7 ms·

> China's pretty corrupt politically but the social trust is quite high, the highest outside of northern europe as far as I can tell There are a few reasons fo

by rob74 7mo ago

> China's pretty corrupt politically but the social trust is quite high, the highest outside of northern europe as far as I can tell There are a few reasons for that that I can imagine: - China is one of very few autocracies that has managed to significantly improve the standard of living of most of its population. - The public trials and (sometimes) executions of allegedly corrupt individuals might help improve the perception of corruption. - The same harsh penalties mentioned above might influence people to declare a higher level of social trust than they actually have, even if the poll is supposedly "confidential" and "only for scientific purposes".

ses1984 7mo ago
>The same harsh penalties mentioned above might influence people to declare a higher level of social trust than they actually have. This 100%. Political imprisonment and reeducation camps are antithetical to any definition of a high trust society that I would subscribe to.
- eru 7mo ago
  Doesn't matter too much what you subscribe to. Eg Nazi Germany still benefited from a high-ish level of social trust, despite numerous atrocities.
  - ses1984 7mo ago
    That’s actually the example I was thinking of. You can’t honestly say that a country where citizens inform on each other and put each other in forced labor camps based on rumor is a society where trust is high. > The Deutscherblick ("German Look") was a tense, habitual glance over the shoulder used by citizens in Nazi-era Germany before speaking about sensitive topics like food rations, Hitler jokes, or the war’s progress
    - inglor_cz 7mo ago
      Not just labor camps. People would regularly get beheaded for anti-regime remarks. Nazi justice was keen on capital punishment for relatively minor crimes. Nazi Germany was full of dedicated informers who would even earn money or other privileges for denouncing someone. It had about as much trust between strangers as Iran under the Revolutionary Guards might have today.
  - triceratops 7mo ago
    What's the benefit of social trust when a society can commit such atrocities? The entire point of a society is to care for its members.
    - miroljub 7mo ago
      It's not like atrocities started with Nazis. Child prostitution, high unemployment, corruption, poverty, moral devastation, drug addiction, injustice, inequality ... all that existed before Nazis so many people ignored the warnings that came with the Nazi party since they were the only ones promising to act.
      - ses1984 7mo ago
        Nazi apologia.
        miroljub 7mo ago
        > Nazi apologia. Care to elaborate, Mr. Godwin?
        ses1984 7mo ago
        “They were the ones promising to act” Something about this doesn’t sit right with me. I’m not a historian but something tells me not everyone else was a-ok with atrocities that existed before nazis. Also, again I’m not a historian, but I believe their promise to act was also tied up in blaming others and hate. “At least they got things done” is very often the seed around which a belief in fascism crystallizes. They don’t deserve any recognition for what they promised or what they accomplished. This is a thread about my definition of a high trust society. So far the only argument in support of nazi germany being high trust is that they got shit done. I don’t see how anyone could argue that imprisoning your own population in forced labor camps based on rumor is something that can happen in a high trust society. There is no trust in such a society, only fear. Arguing about this any more is making me feel sick.
boringg 7mo ago
Social trust is high because there are pretty heavy handed control measures over the population with havy costs. Thats more of a fear based society than trust. Government can giveth and government can taketh.
- lo_zamoyski 7mo ago
  1. Fear of a capricious state can cause survival-motivated compliance which can appear as "trust" in coarse measurements. Meaning, you simply do fewer of those things that would provide opportunities for distrust in contexts where that could happen. 2. In a relatively severe, but consistent regime, the high penalties for violating trust in everyday cases (crime) act as a deterrent. 3. Fear may cause people to be selective and mindful about their social associations based on stronger proofs of trustworthiness. You might tell a Hitler joke to someone you have used more energy/caution to "vet", but avoid being too casual in environments of undetermined trustworthiness.
bluGill 7mo ago
China was getting better for a long time. XI is changing that. Change is slow though and he is not rushing corruption though it seems to be increasing. He has purged some corrupt people as well making things slightly better in the short term - but he values loyalty over competence and so his short term changes are for less corruption but long term increase it. That is China is a complex country and books (which are not written and many cannot be for decades yet) are needed to understand this, not a short comment box. [This applies to every other country anyone here mentions]
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]

by rob74 7mo ago

ses1984 7mo ago

>The same harsh penalties mentioned above might influence people to declare a higher level of social trust than they actually have. This 100%. Political imprisonment and reeducation camps are antithetical to any definition of a high trust society that I would subscribe to.

