I am going to be looking at how values and language can impact how we interact. Particularly on the Internet. All is not what it seems.
Trust has become more about transaction than is has become about anything else. Social media is definitely looking at this a little. And some forms are showing promise. But on the internet it is all too often being treated as a transaction. It is about “trusting” the transaction. But trust is relational, not transactional. Tokens are exchanged after the relationship reaches trust, not (usually) as a way of establishing it.
“Hacker Safe” or “Trust Verified” (these are meant to be fictional and are not in anyway meant to disparage any people / products / processes real or imagined) are taking the place of what trust is, or at least has meant to be. Products that give confidence in a transaction are absolutely important particularly in this day and age. (I spent a few hours the other day researching PGP and RSA security issues for a potential project.) But this is still not trust. It is more about secure transactions.
Trust in the online world is a notion of security, particularly security in the transaction. And yes, you want to feel secure in the ability to make transactions with someone you trust. But trust is really about something more. It is a higher level concept that is being reduced to a sound bite or something that is easily consumed.
Let’s use a definition here where we could attach the name of Trust:
the capacity to actively and accurately hear another's thoughts and feelings and to express one's own thoughts and feelings in a climate of mutual confidence in each other's integrity.All too often this is not what I am experiencing when trust is being used relative to a relationship in the online environment (this by no means is restricting this discussion to the internet). Adding the concept of integrity, a possible “Trust” equation might look like:
trust == security + transactions + integrity + reputation + ???This equation is at least a start. Trust definitely needs to be more than security. Trust assumes that there is a transfer of values. And that there is a minimum amount of commonality. Certain types of interactions in certain types of environments will allow one to identify some commonality with the other. Talking, enjoying activities or even networking can help with this. While this does not ensure trust, it creates the likelihood that a person will take a leap and take the relationship to another level.
Trust is about exchanging tokens or symbols and that there is a belief in the in the veracity of them. The words that we say, the behavior or actions we engage in go along way to establishing values and faith. All too often there are substitutes meant to the take the place of establishing trust. This is where the (potential) perversion comes in. There is a sense of faith that comes with trust. Apparent sincerity during a transaction does not replace the extended equation.
trust == security + transactions + integrity + reputation + faith?!?!?
Amazing how the security industry is growing in leaps and bounds, just ensuring that parts of the equation is working is half the battle. In many ways it is sad because there is a large industry that exists just to ensure that a basic building block of trust. But a very difficult one. Phishing and junk mail scams prey upon the fact that for a long time e-mail messages had a sense of authenticity that went along with them (and presumably the people sending them).
And to enough people that is still there (trust in e-mail, etc). Since we are using this dummied down version of trust, it is easier for people to fall for these activities. Many people are looking for the higher level of trust in which they have experienced in their lives, and get fooled when presented with something that looks like trust but is only partially there. The worst part of it, is that it the perversion of trust often preys on people that have lived their life where faith in relationships as a big part of trust. It has taken a rather authenticate form of communication and made it inauthentic. Those that had a high level of trust in people in the classic sense, become jaded. This is where much of the perversion comes in.
One thing about all this that I want to explore is how we can work on trust, and values and still create an environment where faith plays an integral part. Remembering to look at all parts of the definition is part of it. We want so badly to trust and make a connection that we we short circuit looking at the all the components that make up trust.
Trust is not perverted it is the people that prey on it that are. Revisiting the basics will help us to maintain some faith while protecting ourselves.
Technorati Tags:
social, trust, faith, security,, relationship, integrity,, transaction
Evil is...
I was just perusing Matt Mower's thoughts on Google's motto of "Do no evil". What is the nature of evil? Does it exist? Or is it made? Many branches of Christianity believe that satan is constantly trying to take you down. This suggests that evil exists unto itself. Is evil, simply the absence of good? I know it is possible to 'train' someone to be bad. But can you be born evil? The "Omen" movies would have you think so I am not so sure. Also, whose is deciding that something is evil? Foucault would have us believe that it is those that are in a position of power in a given moment and given context that define what is evil. Cigarette companies are 'evil' in the current time, but were not thought so in the 1950s.
Tags: google, evil, religion, nature, nurture, philosophy
Powered by Qumana
Martin Hall on January 03, 2007 at 11:43 AM in Behavior, Commentary, Ethics, Morality, Random Thoughts, Religion | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)