(BY REQUEST, RE-OPENED). This is a social question, with immediate technical relevance. Cybersecurity, for example, depends on this question, and trust as "reliance on expected behavior" [1,2].
A positive answer can be reached through control, you just turn-off the offending user. But, when control is not possible (example, the Internet), or as when central control does not even exist, trust evaporates if it is based solely on control (or, better yet, fear of control). However, can trust be based on other factors in addition to control, or even fear of control? Does that pose a better future for a society that accepts it?
What is your experience, reasoned expectations, or theory?
[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286459693_Toward_Real-World_Models_of_Trust_Reliance_on_Received_Information
[2] Kaplan, R. A matter of trust. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290815512_A_Matter_of_Trust
First, I think trust can be built on reciprocity, especially in communities with a long-term interaction among people. Of course, it could be reinforced by social control (if that is what you mean by "control") or even moral values.
Second, I think there is a dark side to social control, which seems rather rosy in your question. Social control, especially those related to political surveillance and ideological persecution, can actually erode people's trust in the state as well as their trust in each other. That happened in former Soviet-style societies.
Of course, obviously there appear to be two meanings associated with control. That's another point of discussion.
Hello,
Your answer seems to give good examples. Trust is earned, reciprocity is one way to earn trust, even in absolute monarchies in middle-age Europe. The "dark side" to social control does not really exist, it is a difficult but passing illusion, because even a "bad" use of it brings the seeds of its own demise, as we saw in Communist Germany, for example.
In some societies, if there is as a rule (say) that if one lives in an apartment building with more than three stories, one cannot shower after 9 pm and before 5 pm, because of potential noise to neighbors, there is no explicit cost if one disobeys but hardly anyone does. That would be an example, or if everyone likely wants to disobey the traffic lights late at night, because of potential robbery and the streets are empty, but the law has cameras with heavy fines if one disobeys, a conflict of rights can ensue -- the traffic law versus individual right to life.
I recommend a paper by Janowitz, which discusses the meaning of social control. His use of the term "social control" appears to be similar to yours. FYI.
Janowitz, M. (1975). "Sociological Theory and Social Control." American Journal of Sociology 81(1): 82-108.
Hello Feng and all,
Thank you. I got the reference you indicated. But there are cases, as I mentioned before, where there is no control possible, or where a central control, as exists in an hierarchy, does not exist nor can it be made to exist. The current net neutrality fear (pro and con) ignores that. It is a pseudo-fear, a story.
In the cases where there is social control, pseudo or real, I do not believe (belief here understood as "a probability that the evidence supports the claim", not as a guess or an opinion) in a dark side to social control. Even in the cases of Soviet controlled regimes, as East Germany was, the Stasi had informants but mathematics (a mathematical theorem) says that a covert channel can always be established, and remain invisible as desired, including changes to combat "noise" (e.g, attacks).
There is the hypothesis of a basic fairness, a chance that is the same for all. Rain does not fall to ruin corn seeds that are outside to dry, nor to make corn seeds grow when planted -- rain just falls.
Thus, there was no intrinsic favoritism in the actions of Soviet-era agents, no Midas touch, but a systematic response of chance, that I think one can see in history, dominated by some factors such as reciprocity, which we can control or fail to control. But even if one fails to control it, as in a closed-loop model that fails, it can be done in open-loop, it can use trust to inform about the next step.
The wider question of "control" include, I suggest, more than just considered by Janowitz. How can one define or at least foresee the next step? And, can it broken? At what cost? What happens if the cost to break is effectively zero in that slice?
Cheers, Ed Gerck
Society member who fails to conform to the rules of law should be condemned by society/community or punished properly. Justice must follows the rule of law!
Hello Ljbubomir,
Thank you. Many societies follow what you propose, but there are problems. As you have more rules, more than simple arithmetic, it was proven by Gödel that the system must be either incomplete (laws that do not cover a particular case, for example) or inconsistent (laws that conflict with each other).
