|
|
Post by elipshutz on Apr 17, 2016 4:16:33 GMT
In "The Neuroeconomics of Trust" the argument is made that people who are more trusting tend to be happier. This plays onto the idea, that as humans, we are social beings and motivated by our interactions. Our lives are not isolated, and whether we like it or not, our actions influence and are influenced by other people. Similarly, we tend to care about how other people respond to our actions. Despite the article stating that trusting people are happier, it still can be very difficult to get oneself to fully trust. I know personally i have a hard time trusting people, even if they have done nothing in the past that would suggest they are untrustworthy. Although I know it would be more beneficial often times to have more confidence in others, I find it difficult to do so. I read another article that talks not about trusting others, but rather being generous towards others. In this article is claims that people get more satisfaction when they spend money on others, than when they do on themselves. This follows the idea that how we feel and act towards others can have a positive or negative impact on our emotions in a way that we would not normally think. Typically, people assume it will be more rewarding to spend money on themselves than others, when in fact it is the opposite. Despite knowing this, their is still always an urge to be selfish and spend money on something that you personally want, instead of what your friend wants. Article: positivepsychologyprogram.com/spending-money-can-promotes-happiness/Both with trusting and generosity there is a desire to do something that will not always cause joy. My question is have you ever found yourself in a situation where you wanted to be more trustworthy or generous, yet there was something stopping you? Also, why do you think as humans we tend to be happier when we are more trustworthy and generous? |
|
|
|
Post by rebeccah on Apr 17, 2016 6:57:23 GMT
I agree that the more trusting or generous someone is, the happier they will be. As discussed in class, giving presents makes a person happier than receiving a gift in the long-term. Also, with trust, it's easier to be happy when you aren't suspicious of everyone around you and you will tend to look on the more positive side of things, like a glass half full mindset. The whole idea of trustworthiness is seeing the good in people, so you are less likely to pay mind to the negative aspects of someone or all of the ways in which they might hurt you in the future. Seeing someone in this light is simply not a healthy way to live and will definitely take a toll on one's happiness.
|
|
|
|
Post by elipshutz on Apr 17, 2016 21:59:02 GMT
When do you think are times though when it is better to be untrustworthy? Or do you think that people should be trusting all the time?
|
|
|
|
Post by connorthompson on Apr 17, 2016 22:13:06 GMT
elipshutz I definitely think there are times when it is beneficial to be slightly untrustworthy of others. The Neuroeconomics piece said that in countries with lower levels of trust, there are often corrupt institutions, high degrees of income/racial/educational diversity, and thus a general sense of greater unhappiness. The article mentioned how in Brazil, there was only a 5% level of perceived trust amongst the population. This could be due to a lack of enforcement in agreements, and a high level of corruption. Thus, if one were to go into Brazil with mindset that everyone is trustworthy (ie 66% in Sweden), they'll probably be taken advantage of.
|
|
|
|
Post by rebeccah on Apr 17, 2016 23:22:53 GMT
I agree that it definitely depends on the environment you are living in. The article emphasized that people's trustworthiness depended on biological, social, legal, and economic environments. Obviously, it would be ideal to always be trustworthy for our own happiness, but some in societies individuals will benefit more from being more wary. However, for the betterment of the society as a whole, trustworthiness always seems to be more beneficial.
|
|
paola
New Member
Posts: 34 
|
Post by paola on Apr 18, 2016 6:20:30 GMT
I mostly agree with the fact that the more trusting one is, the happier one will be. As Rebeccah mentioned, trusting others can promote positivity by seeing the good in others and by ignoring the bad. In a way, by fully trusting someone, we are implicitly agreeing to overlook the doubts we might have had about him or her (e.g. doubts about their flaws, their past, their first-impression, etc.). As I write such, I think about the following statement: “the less we know, the better”. If you think about it, the less we know about something, the less chance we get at learning something negative about it. If we read the news less (which, after weighing its benefits and drawbacks, we should not do), for example, we would be less informed of the atrocities that happen around the world. We’d be more content knowing we live in a seemingly safe world. But knowing this means not knowing the truth - which could also be a bad thing. Therefore I think it is important to consider the bad in certain people/ situations when deciding whether to give someone or something our full trust. It’s very context-specific.
Briefly, what I'm trying to say is that, although being trustworthy would provide us with increased happiness, it would also cause us to overlook possible risks to our well being. We should not be submissive to others and simply adhere to the information others give us. After all, it is in our nature to be wary of our surroundings. We should not let our happiness impair our judgments of safety.
