imperfection there is in language

a belief thal we have an accurate memory of a past fact or demonstration or a belief that others have been correct in their proofs.

we can know what we ourselves have made

So I, you know, putting my coins on the exchange is risky enough. I don't want to increase that by expanding the scope of access

Yeah, because Gemini trusted US dollar exchange. It's actually one of the only ones regulated and licensed by the state of New York, which has some of the strictest regulations in the world.

Twitter is my go to and people post a news articles from like ccn from what does it coined, ask a bunch of these crypto news things and they're great. Uh, you know, I take them with a grain of salt because whatever, there's a lot of like fake news.

Uh, yes. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. But as far as I understand it, it's read only so they can't do any trading on my behalf.

Okay. Yeah. I would say the, I'm not a super technical engineering person, but they would have to give some arguments or get give in their marketing, whatever it is. They'd have to prove to me, give me a good idea that they've thought of every attack, route, attack, attack vector and this safe. And unless someone comes into your house and logs on your laptop and steals your whatever key, it's going to be safe.

I'm scared. I don't really spend enough time thinking about it, but it's something like in the far future I might do if someone comes up with some solution and they give a good reason why it's good, you know, maybe I'll use it, but I haven't seen anything.

Like I dunno, I would sometimes prefer to have some type of automatic initiation process and enter trades, but I don't know of anything that's safe and I haven't really thought about it that much

, okay. They're mainly based in Russia though.

Um, three commas had been tested by another people that I guess I was kind of following the social proof justification that enough people were in it so that made me more confident in using it.

Part of it might be ignorance to be honest. Um, for three commas for three commas specifically because the functionality that I was allowing, at least within the API key within binance was that they couldn't withdraw funds.

And as far as binance goes, they just have a track record, uh, where there was some type of hack to some degree.

If something was to happen, I'm more comfortable having money on, uh, a US owned exchange.

anguage come to be more trustworthy than matter?

How did language come to be more trustworthy than matter?

When I received Chris’s comment, my first response was that I should delete my post or at least the incorrect part of it. It’s embarrassing to have your incorrect understandings available for public view. But I decided to leave the post as is but put in a disclaimer so that others would not be misled by my misunderstandings. This experience reminded me that learning makes us vulnerable. Admitting that you don’t know something is hard and being corrected is even harder. Chris was incredibly gentle in his correction. It makes me think about how I respond to my students’ work. Am I as gentle with their work as Chris was to mine? Could I be more gentle? How often have I graded my students’ work and only focused on what they did wrong? Or forgotten that feeling of vulnerability when you don’t know something, when you put your work out for others to judge? This experience has also reminded me that it’s important that we as teachers regularly put ourselves into situations in which we authentically grapple with not knowing something. We should regularly share our less than fully formed understandings with others for feedback. It helps us remember that even confident learners can struggle with being vulnerable. And we need to keep in mind that many of our students are not confident learners.

Yeahitreallyis,andIoftenthinkabouttherelationshipIhavewithmystudentswhoareinaoneyearprogramandtherelationshipIhavewithcorporatestudentsthatImightcomeinandtrainforaweekorsomethinglikethat,youknowinthefirstcoupledaysofalltrainingsessionsIhavenoabilitytocritiquebecauseIdon'thavetheirtrust.So,ifIcomeinthefirstdayofclassandsaytheirworksucksandhere'swhatyoushoulddotoimprove,andthiswillneverwork,it'smetwithresistanceandit'salmostlikeadefensemechanismagainstitandsothat'satotallyinappropriatewayformetobehave.Butifyoulookfurtherintothecurriculum,let'ssaysixteenweeksintomyoneyearprogramoraWednesdayoraThursdayinaoneweektrainingprogram,hopefullyifI'vedonemyjobwellI'vebuiltupenoughrapportwithpeopletheytrustthatIknowwhatI'mtalkingabout,thatmyfeedbackiscomingfromaplaceofloveandcareandsothey'rewillingtohearthingslike,thatisn'tverygoodandthosearewordsthatcomeoutofmymouthduringacritique.It'ssomethingthatyou'renotmaybeusedtohearingifyou'renotpartofthiscreativeculturebutthatisn'tverygoodandhere'swhy,isactuallyareally,reallyimportantthingtohelpadvancethequalityofwork.Andthenthenextsentencewouldbeandhere'showIwouldimproveitbutagainthathastocomefromaplaceofrespectandthat'searnedovertimeandsoyouknowyouhearalotaboutI'veheardalotaboutanywayandyouknowthenewbosscomesinandit'sahotshotcreativedirectoranditblowsthingsupandrunsaroundgoingintoameetingandshittingoneverythingtherewasanoldjokeatoneofmycompaniesisthatthechiefcreativeofficerwouldcomeinandswoopandpoopwherehe'dcomeintoaconference,roomtelleverybodywhathethinksuckedandleaveandnoneofthatworksbecausehedidn'thavethetrustofthepeoplethatwerehavingtheirworkshitonandsothathastocomefromaplaceoftrustagainandthatyouknowthere'snoshortcutfortimeIsupposeinthatrespect.Andspeakingofrespectoftheotherflavortherearetheotheringredientismutualrespect.It'ssayingthingslike,lookyouwerehiredbecauseItrustyoubecauseyou'regoodatyourcraft,youhavepotentialandexpertise,nowlet'stalkaboutwhatyou'redoingwrongandhowtoimproveit.

