Trust me any day, if you are lazy

Why do we trust others?

Are you saying that we shouldn't?

We have numerous choices in terms of actions that we could take, and yet, we think the others would opt for the one that we consider best, or at least, good. If that isn't wishful thinking, what is?

Trust isn't established in a second, though. It is based on experiences and observations from the past. Had you showed up here every week at the same time for years, I would naturally expect you to do so next week.

Inductive reasoning is weak, we all know that.

How else can we conduct our lives?

The brutal truth is...

Please do away with that announcement of yours for brutal truths, and just tell me what you think.

You would agree that it is brutal, though. The reason why we trust others is because we are lazy.

Are you talking about entrusting tasks to others?

I meant it more generally. Suppose I do not trust you. I will have to think what evil deeds you may commit and be prepared with a strategy for each possibility.

But if you trust me, you don't have to do all that thinking. Is this what you are getting at?

Well done, comrade! It doesn't have to concern anything that could be harmful. For example, an instructor can say that s/he trusts the student and shirk from giving appropriate advice and guidance. You see, what is conceived as freedom and liberty is brought to you by the courtesy of laziness.

If we do not trust someone or something when we safely can, we will be wasting our time and energy devising plans that we would never need. Besides, when we mistrust someone, it can well encourage her/him to act precisely in ways we consider undesirable.

When I was in high school, I went back home early one day and told my mother that I cut afternoon classes.

Who cuts school to go back home when you know your mother is waiting there? I knew you were à l'extrémité!

It wasn't that I wanted to smoke a cigarette and look at the sky or slip inside a movie theater when the attendant was looking the other way. I was eager to work on my own project at home, instead of attending boring lectures.

Knowing you, it must have been something like reading all of "À la recherche du temps perdu," making plans to replicate Captain Cook's and Marco Polo's journeys at the same time, or doing research on people who were outdone by others because they lacked marketing skills---Alfred Russel Wallace who lost to Charles Darwin, Nicola Tesla who lost to Thomas Edison and Wilhelm Röntgen among others, Rosalind Franklin who lost to Francis Crick and James Watson, and...

Ah, the glorious days when I could easily find people who had seen Minitel in use! It would be wickedly unfair to attribute the unfortunate turns of their professional lives to what you call lack of marketing skills, but let's say my project was something along those lines. Anyway, I was shocked when my mother started talking about her cutting school when she was in high school.

I didn't know that you thought she was a model student.

I didn't and still don't. It scared me that she talked approvingly of her own and my skipping classes. She even told me how bad some instructors were. You know that something is truly and grossly wrong when you are heartily endorsed by your parents.

You never cut school again?

I did, but I made sure that it was never excessive. Her showing trust in me worked in the way she wanted. I think that showing trust, rather than trusting, is a more sensible course to take.

Do you think trust on surface is better than genuine trust?

I have been noticing lately that we can't really hide our true feelings. When you don't mean what you are saying, it shows.

Especially you. It's written all over your face.

Our ability varies in detecting the discrepancy between what comes out of a person's mouth and what is on her/his mind.

Some of us are quite gullible and never lose that quality even as we age.

It then becomes liability... I happen to be highly allergic to people telling me one thing when it is obvious that they are thinking another.

Isn't it just that you are paranoid and in constant search of evil?

You will be surprised how much dishonesty goes around, particularly in the workplace.

What about calling it diplomacy, instead of dishonesty?

Diplomacy is an art, whereas dishonesty is deception! When we are diplomatic, we let the other party know that our true intentions are different from what we tell them.

It is diplomacy, because it is your intention to alert them that what you say is not exactly what you think, and you know that they know it? And, they know that you know that they know it?

Bravo, comrade! I am of the opinion that something similar holds for trust as well. Remember my claim that showing trust is important? First of all, it is of no use if the party you want to trust does not know that you trust them. Second, we can show that our trust is not entirely unconditional. It is possible to allude to the degree of your trust by giving a whiff of your contingency plan.

That coaxes the other party act in the way you want them to?

