The high price of mistrust • Hacker News Board

Re: The high price of mistrust

#11

Post by kyrieeschaton » Mon, Jan 25, 2021, 4:13 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #7

kyrieeschaton wrote: post #2

Unfortunately most research on social capital and mistrust has been desk-drawered or heavily self censored due to the political implications. https://www.chronicle.com/article/robert-putnam-and-the-ethi... https://www.city-journal.org/html/bowling-our-own-10265.html

Thinly veiled campaigning for the return of segregation? Because nothing increases trust like "whites only" signs?

> Data collected by eminent political scientist suggests ethnic diversity, amongst other things, massively lowers social trust

> "Wow just wow what a 'racist campaign for the return of segregation'"

I wonder why it is so difficult to do or publish research in this area?

Re: The high price of mistrust

#12

Post by Ozzie_osman » Mon, Jan 25, 2021, 4:14 PM UTC

This applies to the workplace too, not just society at large. That's why if I'm ever at a company where I feel like I am mistrusted, or I mistrust the people I work with, I do what I can to leave. Not only is it an unpleasant environment to work in, but it feels predictive of failure.

Re: The high price of mistrust

#13

Post by kmeisthax » Mon, Jan 25, 2021, 4:15 PM UTC

kyrieeschaton wrote: post #2

Unfortunately most research on social capital and mistrust has been desk-drawered or heavily self censored due to the political implications. https://www.chronicle.com/article/robert-putnam-and-the-ethi... https://www.city-journal.org/html/bowling-our-own-10265.html

[flagged]

Re: The high price of mistrust

#14

Post by gumby » Mon, Jan 25, 2021, 4:16 PM UTC

i_am_proteus wrote: post #3

I appreciate the author's framing of "transaction costs." These costs are often hidden. It seems that as systems scale (in size) they tend to become inherently lower-trust. Consider a physician who makes house calls (not uncommon as recently as a few generations ago, and certainly not incompatible with modern medicine) and a large medical system such as Kaiser Permanente or NHS. The economic benefits of the larger-sc…

> It seems that as systems scale (in size) they tend to become inherently lower-trust.

I think the commodity markets (grains, coal, oil, steel, etc) are a significant counterexample: they do use spot checks but by and large run pretty lean on mechanism and rely on trust.

Another one is customs enforcement.

Re: The high price of mistrust

#15

Post by umvi » Mon, Jan 25, 2021, 4:16 PM UTC

roywiggins wrote: post #8

Part of the problem is that in, say, 5 years, you won't know who you meet was a weirdo anti-masker who you don't trust not to endanger the people around them. Nowadays it's quite easy to avoid these people, but once the current crisis abates they will go back to being visually indistinguishable. (unrelated, but the cost of zero-trust can be measured quite directly by looking at the cost of making a Bitcoin transactio…

Did we read the same article?

Just because someone doesn't agree with your view of the world doesn't automatically make them untrustworthy. From your perspective, maybe lives are more important than freedoms and you are willing to limit some freedoms temporarily or permanently if it means saving more lives. From someone else's perspective, maybe freedom is more important than lives, and they are willing to let some people (including themselves) die in order to avoid temporary or permanent limits on existing freedoms.

I think the point of the article is that if you suppress your instinct to mistrust people who think differently than you, your community will avoid incurring the social and economic costs that would otherwise accumulate.

Re: The high price of mistrust

#16

Post by ameminator » Mon, Jan 25, 2021, 4:17 PM UTC

roywiggins wrote: post #8

Part of the problem is that in, say, 5 years, you won't know who you meet was a weirdo anti-masker who you don't trust not to endanger the people around them. Nowadays it's quite easy to avoid these people, but once the current crisis abates they will go back to being visually indistinguishable. (unrelated, but the cost of zero-trust can be measured quite directly by looking at the cost of making a Bitcoin transactio…

I have been wrong about other issues in the past and it's with this frame of mind that think of these people. While I vehemently disagree with these anti-maskers, I also don't want to label them as "unter-menschen" forever. Maybe it's a good thing that living with people you disagree with, is a part of the social contract.

