Steve Smith wrote at 08/19/2013 03:42 PM:
The circularity is critical in my opinion, to understanding how we actually interact with
each other. Our models of stereotypical individuals (e.g. Limbaugh, Penrose, Guerin) do
not invoke this so clearly as our more personal relations. The regression
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
Glen -
I *knew* I could trust you to respond in this manner ;) .
I will restate my implied claim that trust based on empathy is
qualitatively different than other types of trust. Empathetic trust
broken is betrayal, other types of trust broken is just bad
judgement or bad luck?
Now
mar...@snoutfarm.com wrote at 08/20/2013 09:47 AM:
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.
Ideally, yes. But practice is never ideal.
Grin... I wonder how TT1-5 line up with the larger literature on the
topic of trust... seems like a topic for evolutionary psychologists
(Nick, et al?).
- Steve
PS. Some may be satisfied to note my preference for empathic to
empathetic in the following reference:
Steve Smith wrote at 08/20/2013 10:13 AM:
Empathetic trust is not about Truth, but about Belief. When I have empathetic
trust with someone, I trust that I understand what they believe, not how close
they are to an imagined (or declared?) absolute Truth.
[...]
Once again, my use of the term
On 8/20/13 2:36 PM, glen wrote:
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.
I don't
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Marcus G. Daniels mar...@snoutfarm.comwrote:
In the case of mobsters, they know that they are criminals and risk
punishment if they don't protect each other and their information.
In relevant situations, individuals in such groups can predict, in a
positive
On 8/20/13 2:36 PM, glen wrote:
You've given us a nice set of bounding concepts from which we might
define a Truth {clever, consistent, elegant, purposeful/non-clumsy,
appropriate-to-context}. The question is whether or not this set of
ascriptors can lead to something transpersonal.
Rather
Marcus -
On 8/20/13 2:36 PM, glen wrote:
You've given us a nice set of bounding concepts from which we might
define a Truth {clever, consistent, elegant, purposeful/non-clumsy,
appropriate-to-context}. The question is whether or not this set of
ascriptors can lead to something transpersonal.
On 8/20/13 8:18 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
This sounds a lot like the problem of verifying computer-generated
proofs like the early example of the 4 color problem. It might be
almost good enough to be able to verify each step of the proof and
the logic that it all hangs together with, even if no
On 8/20/13 9:02 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
On 8/20/13 8:18 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
This sounds a lot like the problem of verifying computer-generated
proofs like the early example of the 4 color problem. It might be
almost good enough to be able to verify each step of the proof and
the
Marcus
This sounds a lot like the problem of verifying computer-generated
proofs like the early example of the 4 color problem. It might be
almost good enough to be able to verify each step of the proof and
the logic that it all hangs together with, even if no human can
claim to actually
13 matches
Mail list logo
