Trust arrives on foot and leaves on horseback (2020)(thalein.medium.com)
thalein.medium.com
Trust arrives on foot and leaves on horseback (2020)
https://thalein.medium.com/trust-arrives-on-foot-and-leaves-on-horseback-aacde6e69163
36 comments
12 years ago I stayed in a Motel 6 for a night and there was no running water. Afterwards I wrote and asked for a refund. A voucher for a free night would have at least made me feel not ignored. But they replied with a generic dismissal. For 12 years I've been telling people on and offline how terrible Motel 6 is. Left one star reviews. Every time the topic of motels comes up I jump in. It's become an inside joke with my friends.
I stayed in a Motel 6 by Fort Lauderdale for one night in 2016. There was a hole in the bathtub. Reception didn't seem to care.
I certainly won't consider them again.
I certainly won't consider them again.
The hole is supposed be there.
No. Not the drain hole. It was some sort plastic tub, and it was torn open about 4" from the drain hole.
I see. I assume you were not amused.
Out of curiosity, did you contact reception when you discovered this, and if so, what was their reaction?
I was waiting to check in and heard the desk guy talking to someone on the phone about water but didn't think much of it. They didn't tell me anything and after I got to my room I saw there was no water. I went back to the desk to ask about it and was told it was being worked on and would be fixed soon. When it didn't get fixed I kept calling and kept getting told it was being worked on. A few hours after checking in I saw a repair van arrive to start working on it.
When I emailed corporate afterwards I explained that they had checked me in without informing me there was no water.
When I emailed corporate afterwards I explained that they had checked me in without informing me there was no water.
They are less likely to hype your product if satisfied.
...to the point that people become suspicious of overtly positive reviews, because a large part of marketing is now done by paid shills aka "influencers".
...to the point that people become suspicious of overtly positive reviews, because a large part of marketing is now done by paid shills aka "influencers".
> paid shills aka "influencers".
At least the SEC insists that ones who tout securities disclose that they're being paid, as Kim Kardashian and some others found out the hard way.
Probably the closest thing to a legit "social media coordinator" is the one for the New York City subway system. Someone had the sense to put the on-duty social media coordinator in the rail control center, where they can see the display boards and talk to the people running the system.[1]
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/worst-job-in-america-responding...
At least the SEC insists that ones who tout securities disclose that they're being paid, as Kim Kardashian and some others found out the hard way.
Probably the closest thing to a legit "social media coordinator" is the one for the New York City subway system. Someone had the sense to put the on-duty social media coordinator in the rail control center, where they can see the display boards and talk to the people running the system.[1]
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/worst-job-in-america-responding...
Yes. Even if the "influencer" is someone whose output I have followed for years, I'm going to cross-check and triangulate if something gets recommended.
That's in back-packing/hiking. Something I have noticed there, and would be interested to know if it's becoming more general, is the rise of paid-subscription sites that review things (amongst other content).
Are we seeing the first dim sparks of the realization that curation has monetary value?
That's in back-packing/hiking. Something I have noticed there, and would be interested to know if it's becoming more general, is the rise of paid-subscription sites that review things (amongst other content).
Are we seeing the first dim sparks of the realization that curation has monetary value?
Everyone loves Plausible, the Google Analytics alternative, but I had a really bad experience with them that I bring up often.
Their code didn't work with many pages on my web site and was just silently not recording any data (you don't know that it isn't working, so you don't know you're not getting data).
I eventually spent about a dozen hours debugging it and figuring out what the problem was with their code. I was broke and homeless and I told them I had the fix for the critical bug in their software - how about throwing me a few months of paid service (it's $6 a month). They told me to basically get lost and that they would find the bug themselves one day and fix it and didn't need my solution.
Left a bad taste in my mouth and I pass that on.
Their code didn't work with many pages on my web site and was just silently not recording any data (you don't know that it isn't working, so you don't know you're not getting data).
I eventually spent about a dozen hours debugging it and figuring out what the problem was with their code. I was broke and homeless and I told them I had the fix for the critical bug in their software - how about throwing me a few months of paid service (it's $6 a month). They told me to basically get lost and that they would find the bug themselves one day and fix it and didn't need my solution.
Left a bad taste in my mouth and I pass that on.
> They are less likely to hype your product if satisfied.
Yes. Unless they are really floored or something. And then things are complex. Sometimes people keep mum about some good thing they find. If you find a restaurant with great quality and low prices, if you tell everyone, it will soon be inundated with patrons. Even if all else stays the same (which it won't: prices will go up and quality down) the extra crowd will be annoying.