Our extensions also have implications for theories ontrust.

Whenemergent response groups first come together, membersare likely not to ask one another about who knows what;instead, they are likely to ask about what is knownabout the situation and about the actions taken thus far(Dyer and Shafer 2003, Hale et al. 2005). The cogni-tive structure that they develop for the group centersnot around people, but on action-based scenarios thateither have been or might be carried out. These scenariosinclude decisions, actions, knowledge, events, and feed-back (Vera and Crossan 2005).

It would be if he knew he was wrong. I can’t put my finger on it, but I sense something strange about him.

trust was sincere intent followed by consistent, related action.

visualizations are more than just ‘‘prettypictures’’: rather, precisely in virtue of their bringinginto play oursharedcognitive and aesthetic frame-works as human beings, they thereby catalyze theepistemological – but also aesthetic and therebysocial, if not also political – processes that create ashared intersubjective framework in the first place,one that then makes possible trust-building and asharedsensus communiswithin which the enterpriseof collaborative science may take place

a view towards examining how visualizationscontribute to building frameworks of trust.

‘In a complexinformation society, with a highly developed divi-sion of intellectual labor, we have no option butrely on information from sources that are usuallytrustworthy.’

‘Thedilemma, then, is that a right to information couldmake people worse off in terms of information.’’Elgesem then provides a contextual analysis of therole search engines play in the broader ‘‘informationecology’’ constituted by contemporary ICTs. Elgesemis able to connect the search engine dilemma withKant’s second formulation of the CategoricalImperative, ‘‘Act in such a way that you treathumanity, whether in your own person or in theperson of another, always at the same time as an endand never simply as a means.’’8Here, Elgeseminterprets Kant to mean that by ‘‘humanity,’’ Kantrefers to our ability to reason as the central propertythat makes us human. The simple point, as empha-sized in Kant’s famous example regarding lying, isthat failure to provide truthful information is a primeexample of violating the CI because false informationmakes it impossible for the recipient to exercise herrationality. By the same token, Elgesem argues that abiased search engine likewise makes it impossible forusers to exercise their rationality, and thus likewiserepresent violations of the CI.

interest in understanding how web pages are rankedis foiled: in particular, users cannot know whether ornot a high ranking is the result of payment – andagain, such secrecy reduces trust and thereby theusability and accessibility of important information

The basic dilemma is simple. If the algorithms areopen – then webmasters (and anyone else) interestedin having their websites appear at the top of a searchresult will be able to manipulate their sites so as toachieve that result: but such results would then bemisleading in terms of genuine popularity, potentialrelevance to a searcher’s interests, etc., therebyreducing users’ trust in the search engine results andhence reducing the usability and accessibility ofimportant information. On the other hand, if thealgorithms are secret, then the legitimate public

phenomenologically-basedapproach to trust, one that stresses precisely that‘‘...the bodily presence in the encounter appears to beessential for understanding the relation of trust.’’ Hemakes this point in part by way of reference to thework of K. E. Løgstrup,1E. Levinas,2and others –and thereby takes up trust as an ‘‘irreducible human

At the same time, however, especially as the Internetincreasingly becomes a primary venue for partici-pating in ‘‘...the political, social and commercialactivities necessary for full participation in a liberaldemocracy,’’ establishing trust in online worldsbecomes a correlatively more pressing matter.

