Trust is built because as people - character and circumstances are transitory. The worse the character and circumstance - the more wisdom one obtains to ensure that trust is not undermined as frequently.
Malcolm, your episodes are always insightful and thought provoking even when I somewhat disagree with your guests. I'm impress with your counter at 6:33. Rachel is detailed, but she is contradictory. Some of her key descriptions require prior assumptions while disabling these assumptions in certain situations. I think that she wants trust to be more adaptive instead of creative. Creative, which requires time. I came to the conclusion that trust is overrated or improperly analyzed. Fine, Rachel, I'll manage control and editorial planning over my connections, filter and verify what's exchanged, determine what and when to share, and protect against unnecessary or harmful surveillance & transparency demands. She sets limits on her definition and properties of trust. She defines them as informational connections between people, increased unpreparedness and ignorance in the vast unknown to maximize adaptive creativity to diminish preconceived biases :/ ... She declares known surveillance and transparency as not trust. These are weird flexes with puzzling intelligence biased patterns, which were verified when she drew comparison to President Ronald Reagan and key phrases like information, surveillance, risk, etc. I believe that her attempt is purposeful and conscious because she acknowledged her restricted definition for trust by mentioning there are other orientations of trust. Some questions: 1)How can you verify the unknown ? Wouldn't you require prior knowledge as preparation ? While it is interesting that her perception of creativity starts from a blank page, we are hardly blank pages when sensory perceptions are mandatory. Any delayed action still rely on those prior sensations and current ones. Gladwell did an episode ,where he detailed how your environment can unconsciously influence your decision. 2)If there is one ,or a collective hive, authoritative source generating unknown information as fact, how can you verify it? 3)If I asked that one authoritative source for transparency does that make me a bad character seeking control? Is it redundant to even trust and ask such types of sources? 4)If we are prone to biases & maladaptation while using prior knowledge, why should I trust her definition and instructional manuals for outlining and managing trust? 5) Don't you require an informed and competent citizenry to ,ultimately, keep untrustworthiness at minimum concerning information? Doesn't that require preparedness? I get it. Known and unknown surveillances aren't trust because I'll have a bleeding deficit on control over what's exchanged over those connections. Some may say that security doesn't care about trust. It cares about reducing uncertainty. I am hardly apathetic towards such a logical approach. I, too, dislike unknown randomness. If trust requires connections, exchanges over those connected paths will require adjusting levels of friction depending on conditions especially unknown conditions. You don't even know what level of control you have over such unknown exchanges. There's more that I would ask, but I'll end it here. It's stimulating if not anything else.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Trust is built because as people - character and circumstances are transitory. The worse the character and circumstance - the more wisdom one obtains to ensure that trust is not undermined as frequently.
Malcolm, your episodes are always insightful and thought provoking even when I somewhat disagree with your guests. I'm impress with your counter at 6:33. Rachel is detailed, but she is contradictory. Some of her key descriptions require prior assumptions while disabling these assumptions in certain situations. I think that she wants trust to be more adaptive instead of creative. Creative, which requires time. I came to the conclusion that trust is overrated or improperly analyzed. Fine, Rachel, I'll manage control and editorial planning over my connections, filter and verify what's exchanged, determine what and when to share, and protect against unnecessary or harmful surveillance & transparency demands.
She sets limits on her definition and properties of trust. She defines them as informational connections between people, increased unpreparedness and ignorance in the vast unknown to maximize adaptive creativity to diminish preconceived biases :/ ... She declares known surveillance and transparency as not trust. These are weird flexes with puzzling intelligence biased patterns, which were verified when she drew comparison to President Ronald Reagan and key phrases like information, surveillance, risk, etc. I believe that her attempt is purposeful and conscious because she acknowledged her restricted definition for trust by mentioning there are other orientations of trust.
Some questions:
1)How can you verify the unknown ? Wouldn't you require prior knowledge as preparation ?
While it is interesting that her perception of creativity starts from a blank page, we are hardly blank pages when sensory perceptions are mandatory. Any delayed action still rely on those prior sensations and current ones. Gladwell did an episode ,where he detailed how your environment can unconsciously influence your decision.
2)If there is one ,or a collective hive, authoritative source generating unknown information as fact, how can you verify it?
3)If I asked that one authoritative source for transparency does that make me a bad character seeking control? Is it redundant to even trust and ask such types of sources?
4)If we are prone to biases & maladaptation while using prior knowledge, why should I trust her definition and instructional manuals for outlining and managing trust?
5) Don't you require an informed and competent citizenry to ,ultimately, keep untrustworthiness at minimum concerning information? Doesn't that require preparedness?
I get it. Known and unknown surveillances aren't trust because I'll have a bleeding deficit on control over what's exchanged over those connections. Some may say that security doesn't care about trust. It cares about reducing uncertainty. I am hardly apathetic towards such a logical approach. I, too, dislike unknown randomness. If trust requires connections, exchanges over those connected paths will require adjusting levels of friction depending on conditions especially unknown conditions. You don't even know what level of control you have over such unknown exchanges. There's more that I would ask, but I'll end it here. It's stimulating if not anything else.
Rachel , Rumsfeld , Malcolm, and Darker Daimon in a trust car: ruclips.net/video/2msQwpzatQc/видео.html
25:50
“Trust has two enemies; bad character and poor information…”
Why is Malcolm's voice so much quieter than hers?
Yes, I agree. There’s an issue with the audio. Maybe two different locations / sources