Roger Hicks
Veteran
Snap answer. Don't think too long about it. Overall, can people be trusted?
This was prompted by an article in the latest Royal Society of Arts (RSA) journal. In the 1950s, 60% of Britons answered 'yes'. Today, it's under half that.
Similar results apply in the USA, and in France there has also been a fall. But in some Scandinavian countries there has been a rise.
I find this fascinating. It reflects the famous Thatcherite view that 'there is no such thing as society' and also the truth that there is an ever more poisonous divide between (for example) Republicans and Democrats: people just don't want to value somene else's opinion any more, or to consider for a second the possibility that they might be mistaken.
Relevance to RFF? Easy. There are lots of kind, trustworthy, helpful people on this forum. Is this perhaps the on-line future? Or are we deceiving ourselves, and isolating ourselves from the poisonous trolls who are the real future? My hope and belief is that the trolls are in fact a tiny, tiny minority and that a civilized forum (like this one) can keep them in their place.
Any thoughts?
Cheers,
R.
This was prompted by an article in the latest Royal Society of Arts (RSA) journal. In the 1950s, 60% of Britons answered 'yes'. Today, it's under half that.
Similar results apply in the USA, and in France there has also been a fall. But in some Scandinavian countries there has been a rise.
I find this fascinating. It reflects the famous Thatcherite view that 'there is no such thing as society' and also the truth that there is an ever more poisonous divide between (for example) Republicans and Democrats: people just don't want to value somene else's opinion any more, or to consider for a second the possibility that they might be mistaken.
Relevance to RFF? Easy. There are lots of kind, trustworthy, helpful people on this forum. Is this perhaps the on-line future? Or are we deceiving ourselves, and isolating ourselves from the poisonous trolls who are the real future? My hope and belief is that the trolls are in fact a tiny, tiny minority and that a civilized forum (like this one) can keep them in their place.
Any thoughts?
Cheers,
R.
laurentb
Established
Yes.
I'm maybe a bit naive, but I'll usually trust people until the prove me wrong. I'm working in a technical field (IT) and this is one of the foundations of my work : if I can't truct the person in front of me, then I simply can't work since I can't rely on the information I collect.
I'm maybe a bit naive, but I'll usually trust people until the prove me wrong. I'm working in a technical field (IT) and this is one of the foundations of my work : if I can't truct the person in front of me, then I simply can't work since I can't rely on the information I collect.
fergus
Well-known
Yes.
I take people at face value.
This has caused me two problems but that's over many years, and such things are quickly forgotten. The other 99.99% more than makes up for that. It's a happy way to live.
I take people at face value.
This has caused me two problems but that's over many years, and such things are quickly forgotten. The other 99.99% more than makes up for that. It's a happy way to live.
Michael Markey
Veteran
Roger
I think that by and large people can still be trusted. I refuse to allow myself to become cynical about these things (cynical in the modern sense of the word).True there is a feeling that one needs to be more cautious ,certainly when you can`t assess the situation up front ,such as on the internet.In such circumstances though forums of like minded people such as we find here go a long way to address that.
I will trust people until they prove me wrong ,then they are off my list.
Michael
I think that by and large people can still be trusted. I refuse to allow myself to become cynical about these things (cynical in the modern sense of the word).True there is a feeling that one needs to be more cautious ,certainly when you can`t assess the situation up front ,such as on the internet.In such circumstances though forums of like minded people such as we find here go a long way to address that.
I will trust people until they prove me wrong ,then they are off my list.
Michael
pakeha
Well-known
Maybe trust is higher in a community[society] than an economy and many people live in economies now rather than the former.
I trust people i choose to in a given situation, some guy in a suit wanting to sell investment advice-NO and yet i will trust some stranger on the other side of the world with a purchase, seems what we trust people with has changed also,
oh and i hav`nt trusted a priest since that little incident at the back of the choir room 40 years ago
I trust people i choose to in a given situation, some guy in a suit wanting to sell investment advice-NO and yet i will trust some stranger on the other side of the world with a purchase, seems what we trust people with has changed also,
oh and i hav`nt trusted a priest since that little incident at the back of the choir room 40 years ago
Spider67
Well-known
Yes.
Another thing which often get's mixed up with trust: Can other people meet our expectations, especially when we don't give them at least a hint
.....I hope you don't ask because of my invitation (winking smiley)
Des
Another thing which often get's mixed up with trust: Can other people meet our expectations, especially when we don't give them at least a hint
.....I hope you don't ask because of my invitation (winking smiley)
Des
laurentb
Established
pakeha
Well-known
whew, glad to see the smiley, i did not intend to offend the suit wearers out there, just my generic term for `real eatate folks, lawyers , accountants, politicians etc
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
Yes, I tend to trust people until I discover that this trust is misplaced, although this trust is a relatively superficial trust. As with respect, something which people appear to demand these days, real trust is earned through actions and not words.
