Trust

[Norsemaiden]

The American playwright Tennessee Williams once said "We have to distrust each other. It is our only defense against betrayal".

What do you think? Should we distrust people until they have proven themselves trustworthy, or should we trust people unless they prove they are unworthy of trust? Is it as simple as that?

Lack of trust amongst members of a community is associated with higher crime levels. But, it's a chicken and egg dilemma. Does the crime level lead to the distrust, or does the distrust aggravate the crime level?

I'd say it is a vicious circle and the two feed off eachother. Probably the (perceived or real) increase in crime started the ball rolling. Now crime and distrust are in a possibly unstoppable rise.

This site refers to the decrease in trust of institutions, in the US. http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1996/12.05/AmericanPublici.html

"Additionally, both voters and nonvoters expressed keen distrust of government. The percentage of Americans who trust the government in Washington plunged from 76 percent in 1964 to 25 percent in 1996. Federal bureaucrats, senators, members of Congress, and politicians rank below people in advertising, corporate executives, union leaders, and even lawyers in trustworthiness. "

2Confidence in the press, universities, and medical doctors has also slipped dramatically since 1966. As you might expect, these negative feelings coincide with a lack of people's trust in each other. In 1968, more than half (56 percent) of individuals thought that most people can be trusted; in 1966 only one in three (35 percent) felt that way. "

Here is an older site that refers to the drop in trust between individuals in the US. http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/1999/C/199902710.html

"COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Americans' trust in other people has declined steadily for at least 20 years, new research at Ohio State University suggests.

The study looked at data from a nationwide survey that asked several questions about trust, such as whether respondents thought people usually "would try to take advantage of you if they got a chance."

Results showed that trust in individuals declined about 10 percent between 1975 and 1994, a rate of about one-half percent each year."

(At the time of this study there was no observation of increased distrust in institutions.)

 

[Horus]

All my life, from my birth until I was 11, I lived trusting everything. When September 11th hit, I went from trusting everything to shutting everything out of my mind that I feared would bring me pain or sorrow of any kind. I don't like what it's done for me. I developed serious soial disabilities, I've destroyed my own sanity, I can't project my feelings without compromising what little sanity I have left, and I've lost myself in the Labyrinth of my own mind.

If I only let people help me get through my tragedy, then I probably wouldn't be so distrusting.

 

[Norsemaiden]

All my life, from my birth until I was 11, I lived trusting everything. When September 11th hit, I went from trusting everything to shutting everything out of my mind that I feared would bring me pain or sorrow of any kind. I don't like what it's done for me. I developed serious soial disabilities, I've destroyed my own sanity, I can't project my feelings without compromising what little sanity I have left, and I've lost myself in the Labyrinth of my own mind.

If I only let people help me get through my tragedy, then I probably wouldn't be so distrusting.

I'm sorry to hear that you are so tormented Ptah. Hopefully you can find someone to talk to about it all and get over things. You don't usually seem as if you have such serious problems. If you really want to get over it (there can be reasons why sometimes one actually is prevented from getting over a tragedy because of a feeling of almost duty to grieve) then you can find a way.

So, what made you stop trusting people so much after the age of 11 ( but before 9 -11 happened)? I'm assuming you weren't 11 when it happened, or were you?

 

[Anvil]

yes he was.

 

[LuminousAether]

I find that the root of many of the social evils in the Western civilization is the destructive and selfish economic system known as capitalism. It is in our best interests to act for our best interests and only our best interests, not the interests of all, for if you care or act out of concern, you set yourself up to be exploited. How can you trust anyone when the main goal of almost every individual in this society is to reap individual gain?

The solution, as I see it, is to eradicate the idea of individual gain entirely. Is this truly a solution, though, or only a gateway to something worse?

 

[Demilich]

As is usually the case with me, I do not approach the issue of trust by trying to force myself into chasing an idealistic, monolithic strategy. I trust or distrust people/institutions based on my experience of their characteristics. I have often been called foolish for being overly trustworthy, however I am aware of the pitfalls of this approach to social interaction and am prepared to deal with them. My degree of trust for any person is largely situational, and I am not above treating even family or close friends with distrust if the situation warrants.