In particular, Myskjapoints out that the largelydisembodiedcharacter ofmost online communication thereby cuts us off fromimportant, perhaps crucial channels of non-verbalcommunication that may be essential to trust-building.

Kant’s basicthoughts on autonomy and the public domain arehighly relevant to challenges concerning modernsociety, particularly to communication in the publicsphere. Trust is but one important topic being dis-cussed here; openness another. Thus, our aim has notonly been to demonstrate how Kant can be produc-tively applied to new technology; in addition, it hasbeen to show how the basic philosophical queriesraised within this context can be fruitfully illuminatedwithin Kant’s conceptual frames.

where applicable, any rating in the form of a data trust score that may be assignedto the data fiduciary under section 35;and

Ian O’Byrne, an assistant professor of education at the College of Charleston, wrote, “As an educator and researcher who studies these digital places and tools, I’m in front of screens a lot. I experiment and play in these spaces. I’m also writing and researching the impact of these screens and their impact on the well-being of others as it relates to children and adolescents. The problem in this is that one of the other hats that I wear is as a parent and husband. I am not only critical of my engagement and use of these digital technologies, but I’m also cautious/cognizant of their role as a mediator in my relationships with my children and significant other. These screens and digital tools play a strong role in our lives and interactions in and out of our home. In our home we have screens and devices all over the place. We have a video server that is ready to serve content to any one of these screens on demand. We have voice-assistive devices listening and waiting for our commands. I believe it is important as an educator and researcher to play with and examine how these devices are playing a role in our lives, so I can bring this work to others. Even with these opportunities, I’m still struck by times when technology seems too intrusive. This is plainly evident when I’m sitting with my family and watching a television show together, and I’m gazing off into my device reading my RSS feed for the day. Previously I would enjoy watching the funniest home videos and laughing together. Now, I am distant. The first thing in the morning when I’m driving my kids in to school and stop at a red light, previously I would enjoy the time to stop, listen to the radio, look at the clouds or bumper stickers on cars around me. Now, I pull out the phone to see if I received a notification in the last 20 minutes. When I call out for the voice-activated device in my home to play some music or ask a question, my request is quickly echoed by my 2-year-old who is just learning to talk. She is echoing these conversations I’m having with an artificial intelligence. I’m trying to weigh this all out in my mind and figure what it means for us personally. The professional understanding may come later.”

Even though teachers have told me not to trust Wikipedia, I have grown to learn that Wikipedia is probably one of the more accurate parts of the internet because it’s controlled by so many people that, if you’re wrong, someone is going to call you out on it.

We have found that asking people directly, as one would in a physical interaction, is a strong practice. How might your experience of the Internet shift if people who had access to your digital body, whether in the form of photos or contact information, were to check in with you from time to time about it? What technologies would we need to build to help us manage ongoing and direct consent processes?

Platforms like Google are incorporating periodic check-ins with users about what they’ve consented to, which is a good start.

If we can’t make it safer then we can acknowledge the remaining risks and educate users about them.

We can do better. By designing the system so certain things are impossible, we lower the trust barrier for that system.

Sally Lehrman, senior director of the journalism ethics program at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, leads its signature Trust Project, a complex international collaboration that she began building in 2015 to strengthen public confidence in the news through accountability and transparency.

Sally Lehrman at The Trust Project.

What is needed is a trustworthy, secure, and enduring property system that is flexible enough to incorporate digital properties into any community’s broader property rights traditions

As we are talking about TRUST this week here in Connected Courses, I feel the need to come clean.

I sent a DM to Terry, what do you think about these guys inviting me? I trust Terry implicitly.

I responded to the invitation with confusion and then refound the voice which comes from somewhere. A blog post wrote itself, a familiar voice helped me find my feet. Dodger, my alter-ego helped me through the crisis of trust.

trusted me. 

But suppose on the way to Wal-Mart, you see a random mom-and-pop store that looks interesting. What do you know about its safety standards? Nothing.

global implosion

Specialness is a lack of trust in anyone except yourself. Faith is invested in yourself alone.

