For you, does trust precede proof - or the reverse?
Answer:
I'd like to shift gears here, if I may. Trust must be earned. But this doesn't mean you "distrust." (In other words, put it in neutral.) When you first meet someone, you needn't trust or distrust. A "trusting" (or naive) nature may lead to all sorts of catastrophes; the person may then never "trust" ANYONE again. Or, they may continue & get bashed many times. What is the need for an intial "judegment" to trust--or not to trust? Indeed, that is the question!
I start with trust for any person I have just met. If they give me reason to be suspicious of their motive, or their vehicle for success, my suspicions grow. Everyone needs the opportunity to demonstrate their integrity. Dishonesty, malicious comments and behavior towards others, a self serving attitude, and downright deception will eventually be exposed by an individual who is dishonest.
I use to trust easily, wasn't very good. Now, it takes me forever to trust.
Hi,
My basic instinct is to trust everyone but in business especially, that has proven a naïve perspective in the past and I now realise there are a lot of ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing’ out there.
I still tend to be trustful of others but cautious and wary too in that I know it takes time to get to know people and not everyone is motivated by the best (or good) intentions. I think real trust has to be earned and I find the people I deal with in business now and the people I mix with socially are ones I have known for years and know too they can be depended on 100%. I respect them so much because I know I can trust and have complete faith in them. Basically I think that real trust has to be earned (or at least experience will prove whether or not someone can be trusted).
Polly
In this world there is no absolute Proof in favor of anything. All is taken by faith/Trust. Even with science we can generate probabilities of a certain event occurring each time it is tested, but this does not constitute Proof except in the event that a theory is "proven false". Other wise its status is "Not Yet Proven False". Noting is ever considered "Proven".
Although Trust may be initially given based on some evidences of trustworthiness (observed with others, tested with small matters of trust to see what they do with it, having personality or characteristics of others you have found to be trustworthy in your life, etc... ) you always begin with Trust.
Like the Scientist you have a theory about a particular relationship between one variable (a person, friendship, romance) and another (yourself). When Trust is placed into this relationship we have the experiment. As long as Trust is not broken in this relationship it is "Not Yet Proven False". The more it is tried with this being the result the greater the probability that this trend will continue and the more Trust you can place into this relationship with a level of confidence.
We've done this experiment with many others in our lives so some comparison of results with different variables can be done. If Trust is broken then it is proven false: this is not a relationship to be trusted. You may need to take some other variables into account (relational histories, substance abuse, recency/duration of last relationship, similarity of person to others you know) If there had been a level of Trust evaluate what changed in the relationship and see if that variable can be adjusted to restore Trust to the relationship.
In short: Trust precedes Confidence. There is no proof, especially with humans because we have free-will.
In my opinion, trust does precede proof. I must trust myself
to consider the proof which is presented to me. How
accurate are my conclusions? As accurate as my cognition
allows for explanation of the proof. I can explain anything
I can think, but the explanation is only as relevant as
the interconnectivity of my relational cognition. Proof
precedes trust reminds me of a computer program which
trusts the computer programmer rather than itself;
anything the programmer codes is proof of valid
execution. Of course, the flaw is observed as the
execution of the computer program slams into
a mal-operation error at runtime, and continues
to trust the computer programmer for future development;
the computer programmer is the dictator of the computer
world.
I usually give people the benefit of the doubt at first, because I have no reason not to trust someone at first. But if I'm going to "invest" in the person at all (i.e.: be in a committed relationship, etc) I trust, and expect them to prove their words and actions by more actions. For example... if they say they are good with money, I'm going to expect that they back that up with some proving actions with time, and I will continue to trust that person. But the more they do not "back up" their words, the more likely I am not to trust them, then in time becomes no trust.
I know God, so I can trust Him. so his does precede proof...
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: