Why is this myth being perpetuated ?

[Gwendoline]

now just tell me - does it make sense to trust people knowing that there isn't any reason why they should be trusted ?

Turn the question around - and ask - does it make sense for people to trust you? Is there any reason why people should trust you? If you answer yes, then I think it's a reasonable projection to bestow such an "attitude" / perspective towards others.

It begins with trusting ourselves... and that attitude flows out to others...

If we don't trust ourselves, we more than likely won't trust others, either.

 

[swdowning]

If we don't trust ourselves, we more than likely won't trust others, either.

We cannot hate or love any attribute that we ourselves do not possess, because we need to recognize an attribute in order to have some feeling about it. Whence comes that recognition, if not from its presence in the perceiver?

Good point.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I think Goshin summed it up nicely. Basically trust is on a spectrum, really it's just a subset of truth. What he wrote, the way I interpret it, is that trust is kind of irrelevant. It's just a convenient short-hand label that helps us save time.
Take your example:
1. Do you trust the driver on the other side of the road, to stay there?
- Which is actually just a question of science, specifically "Do you believe it is true that, in the near future, the car on that side will stay there?"

It's important not just to show that it's really a question of "truth" underneath, but it also highlights how it's NOT some personal idea of trust. Point being, the driver may be the best driver, the most "trustworthy" driver EVER. But the car perhaps could malfunction to end them in your lane. i.e. trust, is irrelvant.

As a truth statement, we go right back to how one determines what is, and is not, true. Most of us use a combination of instinct, evidence, experience, measured via probability, vs the time we have to make the choice, the potential reward, and the potential risk. That's how we gauge trust...because it's really just truth.

I don't really see that as subjective, I see it as reasonable. Did you have a different notion of trust in mind?

There is a psychological issue here as well. Worrying about outcomes can be stressfull, most people hate serious decisions and avoid them with all sorts of tricks like denial, ignorance, alcohol, etc. As a result, they sometimes convince themselves trust can be obtained in some other way.

Another psychological aspect is when you communicate you are confident in someone, that added vote of confidence *may* help to keep them trustworthy, or at least more so than without showing confidence in them. Is that trust, or manipulation?

Interesting concepts.

When I get into a car with another driver, it is absolutely a matter of trust that 1) the other driver is competent 2) the car is roadworthy 3) s/he has no nefarious ambitions in mind. I am literally trusting him/her with my life and/or well being. I think trust is allowing another opportunity to harm or hurt or mislead us with belief that he or she will not intentionally do that.

As for the other cars on the road with me, I don't know them. I don't know if they are competent or whether their vehicles are roadworthy or whether they are distracted, suicidal or homicidal or what. So in that case it is not trust but a different kind of assumption of risk. I play the odds that their own sense of self-preservation/protection will prevent them doing something that will harm me. If 'trust' is involved, it is trust in my own conviction that most people will not intentionally hurt themselves rather than any notion of the character of the other person.