With relevance to RFF I don't think things will change, as with the rest of the world there will be those that stand up to help, encourage, exchange and enjoy the things we share in common. There will also be those with their own agenda, those who wish to belittle, wind-up, intimidate, profit from, dismiss or merely disrupt for their own amusement. Then there will be the misunderstandings that muddy clear waters and the debates that get out of hand, things that can be mistaken for intentional trolling due to the expansive and international nature of internet forums.
I think that your hope is the reality. Trolls and those 'we' find to be untrustworthy are a small yet regular irritant that will never quite go away whilst never being able to fully disable that which we enjoy. As when your dog gets fleas we can use the IGNORE button as our fleaspray.
With relevance to RFF I don't think things will change, as with the rest of the world there will be those that stand up to help, encourage, exchange and enjoy the things we share in common. There will also be those with their own agenda, those who wish to belittle, wind-up, intimidate, profit from, dismiss or merely disrupt for their own amusement. Then there will be the misunderstandings that muddy clear waters and the debates that get out of hand, things that can be mistaken for intentional trolling due to the expansive and international nature of internet forums.
I think that your hope is the reality. Trolls and those 'we' find to be untrustworthy are a small yet regular irritant that will never quite go away whilst never being able to fully disable that which we enjoy. As when your dog gets fleas we can use the IGNORE button as our fleaspray.
icebear
Veteran
Hi Roger,
interesting line of thought and yes, I guess there is a certain connection between the preference for the particularities of of old fashioned cameras especially RFF and maybe Leica and the values that most people in our forum appreciate. That makes life more difficult for trolls - hopefully.
interesting line of thought and yes, I guess there is a certain connection between the preference for the particularities of of old fashioned cameras especially RFF and maybe Leica
and the values that most people in our forum appreciate. That makes life more difficult for trolls - hopefully.Mongo Park
Established
Put another way - I say that I generally don't distrust people. Rest assured, Roger, the trolls are in a small minority. PS love reading your articles in AP - first page I dive to - although in the next few weeks I'll be going to the "token" page first to cut out my token for the M9. PS2 glad you are on the mend.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Yes ... until proven otherwise!
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
I predict the general verdict at RFF with be a rather strong 'YES!'
In general, we all here seem very decent and genuinely truthful guys and girls, at least that is my feeling about RFF folk.
Personally, I am looking forward to the next holiday season and would very much like to start an honorary "Pitxu-clean out your closet" thread to dispose of unused camera gear.
That thread still has very fond memories with me. And I have never ever seen any thread like it on other forums.
My vote: YES!
In general, we all here seem very decent and genuinely truthful guys and girls, at least that is my feeling about RFF folk.
Personally, I am looking forward to the next holiday season and would very much like to start an honorary "Pitxu-clean out your closet" thread to dispose of unused camera gear.
That thread still has very fond memories with me. And I have never ever seen any thread like it on other forums.
My vote: YES!
Paul T.
Veteran
I do trust people.
But I realise I don't trust companies. This was crystallised when I was explaining to my 8 year old son about advertising; why Coke and Big Mac commercials are so ubiquitous, and how they make products as cheaply as possible and then sell them as hard as possible; that these companies don't 'like' 8-year old kids, they want to make money out of them.
In the last 30 years, there has been a huge change in attitudes; but I believe it's extinction of the ethos of 'service' that's had far-reaching effects, rather than a deterioration in personal morality.
But I realise I don't trust companies. This was crystallised when I was explaining to my 8 year old son about advertising; why Coke and Big Mac commercials are so ubiquitous, and how they make products as cheaply as possible and then sell them as hard as possible; that these companies don't 'like' 8-year old kids, they want to make money out of them.
In the last 30 years, there has been a huge change in attitudes; but I believe it's extinction of the ethos of 'service' that's had far-reaching effects, rather than a deterioration in personal morality.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Interesting you should mention Pitxu (Richard Jenkinson) ... as volitile as he could be at times he added something to this forum that will likely never be replaced.
I miss his input to the gallery and 'picks of the week' thread.
robbo
Robbo
I say yes. Maybe my view on life is too naive, but I just do not see what is gained out of so-called trolling.
Sean Moran
Established
This is a fascinating area, Roger!