It will not work all the time, but it would at least put moral pressure in most cases. It is most effective if people involved do not have fixed ideas about or any stake in the issue.

I still don't understand why conditional trust is better than unconditional.

It is more realistic, and hence gives credibility to the claim that we trust someone. It acknowledges that the thoughts and the concerns are not identical for all involved and that the difference should not be the basis for retaliation or punishment in the future. In other words, it takes away the pressure to do as trusted.

But I thought that was the whole purpose of trusting!

Perhaps we could say that trust is something like an implicit request based on the information that we possess and the priorities of our own. The party that is trusted has its own set of information and priorities, so they may not wish to do exactly as desired by the other party. When we know that we are trusted by someone, we feel much more obliged to take into account her/his information and priorities as revealed to us.

Trust is a sneaky way of imposing our preferences to others, then!

Showing conditional trust requires skills and work. You have to convey a delicate message---you believe that s/he chooses the option that you prefer most, but you are aware that s/he may not do so.

And that s/he is well capable of pursuing your preferred option.

Conditionality also necessitates careful monitoring, because it means you have to verify the state and choose your strategy accordingly.

Aren't there cases that are not worth our trust at all?

In such cases, we still show trust and be prepared for the very worst.

Is it necessary to pretend that we trust?

We do it for ourselves, for who we are. If we care about civility, that is.

What about unconditional mistrust?

That is easier than conditional trust. You reduce the total number of possible outcomes by ruling out a certain kind, as you do with unconditional trust, but you still need a plan for each undesirable outcome. It remains that unconditional trust is the easiest.

Suppose I think I am perfectly trustworthy, but you indicate subtly that your trust in me is conditional. I am offended that it is so, and breach your trust.

What can I say, that's not clever at all.

It can well happen. You know those vengeful types.

We should certainly take into account what kind of personality we are dealing with. But I'm afraid there isn't much we can do, except for tinkering the amount of disclosure of our contingency plan. After all, we count on your understanding that even the most trustworthy persons sometimes make mistakes and that you have your own desires which may clash with ours. Plus, we depend on your knowing that we are aware of such caveats. In other words, we can't do anything about your naïveté which makes you think that you are trustworthy in the absolute.

Adjusting the amount of disclosure, doesn't that also require skills and work?

I told you, plain trust or mistrust is an easy way out.

By the way, did you mean to say that conditional trust is a sign of intelligence and sophistication?

You can put it that way.

I am wondering... Did you intend to tell me that you are good at it?

None of us can perfectly conceal what we believe in.

Or, what we want to believe in. Right?

Gotta have it, it's retail therapy

Absolutely anyone with an artistic pair of eyes can take good pictures these days.

We agreed on that last time. The 'auto' functions of the latest cameras and Adobe Photoshop go a long way in compensating for the lack of technical skills in photography.

I do not see many photographers making efforts to take good pictures, though. When tourists come to a scenic spot, they very often use it as a simple backdrop for hastily composed group pictures. How artistic can that be, and hence, interesting to others?

I thought your complaint was that there were too many of overly serious amateur photographers.

Yes, that is one of my complaints.

Another is that there are too many of bad photographers, is that it?

Comrade, you're beyond my wildest dreams... I have noticed that if it is a couple, the guy usually does the shooting and orders his spouse/lover/girlfriend to pose in front of a monument, etc. It's often a command. "You stand there," kind of a line, his model scurries to the spot indicated by his finger, she turns around to look at the camera, and immediately a click.

Now, are we talking about the artistic values of tourist photos, the manners of tourist-photographers, or relationship dynamics?

They are all related; if a person fails in one, s/he tends to also fail in the other two. How many times did I stand next to a guy to mumble to myself, "Oh no, you shouldn't do that. Her clothes/hair-do/posture does not make your disastrous angle any better."

Mon dieu ! Have you thought about the possibility of his thinking along the same line about you? "What's the use of taking a picture of a church, from behind a pillar? The poor soul must be nuts. The fact that I can't tell where this person originated confirms my suspicion," for example?