Re: The high price of mistrust

#17

Post by overton » Mon, Jan 25, 2021, 4:19 PM UTC

The framing of this piece itself is a symptom of the problem. Everything, including our social relationships apparently have to be "capital" that make us "productive." This amoral, economistic view of human life is what got us into this mess in the first place. Why would people trust each other in a system that essentially rewards sociopathy, avarice, greed, and deception? It's telling that they can't provide a better prescription than "we should just trust each other more."

Re: The high price of mistrust

#18

Post by roywiggins » Mon, Jan 25, 2021, 4:21 PM UTC

umvi wrote: post #15

roywiggins wrote: post #8

Part of the problem is that in, say, 5 years, you won't know who you meet was a weirdo anti-masker who you don't trust not to endanger the people around them. Nowadays it's quite easy to avoid these people, but once the current crisis abates they will go back to being visually indistinguishable. (unrelated, but the cost of zero-trust can be measured quite directly by looking at the cost of making a Bitcoin transactio…

Did we read the same article? Just because someone doesn't agree with your view of the world doesn't automatically make them untrustworthy. From your perspective, maybe lives are more important than freedoms and you are willing to limit some freedoms temporarily or permanently if it means saving more lives. From someone else's perspective, maybe freedom is more important than lives, and they are willing to let some p…

Other people not wearing a mask makes me less safe. I don't know why I would want to trust such people. If they can't even take a basic precaution during a deadly pandemic then their judgement seems dangerously impaired. I don't trust them because I don't think they're trustworthy.

Even if masks didn't work, stubborn refusal to wear them is nearly as bad- people should wear the even if they are skeptical on the effectiveness just in case they do work, because doing small things to possibly help your neighbors is part of the social contract.

I'm not talking about forcing people to wear masks, I'm talking about not trusting the people who don't voluntarily wear masks.

Re: The high price of mistrust

#19

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jan 25, 2021, 4:22 PM UTC

umvi wrote: post #15

roywiggins wrote: post #8

Part of the problem is that in, say, 5 years, you won't know who you meet was a weirdo anti-masker who you don't trust not to endanger the people around them. Nowadays it's quite easy to avoid these people, but once the current crisis abates they will go back to being visually indistinguishable. (unrelated, but the cost of zero-trust can be measured quite directly by looking at the cost of making a Bitcoin transactio…

Did we read the same article? Just because someone doesn't agree with your view of the world doesn't automatically make them untrustworthy. From your perspective, maybe lives are more important than freedoms and you are willing to limit some freedoms temporarily or permanently if it means saving more lives. From someone else's perspective, maybe freedom is more important than lives, and they are willing to let some p…

[deleted]

Re: The high price of mistrust

#20

Post by roywiggins » Mon, Jan 25, 2021, 4:23 PM UTC

ameminator wrote: post #16

roywiggins wrote: post #8

Part of the problem is that in, say, 5 years, you won't know who you meet was a weirdo anti-masker who you don't trust not to endanger the people around them. Nowadays it's quite easy to avoid these people, but once the current crisis abates they will go back to being visually indistinguishable. (unrelated, but the cost of zero-trust can be measured quite directly by looking at the cost of making a Bitcoin transactio…

I have been wrong about other issues in the past and it's with this frame of mind that think of these people. While I vehemently disagree with these anti-maskers, I also don't want to label them as "unter-menschen" forever. Maybe it's a good thing that living with people you disagree with, is a part of the social contract.

"wearing a mask during a deadly pandemic" is a really simple thing to do to demonstrate willingness to sign on to a social compact. Fortunately, almost everyone I see in my neighborhood does. I generally feel positively towards my actual neighbors. But based on conversations with friends elsewhere, this is not universally true.

I don't know if I could ever move to an area that didn't have high mask compliance during all this.

It's like living with someone who doesn't think playing with matches is a stupid risk to take. One day the house might burn down. It would be safer to live alone, or with people with similar attitudes to not playing with fire.