Some further distinctions: TT1 has a trivial prescriptive form: Employees receive guidance, and trusted employees are just those that comply with it. Or citizens learn the laws, and follow them.
A remark about TT3 relates to your criticism of (non-prescriptive) universality in TT1. Putting on my software hat, I think of this as "diff reading". By that I mean I observe a set of code changes from someone else and relate it to their stated or expected intentions. If they make sense, or solve the problem in a clever way, I've learned something and gained confidence. If they are clumsy, inappropriate in context, internally inconsistent, inelegant, than I am less eager to read them in the future, and have less confidence. Regarding TT4 (introduced notation for empathetic trust), perhaps it can be distinguished by left brain vs. right brain. It feels good so keeping doing it. Betrayal occurs simply because there is no way to quantify the trust; it's not governed by reason and so psychological exposure is higher. I'd also introduce other sort of trust: investment risk reduction, or TT5. e.g. institution of marriage/child-bearing, shared secret or stigmatized behaviors, e.g. historically the LGBT community, criminal enterprises, intelligence community, and so on. Marcus -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com – Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