 

[speed]

I find that the root of many of the social evils in the Western civilization is the destructive and selfish economic system known as capitalism. It is in our best interests to act for our best interests and only our best interests, not the interests of all, for if you care or act out of concern, you set yourself up to be exploited. How can you trust anyone when the main goal of almost every individual in this society is to reap individual gain?

The solution, as I see it, is to eradicate the idea of individual gain entirely. Is this truly a solution, though, or only a gateway to something worse?

I dont know if I agree with you. Capitalism has some serious flaws, but it still beats most everything else. And people are by nature, quite selfish. Try being your age in France or Italy (two places I adore), and find a decent job.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Ptah Khnemu - you seem so knowledgable for your age, that's why I didn't realise.

Actually Capitalism could be okay in theory (and it would be possible if monopolies and vast corporations were prevented from occuring) if it was more socially responsible and accountable. But it isn't so I agree with what LuminousAether says in that it must be in some way responsible for people's disinterest in helping others.

However, when it comes to altruism, we do tend to still obey the animal instinct (and it was put into an equasion by Hamilton) that we put our nearest relatives first and weigh up - subconsciously - the cost/benefit to our genes by expending our energy or risking our welbeing to help another.

Trust is very complicated with humans. People will try to gain eachothers' trust for alterior motives. Sometimes those motives are fine, such as a man trying to gain a woman's trust because he truly loves her, and really is worthy of being trusted, but on the other hand it could be sneaky. The politician that says "trust me!" is the last person anyone should trust!

Some people may have the cynical view that all attempts to gain one's trust are simply manipulation and should be resisted. But this would make for a sad life IMO.

 

[Dushan S]

A lot of people seem to think trust equals loss of objectivity and awareness, at least this is what I have noticed. When someone gives trust to someone- something he stops thinking about, reconsidering it, being open to learn more etc. It seems that people got so used to this, and it is partly because giving trust often means letting go of responsability for them.

Personaly I don't think that anything is set in stone, be it a relationship with other person, or something I consider a "truth" in outer world. But that does not means that I can't live with that for a certain portion of time, or that I will be lost if something changes and something I have put my trust in is gone. I can still trust in something as a current state, until it changes... Because everything changes eventually.

 

[ARC150]

The American playwright Tennessee Williams once said "We have to distrust each other. It is our only defense against betrayal".
What do you think? Should we distrust people until they have proven themselves trustworthy, or should we trust people unless they prove they are unworthy of trust? Is it as simple as that?

IMHO, Williams was speaking to the jaded idea of one-once-scorned; it is a comment on the idea that people will necessarily betray one another. The question, then (and pardon me if I am simply restating the intent of the post) is whether a person will betray another if given the chance to do so.

To that, I say this:

It has long been my opinion that all individuals possess two drives: The drive for self-preservation and the drive for species-preservation.

The drive for self-preservation - the "look out for number one" phenomena - is that drive that imbues a person to do whatever they need to do to garner the best circumstance for themselves. This is the drive that will push someone to betray another if self-gain is the result.

The drive for species-preservation - the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" phenomena - is that drive that imbues a person to do what is best for the society of which they are a part; because the society is stronger than the individual and, as such, has a better chance of ensuring the survival of any individual with in that society (as compared to the chances of that person if left only to his own means).

If these ideas are to be believed as true, than the latter is a facet of the former - that is, each individual does for himslef because it benefits the individual; the individual does for others because it indirectly benefits the individual. In other words, the drive for self-preservation is stronger than the need for species-preservation.

So, in answer to the original question of "Should we distrust people until they have proven themselves trustworthy, or...trust people unless they prove they are unworthy of trust:"

There are situations in which it is better for an individual to act for the good of the self; there are situations in which it is better for the individual to act for the good of the group. Distrust those people who are subjects of the first situation. The skill is in being able to discern one situation from the other.

 

[Norsemaiden]

IMHO, Williams was speaking to the jaded idea of one-once-scorned; it is a comment on the idea that people will necessarily betray one another. The question, then (and pardon me if I am simply restating the intent of the post) is whether a person will betray another if given the chance to do so.

