My entire business functions on trust. I have entry codes to multi-million dollar homes because I have earned trust. To throw that away would be suicide. It requires self discipline, a code of ethics, and policing yourself.
I've walked into unoccupied bedrooms with thousands of dollars of jewelry laying around. But everyone has their price. Haha, I might not be so trustworthy if I saw twenty million dollars in cash laying around. There was a long time, well-respected and trusted home builder that eventually succumbed to temptation and began stealing money. It had a chilling effect on the whole local mortgage and home building industry because everyone lost trust.
High trust societies function much more effectively and efficiently, so should win out in a free market situation. But trust is a by product, not an end product. It follows naturally from a moral code adhered to. It doesn't necessarily have to be religious and probably wouldn't be in most of your proposed high trust societies, but I do think some sort of code of ethics would need to be placed front and center in each them so one could make a judgement before entering. For instance, I'm not going to join one that asks me to give all to the cause, no matter how much wealth it promises. Those have a way of turning into cults.
Overall a great post, and I appreciate your commitment to finding solutions. I feel like I can trust you. 😁
We are building Swarm Academy. A high trust society. To join it we will build a code of honor to adhere to. The entire swarm will eventually have control of what that code is. Hopefully it spans all religions etc like you mentioned. Simply put, nearly all religions believe we shouldn’t kick old ladies in the shins. So codes like that. Or, “Results matter most.” Or “We will admit when we are wrong and try something different.” Etc
At swarm academy in order to join active swarms in a high trust society, everyone will need to complete a free 101 course, that teaches whatever code we decide on. More on this soon.
To us, trust is neither a byproduct nor end product… the way we see it. It is a metric used to judge others. If there was a dart board everyone in our lives right now would score differently. Some being in the center bullseye 🎯 of trust and others being worth only 7 points or whatever.
Why did you refer to throwing it all away? A new high trust system might have a “vouch” system too (we didn’t get into it) where your current level of trust is vouched for already. So it could carry over. If you already have a high trust group, just digitize it and everyone vouch for each other right away.
Haha, I reread my comment and figured it out. Duh. I didn't mean entering your system would be throwing away my trust. It was just a comment echoing how central trust is to society. Society commits suicide when it throws away trust.
I don't know what you mean by throwing it all away. Where did I refer to that? If you mean where I said I might be tempted by twenty million, I just mean you have to be careful even after you've concluded that someone is worthy of trust. It's easy to say I'd walk away from that amount just laying there, but reality might be different. Then I related the story of a trusted individual who handle multiple millions of dollars for over two decades without incident and then suddenly began stealing tens of millions of dollars. So it can happen. Even with trust built in, it would seem to me that some safeguards would need to be in place.
I agree with your first two paragraphs, but think a little differently about the third. Isn't trust actually a metric to measure how well you've adhered to the code of ethics? I can't be trustworthy if I violate the code I've agreed to abide by, can I? And conversely, if I have shown my loyalty in fulfilling the obligations to the code, I have demonstrated my trustworthiness. So trust is a by product of adhering to the code. But I don't mean to nitpick. I like the idea you've presented.
Loved this piece. I have been fortunate to have participated in two different types of trusted societies - the early tech industry startups and a rural ranching community. While differing in environments, goals and philosophies, these two shared the fundamental attributes of working together for the benefit of the groups involved as well as the overarching goal.
These were personally rewarding group interactions. Trust, a good work ethic, a strong sense of community and purpose and a willingness to push boundaries are all qualities that make these solutions possible.
Adding swarming - it seems like a beautiful combination. Nothing bonds a trusted group tighter than achieving successful group solutions.
Thank you for all your inspiring work. You have given hope to a nerdy cow wrangler.
Trust is best accomplished in the real world, person to person, face to face not in the fake digital environment where cheating can be done anonymously.
This is just playing devil's advocate, so don't be offended.
Is that your real name? Aren't you anonymous? How can I trust what you're saying? What about the fact that many now make their living online and not face to face; don't they need some way to establish trust?
Exactly Don. Yes it is done better in person. But why not a hybrid? Local in person swarms. Merging with other local swarms in a digital problem solving space.
Won't work when ideological interference is involved. People will raise the poop score no matter what else that person did (especially economically) of proven value otherwise.
High trust societies leave introverts behind. It's just like having to provide references to apply for a job - loners not welcome, no matter how trustworthy they actually are. On the other side, an extrovert may be able to prove themselves to the top of the heap immediately while the best efforts of an introvert may not be enough to raise them into a normal range without extreme, and extremely discomforting, effort.
Also, we can easily see how rating systems almost never reflect the true value of experiences. People just dint seem capable of judging things fairly and their trust level is bound to be based on feelings above rationality.
{...This corruption is our biggest problem on Earth right now...}
As long as there is no accountability with independent agencies to enforce it, high-end corruption always will be the biggest and most expensive problem ...
Too simplistic. Part of knowing who to trust is knowing who else they do and do not trust. On the one hand, that gets into tribalism - both positive and negative aspects. Further, it depends on context and content: trust about what?
And trust is not to be confused with anonymity or identity.
This might be suitable for those that toe the line, but it won't work at all for dissidents of any sort or degree. And after all, "all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
Just look at the hate spate around the vax, around Ukraine, around Israel. No, this just turns into another version of Myrotvorets.
My entire business functions on trust. I have entry codes to multi-million dollar homes because I have earned trust. To throw that away would be suicide. It requires self discipline, a code of ethics, and policing yourself.
