Great post, also got me thinking more on this topic. I was wondering, does also trust and assurance vary depending on who is the giver and receiver of value? For instance, if I take a course to advance my knowledge but also to demonstrate this to a prospective employer, I am trying to assure them of the value they will gain from me in the future. Then, the employer needs proof of my knowledge to trust me enough to hire me (in the future). Both set up current expectations to facilitate a future value exchange. They seem here mainly to differ in terms of the direction of expectations. Does that sound right to you too?
Possibly, but it's muddy. Trust is phenomenological. So when we try to explain it, we're using approximations, models etc. So this does take us back to the what is trust question. I'd say that in many cases, some of the sociology on trust that proposes there needs to be vulnerability in a relational setting for trust to be relevant might be meaningful here. There probably doesn't have to be vulnerability when relying on assurance... There's also an angle here that suggests maybe assurance is just an attempt to formalise / 'quantify' some type of trustworthiness score (even if it's not always framed that way). Sooo much to explore as always. But in short, trust almost definitely varies based on context (who, what, where, when, why etc.).
Philosophy of trust more generally is a super interesting area (probably fairly esoteric. I don't know many who spend their days in that literature...). With this said, although I believe our theory of knowledge impacts trust judgements, trust states etc. I am not in the box of "trust is just a cognitive thing". I'd say trust, regardless of what it is fundamentally, is more a biopsychosocial thing.
Great post, also got me thinking more on this topic. I was wondering, does also trust and assurance vary depending on who is the giver and receiver of value? For instance, if I take a course to advance my knowledge but also to demonstrate this to a prospective employer, I am trying to assure them of the value they will gain from me in the future. Then, the employer needs proof of my knowledge to trust me enough to hire me (in the future). Both set up current expectations to facilitate a future value exchange. They seem here mainly to differ in terms of the direction of expectations. Does that sound right to you too?
Possibly, but it's muddy. Trust is phenomenological. So when we try to explain it, we're using approximations, models etc. So this does take us back to the what is trust question. I'd say that in many cases, some of the sociology on trust that proposes there needs to be vulnerability in a relational setting for trust to be relevant might be meaningful here. There probably doesn't have to be vulnerability when relying on assurance... There's also an angle here that suggests maybe assurance is just an attempt to formalise / 'quantify' some type of trustworthiness score (even if it's not always framed that way). Sooo much to explore as always. But in short, trust almost definitely varies based on context (who, what, where, when, why etc.).
I'll read the paper too :)
Philosophy of trust more generally is a super interesting area (probably fairly esoteric. I don't know many who spend their days in that literature...). With this said, although I believe our theory of knowledge impacts trust judgements, trust states etc. I am not in the box of "trust is just a cognitive thing". I'd say trust, regardless of what it is fundamentally, is more a biopsychosocial thing.