This is basic flaw in legal arguments, and a "balance of rights" has to be considered -- albeit extra-legal itself. There are other problems, such as coercion and favour-selling, that can make the law an excuse for control (as the old Romans used to say), "to the friends everything, to the enemies the law."
Further, a car manufacturer can think, "a car stolen is a car sold", and use the law of mandatory insurance for a new sale, while the stolen car continues to bring profits in service and parts. It is about using the law to bring in more profits, and that is the law is made easier to break. Another example is regarding anti-immigration laws that benefit private and public prisons, paid by the state, while the state increases the number of those who can be imprisoned by making them illegal.
Cheers, Ed Gerck
in case you haven’t read them I strongly recommend Robert Axelrod’s 2 Books - ‘The evolution of cooperation‘ and ‘The Complexity of Cooperation’ (the latter being a collection of papers by him and his collaborators).
my own thesis on ‘The Logic of Trust’ is available on researchgate and contains a bibliography, as well as my own account of trust And cooperation. As others, (e.g. Luhmann, Barber) I use the term ‘trust’ to cover one of the possible basis for cooperation rather than a catch all for any underwriting of cooperation, so for example, I may cooperate with you because of profit guarantee by reciprocal interaction (e.g. iterated prisoners dilemma) but, in my terms, I may still not ‘trust’ you since I believe the cooperation would disappear if the specific circumstances or the reciprocity disappear.
Hello Will and all,
In your account of trust, you may consider trust to exist independently of cooperation. The agents may have incompatible objectives and laguage, for example
As another example, reciprocity can also exist without trust. For example, a vassal does not know what his Lord may do, or trust him nor distrust him, but the Lord must show reciprocity in protecting the vassal, otherwise farewell sovereignty (also known as "subjectio trahit", in law). They are not cooperating, as they have different objectives. Even absolutist monarchies obeyed this law, as in the trial of Charles I in England Middle Age, and governments today. There is no explicit cost demanded by the vassal or the Lord.
Likewise, if you offer a server connection to a client today, if there is no externally defined trust (e.g., a certificate that you trust) you will face more time to reduce risk, enven though they are collaborating (e., same internal network). The key thought here is that trust must follow in a different channel, not the same channel as the information, the collaboration. "Trust me" cannot induce trust, no matter how often or how long it is repeated.
The same seems to apply to the law, whether so-called just or injust, in that the social interactions will compute a path that minimizes the cost for everyone, making unrecognizable any explicit cost. This is, maybe, the final stage in that evolution.
Cheers, Ed Gerck
Hello Ed and others,
Ed, I think the lord and vassal in your example are participating in an iterated game, in the game theoretic sense of game, where the payoffs differ according to player. They may either be non-cooperating achieving the appropriate Nash equilibrium (i.e. the best they can do individually taking into account the possible moves of the other) or they might be cooperating (unlikely perhaps) and achieving a Pareto maximal solution (i.e. the best that can be achieved without making any other player worse off). One game theorist defined trust as “that which is required to transform a Nash equilibrium into a Pareto optimal solution”.
Studies of iterated prisoners dilemma games give some interesting insights into reward based schemes - willingness to cooperate is a disposition, i.e. a default position that leads to a cooperative opening move, cooperation is either accepted or reject by the move made in reply, cooperation continues as long as it is profitable for each party. The cooperative strategy is ‘best’ in the sense that it is the most profitable for the players if they are engaged in long term interaction and it is unknown when this interaction will end. Variations exist on the basic model to address direct and indirect reciprocity and various ways of knowing the reputation of different players e.g. random mixing, network connection etc. Martin Nowak‘s publications cover many of these models.
Hello Mutassenm,
Thank you for you view. But, just like democracy, the existence of things like TV advertising already prevents a fair view of issues and people. So, not everyone understands the same laws and obeys the same laws.
For example, a service that provides $19 loans to poor people, to spend on bus tickets to go to the city looking for jobs, looks good to the law and was cited by US NPR in good terms, but is an exploitation of a market unsuitable to understand compound interest, or loan obligations, while providing an advance cash sale and is pretty riskless to a bus company, all under legal protection. The bus company is under a different law, while offering loans to poor people thrives under another law.
