You know, I was thinking about trust, in conjunction with some of the stuff I was musing on here, and I'm not certain I nailed it. I was saying that basically, I believe everyone; I take it for granted that what they are telling me, they believe is true. But I thought a little deeper on this, and that might not actually be what's happening. The effect is the same! The effect is that I trust them, for the sake of hearing them out and giving a sincere response. But I think what's actually happening is not belief, but pure skepticism that embraces the truth of another's statement 100%, as a hypothetical.
I think that what's actually happening. It's kind of operating on a subconscious level, but that feels like the truth of what's actually happening. All of my responses in any conversation are hypothetical. I take the other person's statement as my premise, and then proceed as if it were true. Let's be honest, rarely if ever does any crisis occur that requires me to make a final determination on the absolute truth value of any statement. I mean, come on. I'm kind of a private citizen. So in practice - whenever someone tells me a thing is true? I can pretty much always "proceed as if."
I don't believe, per se - I don't make a judgment: "This is true." Nor do I disbelieve. I don't even "doubt," properly speaking. It is, after all, a conversation! I can always accept a premise for the purpose of a conversation (or "for the sake of argument," as the saying goes). That isn't hard. I can take what a person says as stated, and answer them on that same basis. I'm not a fucking moron.
Of course, I'll note in passing anything that pops problematic! If their statement contradicts observable reality, I will point that out. If their statement sets up a contradiction with their previous statements, I will point that out. But absent such conflict, why would I not "proceed as if"? There's no drawback that I've experienced, and the benefits are compelling. Taking their statement entirely as a given allows its value to be fully explored!
Boy, I don't even know how I came up with this whole mode, or attitude or whatever. It works so great! People, I can't claim any credit for it. It's purely instinctual. In fact I'm still trying to figure out the dynamics, and I've been doing it this way since I was seven if not earlier. But it sure works great! And for the other person - what a great deal! All the benefit of the benefit of the doubt, and never impugned by any actual consciously-experienced doubt. Pure suspension of judgment - and why not? Does my mere belief alter reality? I believe it does not. I could be wrong, I suppose.
Who do you trust? Hell! Trust everybody! Why not? Just for the sake of argument, why not?
Why are people so obsessed with pretending they can determine the truth value of the statements of others? I mean what the hell. At what point does it help you? At what point does self-delusion help you find your way on what to say, or what to decide?
Maybe people just like to tell themselves "yeah, I know whether people are telling the truth." To which I'd respond, hey, how's that working out for you? Do you get anything out of that that I don't get?
I think that what's actually happening. It's kind of operating on a subconscious level, but that feels like the truth of what's actually happening. All of my responses in any conversation are hypothetical. I take the other person's statement as my premise, and then proceed as if it were true. Let's be honest, rarely if ever does any crisis occur that requires me to make a final determination on the absolute truth value of any statement. I mean, come on. I'm kind of a private citizen. So in practice - whenever someone tells me a thing is true? I can pretty much always "proceed as if."
I don't believe, per se - I don't make a judgment: "This is true." Nor do I disbelieve. I don't even "doubt," properly speaking. It is, after all, a conversation! I can always accept a premise for the purpose of a conversation (or "for the sake of argument," as the saying goes). That isn't hard. I can take what a person says as stated, and answer them on that same basis. I'm not a fucking moron.
Of course, I'll note in passing anything that pops problematic! If their statement contradicts observable reality, I will point that out. If their statement sets up a contradiction with their previous statements, I will point that out. But absent such conflict, why would I not "proceed as if"? There's no drawback that I've experienced, and the benefits are compelling. Taking their statement entirely as a given allows its value to be fully explored!
Boy, I don't even know how I came up with this whole mode, or attitude or whatever. It works so great! People, I can't claim any credit for it. It's purely instinctual. In fact I'm still trying to figure out the dynamics, and I've been doing it this way since I was seven if not earlier. But it sure works great! And for the other person - what a great deal! All the benefit of the benefit of the doubt, and never impugned by any actual consciously-experienced doubt. Pure suspension of judgment - and why not? Does my mere belief alter reality? I believe it does not. I could be wrong, I suppose.
Who do you trust? Hell! Trust everybody! Why not? Just for the sake of argument, why not?
Why are people so obsessed with pretending they can determine the truth value of the statements of others? I mean what the hell. At what point does it help you? At what point does self-delusion help you find your way on what to say, or what to decide?
Maybe people just like to tell themselves "yeah, I know whether people are telling the truth." To which I'd respond, hey, how's that working out for you? Do you get anything out of that that I don't get?
Comments
What I find more difficult is the "proceed as if" whatever the person talking to me just said matters at all. Then again, you probably aren't forced into many polite conversations with stoned college kids. I wish I could have conversations where simply believing the other person were the main point.
Don't you find that even if someone starts a topic off with something that is perhaps trite or banal, if you engage to explore the topic with them you quickly leave the banal behind and both of you are moving in uncertain territory? Assuming they sincerely engage as well! And also assuming that "sincerely engage" means both of you vest some interest in letting the conversation go wither it will, rather than steering it along the course of correct conclusions, previously-arrived at.
I fear every conversation would seem pointless and boring if I thought my having heard the start before would mean it can only go on to unfold one way. The didactic approach, where one person tells the other the right way to think about a thing, rarely proves instructive for either party.
Oh, that's not true! Many times I've sat fascinated by a brilliant and talented didact with a knack for explaining things they knew backwards-to-front, stone-cold. But I myself find I never knew a topic so well that I wouldn't want to explore what's beyond my personal preferred approach, rather than just lay out my take.
When confronted with what seems to be a banal conversation, I often find myself reminding myself to "open open open." There's more there.
Unless it's a scientist, and his or her claim is supported by replicable evidence, I find myself skeptical. But I instinctively trust also, unless this person claims to know the truth. The truth? There is none.
Subjective!
From a purely practical mental health standpoint, it is much better to trust than to not. It does away with paranoia, persecution and the like. Plus it's nice. People like you.