I think the underlying question is 'What is an intellectually-virtuous stance towards testimony?' We can locate ourselves philosophically somewhere between outright scepticism and naive credulity.
We can (i) form a judgement about a person's trustworthiness by induction - that is by checking on a number of occasions for a match between their testimony and what we find to be the case by more direct means. Or, we can (ii) adopt a default position of trust until some warning signs of insincerity are present (eg, the person having an 'interest' in the statement s/he is making; examples would include someone pursuing an agenda which is definitely not in our best interest but very much in theirs: politicians, real-estate wallahs, salesmen, advertisers ...).
I personally favour the latter stance of being trusting. We accept our colleague's account of her weekend activities until she starts telling us about seeing the god Pan in her washing machine - who then smiled at her. This latter (actual) revelation still does not completely undermine one's trust - neither does it show insincerity - but it indicates possible (definite?) epistemic incompetence in one specific area.
So, in the fora, we ought (I feel) to accept at face value what posters say, unless there are reasons to the contrary, eg: their having a vested interest, making statements which do not cohere with our own pre-existing knowledge or having demonstrated insincerity or incompetence on a number of occasions.
Trust me,
Sean in Tipperary ;-)
I think the underlying question is 'What is an intellectually-virtuous stance towards testimony?' We can locate ourselves philosophically somewhere between outright scepticism and naive credulity.
We can (i) form a judgement about a person's trustworthiness by induction - that is by checking on a number of occasions for a match between their testimony and what we find to be the case by more direct means. Or, we can (ii) adopt a default position of trust until some warning signs of insincerity are present (eg, the person having an 'interest' in the statement s/he is making; examples would include someone pursuing an agenda which is definitely not in our best interest but very much in theirs: politicians, real-estate wallahs, salesmen, advertisers ...).
I personally favour the latter stance of being trusting. We accept our colleague's account of her weekend activities until she starts telling us about seeing the god Pan in her washing machine - who then smiled at her. This latter (actual) revelation still does not completely undermine one's trust - neither does it show insincerity - but it indicates possible (definite?) epistemic incompetence in one specific area.
So, in the fora, we ought (I feel) to accept at face value what posters say, unless there are reasons to the contrary, eg: their having a vested interest, making statements which do not cohere with our own pre-existing knowledge or having demonstrated insincerity or incompetence on a number of occasions.
Trust me,
Sean in Tipperary ;-)
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Thanks, everyone. This is all I had hoped: further insights into the degree of trust we can (reasonably) expect to give and receive, and where and how we place that trust.
There are of course many factors to take into consideration, some no more than blind prejudice based on people we've met with particular names, and others based on sad experience (for example, insurance companies, and worse still, American insurance companies).
Paul's point about the service ethic is, I think, very important, and closely related to personal contact. One of my bank managers, now long retired, said that he'd always dreamed of managing his own little branch, but that once he got there, it was nothing like the bank he had joined. All decisions were centralized: he was little more than a glorified salesman and front-man.
Of course small bank managers made mistakes, and could even be corrupted, but I can't help feeling that on balance, people like Keith (my bank manager) were a lot better for the bank and for their customers than today's call centres and computer modeling by people who don't know what a customer looks like.
Paul's other point about living in an economy rather than a community is fascinating, as is Sean's about the intellectual virtue of a given stance.
This is all making my recuperation pass faster. Thanks agan!
Cheers,
R.
There are of course many factors to take into consideration, some no more than blind prejudice based on people we've met with particular names, and others based on sad experience (for example, insurance companies, and worse still, American insurance companies).
Paul's point about the service ethic is, I think, very important, and closely related to personal contact. One of my bank managers, now long retired, said that he'd always dreamed of managing his own little branch, but that once he got there, it was nothing like the bank he had joined. All decisions were centralized: he was little more than a glorified salesman and front-man.
Of course small bank managers made mistakes, and could even be corrupted, but I can't help feeling that on balance, people like Keith (my bank manager) were a lot better for the bank and for their customers than today's call centres and computer modeling by people who don't know what a customer looks like.
Paul's other point about living in an economy rather than a community is fascinating, as is Sean's about the intellectual virtue of a given stance.
This is all making my recuperation pass faster. Thanks agan!
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Most? Yes.
I've long known that appearances are not to be trusted. Many of the nicest people I've ever known would likely scare the average person.
I've long known that appearances are not to be trusted. Many of the nicest people I've ever known would likely scare the average person.
Last edited:
edodo
Well-known
When you stop and ask : "which way do we go?" and they all say :"follow me!". How do they know?
Giles, Giles and Fripp.
Giles, Giles and Fripp.