In this post(that happens to be the best post on this blog, btw), I briefly mentioned my lack of ability in being able to comprehend the word 'privacy'. 'Trust' is another of the kind. And there are so many others. You might say that a word is just meant to communicate and as long as it does convey what you intend to, the choice of word should not matter. Quite right. But the catch is right there. Does it convey what you intend to? What do you intend to, anyway? What do people intend to say when they say, "I trust you/him/her''. It really confuses me. Let's see what the dictionary has to say to it. I will pick the first meaning -- "reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence." So, what does it tell you? I am still confused.
We don't seem to be getting anywhere, are we? Ok, let's ask this question. Is 'trust' transitive? If I 'trust' someone, should I also 'trust' the person he/she 'trusts'. I would guess 'yes'. If you 'trust' someone, why would you not 'trust' his/her judgment too? It makes sense to me, at least, to do so. So, I make this (controversial, probably but seems fine to me) assumption that 'trust' is transitive. Now, this simplifies things, thankfully :)
Consider any reasonable 'trust' model of the world. If you are a cynic you would probably not 'trust' anyone. So, what about the rest of the world. Everyone will have a certain set of close people that they will 'trust'. All those you 'trust' can't be cynics, right? Another assumption, I agree, but not an unreasonable one. Look now, draw a graph to model the world if you want to, and you will see that in all likelihood you will connect to everyone - yes, most likely even cynics, for they may not 'trust' you but you might still 'trust' them. Wow!!!!!!!!! A few simple and 'reasonable' assumptions and things simplify dramatically. So either you be a cynic and trust no one or trust everyone. I choose the latter. You?
PS1: I was going to say 'trust' as an equivalence relation but probably it isn't reflexive. That is another thing to be thought about. I used to believe it is a symmetric relation but of late I have begun to doubt this too. For those of you who have forgotten high school math here is a reminder of the definitions.
PS2: Writing is a good exercise. It helps you distill out your thoughts and makes you begin to believe yourself and understand things better. Some other words that I am so not able to understand what people (or even I, myself) mean when they say are 'love', 'friend', 'hope', 'self-respect' and some others too, probably. As a result I make minimal utterance of these words and question myself of what I mean whenever I do utter them. I guess the main problem is consistency of opinion regarding their meanings ... anyway, will write a post on each of them probably some time in future. Of course not right now, and only if people, on reading this post, don't start to think I have gone mad :)
Not so simple sirji.. "trust" can be context based.. a less abstract analogy might help. If you ask for my bike, I would lend it to you. If Dubeyji asks you for your (hypothetical) bike, you would lend him yours. But never the less, if I have lent u my bike, u would not forward it to Dubeyji, would you (assuming I dont trust him)?? Now lets look at the underlying reason.
ReplyDeleteTrusting people doesn't mean expecting them to be perfect. You dont think that Dubeyji would never wreck your bike if he took it- what you really think that even if he does, you'll live with it. But, YOU, IN YOUR OWN MIND are not ready to accept it if Dubeyji wrecks away my bike. So please dont TRUST a dictionary if it says that you trust that persons' ABILITIES too, all you trust are his/her INTENTIONS.
Besides, as long as YOU wouldn't mind Dubeyji wrecking MY bike, I (trusting you) wouldn't mind it either. Its your thinking that you find it unpleasent if Dubeyji wrecks my bike. I wont ever tell you something like Why the hell did you give it to Dubeyji. Nevertheless, if I think Dubeyji is reckless rider, I, despite trusting you, can tell you that I dont think you should give any bike (be it yours or mine) to him. Trusting people doesnt mean you shouldn't try to change their thinking or decision. You may want to tell them how you think and may be they realize that you are right. Or may be they convince you that they are right. In either case, an 'open minded''good-intended' discussion is always allowed.
Dislaimer: All characters, especially Dubeyji, in the above comment are purely fictional, and bear no relation to the real life Dubeyji whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteFirst, trust is not symmetric and not reflexive, and for the sake o all the maths in this owlrd, I'm also prepared to argue it is not transitive.But even if we let the assumption be, for now, even then ur model has too much generalization. There would be people who nobody trusts, just like there would be those even a cynic trusts. And even if one did start trusting everyone they knew or was connected to by transitivity\, it will get diluted, it will become more uncertain and eventually it will lose all its meaning and reduce to a basic form of human respect that you may accord to everyone before they lose it. That's quite as far from cynicism that you could practically go, but no more.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, trust is a dangerous investment to play with or be careless with, so be careful!
I like your model. It's optimistic, but we really need people in this world who think like you :)
ReplyDelete(For that 'making the world a better place' kinda thing.)
[Phoenix]
You know everybody in the world is just simply insane. You and me are negatively insane, Divesh and Akshay are positively insane. The insanity in the world is best neutralized when everyone stays the way they are. :)
(So you're doing a good job by not yielding to their insanity :P)
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - by someone you should really TRUST :P
ReplyDeleteO boy! This is quite some analysis! But I'd say that trust is valuable only if it is given to a select few. Its value is in this exclusiveness. If it was possible to trust everyone then there wouldn't even be a notion of "trust".
ReplyDeleteI guess all these notions of trust, love, friend, hope don't mean much in isolation to each other. They derive meaning from each other, difficult to analyze one at a time.
And I agree with what you wrote about writing! It's good and generates ideas and the more you write, the more you write!
And it's not mad, it's good to think about things! :)
@all
ReplyDeleteBaap re baap. People did take me seriously. Am not used to this but me likes its :)
Yes there are a lot of flaws in the theory but it sounds good on the surface. And when it is hard to draw the line, digital representation of the world always comes to the rescue. Hence this was chosen as a way to "justify" the trust-all-or-trust-none theory.
The question still remains unanswered. Probably it is better that way.. rest below
@Gaurav
I like your ideas. Kaafi achchha analysis tha but chill. I know trusting abilities is a little too much .. but anything for simplification :) .. and I believe in that Einstein quote par kabhi kabhi eccentric sochne mein alag maza hai
@Phoenix
There isn't any math in the world. The world just uses it. And I keep this blog at a safe distance from it lest my alter ego interferes with it :). So please don't blame math for a wrong/flawed/doubtful assumption ... math always begins after you are done with your assumptions, anyway
Transitivity is a far-fetched probably too optimistic assumption and so you don't really need to argue for that.
But if we allow transitivity I tend to disagree with your argument. Are there really people who nobody trusts?? That is really sad, if true at all. What about parents? I am not sure but at least I don't want to believe that this is possible. As for a cynic also trusting some people, that is probably because no one is an absolute cynic.
I like being careless :)
@Vik
Moderator ka role achchha play kiya hai :) .. cool.
And I didn't realize you were "negatively insane". Are you?
@Vibhav
The existence of the notion of 'trust' is precisely what I was struggling with. This was a futile attempt to nullify the existence of that notion.
Yes, all these notions are inter-connected probably and very difficult to understand. It is possible to form your own understanding but difficult to arrive at a consensus. So randomly these words are sometimes spoken that one begins to doubt them.
:)
----------
@all, again
I know all this is a muddled set of thoughts but that's the way I am