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:
-
-
>> don’t carry the same sense of attunement as love Right. This seems to me to call out for several axes, e.g. Conscientiousness Priority (where in their hierarchy of fucks given) Valence (positive or negative fucks given) Material attunement Emotional attunement
-
Yeah I like this breakdown. There are people I trust with my life, and what I mean by that is 'I know exactly where I sit in their hierarchy of values, and it's where I prefer to sit, and within that scope I know they have my best interests at heart'.
-
Yeah. For me, that kind of trust is there even for certain well-incentivized psychopaths (professionals in fields where empathy doesn’t seem to help). My second take on axes was “capability, insight, motivation.”
-
...my thinking being that to love you, I need an understanding of what’s needed in your context, the resources to meet the need, and enough fucks given to clear my schedule. All of the above omits a necessary, orthogonal piece, an actionable ought I’ll call ‘License’ (mandate?).
-
By license, I mean the activating moral authority to answer the question “Is this my place?” in the affirmative. Many sophisticated thinkers I know struggle to love their friends in critical contexts because they can’t rationalize, “It’s my place!” tl;dr: is-ought can be hard!
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.