I've been called "paranoid" too many times to count, with varying degrees of endearment attached. I've been told by friends, acquaintances, and strangers alike that I have some serious "trust issues." Someday, I'd like someone (without an ulterior motive, of course) to explain what's wrong with that. I always half-joke with these people and tell them it's not me who has the issue, it's them, because trust is inherently a weakness, and I choose simply not to expose myself to it.
Trust fall photo by klndonnelly on Flickr
I'm fond of saying that I don't trust anyone but... the truth, the uncomfortable truth, is that I do sometimes. It would be more accurate for me to say that I trust as few individuals as possible, and only as much as I absolutely must, with the things I absolutely must. That's a real mouthful though, so I just say I don't trust anybody, and it's good enough for most people to roll their eyes at me, write me off as some weirdo, and move on.
Why, though, does it make me weird? Why is it abnormal to have "difficulty" (if you can call it that) trusting others? Propensity to trust is a trait highly desired by dishonest people and psychopaths in their victims, and it seems obvious why. If I default to trusting people I don't know, it is only a matter of time before a scam artist comes along and ruins my day. Why am I expected to open that surface of attack? Why does the world expect me to trust people randomly, especially complete strangers who have every incentive to betray me?
Let's look at what trust really is. Trust is an unenforceable contract in which the trusting party exposes an attack surface usually in order to gain something: convenience, perhaps, or companionship, from the trusted party. In return, the trusted party promises not to attack. Wait; that's it? Seriously? I would understand if we lived in J. K. Rowling's world of Fidelius Charms and Unbreakable Vows, but we don't; there is no such thing as a safe secret, and promises can and will be broken (just have a look at your average politician).
Of course that's a clearly biased description as someone who has problems with the entire concept of trust, but I can't see it any other way. As a software developer, part of my job is to think constantly of how someone may try to compromise my product, and mitigate those attack vectors. If I am not thinking of that and someone does something evil, certainly they are to blame but it's still my responsibility; the (hopefully) metaphorical blood is still on my hands. It's my job to make those attacks impossible.
Part of the goal of the cryptographic consensus technology which powers our platform is to minimise the amount of trust we need in order to work together, and I think that's beautiful to be honest. "Trust issues" are nothing to be ashamed of in my opinion; they're the natural conclusion of logical thought. So please take note: if we're friends and it seems like I don't trust you, it's not because I think you're untrustworthy; it's because I don't believe in creating unnecessary security holes. Please don't be hurt. I still love you. 🍋
Posted from my blog with SteemPress.
I don’t think your trust issues are weird at all. Trust is earned in my books, so your thoughts are perfectly normal to me :). Nice read btw :)
Thank you!
On phone so brief.
Trust to me is about probability and an acceptance of the odds. As I see it, everyone has a hierarchy of desire and therefore will break trust if doing so gets them something higher I their hierarchy, not just if it is in their best interest or not.
I don't trust people to not break my trust, I trust that my judgement of the risks is sound and the acceptance of the position is my responsibility. I am not going to blame someone for breaking trust, I just didn't evaluate their hierarchy of desires well.
Trust is an investment into risk because their is a personal return in a trusting relationship but not all will realise the value and often, the costs outweigh the gain.
Well put. I like how your take on this puts the locus of control (and responsibility) on you. You need to watch who you trust if not for any other reason but your own sake. The question is, however, when and to what extent those who violate our trust deserve to be punished?
Posted using Partiko Android
The punishment depends on the "crime" doesn't it? To what extent does someone who exposes themselves to undue risk deserve to be punished? Violated trust means what, a secret told, a cheating partner, a lying politician? Perhaps before the punishment we should consider why we put our faith in them in the first place. It is a risk position with some kind of reward we value attached. If someone invests, they have to be prepared to lose their investment totally so would be the same for trust? Hard to blame a tiger for biting, it is in its nature and those who choose to trust are nudging the nature of an individual. Some are better judges of character than others which is why some will fall for a con while others do not. If you know it is a con and still take the risk, it is hard to blame the conartist for doing exactly as expected.
People want people to act like themselves even though when they themselves act poorly, they call for understanding and leniency in punishment. Do they extend the same to those who 'trespass against them' ?
Trust, responsibility and freedom of decisions bring up some interesting conflicts.
There are laws against fraud.
" If you know it is a con and still take the risk, it is hard to blame the conartist for doing exactly as expected."
If you know it's a con, then you're not taking a risk. But a mere suspicion does not free a con artist of culpability. All con jobs should be reported to the police.
There is also a law in Finland against spreading information about somebody's private life using the media or other means to be available to numerous people if spreading that information can be expected (or, by implication, does) cause damage or suffering to that person.
https://www.laki24.fi/riri-rikokset-yksityisyyden_rauhan_kunnian_loukkaaminen-yksityiselamaa_loukkaava_tiedon_levittaminen/
Interesting point of view, not holding others accountable for their betrayals. I certainly don't think that is how most people see it. Your whole assessment of trust seems very Vulcan to me. Mr Spock, is that you?
I just blame all my years of playing Eve Online! While I do still think there are places in this world where people don’t lock their doors/have no locks or close their windows at night. The majority do not because most people can be trusted but because it only takes one person who sneaks around at night looking for unlocked windows to open and to steal. Granted in my area you would have a good chance of getting shot for such a thing so it’s at their own risking of doing so. Which has happened in this town and people still don’t learn.
I do think there is a different between a healthy dose of not trusting people at first and the people that go around purposely trying to look for reasons not to trust someone by setting them up for failure. That then becomes a bit of a sabotage relation between the two parties involved.
Last night in the discord I’m in one member post a steam key free to the first person who used it. All he asked was that you let him know you where the one that got it. After a while someone said they tried it but it was already taken. No one came forward in saying they got the game. While it was only a 99 cent game the fact that no one was willing to just say "thanks for the free game I got it” is kind of sad. Makes me a little less trusting. That is just the world we live in. It also means if someone wants to do that again in the future I'll have to ask them to just DM the key to the first person who ask for it and not just drop it into chat.
Now see, if that Steam key were actually a token of ownership on a public ledger, you could have seen exactly which account claimed it. No trust necessary.
Yeah I don't do that either. I already have a reason not to trust anyone; it's just a bad idea to begin with! :P
Its been a while lemony
Indeed it has! I hope you are well.
Im very fine! Its good to be back on steemit
Hi @lemony-cricket!
Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 4.226 which ranks you at #2762 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has dropped 40 places in the last three days (old rank 2722).
In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 243 contributions, your post is ranked at #28.
Evaluation of your UA score:
Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server
You got a 43.15% upvote from @ocdb courtesy of @geekpowered!
@ocdb is a non-profit bidbot for whitelisted Steemians, check our website https://thegoodwhales.io/ for the whitelist, queue and delegation info. Join our Discord channel for more information
If you like what @ocd does, consider voting for ocd-witness through SteemConnect or on Steemit Witnesses