Trust is the latest word that I have been studying lately. I have written down some thoughts on the topic already, and I think I’m ready to expand these ideas here. These are the thoughts I have written so far:

The easiest way I found to reason about trust was to break down the various properties of it, rather than trying to form a generic concept. I find it hard to generalize Trust as its properties and impact depend greatly on the context (people involved, situation, space, time, etc.). Maybe there is a generic concept to describe it, but I don’t feel like coming up with one myself at this stage.

I should also add that I’m aware Trust is significantly more complex than what I’ve described here, that it has a big impact in politics, it’s an essential piece of social science, and that it’s one of the main attributes of social capital. I’m currently not interested in diving into any of these topics directly (even if I’m touching on them indirectly). This post is an experiment to reason about Trust and to create a definition for it based on my own experience, without doing a detailed and long research on the subject, which I’m already doing in parallel for my own amusement.

Asymmetry⌗

Probably one of the most interesting properties. It explicitly says that trust lacks symmetry. Still, it also implicitly suggests that trust requires a source (trustor) and a destination (trustee). Trust is given. Let’s elaborate on the latter first.

Trust is something we grant. We grant objects, animals, concepts, people, etc., our trust. This grant is constantly adjusted. Interestingly, we grant trust to ourselves too, which means we can be the trustor and trustee of ourselves. Regardless, the amount of trust granted will vary depending on the context. A good example of how relative trust is to the context is our tendency to say, “I don’t trust my ability to …”. The same thing is done when granting trust to others.

A difference between one’s trust in oneself and one’s trust in others is that our trust in ourselves is unidirectional. We don’t expect to trust ourselves back; we trust ourselves (or not) under specific contexts. In the case of others, trust is a bidirectional exchange; we trust people, and, at the same time, we are being trusted by the same people. The challenging part to understand here is how symmetry (or lack thereof) works in these exchanges.

Here are some points that, I believe, help confirm trust’s asymmetry:

  1. Perspective and expectations are two variables that affect how we give trust. Two people don’t have the same perspective and expectations under the same context. In addition to this, past experiences influence how people handle trust.
  2. Two people don’t perceive trust in the same way. This works a bit like when the weather forecast says, “It’s 1 degree but feels like -7”. This is to say that, even if two people would give each other the same amount of trust, they may not perceive it the same way.
  3. Ultimately, there is no scientific way to measure trust levels (that I know, at least). Therefore, two people won’t properly test whether the trust they are putting in each other is the same amount.

Measuring the levels of trust is not as interesting to me as understanding the effects of its asymmetry. An unbalanced trust transaction between 2 parties may have various effects on either side of the transaction. I may elaborate, in future posts, on questions like:

  • What happens if we don’t feel trusted by other people?
  • If we don’t feel trusted, does our reaction varies based on how much trust we have granted?
  • What happens when we lose someone else’s trust?
  • Is there a sense of fairness when it comes to giving and receiving trust?
  • Is it all a matter of perception and feeling trusted? What happens if we make someone feel trusted even if we don’t trust that person?

Bidirectional⌗

Trust’s asymmetric property suggests that it’s also bidirectional. Although, it may not always be the case. In the previous point, it was pointed out that one can trust oneself, which is a unidirectional interaction. However, due to the complexity added by this case, I would like to leave it aside as it is not of my interest right now.

This property suggests that one will receive trust back for every trust grant one gives, which I find particularly interesting. Whether this is true or not is still an open question to me. More precisely, I wonder if it is possible to interact with someone we don’t trust at all. Don’t every human interaction require a minimum of trust (even if it’s just to be able to have a conversation)?

Some more questions on this point:

  • Does one receive trust back for every trust grant one gives (even if at a minimum level)?
  • If so, this implies that, even at a minimum level, trust is a requirement for every human interaction.
  • If the above is true, how is trust received (or perceived) when one puts trust on, say, politics?

Trust as contract⌗

Trust is context dependant. You can trust someone on specific things but not others. For example, you can trust someone’s ability to do good, but don’t trust that person’s ability at work. More specifically, someone can be a good person but a bad manager at the same time.

This trust property brings up some questions that don’t seem to have clear or objective criteria, although we answer them automatically many times per day.

  • How is trust renewed?
  • How is the level of the grant calculated?
  • How are adjustments decided?
  • Is there a starting trust level? If so, how is that level determined?

I don’t intend to answer all these questions here as that would get too much into the weeds of social science, and it would make this post significantly longer. However, I will dive a bit into 2 factors that seem to be common in the answers to the questions above.

Expectations and time are two common factors in the answers to the above questions. Trust will be automatically renewed at the same level (or higher) for as long as our expectations are met in the time frame we have set for a specific transaction. Failing to meet expectations in the given time frame will result in a reevaluation of the trust levels granted.

Arguably, time should be part of the expectations. It is, in fact, a property of every contract. It is expected of the other side to meet the rest of the expectations at a specific time. However, bundling time with the rest of the expectations oversimplifies the complexity of its role in every transaction. Time doesn’t only indicate when, whether explicitly indicated in the contract or not, the transaction will end. It also indicates when it started, how long it lasted, and, perhaps more importantly, it will help narrow the context throughout which the transaction should happen. The latter is essential to evaluate future renewals, whether expectations were actually met, etc.

Say you hire someone to paint your house, and the deadline is 10 days. If the painter finishes the job in 5 days, your trust levels and confidence in the painter’s work ethic and abilities will improve. The painter exceeded the expectations. However, should the painter take longer, then the expectations would not be met, which would result in the expectations not being met. Now, imagine you go for a 1h massage, and the therapist ends the massage after 30 minutes. This would result in a huge disappointment, more stress, and it will affect your trust towards the therapist.

The role of time in these transactions is not straightforward. The length of a “trust transaction” is, oftentimes, more important than the specific start or finish time of the contract. The more we dive into the role time plays in these scenarios, the more things we can find that may impact trust. Some examples:

  • What happens if the therapist finishes the 1h massages in 30 mins but claims the quality of the given massage corresponds to the 1h one?
  • What happens if the painter takes 15 days instead of 10 days but claims the house’s paint is now in a much better state than it’d have been if it’d have taken just 10 days?
  • What role does quality play in this case?
  • Can other properties of the interaction diminish or increase the value of time in the same transaction?

Is Trust subjective or objective?⌗

If we treat trust exchanges as the contract base for our interactions with other humans, we would likely be better off by making purely objective decisions when deciding how much trust to put in every interaction. This is not always the case as we are prone to making Trust grants subjectively. In fact, I think most of the time we prefer being subjective rather than objective to help us feel better in the long run.

It seems like, for many cases, a subjective decision works fine. We decide how much trust we will grant based on what’s commonly referred to as the gut feeling. We get into more dangerous territory when we let other less productive emotions (like envy, jealousy, anger) or just our EGO make these grants for us.

Arguably, we could say that Trust is subjective since deciding to trust or mistrust someone produces an emotional reaction in us. Therefore, the process of granting Trust to others requires us to prepare ourselves for how this decision will make us feel. This is not to say that we will always decide based on what will make us feel good as some discomfort in favor of a better long-term result may be preferable in some cases.

Wrap up⌗

It goes without saying that Trust is complex. Trying to find the best way to reason about it is ambitious, to say the least. The above is based on my own readings, experiences, and time that I have dedicated to thinking about each point. I hope it’s clear that everything I wrote could be objected, and discussed in more detail.

I could make this post longer by elaborating more on each point and adding more properties that I think affect our Trust transactions directly. However, I will let it sit for a bit and, perhaps, get back to it later on either by elaborating more on some of the points in a new post or by editing this one directly.