bdang
New Member
Posts: 17 
|
Post by bdang on Apr 19, 2016 6:03:33 GMT
In "The Neuroeconomics of Trust" and "Do economists need brains?" articles, the concept of trust and its application to practical decision-making are discussed. Trust appears to be a mutually benefiting phenomenon, both sides are typically better off when putting their trust in another person. Paul Zak came to the conclusion that if trust in the U.S. increased, average income would increase as a result. These behavioral principles can be applied to the most basic economic principles. In economic theory, trade always benefits both sides. Therefore, trade is a mutually benefiting process, just like trust. In trade, both sides trust each other that they are maximizing resources and efficiency due to the exchange. It seems to be implied that humans naturally trust others.
Both articles also mention how human decisions are influenced by social contexts. We may put our trust in someone with hope that they will reciprocate that trust. Likewise, we are more likely to trust someone who has shown their trust in us. In this instance, trust is earned based on the context warranting cooperation. We may fall into a specific action based on how we believe others perceive us, whether positively or negatively.
Nowadays, not many parents would freely allow their young kids to walk around the neighborhood by themselves unsupervised, compared to the standard of when our parents were children. If people are statistically more trustworthy than not, how does that explain the changing social norms that appear to reflect a decrease in trustworthiness? Is trust innate? Or is it socially developed?
Furthermore, if we are not trusting of others, does this inhibit our ability to survive from an evolutionary standpoint?
|
|
rkipp
New Member
Posts: 34 
|
Post by rkipp on Apr 19, 2016 22:23:03 GMT
This idea of trusting others makes me think of how the growing competition in society has effected whom we trust. For example, we live in a very competitive world where many people want to be the best, but only few can. Sometimes, in order to be the best, people feel like they need to betray others. While other times, forming connections with others can greatly help you get ahead. When everyone is qualified for a job, for instance, if you know someone connected to the job, you may have a better chance of getting it.
I notice this clash between trusting others and doing what's best for yourself during "Networking Nights" here at UCLA. People are there to establish connections/trust with potential employers, yet the students are all individually fighting for their own job.
What i'm trying to get at is the idea that we need trust and connections to survive because that's how we better society and better ourselves (i.e. getting a job through building a trustworthy relationship with an employer), however, in today's competitive society, we need to be smarter with whom we trust because unfortunately many people have selfish motives (i.e. they want the same job as you and are willing to compete for it). In regards to the networking night scenario, students may either try to talk to the employer all night so that you cannot, or the student could trust you and you both could try to help each other find a job). This idea could be related to Nash's equilibrium game theory - do what's best for yourself and the group.
|
|
|
|
Post by larissa on Apr 20, 2016 4:49:31 GMT
This same concept of trusting each other reminds me of the Prisoners' Dilemma. It would benefit both prisoners to trust each other and remain silent. However, as rkipp mentions, there is a clash between trusting others and doing what's best for yourself. If the prisoners' were to pick what was best for themselves, they could risk ending up with a larger jail sentence.  This could be because we are sometimes paranoid that the other person might betray us, so we end up just thinking about how to "get ahead". |
|
|
|
Post by emmajessicalin on Apr 20, 2016 4:55:52 GMT
In response to your last question -- I think it's all about balance. Those who are overly trusting and those who are overly skeptical would both fair less well (from an evolutionary standpoint) than someone who was more in the middle of the spectrum. If you're overly trusting, you'll have a greater risk of being deceived or harmed, thus decreasing your ability to survive. If you're overly skeptical, you'll be engaging in less mutually beneficial relationships built on trust, thus harming your ability to survive as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by eddiegonz on Apr 20, 2016 5:17:49 GMT
Ima put it in superhero context, because superheroes are cool and who doesn't like them. In heroes such as Batman, Superman, Green Arrow, Flash, Jessica Jones, etc. we see this concept of trust cemented by the inhabitants of the specific city to the specific hero. But why? I think the whole innate approach cannot solely explain why people truly trust this person. This trust is something is built through the observation of the person. People in Gotham city trust that Batman will save them because of the numerous times he has stopped the villains. He is capable of such actions and therefore people can trust him more easily. The whole economic approach that everyone wins from this "trust" can be seen through Superman feeling comfortable that the people are able to accept him as part of society and he is recognized for being a positive influence on an area and bringing a better change. But of course there will always be the skeptics that will question whether Superman is good. I mean if he protects everyone, what's from stopping him from going on a rampage one day and destroying the city. These ideas arise because we are never certain about what other's intentions are. We are only aware of what we are capable of doing and our imagine can run free sometimes, so you can only imagine what others are capable of. And thats natural. We are protective because we want what's best for us or the community and when you trust someone, you not only do you make yourself more vulnerable to attack, you put the care of your own person in the hands of someone other than yourself and thats scary at times. Of course superheroes may be easier to trust given their history helping out but even they fall victim to bad things. No matter how perfect one may seem, no one is truly perfect and therefore can trust truly be eternal? Much like the trades that people do, the trust may only be temporary so its better to be careful who you trust and what you trust them with.
|
|
|
|
Post by hrhunter on Apr 21, 2016 20:59:15 GMT
Maybe people are becoming less trustworthy because people are becoming seemingly less deserving of trust. Like with your "parents don't let their kids wander the streets alone anymore" example, with the amount of crime that is portrayed on the news, it would be shocking if parents did let their kids run amuck without their presence.
|
|
bdang
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by bdang on Apr 21, 2016 21:07:37 GMT
rkipp That is an interesting point about your "Networking Nights" example. I would have never looked at opportunities like that in that scope. It seems that no matter who you trust, you are always competing against someone else inadvertently. In competitive times, being overly trusting might lead to your downfall, no matter how much faith you put in a person. Perhaps having a little greed to go along with ambition is what is required to take the next step in life. Being passive and trusting could prevent you from reaching certain goals.
|
|
bdang
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by bdang on Apr 21, 2016 21:41:39 GMT
larissa I agree with your example of the prisoners' dilemma. For both parties, trust is beneficial. But when faced with a possible consequence, pursuing personal gain sometimes outweighs the cost of abandoning a peer. Morally, it may not be right, but the individual gains. This also brings up another question. Can there ever be two winners? Or is there always one winner at the expense of the loser?
|
|
