Content
@
https://thenetworkstate.com
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Ben
@benersing
I've been thinking a lot lately about how to scale Trust. Tech solutions are great, but often gamed. Identifying people who are trustworthy most of the time, is relatively easy. What's hard is cultivating disincentives to minimize the likelihood of untrustworthy behavior in edge cases. 1/2
5 replies
0 recast
12 reactions
Ben
@benersing
How one weights the various components of Trust is also variable. A trustworthy person could mean something slightly different to me than to you. Ultimately it's a group that defines it for itself. But with deep social ties disintegrating in the west, how are we then to address the Trust deficit that has emerged? 2/
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Ben
@benersing
Maybe the answer lies in looking backwards in order to move forward? To the models underpinning the trusted civil society organizations of prior generations: the Elks, Masons, Knights Templar, Boy Scouts of America, etc. to name a few. 3/
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Ben
@benersing
Organizations that emphasized shared values, ethics, and vision. That went beyond religion, political affiliation, or ethnicity. But even then, many died out because of lost Trust. So that in itself isn’t the solution. I’ll continue pulling on this thread. In the meantime, what’s your take? 4/4
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
Ben
@benersing
[Cntd.] What if the answer lies in the group admittance process more so than the behavioral incentives once admitted? For example, no one is perfect - at some point everyone will violate Trust. 5/
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
Nth OG
@nthog.eth
that creates obedience, not trust
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Ben
@benersing
Say more?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
