Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The high price of mistrust

fs.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 285 posts

Re: The high price of mistrust

#251

Post by mikem170 »

randompwd wrote: post #197
b0rsuk wrote: post #172

Generally the farther east you go in the countries of the former Soviet block, the less trust there is. Poland has low trust, but it's a lot lower in Russia and if you smile to strangers you may get sullen glances or insults. When I had a sprained ankle and was walking to the doctor with walking sticks, a car stopped by and I was asked if I want a ride. The question was in English. It's a moment like that when you re…

> One youtube talk I watched listed that as a sure sign democracy is under attack in a country. How does that have any legitimacy? There's no bar as to who can post on youtube.

>It's worst when governments demonize journalists and media. One youtube talk I watched listed that as a sure sign democracy is under attack in a country.

I don't understand your response to this. A democracy is the will of the people. In general it is not ok when politicians collude to marginalize or silence the free speech of the people they are supposed to represent. This is what totalitarian regimes do.

It would be better to talk to people and attempt to really understand them rather than demonize them.

Re: The high price of mistrust

#252

Post by the_jeremy »

zamfi wrote: post #247
m463 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing I took away from the beginning of Matt Ridley's book Rational Optimism is that with trust, commerce is unlimited. And here we are stuck in this world where the computer in your pocket is untrustworthy, and you can't tell a useful benign app from an app trying to upload your life. and it's a shame.

> you can't tell a useful benign app from an app trying to upload your life. This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but it appears only 32% [0] of people care enough about privacy to switch to a service that preserves it. I suspect an even lower percentage know that apps on their phones might even be trying to upload their lives. This is not the source of "mistrust". [0]: https://hbr.org/2020/01/do-you-care-about-…

I strongly disagree with your take on that survey. For one, it only mentions switching, not removing something (like social media) from your life. I have not switched providers because I found one that was more private. I have deleted facebook.

Re: The high price of mistrust

#253

Post by roenxi »

zamfi wrote: post #247
m463 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing I took away from the beginning of Matt Ridley's book Rational Optimism is that with trust, commerce is unlimited. And here we are stuck in this world where the computer in your pocket is untrustworthy, and you can't tell a useful benign app from an app trying to upload your life. and it's a shame.

> you can't tell a useful benign app from an app trying to upload your life. This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but it appears only 32% [0] of people care enough about privacy to switch to a service that preserves it. I suspect an even lower percentage know that apps on their phones might even be trying to upload their lives. This is not the source of "mistrust". [0]: https://hbr.org/2020/01/do-you-care-about-…

To be fair on those 68% who "don't care" they can't tell if they are using something that cares about their privacy or not.

Imagine two options of (1) an organisation who claims to do the right things and (2) an organisation who makes no claims. Picking either option could be a rational response for someone who cares about privacy. Any strategy has to account for the existence of liers/incompetents who claim to do something then don't.

To make privacy conscious decisions requires monitoring many information channels and having a nuanced understanding of the history and motivations of the people involved. That is too hard to do for most rational people. They need clearer support outlining what they are meant to be doing than what they get.

Re: The high price of mistrust

#254

Post by sershe »

As someone who grew up in very low trust country, I have to point out in response to several other comments that trust is also not natural. Trust needs to be fostered and guarded, and one sure-fire way in which it erodes in people is if they see norms being violated with impunity. That both makes it more acceptable for people to violate norms (like that riot paper I can't find now, where they found each person would throw a rock if they saw N people around them throwing rocks, so it's a cascade of higher and higher Ns); but also more importantly creates a cynical attitude in those who won't violate the norms that their chief goal is to protect their own well-being from bad/stupid people, the rest be damned (the bad and stupid people might as well suffer, and the others, well I guess they should just also fend for themselves).

This applies on all levels from govt corruption, to e.g. neighborhood care. Russian cities are full of shabby-looking flats ("condos") with cars parked on the lawn, the playgrounds that are lightly vandalized, and dirty unmaintained common areas; however, many of the cars are luxury and if you visit someone you'd see they have a nice (if small) pad even by Western standards. And probably a steel door. That is because you see people treating common areas like crap, so at worst you also treat them like crap ("everyone parks on the lawn!"), and at best you retreat into your own little world and make it perfect, outside and everyone else be damned, and traversing from your flat to your car becomes sort of a tolerable necessary evil, who cares what it looks like.

I've been thinking about this a lot given the recent deterioration of the West coast cities. I've definitely become much more lower trust than I used to be, and I realized another reason I don't like houses is that you cannot just put a steel door in and be mostly safe from crime - too many entry points :)

Re: The high price of mistrust

#255

Post by mikem170 »

elgfare wrote: post #28

This rings extremely true for me. I live in Norway, which in my experience is significantly more trusting than most other places, and it's wonderful. We do have other transaction costs though, like a fear of "bothering" each other. Different problem, similar effect.

