Introduced by: Rose Allender
Moderated by: Daniel Star
Rose began by reading several dictionary definitions of trust: "assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something"; "to believe"; "to place confidence in or rely on"; and "to hope or expect confidently". She then gave numerous examples of when/what we trust, such as water and food safety, bus drivers, that there will be a tomorrow, etc., but noted the problem that not everyone is actually trustworthy. She summarized three basic assumptions people make about the world, as presented in Ronnie Janoff-Bulman's book, Shattered Assumptions: Towards a New Psychology of Trauma: that the world is benevolent; that the world is meaningful; and that the self is worthy. On this basis most people tend to approach the world with optimism, trusting in their own safety and security. She also mentioned Alan Watts' view, in A Watercourse Way, that if you cannot trust nature and other people, you cannot trust yourself. He accepts that this basic faith in the system involves risk that your trust will be misplaced. For him, trust in human nature requires acceptance of both the good and the bad. Next Rose raised the issue of what happens when we do and do not trust. Those who are not able to trust, such as victims of traumatic events, tend to lose their self-confidence and become more vulnerable; not trusting ourselves leads us to do what others want rather than what we think is best, while not trusting others inevitably causes us much trouble (such as being unable to delegate tasks at work or lying to one's spouse). Those who do trust tend to be more confident, willing to try new things, have more friends and higher self-esteem, and even (according to Robert Ornstein and David Sobel's book, Healthy Pleasures) stay healthier. Indeed, to get well and stay well when illness strikes, trust in the treatment and in the person administering the "cure", as well as a belief in a positive outcome, are often more important that the treatment itself. Finally, Rose concluded by giving some examples of when trust seems not to be in our best interests: a person who trusts that there is plenty of water may fail to conserve properly; trusting that tomorrow will always come may lead us to put off important tasks; etc. How a person answers this question, therefore, will depend to a large extent on what kind of life a person wants to live.
Jennie started the discussion by asking whether we naturally trust ourselves. Rose surmised that this depends on various factors, such as how a person is brought up. Jennie responded that babies do not seem to have a natural self-trust. But Nimu disagreed, claiming that trust is a natural instinct for babies. Jeff suggested that babies develop trust as they use their senses to explore the world, but eventually find that their senses sometimes fool them (as when seeing a mirage); as adults we therefore tend to trust our thinking more than our sensations.
Austin alleged that it is a fallacy to think that rationality is always something we can trust. Tom asked what the alternative would be, to which Austin responded: our beliefs, cultural norms, etc. Tom then observed that in many places that depend heavily on such beliefs and norms, such as China and North Korea, people do not live very well. But, quipped Austin, they live!
Austin continued by asking whether it is possible to "live for today"; if we really lived as if there would be no tomorrow, we would make ourselves far too busy. Jeff responded by relating a quote he recently heard: "faith in the future provides power in the present." If so, then a person who genuinely did not believe there would be any tomorrow would probably do nothing at all!
Austin inquired whether optimism can be equated with trust. Could it be that optimists are simply unaware of the real risks? Daniel added that bad things could, after all, happen to any of us. Tom defended the optimist on the grounds that the probability of various disasters happening to any one of us is extremely low, so we should not worry about it. Some actions, by contrast, are inherently high risk, such as showing off large amounts of cash in public. Such actions are the ones we should take care to avoid.
On this basis, Austin proposed that an assessment of probable risk is a good principle for guiding our attempts to determine when we should and should not trust. He added that, by comparison, religion and magic seem like irrational ways of making such assessments. Daniel warned, however, that such belief systems inevitably contain some degree of rationality, so they can be analyzed and sometimes prove to be quite effective.
In response to Daniel's call for other ideas, Kwok suggested that cooperation is the key to a proper understanding of when we should trust. Daniel agreed, adding that trusting in others is actually prior to trusting in oneself. But Helen disagreed, claiming that we trust ourselves first, then others. Daniel then pointed out the difference between individualistic and family-based societies, observing that Asian societies tend to take the latter form. Edmond noted that as a result some societies are characterized by a low degree of trust, while others have a higher degree of trust. Austin wondered whether trust tends to increase as societies develop. Tom replied that it depends on the culture: in communist countries trust decreases as the society develops.
After Daniel sought clarification from Kwok as to what he meant by cooperation, Rose claimed that trust must in any case be prior to cooperation. Kwok disagreed, pointing out that in situations where people cooperate, they are more likely to trust the outcome. Jeff noted that this is currently a hot topic in discussions of e-commerce: perceiving risk calls for trust, with the level of risk determining the cost of the trust. Catherine illustrated the latter point by summarizing a recent South China Morning Post article about a doctor who actually killed several hundred patients. Edmond stressed that this was an exception: doctors do not usually kill their patients! Maureen added that, whereas we can often detect a lie in a person's eyes, the lies of politicians and lawyers often go undetected.
At this point Daniel called for a 45-minute break, during which we divided into four smaller groups for more in-depth discussion of these and related issues.