If I see you just cooperate, without thinking of whether it's in your self-interest, and then I interact with you later, I can count on you to cooperate, even if it turns out to be costly to do so. Whereas if I see you stop, carefully consider, and then say, "Oh yes, I'll help you," then I know next time you might not help me. The desire to signal that you are a trustworthy partner, and therefore someone good to interact with, can motivate you to cooperate in an uncalculated way, to broadcast your trustworthiness.  

I wonder what would have happened if someone I trust had provided me with a list of resources and people she admired when I started out in online learning and open education four years ago.

hapin (1995,p. 178) notes in his brilliant study of trust in 17th-centuryEnglish science,

Before that can be it will be necessary for you thoroughly to know that supposed other self, thatself which You created by thinking it real and separate from Me, and then kept alive by giving itthe power thus to entice and deceive you; yes, that self-created self, with its purely selfish prideand ambitions and imagined power, its love of life, of possessions, of being thought wise orgood, -- but which self is merely your human personality, which was born only to die as aseparate identity, and as such has no more reality or permanence that the leaf, the snow or thecloud.Yes, you will be brought face to face with that petty personal self, and will see with perfectvision all its sordid selfishness and human vanities; and you will then learn -- if you but turn toMe and ask in simple faith and trust -- that it is I, the Infinite, Impersonal part of You, abidingalways within, Who am thus pointing out to you all these illusions of the personality, which forso many ages have separated you in consciousness from Me, Your glorious, Divine Self

Therefore you can change them by the same process, if they do not please you; you can makethem whatever you will, by thinking them so. Can you not?But how can one do real thinking, conscious thinking, so as to bring about this change? You ask.First know that I, your Real Self, purposely brought to your attention these things which now aredispleasing and which cause you to think them as being what they now seem to be to you. I, andI alone, AM thus preparing your human mind so that, when you turn within to Me in abidingFaith and Trust, I can enable you to see and bring into outer manifestation the Reality of thesethings which now seem so unsatisfactory.For I bring to you everything that, by its outer seeming, can attract or lure your human mindonward in its Earthly search, in order to teach you of the illusoriness of all outer appearance ofmaterial things to the human mind, and of the fallibility of all human understanding; so that youwill turn finally within to Me and My Wisdom, as the One and Only Interpreter and Guide.When you have turned thus within to Me, I will open your eyes and cause you to see that theonly way you can ever bring about this change in thinking, is by first changing your attitudetoward all these things you now think are not what they ought to be.That is, if they are unsatisfactory or obnoxious to you and affect you so as to cause youdiscomfort of body or disturbance of mind, --why, stop thinking that they can so affect or disturbyou

But in all your seeking and all your striving, let it be with faith and trust in Me, your True Selfwithin, and without being anxious about results; for the results are all in My keeping, and I willtake care of them. Your doubts and your anxiety are but of the personality, and if allowed topersist will lead only to failure and disappointmen

Then, as the Sun of Know-ing begins to rise on the horizon of your consciousness;Then, will you feel the swell of a wondrous strange Breath filling you to the extreme of all yourmortal members, causing your senses almost to burst with the ecstasy of it; then, will there comesurge after surge of a mighty, resistless Power rising within you, lifting you almost off the Earth;then, will you feel within the Glory, the Holiness, the Majesty of My Presence;And then, then you will KNOW, I AM, God.You, -- when you have felt Me thus in such moments within, when you have tasted of MyPower, hearkened to My Wisdom, and know the ecstasy of My all-embracing Love, -- no diseasecan touch, no circumstance can weaken, no enemy can conquer you. For now you KNOW I AMwithin, and you always hereafter will turn to Me in your need, putting all your trust in Me, andallowing Me to manifest My Will.You, when you turn thus to Me, will always find Me an unfailing and ever present help in timeof need; for I will so fill you with a Realization of My Presence and of My Power, that you needonly Be Still and allow Me to do whatever you want done -- heal your ills and those of others,illumine your mind so you can see with My eyes the Truth you seek, or perform perfectly thetasks which before seemed almost impossible of accomplishmen

4Be Still! and KNOW I AM GodNow, in order that you may learn to know Me, so that you can be sure it is I, your own True Self,Who speak these words, you must first learn to Be Still, to quiet your human mind and body andall their activities, so that you no longer are conscious of them.You may not yet be able to do this, but I will teach you how, if you really want to know Me, andare willing to prove it by trusting Me and obeying Me in all that I now shall call upon you to do

Again, Paul, you cannot know ahead of time what this means, and so you are going to have to trust as you take my hand by joining with me Here at Home.

