. Not too long ago I horrified a relatively-young person by explaining how in the not-too-distant past, people used to have their names, phone numbers and home addresses automatically listed in a large, White-covered book whose Pages were distributed freely to everyone in the city.
- kube-system 1y agoWhy were they surprised? The fact that it's printed? Or were they just not aware that the same information (and more) is freely available on people search websites today? (one of which has the same namesake as that large white book) Either way, I think trust now and always in the US has been driven more by the urban/rural divide than anything else. Even as this article points out, this was primarily a rural phenomenon. When you know your mail carrier on a first name basis, things are a lot different.
- gwerbret 1y ago> Or were they just not aware that the same information (and more) is freely available on people search websites today? (one of which has the same namesake as that large white book) This -- while people realize that Google et al. have hordes of personal information about them, they don't expect that information to be available to the general public (thus the horror). Similarly, I expect people would be horrified to find out just how much personal information the data brokers have. There's an aspect of cognitive dissonance at play.
- arp242 1y agoOne has to wonder how often things went wrong in the past and just didn't get reported on. Or were just shrugged off. I don't think people of the 19th century were fundamentally better than they are today. Things like (sexual) abuse happened. There was probably a lot more of it than today: big taboo on anything related to sex, women couldn't even vote, fewer investigative tools (fingerprints, cameras, DNA). Well, it probably wasn't great. Today if a child would see a friend blow up in front of him people would be talking about PTSD, (life-long) trauma, etc. During the war my grandfather had a friend blow up in front of him. "Well, you didn't get any help in those days, you just had to deal with it, haha!" In the past lots of things like this were under-represented. Today they're probably over-represented.
- kbelder 1y ago>"Well, you didn't get any help in those days, you just had to deal with it, haha!" I can't help but wonder sometimes if that's healthier. Probably better for some people in some circumstances and worse in others.
- wat10000 1y agoYou can tell that people in the past were healthier mentally, from all the wars, slavery, physical abuse, etc.
- twodave 1y agoHaving dealt with mental health issues in adulthood after stuffing them for decades, the consequence being that they came raging to the surface at the risk of breaking apart my family, and then shortly afterwards parenting children whose trauma was able to be noticed and cared for as a result (and with great success), this comment has me somewhat riled.
- necovek 1y agoThe comment you are responding to is wondering about what might be "healthier" in general? It even acknowledges that it could work "worse in others". I do not think it's a stretch to say that some people deal with adversity and misfortune better than others, and not everyone ends up with mental health issues after very similar experiences! So without getting riled up, my response to the GP would be: "no, it wouldn't, because even if that works with simple majority of the population, it might leave 49% of the people messed up — let's not move away from the individual approach!" (I don't have actual numbers).
- PKop 1y agoIt was way more ethnically homogenous. When that decreases, trust declines. See Japan now as a particularly high trust modern society.
- kube-system 1y agoMany of the highest crime places on earth are ethnically homogenous. Culture is not determined by skin color. Rather, Japan places a high value on the rights of and responsibility to the collective good. People in the US are culturally much less willing to suppress any rights of the individual, even if it supports a collective good. You can be much more confident that others will do what's in your best interest if society will come down on them hard if they don't.
- cogman10 1y agoNo it wasn't. Famously so. America was a melting pot. In the 1920s when this happened 15% of the population was immigrants. IE first generation Americans. With backgrounds from all over. Primarily European countries, but not the ones you think. Russia, for example, was a major portion of that number. America at the time was way more heterogenous than it is today. A major portion of that homogenation happened due to 1950s era racism and redlining which turned neighborhoods from mixed cultures into homogenous cultures.
- saalweachter 1y agoWar did a lot. My ancestors spent three generations in America speaking German until WWI made being too German something you didn't want to be. I imagine a lot of Russian/Eastern European-derived-Americans felt a lot of pressure in the 1950s & 60s to be as generically "American" as possible.