Cheers, Ed Gerck
Maybe, the customary law should be considered, as it is in practice in different countries.
There is always some cost or sacrifice that needs to be paid for the successful implementation of every policy including the rule of law. However, rule of law must consider the views of all stakeholders, especially those of the rural folks who are often marginalized in high level government decisions. Rule of law must intertwine the good gems in the customary laws of the land. This would enhance its implementation by citizens in all the spheres of the country. Best regards
Dickson
Hello Dickson, Ljubomir, and all,
Thank you for your contributions.
Laws of different countries are often considered, for example in Brazil, to help resolve inconsistent or incomplete laws, which must always exist, as proven by Gödel. Other countries are reactive to this consideration, however, believing that their laws are "natural rights", such as Germany did in Nazi time, or East Germany in Soviet times.
There are laws that require no sacrifice of anyone, but many do. For example, to sacrifice by less of watering the garden in a long drought. But, with a social conscience approach, such sacrifice may come more naturally than when driven by water cost or fine. Considering all stakeholders should lead us to reduce sacrifice, even if just by attitude - fine or cost versus understanding of the social need. This requires an intersubjective view, not just myriad of subjective views in conflict, only taxable or punishable by law.
The Internet, a network of networks that can include every corner of the planet, not just States, seems to offer an optimum rule in its basic protocols -- be generous in what you accept, but strict in what you require.
By allowing, for example, many kinds of email headers, and body, to enter the system, the email protocol then reduces that variety in what it sends, thereby reducing the tax different people impose on the sytem (even if the cost charged is zero) and provides more varieties of successfull access at the same time. In India, for example, this can allow wireless Internet access to a wider population than would be possible with landlines, maybe ever.
The current US regulation against net neutrality seems to be a step in the wrong direction, regarding this Intermet
protocol rule, but both reaction and implementation will set in to reduce cost, for example by increasing variety and redundancy. There are lots of entrepreneur opportunities, to combat the new status quo, as well as an example of what does not work.
Cost, in this context, seems to play a similar role as Noise in communication systems. Noise seems inevitable, but can be reduced (Shannon 10th Theorem) to zero as closely as desired, by means of a correction channel. Noise, then, does not interfere with our communications, such as this posting, while it surely exists.
Perhaps a similar future can be pursued in Internet protocols mandated by countries, that backwardly try to maime its own citizens. The cost of national loss and lack of competitivity of its citzens, in being against net neutrality or encryption, for example, can become much larger than the gain in a few companies' profitability or government agencies control, as allowed by a new law.
Cheers, Ed Gerck
Cybercriminals who launch phishing campaigns and similar scams sometimes use events in the news to capture the attention of unsuspecting victims. And if they can play on your sympathies at the same time, so much the better. A new round of phishing attacks aims to steal cryptocurrency under the guise of requesting charitable donations toward the Ukrainian cause...
https://www.techrepublic.com/article/how-phishing-exploits-russian-invasion/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=techrepublic-news-special-offers
LJ: Everyone heard about King Midas. Everything people think seems to be about the use of money. However, life is about our use of time.
A transition will happen, has to happen, and we are in the cusp of it. When time becomes life, like RG motivates, we see a changed focus, and that is the reality of many already. Why?
Because there is no reaction without an action, and universal laws make the reaction counteract the action -- so, equilibrium is restored. Nothing is random. This law of cause-and-effect is in the micro and macro. Trust exists independently of cooperation, and reciprocity is the rule that even absolute kings must obey.
Therefore, we hope that the day comes when doing something wrong is impossible, like the orbits of planets and the movement of particles. Order is everywhere we see. This is not a coincidence, this is respect, mutual respect.
Without NATO, for example, there would be no Russia/Ukraine war. NATO should be dissolved. It does not help peace and wastes money, besides being an US intrusion in EU matters. Thus, we need to respect each other, more and more.