Yes. Unless they are really floored or something. And then things are complex. Sometimes people keep mum about some good thing they find. If you find a restaurant with great quality and low prices, if you tell everyone, it will soon be inundated with patrons. Even if all else stays the same (which it won't: prices will go up and quality down) the extra crowd will be annoying.
I occasionally get some lazy high maintenance customers (B2B) that I’d rather not have. It gives me a fair amount of stress at times. Even though they generate revenue they are absolutely a liability and I’d pay to quietly get rid of them.
One lesson I've learned the hard way in business is: never be afraid to fire customers when they are costing you more than you're willing to pay. "Cost" here means monetary cost, sure, but also more intangible costs such as stress, aggravation, etc. Those a very real costs that may even adversely impact your product/service for your other customers.
Firing bad customers is good business practice.
Firing bad customers is good business practice.
One thing I think often gets overlooked is that trust can disappear long before it's noticed. You can grind away eroding trust with your customers and stakeholders and as long as nothing big changes, it's often fine. The problem comes when you need to draw on that trust and it's only at that point you realise it no longer exists. It's not so much that it was quick to disappear, it was very slow to disappear but you didn't notice.
This is such an apt observation.
When I look back on the various businesses that I actively distrust now, none of them started out that way and, if I'm honest, none of them had a single moment where I flipped from trusting them to not trusting them. On reflection, I'd been noting the degradation of their behavior over time and growing increasingly uncomfortable with it. Then, a straw that break the camel's back happens.
Also, I have never and would never communicate to a company that they're losing or have lost my trust. What's the point of doing that? I assume that most people don't. So this erosion and loss of trust can be largely invisible to companies who aren't paying attention.
When I look back on the various businesses that I actively distrust now, none of them started out that way and, if I'm honest, none of them had a single moment where I flipped from trusting them to not trusting them. On reflection, I'd been noting the degradation of their behavior over time and growing increasingly uncomfortable with it. Then, a straw that break the camel's back happens.
Also, I have never and would never communicate to a company that they're losing or have lost my trust. What's the point of doing that? I assume that most people don't. So this erosion and loss of trust can be largely invisible to companies who aren't paying attention.
People didn’t have a reason to look at it, you gave them one.
Happens with employees too. You squeeze and squeeze and when times get bad they either leave in droves or worse, stay to watch you finally make the crater you have been fostering the entire time.
Happens with employees too. You squeeze and squeeze and when times get bad they either leave in droves or worse, stay to watch you finally make the crater you have been fostering the entire time.
Life Rule 101 - *Trust is earned* That is, if it's not earned, it's not trust. Full stop.
And yes, the loss of trust is the exponential inverse. That is, one slip and your ten steps forward is at least one massive step back. And if you never earned true trust in the first place then you're worse off.
It's worth repeating: Life Rule 101 - *Trust is earned*
And yes, the loss of trust is the exponential inverse. That is, one slip and your ten steps forward is at least one massive step back. And if you never earned true trust in the first place then you're worse off.
It's worth repeating: Life Rule 101 - *Trust is earned*
For me, trust is the default position, but if you betray my trust, it is very hard to earn it back again.
So a more fitting saying for me would be, "Trust leaves on horseback and returns on foot."
So a more fitting saying for me would be, "Trust leaves on horseback and returns on foot."
Trust leaves on horseback and may never return.
Trust real Trust, by definition, is *not* the default position. If it's not earned, it's not trust. Anything else? Call it what you want, but it's not trust.
Politicians and other opportunists love to leverage the false idea that trust is a default. The bar is higher.
Politicians and other opportunists love to leverage the false idea that trust is a default. The bar is higher.
I don't see why this is "by definition". I understand that "default to trust must be earned" is a common position in modernity, but that makes me sad. Even if this were a good life principle at the moment, I think that's more a reflection on the current state of the world rather than an invariable fact of life.
As to my own behavior, I concur with ThisMustBeTrue, at least when it comes to people: I default to trusting, but quickly withdraw that trust if it is violated. Its much harder to earn back the trust you had for free at the beginning.
Looking to the dictionary, since definition was mentioned, I find: trust(noun) firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something. When we first meet, I default to assuming you are reliable, honest and capable. Most people I've encountered in life are these things. Should I assume you are flakey? A liar? Incompetent? I think it robs strangers of their humanity to assume this of them by default.
