Do you think people can be trusted?

[John Camp]

"Trust" is situational, isn't it? If you get an e-mail that tells you that some guy in Nigeria had $40 million in a safe, and that we can all recover it if...Well, in all charity...no. If a stranger asks me to trust him in a situation that is financially critical to me, and in which he could profit by betraying me, I'd be skeptical. If somebody is dressed like a gangster, and says he's got something to show me right over here...I'd be skeptical. But in virtually all other routine face-to-face daily contacts, sure, I'll trust you. A person may get burned sometimes -- even by his/her friends -- but mistrusting everybody is no way to go through life. I certainly try to be trustworthy myself.

JC

 

[Al Patterson]

"Trust" is situational, isn't it? If you get an e-mail that tells you that some guy in Nigeria had $40 million in a safe, and that we can all recover it if...Well, in all charity...no. If a stranger asks me to trust him in a situation that is financially critical to me, and in which he could profit by betraying me, I'd be skeptical. If somebody is dressed like a gangster, and says he's got something to show me right over here...I'd be skeptical. But in virtually all other routine face-to-face daily contacts, sure, I'll trust you. A person may get burned sometimes -- even by his/her friends -- but mistrusting everybody is no way to go through life. I certainly try to be trustworthy myself.

JC

If only I had $1 for every one of these emails I have received over the years....

 

[Al Kaplan]

I've managed to cut way down on the amount of emails I get from Nigeria. I reply that I know that slavery is still fairly common there and that a pretty young girl can easily bring between $10,000 and $25,000 here in the U.S. "You get her a tourist visa and a round trip plane ticket (you need the round trip ticket to show that she IS a tourist) and I'm sure that I can find homes for several girls a month, then split the profit with you!" It's been at least six months since the last email.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger,
I find comfort in the thought that there is scientific support for the notion that a basic trust, until proven wrong is a superior strategy in situations where mutual trust decides on the outcome of an action. I googled 'tit for tat experiment' and found a.o: http://www2.owen.vanderbilt.edu/Mike.Shor/courses/GTheory/docs/Axelrod.html
Now, the next question is: can scientific experiments be trusted? Be that as it may, I would have been disappointed if a sneaky, no-good, political strategy had come out superior in this experiment.

Greetings,

Dirk

Dear Dirk,

Thanks very much indeed. I was familiar with the prisoners' dilemma and tit for tat, but not the fish.

This thread has also illustrated that trust is not something to be subjected to heavy analysis, because most of those who attempted analysis (not all!) seem to have come to the conclusion that you can't trust people, whereas most (again, not all) of those who went for a snap answer say that they do trust people. Overall, of course: there are always individuals or situations (such as Al's slave girls, a scam of which I had never heard) where alarm bells go off.

I still disagree with Bill and kxl, because I don't see how you can deal with 'people' instead of 'a person'. Of course the behaviour of crowds is different from the behaviour of individuals; of course there are those who are untrustworthy; but as John and Nikon Kiu say, life without trust would be pretty dire.

The question of what you risk/stand to gain is obviously relevant. Of course it would be rash to lend a total stranger $1000 or an M2, but equally, if your car has broken down and someone volunteers to give you a lift, do you ask "What's he getting out of this? Am I about to be abducted and eaten by cannibals?"

Many years ago, a friend of mine said, "Don't thank me. Pass it on." He's still a good friend and I've tried to follow his injunction ever since.

Indeed, on a very closely related point, Frances and I treat this friend's daughter as our own. She was with us on our 7700 km tour of Europe in May/June. Some people have assumed that there was some bizarre sexual motive in this. Well, I don't deny that if I were 20 years old (she's 19) I'd be fighting her boyfriend for her, but I'm not: I'm exactly 40 years older than she is, and I'm married and want to stay that way, and she is, well, pretty much a daughter (and a bit of sister, as she was born on my birthday -- we celebrated our common birthday in Hungary). Some people can't handle this, because they always think the worst of everyone. I feel sorry for them.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Turtle]

There's an old Irish saying my maternal grandmother loved:

"FOOL ME ONCE; SHAME ON YOU.

FOOL ME TWICE; SHAME ON ME."

I preferred the G Bush version 😀

In answer the the OP:

People cannot be trusted IMHO unless you have cause to - that would be my snap reply. I have been burnt enough times to approach from a position of skepticism unless I have reason to do otherwise. I would trust a seller here more than epay for example, if they have history and seem to genuinely love what they do.

 

[Damaso]

Most, no. Some, yes.

 

[noimmunity]

Well, it's a good question.
But I think the real question begins with "can you trust yourself?"
To what extent do I have confidence in my own judgment?

The choices we make are always empowering so long as we understand that it is we who make them. One's finality is bound to one's accepting these decisions, and act upon them not as if forced to do them, but as a gift that our spirit tells us. Avoid as much as possible to think that one is a victim and therefore entitled to XXXX.