Otherwise, the future is bleak. And will cost more work and time. The solution is not King Midas. He can't eat nor drink, for example. The solution is mutual respect, the beginning of true love. What is good for me is what is good for others; what is not good for me is what is not good for others. Absolute reciprocity! This can bring an internet of love, a network of a network of love. It is our destiny, inevitable.
A PM asks we why not use "proper respect" instead of the more complicated "mutual respect" above.
What is "proper respect" for the King is not "proper respect" for the vassal! And vice-versa.
The word "proper" in "proper respect" can easily hide habit, money, power, prejudice, mischief, and even crime!
Absolute reciprocity requires the most strict mutual respect. The online life, itself, depends on reciprocity and mutual respect. The "big" word, well-known in psychology, is intersubjectivity.
We see that both Russia and Ukraine show to be reactive to the considerations in this question, however.
Believing that their laws are "natural rights", such as Germany did in Nazi time, or East Germany in Soviet times, they go to an insensitive war, to defend their "rights" to the bitter end. An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world goes blind (Gandhi).
They don't think that that there is a higher law in action, a law made by God. Not a religious God, not the "opium" of the poor, but manifest though the law of cause-and-effect.
The result is easy to predict. The present "revolution" or revolt, will come to an end, affecting only those who need to be affected, so to change. Everyone else will not suffer, though affected, and will learn by observing.
Both are in nature, God and cause-and-effect. But God is in Natur (cf. Kant) while cause-and-effect is in Wirklichkeit (cf. Kant). While Natur is not observable, not objective and not even intersubjective -- Wirklichkeit is described by physics, is objective, and is observable, even if indirectly (as quarks). Both are in the English word for nature.
Thus, a higher law exists in nature; that everyone and everything must obey. It is "written" on all sentient beings, in sea, land, or air, vertebrate and invertebrate, with digits or not, mathematically, and without form. We see that in the latest evolutionary research, which results are reported in https://www.science.org/content/article/fish-can-learn-basic-arithmetic/
Dear Ed Gerck , have you accidentaly marked your own answer as the best answer!!??
As two PMs questioned, I am not being naive, I point out to an invisible law at play.
I do not believe (belief here understood as "a probability that the evidence supports the claim", not as a guess or an opinion) in a dark side to social control, as enabling Nazi Germany, or any dictators.
Even in the cases of Soviet controlled regimes, as East Germany was, the Stasi had informants ... but mathematics (a mathematical theorem) says that a covert channel can always be established, and remain invisible as desired, including changes to combat "noise" (e.g, attacks).
The law of cause-and-effect will act. Just wait. We all live forever, in spirit -- we can surely wait.
If the cause (any) is not personal, to wait is smart. If personal, to wait teaches humbleness. We always win.
DA: I agree with you that there is always some cost or sacrifice that needs to be paid for the successful implementation of every policy including the rule of law.
However, there is no cost to let the law of cause-and-effect act. If one is right, one can wait. A spirit never dies. If one is wrong, time will tell. Humbleness is learned in both cases. We always win. It is a Black-Scholes process.
It is possible to quantitatively apply physics and mathematics to any situation, as seen in RG in this very question and comments
In that sense, one finds a physical and mathematical model of love, that is useful.
One can confirm Jesus words, "love your enemies" as a truth. Only love conquers. An eye for an eye, though, and soon the whole world goes blind.
Align yourself with the weak, the poor, the exploited, the hungry. Then, peace will gain. Happy Palm Sunday!
An invisible law can be found by its cause-and-effect relationship. This is an early example (12 years ago) of using Ukraine's "scorched earth" approach, where we try to cope with the mounting hazards of Internet security, as we apply war terms and methods. Without NATO there would be no Russia/Ukraine war. Accordingly, NATO should dissolve, as it does not help peace and wastes money, besides being an US intrusion in EU matters. See:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287687086_The_Hazards_of_Internet_Security_and_the_Methods_of_Peace_A_Paradigm_Change_and_Solutions
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Asia
- India