It is the third bucket that contains the most ambitious applications: “smart contracts” that execute themselves automatically under the right circumstances. Bitcoin can be “programmed” so that it only becomes available under certain conditions.

This has implications far beyond the cryptocurrency

it is an accurate perception on your part that your allegiance, your trust, and your energies need to be placed unequivocally where they have been for the past six months—in other words, in your direct perception of your Self as Fourth-dimensional Conscious Being.

No. Your Being is intent on being Itself and knows how to be Itself perfectly. When you have experienced this, you will be able to trust your Self implicitly.

PAUL: Very well. What about the three gentlemen that were here? RAJ: Paul, I know you are still looking for some specific, objective evidence to totally prove the fact that all of this is valid. Paul, it will happen in its own time, and you must be patient. The formation of voluntary trust on your part is still in the development stage. The need at this time is for you to persist in this process because you feel it is right.

You must realize that Being functions according to Its own infinite, eternal Harmonies. If that which has been set into motion has not appeared, it is because appearing at that point would not be in harmony with Its unfolding Being. You can trust you do not need it at the moment you are considering the fact that it hasn’t yet appeared.

As I said yesterday, lean on your Self. Depend on It. Trust It. Demand the answers from It rather than what appear to be “others.” Remember that whether I truly am a separate individual or not, I am Your Conscious Experience when we are together. This is imperative and it is a key to further unfoldment. I know that you grasp this from an experiential standpoint and that this is not just a “head trip.“

The Bible says, “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.“1 This means that no matter how deeply we may seem to be buried in the distortions of a personal, three-dimensional, finite frame of mind, the faith that we find everpresently abiding within us is our everpresent “connection” with the Actuality of our Being as It is really going on. In other words, it is our Actual experience of Substance, inviolably “held in trust” for us, you might say, so long as we indulge in attempting to experience the Reality of our Being from a partial view. This is why it is “the evidence of things not seen.” It is the evidence of Reality, present and undistorted, in spite of the distortions inherent in the partial view.

PAUL: Raj, I am failing miserably at demonstrating or seeing the omnipresence of my Being in terms of supply. It’s true that from day to day we have what we need, but it’s far from a comfortable way to live. All we’re getting are basics. The larger debts we owe are not being met. RAJ: Paul, I want you to be aware that you are beginning to give up your faith, trust, and belief in the validity of our conversations. This is indicated by the flip-flopping back and forth between knowing they are real and doubting they are real. I point out also that the doubting comes into play when you are challenged by opinions or circumstances. This certainly is a natural response, but it is not the consistent vantage point which you will find necessary if you’re going to be free from being dangled like a yo-yo or blown to and fro on the breeze of chance. PAUL: Well, if you are wanting me to develop some inner strength which will not yield, no matter what I’m confronted with—and if I’m supposed to do this while it’s my family’s lack that I’m faced with—then I don’t think you should be surprised! Theoretically, intellectually, I can grasp its value. But when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of life, it often seems like nonsense. RAJ: I understand, Paul. I want to refer you to what your Supply told you about how to set the Law in motion. I want you to begin doing this on a regular basis. A word to the wise: Be sure of what you are asking for, because you shall surely get it. PAUL: Alright, Raj. I shall forge forward. I will tell you this: It would be much easier if my family’s needs were being better met.

RAJ: I know you feel like you need help, but no one can help you at this point. There is no other One but You, and you had better be sure that you have no other “ones” before You, You Self, God. Your entire Being, in all Its infinitude, is harmonizing with You, loving You, and supporting You because of the Integrity of your Being. No one but You can relinquish consciously your hold on the false sense of self—the misidentification which feels it can’t do it. At this point I want to terminate the conversation. I will be instantly available if you need to talk, but I want you to be consciously and quietly alone with your own Being and the Reality of things. This is your baby!

Drop the concept of time as you request and desire the answer to your need. Stay fixed on the desire. Do it gently. Do not push it. Do not be overly intense. On the other hand, be genuine, sincere, and consistent. Realize that it is your very own Being to which the desire is being expressed, knowing as you do, that every answer and every demand arises out of your very own Being. As I have said before, trust Your Self. Lean on It. Depend on It.