To me, ill-taken pictures of a tourist spot have no value other than for establishing an alibi.

That the photographer was there with her/his legitimate partner, whoever that is? You never know with digital trick these days...

... I know! The purpose of such pictures is to rub it in that they went to places where their friends and families have not been but would love to.

That may be true, because many say things such as, "You have been to Mars, haven't you? Oh, I had forgotten, but you are from Mars, aren't you? Then, you don't have to see these pictures of sexy rocks from that marvelous planet. But, John, I know you haven't been there, come see these photos. Aren't they gorgeous?"

For some reason, it is almost guaranteed that people who forcibly make you look at their photographs take horrible shots.

It makes sense, doesn't it? If the goal is simply to show off to others that you had the opportunity to go to a place where they have not been, or never would even if they wanted to, why care about artistry? Plus, being artistic does not mean anything to some people, you know.

There is something more fundamental to our urge to snap.

Which is...?

It can be traced to our desire to possess what we find beautiful.

Taking photographs is the second best after purchasing the pyramid, you mean?

If Napoleon Bonaparte's people had the technology to cart off the pyramid, they would have. Think about the fate of obelisks that presently sit far away from where they used to be---the one at the Spanish Steps in Rome, another at la Place de la Concorde in Paris, and so on.

Nowadays we create images of the object which become ours instantly.

Most of us have become civilized in that sense, because we simply take pictures of the object instead of stealing it, carving off a piece of it, or defacing it with graffiti.

The use of flashes when we are not supposed to is still destructive.

Vandalizing acts are based on our desire to demonstrate to the public our power over the fate of that object. If benign, the desire takes the form of owning the object in question. On the other hand, vandalism is self-defeating, since it makes the object less desirable.

We obviously wish to see objects that touch us, but our desire to claim power is even bigger...

Isn't it scary? The same pattern is seen in purchases of so-called souvenirs. When we are very much taken by the place we visit, we feel the urge to purchase something that is unique to that location.

It's a variation on the theme of owning what you like, I take it.

That's why some of us spend money on ridiculous, ugly, and/or useless items that we would never purchase had we found them at the grocery store that we visit weekly. We see similar phenomena in relationships. If you like someone, you want to be her/his best friend, or if the sexual orientation is right, her/his lover/spouse. You want that person to be yours.

True, we even acknowledge that desire by saying, "be mine," "tuyo/tuya para siempre," etc.

It doesn't even have to be romantic relationships. You have heard children arguing, "He's my papa," "No, he's my papa," although they are siblings. I remember wanting to be the only child holding hands with either my mother or father, but it was problematic because there were more than two children in the family and all of us wanted that exclusivity.

I have a feeling that there is more to our desire to possess what we like and admire.

I think it is the nature of being fond of something and what the disclosure of that information entails. Being in favor of something means we are inclined to make concessions for that object or person.

In other words, when you announce that you admire something, you are also telling people that you would do more for preserving or obtaining it than for other things in the world.

You are showing your weakness, so to speak. In numerous languages, the expression, "to have a weakness for something," means "to be fond of it."

Whereas dislike and hatred are more linked to combativeness.

As you make your weakness public, you naturally seek compensation for that act.

Naturally?

Alas, that is our animal instinct, and the compensation is in the form of obtaining an exclusive relationship with that object or person.

Mutual submission?

Exactly.

But I don't mind at all telling people that I admire Itzhak Perlman's performance as well as Gil Shaham's.

Some people can hurt you by telling you how better other violinists are and that you understand nothing about classical music.

I am old enough not to be bothered by such childish behavior.

What if someone says s/he will give you a ticket to Perlman's concert that is impossible to obtain on your own, and in turn, you have to share with her/him what you'd rather keep as a secret? Your preferences can be used to manipulate you.

You make it sound as if we were so calculating.

But we are, at least unconsciously. As I have been emphasizing, the civilization consists in acknowledging the unsavory streaks and suppressing them. Talking about civilization, I have been appalled lately of blatant appeals to our base desires by the retail sector.

Is it more than telling you how good a certain product is?

