A lot of our problems with trust - in relationships, politics, and consensus protocols come from conceptualising it as a binary trust/no trust thing, or a simple spectrum. How I think about trust, a level system:
-
-
Like the girl who needs to set her standards higher and stop sleeping with men who screw her over, we need to learn how to have higher standards for what kinds of trust are possible. But how?
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You missed groundedness: you know your own interests and values to the degree that when you commit to something it's for clear and durable reasons; seehttps://medium.com/@edelwax/is-anything-worth-maximizing-d11e648eb56f …
-
Hmm, being based strongly in clear values seems directly related to dependability; it's necessary but not sufficient, in that I need to know not only that your values are strong but also that they include keeping your related commitments.
-
There is also an issue of how dependable the actual values are - I have one friend who is highly neurotic and another who is low neuroticism and their values (spontaneous boundary-pushing vs independent stability) are both tightly held but lead to different lvls of dependability.
-
In both of your replies you're using the word values to mean goals. I wouldn't call any of these things values. Goal alignment is perhaps a kind of dependability. Values clarity isn't.
-
With the stability example - this person both wants their life to be stable and values being a stable person to others. Maybe it could be better phrased as independence, but I’m not sure what you mean by values if this isn’t a value? (And yes I’ve read IAWM)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.