I know that you do not yet trust your Self completely, but by the same token, your Self-trust is greatly increased over what it was when we began our conversations. At that point, you were not even consciously aware of the experience of your Self—of your True Identity—as opposed to your concept and experience of yourself as three-dimensional man. Right now ego is confused—you are not, even though what seems most forcible in your thought at the moment is the feeling of confusion.

As you already know, you have two tasks before you. One is the conscious relinquishment of your sense of ego in preference to your Identity. The second is to get into that Place where you’re experiencing your Being as Fourth-dimensional Man, and be conscious of your desire in the form of a specific question. This is to be done at least three times a day. Do not let your objective experience keep you from fulfilling those tasks. Do not let yourself become discouraged, as you almost did tonight, to the point where you would be willing to retire for the night without fulfilling those two objectives. Trust in your Self is the key here, and steadfastness is the method by which your success will be assured. Do not allow the anxiety or impatience of those around you to cause you to feel that you must push things along more rapidly. This will keep you bound in the three-dimensional frame of reference—a frame of reference from which nothing can be initiated.

The point is to always remain currently obedient to what your Being is unfolding. If possible, do it unthinkingly, willingly, and with a confidence in the absolutely cohesive manner in which It is unfolding Itself—with no sense of It being actually destructive in any way, shape, or form.

I recognize fully from my own experience that this is not an easy step to make, because it is not a head trip. Rather, it is a matter of being willing to be—without conscious thought processes being used for any purpose other than relating or describing what your Being is being. Fundamental to your being able to let go is going to be your willingness to trust what you already theoretically know. That the entire Nature of your Being is absolutely and totally constructive—that It is actually fulfilling Itself at this very moment in all Its completeness with absolute perfection. If you are able to trust that Fact, even though it may require some imagination, rather than some believing, you will find it easier to let go of any vestige of control that you think you ought to be able to exercise. As soon as you are able to do this, you will find the picture change, as we have talked about before. In effect, you will be seeing from the Center of your Being, rather than from the surface of your concepts.

I can feel that. Paul, you mentioned before we began that you were feeling a love growing within you for me. That love could not be growing if there were not, first, a basic trust within you. I am here to help and to guide. If you misunderstand me. I will immediately let you know. I can appreciate that this process seems like a quantum leap to you. I can appreciate your fear that if you do not hear me correctly, you will feel like a fool. But, Paul, you and I are alone right now. This conversation is not to be transcribed, nor is it to be shared until I let you know otherwise. So, no one will know whether you turned out to be a fool or not. Take a moment and relax, and get within yourself. I want you to get to the feeling that you have while you were driving this afternoon when there was no sensation of anxiety. I will help you.

Being is Infinity. It far exceeds your wildest imaginations. As you let go, as you lean on and trust your Self more and more implicitly, and as you find that your Self is, indeed trustworthy, you will experience more of that infinitude. Keep in mind, however, that the more of yourself which you are experiencing is not more of yourself than was always present. it is a phase of egotism which would like to make more out of what is normal than what normal is.

Paul, the shift which you have been experiencing for the past four weeks is, indeed, a shift from a personal, finite, limited sense of universal facts to that Awareness which is Mind’s experience of Itself as All. This is why there is great need for trust, for willingness, and for letting go.

Paul, there most certainly is an intent or purpose, a Divine Purpose, being fulfilled today. However, it is far from what it appears to be from a three-dimensional standpoint. I know that you have really no more idea what is going to happen as the day finishes out than you do when you begin a healing session, than you do when we begin a conversation, or than you do when you lay out the Tarot cards. Do not let that concern you. Just stay where you are and observe the Divine Purpose fulfill Itself. You have trusted me before when you weren’t even sure I was real. I am saying now, again, “Trust me.” And I can see that you do trust even more.

By contrast, the atom of betrayal is not just turning away—not just turning away from my wife’s sadness in that moment—but doing what Caryl Rusbult called a “CL-ALT,” which stands for “comparison level for alternatives.” What that means is I not only turn away from her sadness, but I think to myself, “I can do better. Who needs this crap? I’m always dealing with her negativity. I can do better.” Once you start thinking that you can do better, then you begin a cascade of not committing to the relationship; of trashing your partner instead of cherishing your partner; of building resentment rather than gratitude; of lowering your investment in the relationship; of not sacrificing for the relationship; and of escalating conflicts.