To that, I say this:

It has long been my opinion that all individuals possess two drives: The drive for self-preservation and the drive for species-preservation.

The drive for self-preservation - the "look out for number one" phenomena - is that drive that imbues a person to do whatever they need to do to garner the best circumstance for themselves. This is the drive that will push someone to betray another if self-gain is the result.

The drive for species-preservation - the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" phenomena - is that drive that imbues a person to do what is best for the society of which they are a part; because the society is stronger than the individual and, as such, has a better chance of ensuring the survival of any individual with in that society (as compared to the chances of that person if left only to his own means).

If these ideas are to be believed as true, than the latter is a facet of the former - that is, each individual does for himslef because it benefits the individual; the individual does for others because it indirectly benefits the individual. In other words, the drive for self-preservation is stronger than the need for species-preservation.

So, in answer to the original question of "Should we distrust people until they have proven themselves trustworthy, or...trust people unless they prove they are unworthy of trust:"

There are situations in which it is better for an individual to act for the good of the self; there are situations in which it is better for the individual to act for the good of the group. Distrust those people who are subjects of the first situation. The skill is in being able to discern one situation from the other.

That last paragraph sounds like a good guide ARC. And I'm with you a lot on what you said before it too. There is a lot of truth in what you say about the individual putting themselves first in the case of humans. This is a human anomaly, that doesn't happen as a rule in wild animals.

But the altruism equasion that applies to animals still works in order to ensure the survival of human biological groups also.

A creature is not supposed to do what is best for its biological group for the reason that this helps any individual to survive better than they would alone. Really it is because the genes of the animal are attempting to maximise their numbers in the genepool. The animal is following its instinct in this way (if they have their instincts and depending on the exclusivity of the genepool - which gets smaller the more alienated one feels from it until it may only meaningfully be one's own siblings or children).

Hamilton's altruism equasion concerns the fact that the gene for altruism is obeying this formula to increase its own numbers in the genepool. The higher the value of factor r (genetic relatedness) the greater the probablity that the recipient will also possess the gene for altruism.

An individual will offer help depending on the extent to which rb>c (b=genetic benefits, c=genetic costs).
http://psych.unn.ac.uk/users/nick/EPpp03/tsld006.htm

 

[Horus]

I don't know what's been keeping me away from this thread. Oh well...

I'm sorry to hear that you are so tormented Ptah. Hopefully you can find someone to talk to about it all and get over things. You don't usually seem as if you have such serious problems. If you really want to get over it (there can be reasons why sometimes one actually is prevented from getting over a tragedy because of a feeling of almost duty to grieve) then you can find a way.

So, what made you stop trusting people so much after the age of 11 ( but before 9 -11 happened)? I'm assuming you weren't 11 when it happened, or were you?

Well, all my life, I've been the butt of jokes and stuff and just the object of peopels' amusement. I've always been the person who people turn jokes n stuff on, when they're being hit with something bad to their publicity. I'm pretty much the social scapegoat to my peers, and to stop that from happening, I kinda just considered shutting myself out from everyone. Then 9/11 happened, and I finally said "My life isn't about interaction. My life is about a quest for wisdom, and I don't need anyone else for that." It was bound to happen, but 9/11 just sped up the journey.

Ptah Khnemu - you seem so knowledgable for your age, that's why I didn't realise.

Thank you. I get that quite a bit. Because of my age, people tend to mistake me for just another sophmoric idiot who still has no idea what the hell is going on in the real world. It's nice to be recognized as more than such.

 

[Horus]

A lot of people seem to think trust equals loss of objectivity and awareness, at least this is what I have noticed. When someone gives trust to someone- something he stops thinking about, reconsidering it, being open to learn more etc. It seems that people got so used to this, and it is partly because giving trust often means letting go of responsability for them.

