View source for Trust (social science) - Wikipedia
View source for Trust (social science)
← Trust (social science)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:
Your IP address is in a range that has been blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis.
The block was made by Jon Kolbert (meta.wikimedia.org).
The reason given is Open Proxy: Webhost: Contact stewards if you are affected .
Start of block: 20:12, 23 July 2019
Expiry of block: 20:12, 23 January 2022
Your current IP address is 40.76.139.33 and the blocked range is 40.76.0.0/16.
Please include all above details in any queries you make.
If you believe you were blocked by mistake, you can find additional information and instructions in the No open proxies global policy.
Otherwise, to discuss the block please post a request for review on Meta-Wiki or send an email to the stewards OTRS queue at stewards@wikimedia.org including all above details.
You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia.
You are still able to view pages, but you are not currently able to edit, move, or create them.
Editing from 40.76.0.0/16 has been blocked (disabled) by SQL for the following reason(s):
The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider or colocation provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts and colocation providers may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You will not be able to edit Wikipedia using a web host or colocation provider.
Since the web host acts like a proxy or VPN, because it hides your IP address, it has been blocked. We recommend that you attempt to use another connection to edit. For example, if you use a proxy or VPN to connect to the internet, turn it off when editing Wikipedia. If you edit using a mobile connection, try using a Wi-Fi connection, and vice versa. If you have a Wikipedia account, please log in. If you do not have any other way to edit Wikipedia, you will need to request an IP block exemption.
If you do not believe you are using a web host, you may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is _______. Place any further information here. ~~~~}}. You must fill in the blank with your IP address for this block to be investigated. Your IP address can be determined using whatismyip.com. Alternatively, if you wish to keep your IP address private you can use the unblock ticket request system. If you are using a Wikipedia account, you will need to request an IP block exemption by either using the unblock template or by submitting an appeal using the unblock ticket request system.
Administrators: The IP block exemption user right should only be applied to allow users to edit using web host in exceptional circumstances, and requests should usually be directed to the functionaries team via email. If you intend to give the IPBE user right, a CheckUser needs to take a look at the account. This can be requested most easily at SPI Quick Checkuser Requests. Unblocking an IP or IP range with this template is highly discouraged without at least contacting the blocking administrator.
This block has been set to expire: 16:25, 2 June 2023.
Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and email other editors and administrators.
Other useful links: Blocking policy · Username policy ·
Appealing blocks: policy and guide
If the block notice is unclear, or it does not appear to relate to your actions, please ask for assistance as described at Help:I have been blocked.
You can view and copy the source of this page:
==Philosophy==
Whilst many philosophers have written about different forms of trust, most would agree interpersonal trust is the foundation on which these forms can be modeled.[{{Cite journal|last=Lagerspetz|first=Olli|date=1998|title=Trust: The Tacit Demand|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8986-4|journal=Library of Ethics and Applied Philosophy|volume=1|doi=10.1007/978-94-015-8986-4|isbn=978-90-481-4963-6|issn=1387-6678}}] [[Diego Gambetta|Gambetta]] argued it is the inherent belief that others generally have good intentions which is the foundation for our reliance on them.[{{Cite journal|last=Gambetta|first=Diego|date=2000|title=Can We Trust Trust?|journal=Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations|publisher=Department of Sociology, University of Oxford|pages=213–237}}] Philosophers such as [[Annette Baier]] have contended this view, establishing a difference between trust and reliance by saying that trust can be betrayed, whilst reliance can only be disappointed (Baier 1986, 235).[{{cite journal|author=Baier, Annette|date=1986|title=Trust and Antitrust|journal=Ethics|volume=96 | issue = 2 |pages=231–260|jstor=2381376|doi=10.1086/292745|s2cid=159454549}}] Carolyn McLeod explains Baier's argument by giving the following examples: we can rely on our clock to give the time, but we do not feel betrayed when it breaks, thus, we cannot say that we trusted it; we are not trusting when we are suspicious of the other person, because this is in fact an expression of distrust (McLeod 2006).[{{cite book|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/trust/|title=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|first=Carolyn|last=McLeod|editor-first=Edward N.|editor-last=Zalta|year=2017|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University|accessdate=29 October 2017|via=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy}}] The violation of trust warrants this sense of betrayal.[{{Cite journal|last=Hawley|first=Katherine|date=2012-10-25|title=Trust, Distrust and Commitment|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nous.12000|journal=Noûs|volume=48|issue=1|pages=1–20|doi=10.1111/nous.12000|hdl=10023/3430|issn=0029-4624}}] Thus, trust is different from reliance in the sense that a trustor accepts the risk of being betrayed.
Karen Jones proposed that there is an emotional aspect to trust, an element of [[optimism]][{{Citation|last=Jones|first=Karen|title=Trust as an Affective Attitude|date=2005|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-20409-6_11|work=Personal Virtues|pages=253–279|place=London|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan UK|doi=10.1007/978-0-230-20409-6_11|isbn=978-1-4039-9455-4|access-date=2020-11-01}}] that the trustee will do the right thing by the trustor, also described as affective trust.[{{Cite book|last=Faulkner|first=Paul|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199589784.001.0001|title=Knowledge on Trust|date=2011|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-958978-4|doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199589784.001.0001}}] Though, in some circumstances, we trust others even without the optimistic expectation, instead hoping the mere recognition that the person is being trusted in itself will prompt the favorable action. This is known as therapeutic trust[{{Cite journal|last=Horsburgh|first=H. J. N.|date=1960-10-01|title=The Ethics of Trust|url=https://academic.oup.com/pq/article/10/41/343/1505699|journal=The Philosophical Quarterly|language=en|volume=10|issue=41|pages=343–354|doi=10.2307/2216409|jstor=2216409|issn=0031-8094}}][{{Cite journal|last=Pettit|first=Philip|date=1995|title=The Cunning of Trust|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2961900|journal=Philosophy & Public Affairs|volume=24|issue=3|pages=202–225|doi=10.1111/j.1088-4963.1995.tb00029.x|jstor=2961900|issn=0048-3915}}] and gives both the trustee a reason to be trustworthy, and the trustor a reason to believe they are trustworthy. In these situations, the sense of betrayal upon violation of trust is commonly warranted.
The definition of trust as a belief in something or a confident expectation about something["trust." Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. 25 May. 2013.] eliminates the notion of risk, because it does not include whether the expectation or belief is favorable or unfavorable. For example, to have an expectation of a friend arriving to dinner late because she has habitually arrived late for the last fifteen years, is a confident expectation (whether or not we agree with her annoying late arrivals). The trust is not about what we wish for, but rather it is in the consistency of the data of our habits. As a result, there is no risk or sense of betrayal because the data now exists as collective knowledge. Faulkner