|
Awareness -> RE: Do you think "trust" is overrated (10/10/2016 7:34:26 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: crazyml
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. That's a measure of your belief in the predictability of their behaviour.
quote:
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. You can't predict what choice they'll make but you think you can predict what kind of choice they'll make? The only difference between those two is the degree to which you regard their behaviour as predictable. However I never said it was COMPLETELY predictable, I merely said that it's a belief their behaviour IS predictable.
Consider that nobody trusts the mentally ill because their erratic, unpredictable behaviour inspires fear.
quote:
No, I'm challenging an overly simplistic definition. You might think you are but you're doing a terrible job of it.
quote:
It's not a question of it being "more stark" than I like, it's a question of it being a faulty definition. Which you attempt to replace with another definition which means the same thing.
quote:
If you were able to predict what someone would do, there would be no requirement for trust. So you think trust involves blind faith?
|
|
|
|