eru 7mo ago
Doesn't matter too much what you subscribe to. Eg Nazi Germany still benefited from a high-ish level of social trust, despite numerous atrocities.
- ses1984 7mo ago
  That’s actually the example I was thinking of. You can’t honestly say that a country where citizens inform on each other and put each other in forced labor camps based on rumor is a society where trust is high. > The Deutscherblick ("German Look") was a tense, habitual glance over the shoulder used by citizens in Nazi-era Germany before speaking about sensitive topics like food rations, Hitler jokes, or the war’s progress
  - inglor_cz 7mo ago
    Not just labor camps. People would regularly get beheaded for anti-regime remarks. Nazi justice was keen on capital punishment for relatively minor crimes. Nazi Germany was full of dedicated informers who would even earn money or other privileges for denouncing someone. It had about as much trust between strangers as Iran under the Revolutionary Guards might have today.
- triceratops 7mo ago
  What's the benefit of social trust when a society can commit such atrocities? The entire point of a society is to care for its members.
  - miroljub 7mo ago
    It's not like atrocities started with Nazis. Child prostitution, high unemployment, corruption, poverty, moral devastation, drug addiction, injustice, inequality ... all that existed before Nazis so many people ignored the warnings that came with the Nazi party since they were the only ones promising to act.
    - ses1984 7mo ago
      Nazi apologia.
      - miroljub 7mo ago
        > Nazi apologia. Care to elaborate, Mr. Godwin?
        ses1984 7mo ago
        “They were the ones promising to act” Something about this doesn’t sit right with me. I’m not a historian but something tells me not everyone else was a-ok with atrocities that existed before nazis. Also, again I’m not a historian, but I believe their promise to act was also tied up in blaming others and hate. “At least they got things done” is very often the seed around which a belief in fascism crystallizes. They don’t deserve any recognition for what they promised or what they accomplished. This is a thread about my definition of a high trust society. So far the only argument in support of nazi germany being high trust is that they got shit done. I don’t see how anyone could argue that imprisoning your own population in forced labor camps based on rumor is something that can happen in a high trust society. There is no trust in such a society, only fear. Arguing about this any more is making me feel sick.

boringg 7mo ago

Social trust is high because there are pretty heavy handed control measures over the population with havy costs. Thats more of a fear based society than trust. Government can giveth and government can taketh.

lo_zamoyski 7mo ago
1. Fear of a capricious state can cause survival-motivated compliance which can appear as "trust" in coarse measurements. Meaning, you simply do fewer of those things that would provide opportunities for distrust in contexts where that could happen. 2. In a relatively severe, but consistent regime, the high penalties for violating trust in everyday cases (crime) act as a deterrent. 3. Fear may cause people to be selective and mindful about their social associations based on stronger proofs of trustworthiness. You might tell a Hitler joke to someone you have used more energy/caution to "vet", but avoid being too casual in environments of undetermined trustworthiness.

bluGill 7mo ago

China was getting better for a long time. XI is changing that. Change is slow though and he is not rushing corruption though it seems to be increasing. He has purged some corrupt people as well making things slightly better in the short term - but he values loyalty over competence and so his short term changes are for less corruption but long term increase it. That is China is a complex country and books (which are not written and many cannot be for decades yet) are needed to understand this, not a short comment box. [This applies to every other country anyone here mentions]

deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]