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:
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.