I've walked into unoccupied bedrooms with thousands of dollars of jewelry laying around. But everyone has their price. Haha, I might not be so trustworthy if I saw twenty million dollars in cash laying around. There was a long time, well-respected and trusted home builder that eventually succumbed to temptation and began stealing money. It had a chilling effect on the whole local mortgage and home building industry because everyone lost trust.
High trust societies function much more effectively and efficiently, so should win out in a free market situation. But trust is a by product, not an end product. It follows naturally from a moral code adhered to. It doesn't necessarily have to be religious and probably wouldn't be in most of your proposed high trust societies, but I do think some sort of code of ethics would need to be placed front and center in each them so one could make a judgement before entering. For instance, I'm not going to join one that asks me to give all to the cause, no matter how much wealth it promises. Those have a way of turning into cults.
Overall a great post, and I appreciate your commitment to finding solutions. I feel like I can trust you. 😁
We are building Swarm Academy. A high trust society. To join it we will build a code of honor to adhere to. The entire swarm will eventually have control of what that code is. Hopefully it spans all religions etc like you mentioned. Simply put, nearly all religions believe we shouldn’t kick old ladies in the shins. So codes like that. Or, “Results matter most.” Or “We will admit when we are wrong and try something different.” Etc
At swarm academy in order to join active swarms in a high trust society, everyone will need to complete a free 101 course, that teaches whatever code we decide on. More on this soon.
To us, trust is neither a byproduct nor end product… the way we see it. It is a metric used to judge others. If there was a dart board everyone in our lives right now would score differently. Some being in the center bullseye 🎯 of trust and others being worth only 7 points or whatever.
Why did you refer to throwing it all away? A new high trust system might have a “vouch” system too (we didn’t get into it) where your current level of trust is vouched for already. So it could carry over. If you already have a high trust group, just digitize it and everyone vouch for each other right away.
Thanks for the feedback and discourse.
Haha, I reread my comment and figured it out. Duh. I didn't mean entering your system would be throwing away my trust. It was just a comment echoing how central trust is to society. Society commits suicide when it throws away trust.
I don't know what you mean by throwing it all away. Where did I refer to that? If you mean where I said I might be tempted by twenty million, I just mean you have to be careful even after you've concluded that someone is worthy of trust. It's easy to say I'd walk away from that amount just laying there, but reality might be different. Then I related the story of a trusted individual who handle multiple millions of dollars for over two decades without incident and then suddenly began stealing tens of millions of dollars. So it can happen. Even with trust built in, it would seem to me that some safeguards would need to be in place.
I agree with your first two paragraphs, but think a little differently about the third. Isn't trust actually a metric to measure how well you've adhered to the code of ethics? I can't be trustworthy if I violate the code I've agreed to abide by, can I? And conversely, if I have shown my loyalty in fulfilling the obligations to the code, I have demonstrated my trustworthiness. So trust is a by product of adhering to the code. But I don't mean to nitpick. I like the idea you've presented.
Loved this piece. I have been fortunate to have participated in two different types of trusted societies - the early tech industry startups and a rural ranching community. While differing in environments, goals and philosophies, these two shared the fundamental attributes of working together for the benefit of the groups involved as well as the overarching goal.
These were personally rewarding group interactions. Trust, a good work ethic, a strong sense of community and purpose and a willingness to push boundaries are all qualities that make these solutions possible.
Adding swarming - it seems like a beautiful combination. Nothing bonds a trusted group tighter than achieving successful group solutions.
Thank you for all your inspiring work. You have given hope to a nerdy cow wrangler.
Or maybe you would like to swarm with us soon?
Yes to both talking & swarm participation.
We have some members trying to merge these two communities now with technology. Maybe you would be a good person to talk about this?
Trust is best accomplished in the real world, person to person, face to face not in the fake digital environment where cheating can be done anonymously.
This is just playing devil's advocate, so don't be offended.
Is that your real name? Aren't you anonymous? How can I trust what you're saying? What about the fact that many now make their living online and not face to face; don't they need some way to establish trust?
Exactly Don. Yes it is done better in person. But why not a hybrid? Local in person swarms. Merging with other local swarms in a digital problem solving space.
Genuine trust can only thrive among people living in swarms that do not exceed the Dunbar's number ...
Won't work when ideological interference is involved. People will raise the poop score no matter what else that person did (especially economically) of proven value otherwise.
How is this different from the online reputation economy and social ranking sites that can be manipulated by bad data and vindictive competition?
High trust societies leave introverts behind. It's just like having to provide references to apply for a job - loners not welcome, no matter how trustworthy they actually are. On the other side, an extrovert may be able to prove themselves to the top of the heap immediately while the best efforts of an introvert may not be enough to raise them into a normal range without extreme, and extremely discomforting, effort.
Also, we can easily see how rating systems almost never reflect the true value of experiences. People just dint seem capable of judging things fairly and their trust level is bound to be based on feelings above rationality.
{...This corruption is our biggest problem on Earth right now...}
As long as there is no accountability with independent agencies to enforce it, high-end corruption always will be the biggest and most expensive problem ...
Too simplistic. Part of knowing who to trust is knowing who else they do and do not trust. On the one hand, that gets into tribalism - both positive and negative aspects. Further, it depends on context and content: trust about what?
And trust is not to be confused with anonymity or identity.
This might be suitable for those that toe the line, but it won't work at all for dissidents of any sort or degree. And after all, "all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
Just look at the hate spate around the vax, around Ukraine, around Israel. No, this just turns into another version of Myrotvorets.