Of course it is understood differently. I just believe that if we establish definitions at the outset, or at least make sure we mean roughly the same thing when we use a certain term, it makes communication more effective.
because if it's just something like "why trust others" while david will understands trust as one thing, me as another, squinney as another, we're talking past each other, not to each other.
there were attempts at definition, yet we're still talking about different things. or perhaps about different aspects of one big complex thing.
Outside of the financial / legal definitions you posted for Trust, I was using what you posted several pages back as my definition.
(edit) And all of that brings us back to how it is possible to love without trust and why it is actually more loving to not have those expectations. We walk alone and we die alone. No matter how many people are with us, it is still the individual that experiences it each in their own way.
"Trust but verify" is a stupid phrase when you think about it, and not just because Ronald Reagan uttered it, but it's still probably the best summary of how I approach this. I place a great deal of trust in my husband. I fully expect that he will do the right thing and not betray that trust. However, there is an element that knows that something might happen, and that is careful to not turn a blind eye.
That is not how I always approached things -- in my first serious relationship, I thought there was no possible way that my boyfriend would ever do anything to hurt me, and that didn't pan out. The shock to my worldview was probably at least a quarter of the resulting hurt.
So I don't trust as implicitly as I did then -- but I wouldn't say I just don't trust, by a long shot.
In terms of the children example that squinney mentioned, though, I don't really agree with that. I think part of being trustworthy as a parent is to do what is developmentally appropriate. Teaching an older child to get his or her own drink is the trustworthy thing to do; continuously pandering to your child into adulthood, so the child never learns how to meet his or her own needs, is the untrustworthy/ irresponsible thing to do.
The ways in which one proves to be trustworthy change as the child grows, but the child still knows that the parent can be trusted to do what is best for him or her -- and I think that's important.
In business I rarely trust, but privately with family and friends, I trust them until they prove me wrong (most of them never have). I could not have
any relationship without trust.
As with my child, I trust her (age appropriately) and should she misuse
my trust, we deal with it. She will have privileges removed until she
regains my trust again. At first, she thought trust will be restored the
very next day, and in time she had to learn, that regaining someone's
trust takes far more work and reassuring than just not breaking it in the
first place.
Losing someone's trust is a painful experience, as well as regaining it -
one should not toy with it lightly.
I'm not talking about things like being there for your child after a car accident. I'm pretty sure we would all be bedside for however long was required. Those are actions / behaviors we control for ourselves. We would choose to be there.
Likewise, my mother would probably be at my side following a car accident. But, that would be her decision. It would not be fair to her for me to expect that.
Trust in someone else is placing a requirement on their behavior, which you do not control. By all means, teach your children to be trustworthy and do all you choose to do to show to whomever you choose that you can be trusted. Just don't expect the same from everyone else. To me it hinges on who's in charge of the trust.
All due respect; I think the question is absurd. There is no friendship without trust.
Friendship without trust is not a friendship. So says Intrepid.
vikorr wrote:If logic can be both true and untrue at the same time...why are you bothing with logic...for the truth of what you are saying can never be determined (except perhaps, arguably, by yourself).
That 's what judges r for
David
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:trust is a choice...
Yes; a choice to just take your chances,
hoping for the best.
Maybe you were her friend, but if she stole from you - she was not yours.
I don't enjoy debating the parsed thoughts of my comment. Basically, I feel I know who I can trust for any specific situation. "Situation" for the trust is another variable that comes into play. So, the same person, in different situations, I will trust or not trust, based on the respective situation.
There's also a theory that our brains really function on an unconscious level, and then our conscious mind gives us a verbal rationale for what we do (and was already decided upon by our unconscious). If that's true, then the veracity of this discussion may not apply to all people in actual practice, since our unconscious might drive our decisions, based on things we might not even be aware of.
I figured out one word change that would make me agree with most of what squinney said and some of what David said -- changing "trust" to "dependence." (I think they're substantially different, though.)
snood wrote:Maybe you were her friend, but if she stole from you - she was not yours.
" A friend in need,
is a friend indeed. "
She admitted it, sheepishly.
That 's how I found out.
She knew that I did not care much.
sozobe wrote:I figured out one word change that would make me agree with most of what squinney said and some of what David said -- changing "trust" to "dependence." (I think they're substantially different, though.)
that's precisely the impression i got, i think we were not talking about the same thing all along.
i've had a migraine for the last 3 days. i think it may have been caused by this thread, as that's when i started posting here.
never had one in my entire life. they're vicious. yuck.