|
|
|
|
Post by elipshutz on Apr 18, 2016 15:59:10 GMT
If the argument is in order to be trustworthy we have to have little knowledge on the people and the situation, then I think it is foolish to always be trustworthy. With the news, although the topics are not always cheery, it is important to stay informed. People need to be educated on the good and the bad in order to get a true picture of the world. Following that, in order to fully understand people, someone must learn there good attributes as well as there flaws. As humans, we have flaws, and ignoring them does not cause them to disappear. A part of trust is recognizing someones flaws and assuming that they will still behave correctly, in spite of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by krish97 on Apr 18, 2016 19:48:43 GMT
As mentioned in the articles we've read, I believe that the level of trustworthiness and generosity I give to people depends on the situation and environment that we're put in. As an economic figure, I have to make a decision on whether trusting another individual will lead to a substantial gain that is worth taking a risk for in the first place. Think of the prisoner's dilemma scenario and matrix:
|
| Prisoner A |
|
| (A,B) | Truth | Lie | | Prisoner B | Truth | (3.3) | (0.10) |
| Lie | (10,0) | (7,7) |
Clearly the most ideal scenario for both prisoners would be if they trusted each other and told the truth, earning them each 3 years. However, the risk is quite high since either prisoner could screw the other over, earning the liar no jail time and the truth teller 10 years. Therefore, the economically rationed decision for both prisoners is to lie - this is called Nash equilibrium (highlighted in red). However, consider another situation:
|
| Prisoner A |
|
| (A,B) | Truth | Lie | | Prisoner B | Truth | (0,0) | (0,3) |
| Lie | (3,0) | (3,3) |
Here, either prisoner doesn't really have much to lose by telling the truth. If you tell the truth or lie, you're either going to be free or get 3 years - there's no real economic loss to either decision as an individual. BUT, this assumes that whatever happens to your partner in crime doesn't effect you. If you have a grudge against the guy (maybe he/she got you in this mess in the first place) you'll be better off telling a lie since the other person will be guaranteed at least 3 years. However, if you as an individual don't care about the other prisoner, you'd be best off telling the truth. This is because you don't really have anything to lose - your odds of having no jail time are the same as if you had lied (assuming the other guy doesn't care about you either). The conclusion I'm trying to reach here is that we have this economic battle in our head every time we make such decisions. We have to weigh up whether being generous or trustworthy is worth the risk of "getting screwed". In the second scenario there was no perceived "risk" to the individual - it was an idealized model. The truth is that there are scenarios that involve a little bit of risk in trusting the other partner (prisoner/whatever). Since we all have different levels of what a reasonable amount of risk is, we all have different strategies for different scenarios. All in all, I believe a person's ability to trust or be generous directly depends on their willingness to take risks. In other words, I'd appear to be more trusting if I was more willing to take the risk of being screwed. To answer your question, I believe we as humans tend to be happier when we are more trustworthy and generous because we are able to maximize the outcome for both ourselves and society when we do so. We avoid the "less efficient" Nash equilibrium and achieve a greater level of economic utility for the entirety of society. It's almost as if we cheat the system, disobeying the laws that govern machine like decisions and allow ourselves to be free. Also it's nice not to be screwed. -Krish |
|
|
|
Post by elipshutz on Apr 20, 2016 4:08:17 GMT
Thats really interesting how you made it into an economic model.
Do you think there is any way the government or people in general can promote this idea of trust?
|
|
|
|
Post by eddiegonz on Apr 20, 2016 4:56:10 GMT
Its really interesting because sometimes we change our attitudes and our behavior because we are under the impression that other people are watching and judging what Im saying, doing, etc. Yet we can be completely different with those friends and family members were close with. It interesting how people can be a completely different person when outside and talking to different people (almost as if they put a fake image of themselves out there) and yet here they are a completely different person when talking to their best friend. We can control we we decide to tell people and how we want to present ourselves around them. With people we trust, we are often more confiding and will tell them more personal stuff because we feel comfortable and know they wont judge us. Thats why i can say, "I can tell you anything because I feel like we've reached that part in our relationship and idk if i can trust anyone else. This "level" is quite dangerous because you only make yourself more vulnerable to be broken down. This is the struggle with true trust. Is trust something we can keep forever or is it just a temporary thing? we may think at one point that our closest friends would never hurt us, but the reality is we really don't know. This whole idea of trust is based on our interactions with other people and how we can feel comfortable with someone other than ourself.
I think trust is something that is quite malleable and isn't necessary to be happy if society was structured differently. I think the fact that we live in a society where we are often required to socialize, trust is essential but only because society tells us that we need to trust other people. We need to trust that the doctor will cure us or that the cook will prepare a delicious dinner. We have just gone to accept that as reality and that is why we need to trust others...because without it, we wouldn't be able to interact with anyone in society. But no. What would happen if we weren't required to socialize or talk to others. Do we really need to trust them? This comes in conflict with the purpose of man. We are meant to survive and there is no room to trust. Its a difficult subject to address because obviously we interact and trust each other to live our lives happily, in this society at least. But sometimes we trust the wrong people because we are deceived by their false appearances and so we lose that faith of who we can truly trust. The idea that we are uncertain of what another's intentions truly are and how the future is unpredictable, we will never be able to 100% trust someone because there might be a "what if" question in our minds because humans' unpredictable behavior. You can be best friends with someone one day and then the next day they don't even know each other. Our thoughts and emotions may be correlated with how we trust someone at one point, but we are always changing the way we think with all the different things we are exposed to everyday. The trust we had yesterday can be completely different to the trust we hold today. And so we have to be careful to what extent we trust someone because the person you trusted yesterday may not be the same person you trust tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Post by hrhunter on Apr 21, 2016 20:46:37 GMT
I think that people tend to be happier when trusting more people because "ignorance is bliss." If we try to stray from the possibility that every single person has the potential to be manipulative and deceptive, we are going to live much happier lives.
|
|
