The Question of Trust
By Adam Chan

Human instinctively seeks happiness and peace as the ultimately state of mind. An artist must paint and a musician must play, one must do what he aspired to do best in order to develop. It may seem achievable through persistence but we know it well enough, any individual achieving such form of personal mastery is usually supported by those who are connected to the individual. Connection is the bridge for relationships and it acts like adhesive that binds and fuses this connection which is commonly known to us as Trust. This value is of bedrock status, like a cornerstone of a building, it binds people together in all contexts, trust cuts through cultural barriers as well as through space and time. It is not bonded to materials and conditions of the secular world but it demands for commitment like oxygen to humans, at the same time it has no limit to how much we can give. Less we can discern it; trust will evaporate like vapor without a trace and effects. Does the picture of the cute dog communicates trust to you?

Trust is tacit, often we don’t explicitly express it towards other people verbally rather in a combination of gestures and words, timing and environment. That makes it harder to discern but certainly it can be felt. We yearn for it when we don’t feel its presence but when it is abundance we often don’t hold on to it.

Trust in Various Aspects

Trust transcend through culture, races, geography, space and time. Probably, there are various aspects of trust that we are aware of its presence and influence. They are too worthy for us think about especially the relationship of each aspect to another. This tacit relationship is hardly easy to comprehend, sometimes even paradoxical. Over-analyzing may result in overwhelming amount intertwined factors that are beyond our channel capacity. If we are unable to synthesize the bits and pieces of data we have systematically torn apart, it has little or no value to strip it to pieces to start with. We ought to discern trust rather to comprehend it. To know trust, let’s try to us our hearts to feel instead of restricting to our heads.

Trust Oneself (Self-efficacy)

Do we need to trust ourselves? Often we think this is about garnering self-confidence but it is hardly the case. To develop the ability to mobilize oneself to perform an insurmountable feat requires self-efficacy. It is defined as people's beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives. Most people would describe it as trusting oneself. Life challenges are inevitable and some will strike fear in our hearts or send chill to our bones. If overwhelmed, one may be paralyzed to an extent in losing the ability to make decisions at critical moments. Essentially we are making decisions daily to move ahead with our lives for time moves ahead regardless our following. Hence the ability to make decision nothing less than critical in our lives.

When faced with a daunting challenge, we respond in two common ways. Fight or flight. What may influence what we choose has much to do with the level of self-efficacy each person perceives, a.k.a. trusting oneself. The higher the self-efficacy, likely one can manage any daunting challenges with composure. Albert Bandura, a renowned psychologist who practices behavioral science suggested four main sources of self-efficacy. They are;

• Mastery Experience – any well developed relevant experience will assist the person in having a higher self-efficacy in taking on challenges.
• Vicarious Experiences – modeling from others, e.g. learning to play an instrument by viewing an expert in action.
• Social Persuasion (verbal persuasion) – positive encourage or persuasion from people who show care and concern for the person.
• Physiological State – the current state of mind prior to taking on the challenge.
  

More readings on the 4 sources can be found at: http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/effpassages.html

Trust others(Skills, Knowledge & Attitude)

We often wonder if chickens existed before chicken eggs or vice versa. Nobody could draw a conclusion to this. Perhaps there are things we will never understand totally in the logically sense but we have fully accepted their existence and relevance. For the question of trust, we know very well both its goodness and vulnerability. We then raise question regarding trust and hope to feel for an answer; should I give trust or wait for it to come? This question has uncanny paralleled notions to that of the “Chickens and Eggs” paradox.

When trust is given and reciprocated with no questions asked, the giver can feel powerless yet not stripped or vulnerable, instead the sense of goodness and peace can be felt rising from inside. We can probably recall one or few significant moments when we have unconditionally give our trust. From the physiologically sense, the sensation of this gesture would be best described as a gently progressive swelling of the heart, dilated pupils, sweaty palms and a sudden increase in breathing. You might find this description familiar, especially to married couples, that memorable moment when both exchange vows saying “I do”. Essentially both parties has given each other their commitment unconditionally, two have become one.

The rapid pace in any corporate settings seems to have transformed trust to other forms beyond our recognition thus we find it hard to discern its presence from layers of masks and distractions. In certain ways, trust has been woven into work processes like meetings, delegation of tasks, handling projects, managing peers, etc. Being competent does help to gain a certain degree of trust from others. E.g. delegating tasks in accordance to the level of competency a.k.a. skill and knowledge; trusting the executors’ ability to carry out the tasks with excellence. A caveat to this; such trust is build upon a changeable foundation, i.e. competency. What if technology has overtaken competency or the initial competency has been relegated to outdated rudimentary skills? Will such trust remain? Would the opportunities be delegated again?

Human creations are countable and measurable, these creations brought about convenience and better lifestyle. Ironically, the have not being found enduring. Even the resolute earth’s gravity is not permanent; the notion of light traveling in straight line can be changed too. Beyond earth, gravity ceases to function as a constant. The many sightings from astronomers reported that light can be bent if the gravitation force is strong enough. The theory of relativity suggested a universal connectedness between all items, regardless living or not. Therefore constant is a perception and once relationships are disconnected, being constant has lost its relevance as like gravity on earth remains constant but not beyond it.

Have humans not tried arduously to quantify, gauge, classed, etc. what we have on this planet? A learner driver needs to obtain minimum number ticks on the check boxes during the driving test to obtain a legitimate license. Would the number of ticks mean anything when an accident occurs on the road? Would the driver be acquitted of the responsibility of the accident because of the ticks on the check boxes? How about giving trust to the driver thus concluding that we will trust the driver for repentance and not demanding for tangible accountability? The society is unlikely to accept such judgment. Therefore trust diminishes when conditions flourish.

Skill and knowledge can be measured and re-measured. Are they real and lasting? Perhaps this is a lengthy way to explain why trust will not be enduring when it is build upon these measurable properties or elements.

Can positive attitude help to build trust among people? Certainly it will. We naturally get along with people we find similar or possessing positive attitude towards life in general. With positive attitude, it augments the inter-personal relationships among people thus trust is naturally built. Once again with the absence of positive attitude, trust can be lost, isn’t it?