I will say that since coming to Shanghai, I have never ever seen a single place where so many people distrust so many others at such a deep level.

 

[bwcolor]

People can always be trusted to do what they perceive to be in their own self interest.

 

[Roger Hicks]

People can always be trusted to do what they perceive to be in their own self interest.

This is flatly untrue, unless you define 'self interest' to include 'the promotion of a civil society'. Many people vote for things that will be personally uncomfortable in the short term, because they can see that in the long term, inequality will make things a lot more uncomfortable for everyone.

This is, after all, the nature of a representative democracy (or elective monarchy, as exists in the United States). We vote for those who will do best for us in a civil society. As Hobbes himself pointed out, we cannot call the same form of government one thing when we like it, and another when we mislike it (monarchy/tyranny, aristocracy/oligarchy, democracy/anarchy).

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Well, it's a good question.
But I think the real question begins with "can you trust yourself?"
To what extent do I have confidence in my own judgment?

The choices we make are always empowering so long as we understand that it is we who make them. One's finality is bound to one's accepting these decisions, and act upon them not as if forced to do them, but as a gift that our spirit tells us. Avoid as much as possible to think that one is a victim and therefore entitled to XXXX.

I will say that since coming to Shanghai, I have never ever seen a single place where so many people distrust so many others at such a deep level.

I am sure you are right, but equally, I have to balance my judgement against yours (unless I am an omnipotent dictator). I completely accept your point about 'victimhood', and an extraordinary number of people seem to think that voting for the person who didn't get in will automatically make you a victim.

Cheers,

R.

 

[35mmdelux]

People can always be trusted to do what they perceive to be in their own self interest.

TRue. This is classic.

 

[bwcolor]

Roger:

Your political point of view sure reads a good bit into a post that wasn't in the posters mind. I give you an "A" for passion, but your bias is showing. I don't define anything. I leave this up to the individual. Would you like to dictate to individuals as to how they should think? I wonder..

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger:

Your political point of view sure reads a good bit into a post that wasn't in the posters mind. I give you an "A" for passion, but your bias is showing. I don't define anything. I leave this up to the individual. Would you like to dictate to individuals as to how they should think? I wonder..

No, hang on, you said 'people', implying all. I said 'many people'. You're the one who's dictating...

Cheers,

R.

 

[bwcolor]

Rodger:

Yes, I was responding to your use of "people" in your original post. You see, I don't see a practical result from my point of view in that I don't know how any one person interprets their best interest. One person might want to seem compassionate so that others praise them. Politicians do this all of the time. Another, might see the social implications and how global issues influence themselves and their family. Another might just kill you, or I for the money in our pockets. I can't project what is in any one person's mind, but I "believe" that people "generally" act in their own interest.

Cheers..

 

[antiquark]

Most people can be trusted, but you have to guard against the few who can't be trusted.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Rodger:

Yes, I was responding to your use of "people" in your original post. You see, I don't see a practical result from my point of view in that I don't know how any one person interprets their best interest. One person might want to seem compassionate so that others praise them. Politicians do this all of the time. Another, might see the social implications and how global issues influence themselves and their family. Another might just kill you, or I for the money in our pockets. I can't project what is in any one person's mind, but I "believe" that people "generally" act in their own interest.

Cheers..

Fair enough, but 'in their own interest' at that point may include altruism, or at least, the desire to be praised for apparent altruism, at which point, the concept of 'in their own interest' tends to dissolve somewhat.

I completely agree: people generally act in their own self-interest. It's just that (a) it doesn't always happen and (b) it's hard to project what they will perceive as their own self interest.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Steve M.]

Assume everyone is honest but keep one hand on your wallet.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Assume everyone is honest but keep one hand on your wallet.

Now that, I'll drink to!

(Finishes glass of Cardhu.)

Cheers,

R.

 

[thomasw_]

In God I trust, everyone else pays cash. I know it is a rather cynical view, but I consider it realistic. My assessment of human nature comes from years of being a teacher and working with 15 to 18 year old kids; under stress or fear of failure or pressure, most people are flawed and not very trustworthy. And, what is most alarming, especially if you write off my experience as being 'O that's just because its high school kids, not adults;' consider that my biggest deceivers tend to be parents who will lie to me because they feel that it covers for their kid. No wonder then why the kids are as they are.

 

[bwcolor]

Fair enough, but 'in their own interest' at that point may include altruism, or at least, the desire to be praised for apparent altruism, at which point, the concept of 'in their own interest' tends to dissolve somewhat.

I completely agree: people generally act in their own self-interest. It's just that (a) it doesn't always happen and (b) it's hard to project what they will perceive as their own self interest.

Cheers,

R.

Yup, we agree. I'm of the Advaita drift, so I'm a bit off the deep end with respect to many issues related to the sense of "I" and "me".