After the break Steve began by summarizing some of the key points raised in his small group. They had focused on the issue of whether or not babies naturally trust. They agreed that there seems to be an unconscious (perhaps instinctual) tendency for infants to trust themselves, but that some degree of distrust towards others is often a prerequisite for learning. For example, when a parent tells a child not to touch the hot stove, this often just makes the child want to touch it more. But when the child touches it anyway and gets burned, this will help him or her to learn to trust others. Higher forms of trust, such as trusting in God, tend to operate in the same way: we learn to trust by experimenting with mistrust and experiencing a bad result. One member had suggested distinguishing between trust, faith, and belief as involving material, spiritual, and mental functions, respectively, but these correlations proved difficult to clarify. In general, group members agreed that trust is appropriate when the other person is more experienced but inappropriate if it decreases a person's own self-esteem, that we are more likely to trust someone who respects us as a person and less likely to respect authoritarian types, and that healthy trust is likely to create a cycle of ever-increasing mutual self-esteem.
Helen pointed out that people's tendency to trust others in healthy or unhealthy ways often depends on their education. Daniel added that in some situations we have no alternative but to trust those who have been put in authority over us, such as the pilots of an airplane. Jeff responded that the question at hand seems to relate more to situations where we have to decide whether or not to take some action. So Daniel posed the problem of whether or not we should accept a doctor's advice. Jeff suggested that in situations of doubt we can always consult another doctor for a second opinion--though he warned against the danger of looking around until one finds a doctor who will confirm one's own self-diagnosis. Daniel agreed, claiming that this danger illustrates that we sometimes need to distrust ourselves. Steve clarified that this is just the sort of situation that his group's discussion had in mind: healthy trust needs to be mutual, so we should not give doctors our blind trust, yet neither should we trust ourselves to the exclusion of another person's expertise. Daniel stressed that this confirms his main point, that trust requires rational reflection.
Austin observed that people of all ages, not only toddlers, have a tendency to disobey. He attributed this to our natural desire to explore. Jeff related this to the Russian proverb that Mikhail Gorbachav once told Ronald Reagan: "Trust, but verify." Jennie objected that the proverb seems to be self-contradictory, and asked whether it is possible to believe someone without trusting them. Steve claimed that it is possible, giving the illustration that we might believe someone who tells us he can return $10,000 to us in a year if we invest $1000 with him now, yet if in the end we do not actually make the investment, we have chosen not to place our trust in the person.
Edmond then summarized his group's discussion by claiming that we each need to trust ourselves first. One group member, had shared that she was once a very trusting person, but then someone abused her trust and she has since become less trusting. Now she trusts, but not without certain safeguards. Their group distinguished between trusting people we know, where cooperation is the primary means of building trust, and trusting people we do not know, whom we tend to stereotype and judge (as trustworthy or not) based on various shortcuts. They all agreed that this is morally wrong; yet the fact is that we all do it!
Jeff asked why such prejudgment is morally wrong. Edmond responded by illustrating the sort of problem his group had in mind: police in the USA will sometimes suspect black people of being criminals automatically, whether they are guilty or not. Our judgments in such matters, he argued, usually depend on the level of risk involved: the higher the risk, the lower our degree of trust. Austin noted that this stereotype is used by scam artists: they dress up like trustworthy people as part of their effort to fool the unsuspecting victim. Julian emphasized that this is an abuse of trust. And Maureen added that the amount of trust a person loses in such cases of abuse is greater than anything they gain.
Daniel asserted that trust inevitably opens us up to the risk of being betrayed. Steve agreed, but asked whether betrayal is necessarily a bad thing. Kwok gave an illustration of how an art teacher can use apparent betrayal (by repeatedly destroying the student's work) as a means of motivating the student to reach a higher level of development. Likewise, Jeff explored the implications for a child of being dropped by a father who is in the habit of playfully throwing the child up in the air. From these illustrations, Steve argued that betrayal ideally should not cause a person to stop trusting others, and that when this happens, it reveals a more fundamental lack of trust in one's own self. Julian and others agreed, but added that the applicability of this principle depends to some extent on how serious the betrayal is. For example, Daniel explained, the effect being dropped has on a child's trust would probably depend on how serious the resulting injury is.
Jeff encouraged us to reflect on when each of us stopped trusting. He related a personal story about a childhood experience in which his grandparents repeatedly insisted that something he knew to be true was actually false. He now realizes that he responded psychologically by tending not to trust them and others from that point. He suggested that recalling such past events can help each of us to deal more equitably with our various adult relationships that require trust. Daniel claimed that the situation is more complex than this illustration might lead us to believe: even after being betrayed we do still trust people in many ways. For example, ritualized lying is commonplace, and is used to help people maintain their social images, yet it does not destroy the possibility of trust. Jeff warned against the danger of basing our relationships on such distorted truth games. But Daniel downplayed the significance of this danger, claiming that people are still able to trust others on the really important issues.
Agreeing that most people do develop a tendency to distrust others, Austin raised the question of when we should tell lies. He observed that we are constantly testing our trust of others and their trust of us, based on levels of risk and our past experience. For this reason, he suggested, we tend to trust less when we are in a strange environment. At Daniel's prompting, Rose then concluded the discussion by encouraging us to trust others even if we have difficulty doing so, because it is in our best interest. Rather than going into new situations not trusting at all, we should trust as much as possible (perhaps 95%). This will make us happier, more cooperative, and ultimately more successful.
+++
The following suggestions were made for possible topics for the February meeting:
When/why should/do we lie?
Is lying always wrong?
Spiritual/universal/natural laws
How can we be sure such laws are universal?
Mistrust in relation to other attitudes/feelings
After some discussion, Austin agreed to introduce a topic relating in some way to universal laws or principles.
This page was placed on this web site on 11 February 2001.
Back to the the Hong Kong Philosophy Cafe web site.
Back to the main map of Steve Palmquist's web site.