I saw signs such as, "Gotta have it" and "Retail therapy."

Hmmm, pretty raw, I'd say.

I'm glad that you agree. The terrifying thing is that, although I was very much displeased and even shocked when I first read them, they became rather convincing after some time.

Gotta have it...? How do you know? Gotta have it? Really? Gotta have it? Perhaps. Gotta have it, maybe. Gotta have it. Gotta have it. Gotta have it! GOTTA HAVE IIIITTT!... Is this how it goes?

... Kind of...

Retail therapy? How shameful you talk about your profit making scheme as if you were helping us. Retail therapy may work for others, but not for me. Let's examine the first word, retail. Yes, I purchased something. Therapy? Well, the purchase has not exactly made me unhappy. Retail therapy. Perhaps. Retail therapy, maybe. Retail therapy. Retail therapy. Yes, retail therapy, because I'm happier after buying! ... This is how it works, right?

...

Comrade, I'm calling my marketing people right now. What do you say to holding a press conference about the triumph of le capitalisme anglo-saxon?

I'd rather have a discussion with a sociologist or a psychologist over the effects of words and the power of propaganda...

Are you sure? Think about it. There will be lights, cameras, microphones, and everyone will be focusing on you, baby... oops, comrade!

If I am not allowed to see a sociologist or a psychologist, can I have a session with a psychiatrist?

Business is not always business-like

I am again in a trouble because of misunderstanding.

It's time that you give up trying to be polite. People can tell that you are in fact angry or upset, even without a word to that effect. It's written all over your face! Why not talk to the party concerned about the misunderstanding?

There are certain things you should never be explicit about.

For example?

A good friend of yours is dating someone whose characters you do not approve of. Not only that, but you also think your friend is being taken advantage of.

What are you going to say to your friend when you learn that they are engaged---that kind of a thing?

Support as much as possible for your friend's sake, and never, ever tell her/him that you thought their relationship would not last or it is good that they are no longer together when they do break up.

In other words, you advocate dishonesty.

I am not saying that we should lie. We only have to keep some thoughts buried. The most important one among them is about people whom we know. I have seen enough evaluation of sorts to conclude that no collection of evaluation given without the presence of the subject would satisfy her/him. The comments and the ranting we see on the Internet are great pieces of evidence.

Even our thoughts about friends and family members?

Definitely. It is astonishing how highly we think of ourselves and how strictly we judge others.

But again, that's part of the wiring for survival, isn't it?

It is. I did a little experiment by telling people that blood would flow and none of us would be alive, if all of us knew what we thought about each other.

My goodness...

I think my audience was not sophisticated enough. They were shocked and gave a nervous laugh. I got a feeling that they genuinely hated me for the next few minutes.

Aren't you the one who lack sophistication to say such a thing? Plus, you blame the victims for your wrongdoing. You're lucky if you got it off like that.

What if they often bad-mouth other people behind their back? And what if I happen to hear from both of the two factions?

Attention! Here's a spy!

Why not a double agent? Anyway, they never articulate their frustrations to the other side, and when they are together they banter as if they were friends. When I think about the venom that they spit in the others' absence, I would never be able to trust either side.

You are surprised that they were shocked by your statement.

Our nature makes us grossly overestimate ourselves, and it prevents us from imagining that the "others" may also be unhappy about their "others," including us.

The great misunderstanding of yours has something to do with evaluation of others, I take it.

In a way, yes. I believe in being business-like about... business! When I do my work thoroughly, some people benefit more from it than others, and that makes them think that I like the former more as persons than the latter. It's crazy.

It must mean that if you want your colleagues to do something that is related to your task, you have to be chummy with them.

Yes, and that makes the whole operation unreliable, because personal preferences are never static.

You want stability.

The primary purpose of going to our workplace is to contribute in the best way we can to the organization. We should strive to make decisions that are independent of likes and dislikes about people. I cannot get over it that not many people seem to agree with this principle.

What about personal satisfaction from engaging in that business? That could be the primary reason for going to work.

Few of us are lucky enough to do for a living what we like and enjoy...