Tag: trust

Posted in Life & Happiness

Inside And Outside

Posted on by Jinavie

Each and every one of us have two selves: the self we truly are in our mind and hearts and the self we present to the world. Let us call these the inner self and outer self. For the most part, we know both our inner and outer selves quite well, because we know what we are thinking and feeling and we consciously control what image we show to other people. But because we cannot read minds, we usually only know the outer selves of other people.

Our inner self is somewhat difficult to change consciously as it is mostly shaped by our natural personalities, our upbringing and environmental factors such as life experience. On contrast, we have the ability to change how others see us through various ways. We wear smart clothing to suggest we are well-cultured, we tell jokes to give the image of a funny person and we emphasise our strengths while downplaying our weaknesses and insecurities to show our best possible side. Because of this, it is unfair to compare yourself (your “inner self”) to others (their “outer self”). The “perfect” person you are comparing yourself to may just be an outer shell shielding that person’s weak, insecure inner self that is no better than you.

We all have our own demons and insecurities, but no one wants others to know as all we see in society are strong, charismatic, charming outer selves and we seem so weak in comparison. In the end, we all live behind masks to try fit into a world full of masked people, too afraid of showing our true selves and being hurt.

Then how can we truly connect if we are all pretending to be different people? Always remember that others are just as afraid of lowering their mask as you are. You cannot expect the other person to open up to you first when you are not prepared to yourself. On the other hand, you cannot be hurt when they are reluctant to open up just because you have. To show your inner self means leaving yourself to be vulnerable, so it is understandable for people to take time for it to happen. All you can do is to let yourself be vulnerable first and show the other person that you are just as weak and scared as they are. That is the cost of connection.

Posted in Philosophy

Politics

Posted on by Jinavie

The following is an excerpt from the Analects by Confucius, titled The Secret of Politics:

Confucius’ disciple Zi-gong asked him: “What is politics?”
Confucius replied: “The key to politics is to make food plentiful(足食), keep enough soldiers(足兵) and earn the people’s trust(民信).”

Zi-gong thought about this, but decided it was too hard to do all three. He asked again: “If you had to give up one, which would you choose?”
Confucius replied: “I would give up the soldiers.”

Zi-gong asked again: “If you had to give up one more thing, which would you choose?”
Confucius thought for a minute and said: “I would give up food. If you believe, you can withstand hunger for a while and withstand the hardships of war, but if you lose trust you will immediately lose everything.”

The character 信 stands for trust, which is believing in another person. Of course there must be trust among the people, but Confucius teaches us that the trust between the people and their leaders is the most important. In fact, with trust and faith you can overcome anything. If you can respect and trust in your leaders, you can endure hunger and at times, even summon the strength to defeat your enemies with your bare hands.

An administration that has lost the hearts of the people will fail.

Posted in History & Literature

Watchmen

Posted on by Jinavie

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Who will guard the guards?

One of the most basic instincts of a human being is to doubt. We do not easily extend our trust to strangers. This is a natural response that is very beneficial for your survival from an evolutionary perspective (consider the overfriendly dodos that were wiped out by humans). As civilisation has progressed and the size of societies grew, people devised legal systems to lower their vigilance against each other. This was because instead of wasting time being suspicious of others, we devised specialist roles who would do that for us, allowing us to live in peace with each other. These specialists who stay alert and guard us enforce the law and stabilise our society. However, what would happen if the people that protect us from evil become evil? Is it not a scary thought to think that there is no one that watches the watchmen?

Emperor Qin Shi Huang who united China to form the Qin dynasty divided up his people, setting up a mutual guard system to enforce his rule. Informing became a civil obligation. To not report illegal activities was illegal in itself. The system of informing was as follows: five families form a group with each group being watched by an official warden who reports on them. This official warden is carefully observed by an unofficial surveillant. Five groups come together to form a tribe. If it is found that at any level something was not reported, the blame was turned on every member of the group. Thus, a circle of surveillance is formed.

This method was extremely effective and Emperor Qin’s rule of terror was unstoppable. Crime rates plummeted while productivity rose. The problem was that the people’s quality of life was pathetic. Emperor Qin’s system of watching was later adopted by Nazi Germany. The people under the rule of the Nazis had to live in fear of being reported by their neighbours. This method is also seen being used by Big Brother in George Orwell’s novel 1984. Is this truly the best system to keep peace? Laws are put in place for the happiness and safety of the people, yet over-surveillance is an ironic concept that exists for those who hold power rather than the people.

How much should we trust another person? And who will watch the watchmen?

Posted in Philosophy

Prisoner’s Dilemma

Posted on by Jinavie

The prisoner’s dilemma is a famous example of how game theory functions. It predicts the behaviour of two people when forced to cooperate. The story goes as follows:

Two accomplices in crime are arrested by the police. They are interrogated in separate rooms. As the police have insufficient information, they offer a deal to each prisoner to confess that the two committed a crime (or deny). The deal is:

  • If you confess and your partner denies taking part in the crime, you go free and your partner will serve ten years (and vice versa).
  • If you both confess you will go to prison for four years each.
  • If you both deny taking part in the crime, you both go to prison for two years.

Assuming the prisoners act rationally (i.e. for their best interest and minimising their jail time), the prisoner will obviously choose the “confess” option as this is hypothetically the best choice (minimum time = 0 years, compared to only 2 years minimum for denying). However, because both prisoners are thinking this, the result is almost always that both confess and end up with four years each. Therefore, because human beings are unable to trust another human being enough, people always end up acting irrationally (benefit not maximised).
If the two had been trusting (assuming the other would deny too) and cooperated, both would have served half the time. But people always assume (correctly) that the other person will betray them for their selfish gain and this win-win result is unattainable.

But what if the other prisoner was yourself? Let us assume that the prisoner’s dilemma game was played by you and an exact copy of you. A copy that thinks like you, acts like you and identical to you in every single way. Can you trust yourself? Do you trust yourself enough to deny the crime, when it is entirely possible that he or she rats you out to walk free while you suffer for 10 years? How do you know that he loves you more than himself? 

Your greatest enemy is you.