Trusting

Jeffrey

It seems to me that trust is very powerful. In a broad sense I think we should give trust. But what about the mishaps? How good bad does someone have to be to not give our trust? Don't we naturally defend ourselves in any case on auto-pilot. I was experiencing some lapses in communicating with my cousins and family. But I sat on the dot and had trust. That's how I see it now.

how

I trust folks to be exactly what they happen to be.

&

I try to face & respect that part of them that one might call Buddha nature.

It sorts out a plethora of potential expectations.

ericcris10sen

I think it depends on the situation and the person. If you know someone is known for telling secrets or in the past, hasn't been honest or whatever it may be, then that person in THAT particular instance can't be trusted. But they might be trustworthy in other fields.

But I wouldn't hold that against them, because certain cases might tend to make them act irresponsibly and irrationally and that happens to all of us, or has happened in the past. I think if it's a constant issue, then that's a problem. If it was a one time thing or anything like that, then I wouldn't jump on them for it.

(There's someone who I work with that doesn't seem to know when to not talk about a situation or tell someone something that you said (because he seems to always want to tell jokes or say something) so that makes me not want to tell him secrets or tell him something I know, that I might not want someone else to know).

karasti

If you don't want someone else to know, why would you share it with someone else? Secrets are funny that way. Once we have them, we really, really want to give them away, but once we do, we are guilty of exactly what we are upset at the other person for----sharing a secret that was supposed to be private.

I guess, as far as the OP goes, it just depends. Trust is a funny thing. I tend to be overly trusting, but I rarely put myself in a situation where my giving trust is a huge risk to me. I'm already married, and trusting someone with your life in that way is about the most trust you can give. I give people multiple chances, most of the time, because we all screw up sometimes. Actually, I've found that if someone breaches trust, and you give them trust again, they don't know what to do with it. They expect to lose it and act out at the loss of trust...so sometimes it seems to work to give them something they don't believe they have earned.

It also, I think, depends what you trust them with. Your secrets? Your life? Your children? Your pets? My circle of trust is pretty small and tight. I give a certain amount of trust to everyone. Beyond that, it's pretty closely held. Just who I am. Not many people truly know me, and I'm ok with that. I have friends who wear their hearts on their sleeves, and they are constantly hurt over it. I don't know if one is better than the other.

Bunks

As Dr Phil would say "the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour....."

lobster

Jeffrey said:

It seems to me that trust is very powerful. In a broad sense I think we should give trust. But what about the mishaps? How good bad does someone have to be to not give our trust? Don't we naturally defend ourselves in any case on auto-pilot. I was experiencing some lapses in communicating with my cousins and family. But I sat on the dot and had trust. That's how I see it now.

I think you are more aware than most, that we can not trust our selves. We can offer trust. We can be trusting (not gullible fools). We can become trustworthy. How? Trust the Buddha not the Puddha ing. You did good. I trust this will continue . . .

:clap:

Jeffrey

In posting this I was thinking of Suzuki? or the Karmapa? who said that Trungpa was a good dharma teacher because he had total trust in his students. This made me think of how a boddhisattva always forgives. So in this idea of trust it is how there is confidence in the students.

lobster

I once met an ex Monies who still believed that the Unification Church had some inherent value.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Myung_Moon
He could not at the time break free completely. The same is true of others abused by rogues. They still cling and trust their abusers merits and insights.
Is it 'spiritual Stockholm syndome', spiritual materialism or the removal of engrams?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

I trust we can discern . . .

Zayl

I don't trust anyone when I first meet them. It takes a long time to earn my trust. If you ask why, I'd have to say because every time I have shown my trust too early, I get ripped off/stabbed in the back (figuratively) and/or outright betrayed and let down.

And so, it takes a couple of months for someone to earn my trust. Even then, more often than not, they turn out to be two-faced lying bastards who end up with their car tires slashed because they stole my fucking money.

lobster

Wow.

I won't be parking near you with any Dana . . . :hair:

footiam

Jeffrey said:

It seems to me that trust is very powerful. In a broad sense I think we should give trust. But what about the mishaps? How good bad does someone have to be to not give our trust? Don't we naturally defend ourselves in any case on auto-pilot. I was experiencing some lapses in communicating with my cousins and family. But I sat on the dot and had trust. That's how I see it now.

It's only good to give trust to the one who can be trusted.

Victorious

If you give something expecting something in return, even if it is trust, that is not giving that is striking a bargin.

So give trust. But do not expect something in return.

/Victor

misterCope

how said:

I trust folks to be exactly what they happen to be.

That's one of the greatest things I've ever read.

zenff

Jeffrey said:

It seems to me that trust is very powerful. In a broad sense I think we should give trust. But what about the mishaps? How good bad does someone have to be to not give our trust? Don't we naturally defend ourselves in any case on auto-pilot. I was experiencing some lapses in communicating with my cousins and family. But I sat on the dot and had trust. That's how I see it now.

It is rational to trust people; it is part of the top-scoring strategy in prisoner’s dilemma

And when someone breaks your trust, that's a calculated risk. It is part of the game. Overall the strategy of trust is still the best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
By analysing the top-scoring strategies, Axelrod stated several conditions necessary for a strategy to be successful.
Nice
The most important condition is that the strategy must be "nice", that is, it will not defect before its opponent does (this is sometimes referred to as an "optimistic" algorithm). Almost all of the top-scoring strategies were nice; therefore, a purely selfish strategy will not "cheat" on its opponent, for purely self-interested reasons first.
Retaliating
However, Axelrod contended, the successful strategy must not be a blind optimist. It must sometimes retaliate. An example of a non-retaliating strategy is Always Cooperate. This is a very bad choice, as "nasty" strategies will ruthlessly exploit such players.
Forgiving
Successful strategies must also be forgiving. Though players will retaliate, they will once again fall back to cooperating if the opponent does not continue to defect. This stops long runs of revenge and counter-revenge, maximizing points.
Non-envious
The last quality is being non-envious, that is not striving to score more than the opponent (note that a "nice" strategy can never score more than the opponent).