I'm curious, do you think that a high-trust culture tends to be more conformist? I wonder if the two go together.

Re: The high price of mistrust

#256

Post by CGamesPlay »

b0rsuk wrote: post #172

Generally the farther east you go in the countries of the former Soviet block, the less trust there is. Poland has low trust, but it's a lot lower in Russia and if you smile to strangers you may get sullen glances or insults. When I had a sprained ankle and was walking to the doctor with walking sticks, a car stopped by and I was asked if I want a ride. The question was in English. It's a moment like that when you re…

> Generally the farther east you go in the countries of the former Soviet block, the less trust there is. Poland has low trust, but it's a lot lower in Russia and if you smile to strangers you may get sullen glances or insults.

This has absolutely not been my experience living for the past 1.5 years in Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and most recently Russia (but Siberia). Almost everyone I meet is still friendly once speaking, although I think in Russia the willingness to talk to strangers is much less than the other countries.

I'm guessing most of the experiences you're actually noticing that trust is lower in cities than in rural areas: the two major "European" Russian cities are both over 5 times larger than Poland's largest city.

Re: The high price of mistrust

#257

Post by [deleted] »

ndiscussion wrote: post #70

Seeing 1950's America is heartbreaking for me. I grew up in the 90s, and I never saw a trusted society. https://www.radiogunk.com/forums/index.php?threads/1950s-ame... Where's the broken glass? The needles, the poop? The stumbling drunks harassing the young women? The masses of tents where children used to play? What the fuck has happened to us?

[deleted]

Re: The high price of mistrust

#258

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

robocat wrote: post #242
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, "meritocracy" was brought into the common lexicon in the 1960s, specifically as an alternative to existing forms of social structure. A system where it did not matter which school you went to, in particular. I do not read the GP as being satirical in their use, although the use of quotes makes it somewhat unclear.

No. dragonwriter is referencing the original history of the word. The author Michael Young who coined the word in 1958 was using it in his book to show everything wrong with a “merit” based system, as he explains here: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment This gives a good background: https://kottke.org/17/03/the-satirical-origins-of-the-merito...

"Michael Young popularised but did not coin the term “meritocracy”. That came in 1956, two years before his book, when in the magazine Socialist Commentary (to which Young contributed) the industrial sociologist Alan Fox put the word in quotation marks and defined it as “the society in which the gifted, the smart, the energetic, the ambitious and the ruthless are carefully sifted out and helped towards their destined positions of dominance, where they proceed not only to enjoy the fulfilment of exercising their natural endowments but also to receive a fat bonus thrown in for good measure”.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/21/michael-youn...

Re: The high price of mistrust

#259

Post by aww_dang »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #169
aww_dang wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what I've found incredibly healthy and liberating about less developed countries. Nobody believes politicians or assumes that government has their best interests in mind. That level of trust appears as a toxic mythology from my perspective. Instead they look for their own solutions.

So your assessment of the benefits of several hundred years of continuous political culture, along with a semi-continuous chain of protest movements, in "developed" countries is ... "meh" ?? Cynicism at this level does nothing but ensure that your worst take on government is what we actually get.

Perhaps it would help if I elaborated. I feel that you're filling in the blanks with some of your own projections.

The locals here openly accept money for voting. Politicians and bureaucrats are widely regarded as liars and cheats. The government's authority is checked by continuous protests. Government officials don't want to rock the boat or create further instability.

Similarly, the people have very little interest in politics. There's not constant bickering or hyperbolic demonization. Political fights don't permeate every sphere of life.

Everyone mostly stays in their own lane.

Yes, corruption is a problem here. Corruption is also a problem in the US. However the barrier to entry is higher. K street lobbyists don't come cheaply.

Yes, the government is ineffective. The question is, do the people want it to be effective? Even the private sphere is similarly ineffective. That's just a cultural norm, separate from the relationship to government.

Re: The high price of mistrust

#260

Post by yrimaxi »

wahern wrote: post #217
yrimaxi wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chomsky has explained that the counter-culture of the 60’s was viewed as the “crisis of democracy” by the Trilateral Commission. An excess of democracy: special interests like women, the elderly, environmentalists, ethnic minorities, and so on were trying to enter the public arena. In short: the general population. (What is a non-special interest? Business interests.) It is completely illogical to immediately conclud…

> Chomsky has explained that the counter-culture of the 60’s was viewed as the “crisis of democracy” by the Trilateral Commission. An excess of democracy: special interests like women, the elderly, environmentalists, ethnic minorities, and so on were trying to enter the public arena. In short: the general population. The problem is with the rhetoric. You don't need to daemonize the system to reform it. For example, A…

So you’re just going to whine about tone? Not even try to argue for or against what I have put forth?
Post reply on HN