I find my stance on default to trust depends on the category of entity being trusted. I don't default to trusting organizations (in contrast to individuals, I have sadly experienced orgs as being unreliable, dishonest, and incompetent) for the most part, but I do default to trusting people. Individual people, as a class, have earned my trust, whereas groups of people driven by financial incentives, as a class, have lost my trust enough times I default to skepticism.
I think its a good goal to strive to build a world where "default to trust" makes sense in more cases.
I think organizations that default to "trust must be earned" for individuals are starting with a mildly toxic default stance that tends to self-perpetuate distrust.
I think people tend to behave far more trustworthy when treated with trust, than when treated with skepticism.
I believe people tend toward living up to the trust you place in them.
As to my own behavior, I concur with ThisMustBeTrue, at least when it comes to people: I default to trusting, but quickly withdraw that trust if it is violated. Its much harder to earn back the trust you had for free at the beginning.
Looking to the dictionary, since definition was mentioned, I find: trust(noun) firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something. When we first meet, I default to assuming you are reliable, honest and capable. Most people I've encountered in life are these things. Should I assume you are flakey? A liar? Incompetent? I think it robs strangers of their humanity to assume this of them by default.
I find my stance on default to trust depends on the category of entity being trusted. I don't default to trusting organizations (in contrast to individuals, I have sadly experienced orgs as being unreliable, dishonest, and incompetent) for the most part, but I do default to trusting people. Individual people, as a class, have earned my trust, whereas groups of people driven by financial incentives, as a class, have lost my trust enough times I default to skepticism.
I think its a good goal to strive to build a world where "default to trust" makes sense in more cases.
I think organizations that default to "trust must be earned" for individuals are starting with a mildly toxic default stance that tends to self-perpetuate distrust.
I think people tend to behave far more trustworthy when treated with trust, than when treated with skepticism.
I believe people tend toward living up to the trust you place in them.
> I default to trusting, but quickly withdraw that trust if it is violated. Its much harder to earn back the trust you had for free at the beginning.
That's the point, trust, real trust is earned. It needs to be earned back. It needs to be earned to begin with. Your default isn't actually Trust. It's a self-serving experiment of "What happens if I allow my self to be venerable?" That's not the same as actual Trust. It's only a convenient proxy. But it's a mistake - and it happens all the time - to confuse it as being Trust.
That's the point, trust, real trust is earned. It needs to be earned back. It needs to be earned to begin with. Your default isn't actually Trust. It's a self-serving experiment of "What happens if I allow my self to be venerable?" That's not the same as actual Trust. It's only a convenient proxy. But it's a mistake - and it happens all the time - to confuse it as being Trust.
> I think that's more a reflection on the current state of the world rather than an invariable fact of life
I don't think that's a new thing at all. It's how it's been for as far back as we have historical records.
I don't think that's a new thing at all. It's how it's been for as far back as we have historical records.
I am curious what life experience or realization has led you to conclude "unearned trust isn't trust" as a basic life principle?
It's a Life 101 Rule. I don't make the rules. I simply observed the number of times Trust went wrong and noticed the pattern...Trust wasn't earned. And from that, well it wasn't trust then.
Along the same lines, what happens when Trust is loss. More importantly, once it's lost what needs to happen? To get it back it needs to be earned.
I'm confident that if you watch closely, you'll come to the same conclusion.
Along the same lines, what happens when Trust is loss. More importantly, once it's lost what needs to happen? To get it back it needs to be earned.
I'm confident that if you watch closely, you'll come to the same conclusion.
Ok, serious question, did you grow up in a low income environment?
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
I have evaluated possible outcomes and mistrust by default is one of the biggest thorns of modern world. It seems okay because everyone's doing it, but it leaves everyone hurt including the person applying it as a rule.
I have evaluated possible outcomes and mistrust by default is one of the biggest thorns of modern world. It seems okay because everyone's doing it, but it leaves everyone hurt including the person applying it as a rule.
I don't trust by default, but I also don't distrust by default. My default position is neutral because I have no basis for making a determination of trustworthiness.
Trust must be earned.
Trust must be earned.
Discussion from earlier today that put this quote in the context of the Unity stuff: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37649052
I would argue it is a saying in Dutch, it is part of our canon, basically every Dutch person knows and uses the saying ( without knowing its origin ).
Yes, "saying" is the more appropriate word here. I sent that comment off in a hurry.
[deleted]
So one bad experience can undo a lit of good ones. These days, one person with a large social media following can tell a great many people for the same effort it would take to tell one person and may not stop until their ire has died down, which can take a while and may be oit of proportion to the harm they experienced, especially if they are going through personal stuff (wife died, their business went bankrupt, whatever).