- wat10000 1y agoBetter communication and mobility does a lot. Maintaining the home country’s language in the second generation these days is hard. I know some kids who speak their parent’s native tongue poorly and some not at all. When they speak it well, it’s because of constant effort by the parent. Maintaining it in the third generation is extremely difficult and often doesn’t happen. It’s similar for other aspects of culture. No matter where you’re from, I bet your grandchildren if not your children are going to celebrate Christmas in some capacity.
- amelius 1y agoHuh, today children can trust their parents to not send them through the mail ...
- 9rx 1y agoFrom a trust point of view, this isn't any different than a kid taking the school bus, is it? It is really not that even that dissimilar functionally; both serving to move a child from one place to another.
- stavros 1y agoBoth with people the parents know, as well. Back then you knew your mailman.
- 9rx 1y agoDon't you still, typically? I mean, I am sure if you look hard enough there are instances where someone travels to work from afar, but in my experience the mailman has always been someone who lives within the same community.
- stavros 1y agoNo, lately where I live there are multiple courier services, you never tend to see them (they drop stuff off in the mailbox), and even more recently, they just drop the letters off in a locker nearby and I go pick them up myself. I haven't seen a mailman in years.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- 9rx 1y ago> I haven't seen a mailman in years. You may not see them on the job, but if they live in the community you are still going to know them. (Well, unless you don't go outside, I guess)
- owlstuffing 1y agoSocietal trust levels tend to correlate with cultural and racial homogeneity. The erosion of trust within Western civilization reflects this trend, particularly in the United States following the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act). But this is hardly unique to the modern era. Consider ancient Rome: as the Empire expanded, it absorbed vast, culturally diverse populations. Over time, this growing diversity--combined with weak integration mechanisms--gradually strained social cohesion and undermined trust in institutions. It’s a recurring pattern throughout human history.
- throwanem 1y agoIt's a recurring bullshit just-so story peddled by people who reject the complexity of actual history, which is why you provide no sources: you have learned Spengler and Hanania are unwelcome in polite society but not why, and there is no one else to whom you could turn. - well, Steve Sailer, I suppose.
- oivey 1y agoThat seems like a wildly questionable conclusion to draw. 60 years prior to that act, there was a huge influx of immigrants who would have been considered non-white at the time: Italians, the Irish, Germans, Eastern Europeans, etc. To the people of the time, that was a very non-homogenous period.
- owlstuffing 1y agoTrue, but there’s a key difference -- those earlier waves, despite being seen as "outsiders" at the time, still came from the same civilizational foundation. Europeans, whether Irish, Italains, Germans, or Poles, shared a common history shaped by Christianity, Greco-Roman influence, and broadly similar cultural norms. The friction was real, but over time, assimilation worked because there was enough cultural overlap to make it possible. The post-1965 immigration wave brought in people from entirely different civilizations -- with no shared history, values, or worldview. That isn’t just "non-homogeneity," it’s civilizational fragmentation. And unlike the 19th and early 20th century European immigration, there’s no historical precedent where that level of deep cultural divergence integrates at scale -- not in Rome, not in Byzantium, not anywhere.
- burnt-resistor 1y agoAmericans didn't used to lock the doors of their homes. Many Canadians outside major cities still leave them unlocked. A paranoid, transactional society without community is a civilization waiting around to fall apart.
- doubleg72 1y agoI’m American and don’t lock my doors
- blitzar 1y agoCriminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding.
- thinkingemote 1y agoWe traded it for personal freedom and individual choice. The opposite is sacrificing ones actions and restricting one's choices for the people around you. It's why there is so much perplexity and confusion around this issue. We cannot freely individually buy into the choice to live in a trusting society. Trust means giving up freedoms and not choosing yourself over others. It's very hard to even conceive if one is invested in individual freedom and progress as fundamental realities and rights. And to argue against freedom and progress is also inconceivable! Thus we have a paradox and our questions and comments here reflect this tension.