|
crazyml -> RE: Do you think "trust" is overrated (10/10/2016 2:50:18 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Awareness
quote:
ORIGINAL: crazyml
quote:
ORIGINAL: Awareness
Trust is nothing more than the belief that a person's behaviour is predictable.
Deifying it is nonsensical.
I think this is a pretty poor definition of "trust". The concept "trust" is at its most useful when you cannot predict another person's behaviour, but you believe that that behaviour will meet certain criteria.
A) How is that useful?
It is useful because it's a measure of the confidence that someone will act in a way that conforms to a set of values.
If you trust someone with your pet while you're away, and that pet falls ill, you cannot predict what choice of action the person looking after your pet will take, but you trust that that they will apply the a set of values to the question.
quote:
B) How is that not a belief in the predictability of someone's behaviour?
Because you cannot predict what choice they will make, but you have a level of faith/confidence in the kind of choice they will make.
quote:
I think you're engaging in vague hand-waving here to avoid a definition that's more stark than you'd like. The very definition of trust uses words such as "reliability" and "confidence".
No, I'm challenging an overly simplistic definition.
It's not a question of it being "more stark" than I like, it's a question of it being a faulty definition.
If you were able to predict what someone would do, there would be no requirement for trust.
quote:
Pretending it's something mystical seems somewhat counterproductive.
I wonder who has made that claim on this thread?
|
|
|
|