My graduate student Dan Yoshimoto has discovered that the basis for building trust is really the idea of attunement. He has broken this down with the acronym ATTUNE, which stands for: Awareness of your partner’s emotion; Turning toward the emotion; Tolerance of two different viewpoints; trying to Understand your partner; Non-defensive responses to your partner; and responding with Empathy.

In my research, we filmed an interaction between a couple and had each partner turn a rating dial as they watched their tape afterward. On this graph (at left), you can see how one couple rated their interaction. The blue dots represent the wife’s ratings over 15 minutes of conversation; the red dots represent the husband’s ratings. When you add them together, these ratings are a constant, which means that in this interaction, her gain is his loss and his gain is her loss. This is what’s called in game theory a “zero-sum game.” You’ve probably all heard of the concept. It’s the idea that in an interaction, there’s a winner and a loser. And by looking at ratings like this, I came to define a “betrayal metric”: It’s the extent to which an interaction is a zero-sum game, where your partner’s gain is your loss. On the other hand, by trust we really mean, mathematically, that our partner’s behavior is acting to increase our rating dial. Even though we’re disagreeing, my wife is thinking about my welfare, my best interests. When we scientifically tested these so-called trust and betrayal metrics, we found that a high trust metric is correlated with very positive outcomes, such as greater stability in the relationship. In a 20-year longitudinal study of couples in the San Francisco Bay Area that I recently completed with UC Berkeley psychologist Bob Levenson, we found that about 11 percent of couples had a zero-sum game pattern, like in that graph. Every six years, we would re-contact all of the couples in the study, and they would come back to Bob’s lab at Berkeley. Yet we noticed that many of the zero-sum couples weren’t coming back. I thought maybe they dropped out because they found the whole thing so unpleasant. Well, it turns out that they didn’t drop out. They died.

This research shows there are low- and high-trust regions of the United States. Nevada is a very low-trust region. (Nobody seems to be very surprised by that.) Minnesota is a very high-trust region. The Deep South is a very low-trust region. We see similar disparities internationally. In Brazil, two percent of people say they trust other people. In Norway, 65 percent say they trust other people. So what are the characteristics of low-trust regions? Few people vote, parents and schools are less active. There’s less philanthropy in low-trust regions, greater crime of all kinds, lower longevity, worse health, lower academic achievement in schools.

To some people, these findings about oxytocin might raise another concern: that trust is not subject to rational control—that it’s “all hormones.” This seems to stand in stark contrast to the traditional idea of trust being the outcome of a cognitive, rational process. In my view, trust is both, just like other human social behaviors. We cannot deny that many of our decisions are governed by cognitive processes; in the case of trust, these processes take into account the available information about the trustee’s motivation, the likelihood of a repeated interaction, and so on.

Interestingly, the investors’ expectations about the back-transfer from the trustee did not differ between the oxytocin and placebo recipients. Oxytocin increased the participants’ willingness to trust others, but it did not make them more optimistic about another person’s trustworthiness.

there is a simple hypothesis about what steers the human brain to trust another human: a hormone called oxytocin.

Conventional economic theory maintains that people will always behave in a purely self-interested manner. According to this worldview, it makes no sense to trust, whether in a trust game or in real life, as any trust will be exploited. The trustee will always keep her entire windfall for herself, so the investor would be better off not transferring any money in the first place. And yet when researchers like Joyce Berg and others have had people play the trust game with real monetary stakes, they have repeatedly found that the average investor will transfer half of her initial endowment and receive similar amounts in return. Through the trust game, researchers have also discovered a number of factors that seem to drive levels of trust. Familiarity breeds trust—players tend to trust each other more with each new game. So does introducing punishments for untrustworthy behavior, or even just reminding players of their obligations to each other.

I’m intrigued by the notion that social networks could eventually replace our currency. If economic growth lives up to the hype, we’ll all live like the rich someday, so why not print our own money, too?

Speak more about how you plan to support others in the movement rather than what the cops may or may not do.

Borrowing stuff from local businesses and residents creates trust; nailing and painting together creates community. If you have the luxury of buying, you create neither of these.

The ways in which to make them trust the goodness of other people are also the ways in which to make them trust our own.

But men who inculcate virtue and sobriety--is it not absurd if they do not trust in their own students before all others?