I agree with you. Whenever people have seen aside of an argument that appeases their interests, they stop caring about anything else that anyone else has to say. "I've picked my side, now go away." That's pretty much what people say after they form an opinion.
Also, as seen with the media and stuff, people also tend to trust what other people trust. They pour all their trust into other people, who give all their trust to one person. That's how leaders are formed. And when those people change their beliefs, it creates chaos among the followers. I'm not quite sure what direction to take now, but I guess my point is that too many people trusting in one thing can be a really bad thing.

 

[no country for old wainds]

If these ideas are to be believed as true, than the latter is a facet of the former - that is, each individual does for himslef because it benefits the individual; the individual does for others because it indirectly benefits the individual. In other words, the drive for self-preservation is stronger than the need for species-preservation.

A vaguely related question:
Could it not be said that the drive for species-preservation is just a consequence of the fundamental drive for self-preservation, much like the desire to fight off predators, eat, etc? I'm not especially knowledgable on the subject, and I'm probably just being picky, but I'm curious about the reasoning behind categorising the drive for species-preservation as a second fundamental drive rather than as just another method for preserving the self.

 

[ARC150]

A vaguely related question:
Could it not be said that the drive for species-preservation is just a consequence of the fundamental drive for self-preservation, much like the desire to fight off predators, eat, etc? I'm not especially knowledgable on the subject, and I'm probably just being picky, but I'm curious about the reasoning behind categorising the drive for species-preservation as a second fundamental drive rather than as just another method for preserving the self.

A great question - and directly related.

The problem IMO with your logic is that it does not truly dillute the situation down to the individual level. To illustrate by way of your examples:

The desire to fight off predators
If there were an adversary that was attacking the two of us, we would both fight against him so as to preserve ourselves - and as such we would both, by virtue of self-preservation, be working together to preserve the whole (read: the two of us).
But what if you could escape? Would you decide not to escape and instead help the me - even though doing so would put you back in harm's way? I think there is a drive to do both - but the desire to save yourself is stronger than the desire to risk your life for the sake of another's. If a bear is chasing the two of you, you don't have to be faster than the bear - you just have to be faster than the person you are with...

The point is better made here:
The desire to...eat.
If you and I (in this instance, imagine us as hunters on the Great Plains) could work together to bring down a bison, we would - and the collective effort would benefit us both...but what if that bison were a rabbit and its flesh could only sustain one of us? I think that we would fight over it.

 

[Norsemaiden]

You make it sound as though you could not conceive of sacrificing your own life to help someone else. Many people do this though, and it is often the sensible thing to do, biologically speaking. Humans feel this as duty or honour. Not everyone feels the same way. One thing women look for in a man is that he would protect her if she were in danger. If she thinks he's going to run away at the first sign of threat and abandon her, he will be lucky indeed if she is desperate or weak enough to bear his children.
Mothers have an instinct to protect their offspring at the possible cost of their own life - this is inherent in many species, although not all as strategies vary.

Also how do you explain Japanese hara-kiri and how do you explain Scott of the Antarctic, who wanted to help his friends to survive by going out into the snow, in order to die, saying "I am just going outside and may be some time".?

 

[Doll]

Hmm.. I think some people WANT to trust someone, so they try and that's when betrayal hits. Some people, such as myself - try to sum up someones personality, their characteristics, habits and flaws in order to trust them. Some don't trust people who seem to be too good to be true and then there are some that just trust because they think everybody is good.

I believe that a lot of people don't follow their gut and instead follow their heart (I know - sounds so cheesy) but how many times have you guys followed your heart.. wanting something rather than needing something - following your gut instincts such as "I will be more financially stable, therefore I might be lonely but I will be financially stable." for example - instead some people follow their hearts like "Oh I adore her so, even though I know I'll get too involved and probably get my heart broken because she's a harlot."

Hm.. chances, risks come with trust and some people can take those and some people can't. I say, grab them by the sweaty bollocks and shake their hand if you feel comfortable enough. I dunno if I quite understand what you're saying norsemaiden, but yeah. =) Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Doll]

Hm.. I think that all came out wrong. =/ But yeah.. so tired.

 

[Demilich]

all i got out of it was an unsettling impetus to grab the sweaty bollocks of someone i trust and shake them

 

[Doll]

rofl