[Vision2020] Trust
Melynda Huskey
mghuskey@msn.com
Thu, 27 May 2004 21:36:09 -0700
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C44432.9FCF6800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Eric writes:
"I think you can argue someone into trusting you. Argue is perhaps the w=
rong term. But I am quite sure that if you and I, Melynda, sat for an hou=
r over coffee and debated some religious points I am sure that afterward =
you would feel safer with me. You would feel more trusting that I had you=
r best interests in mind. Certainly more than you trust me now. You mig=
ht not be one iota closer to agreeing with me, but you might want to get =
together again and pursue it further."
By an amazing (or Providential) coincidence, I've been reading some resea=
rch on trust recently. Most peace and conflict scholars define trust as =
"readiness to believe, or act based on, the statements of another." Trus=
t arises from consistent, reliable actions which meet needs, and from con=
gruence of goals and values. Scholars divide trust into two basic kinds: =
calculus-based trust (cbt), which comes from exchanges of mutual benefit=
, and identity-based trust (ibt), which arises from shared values or core=
identities. Likewise, there's cbd and ibd--distrust based on exchanges =
not mutually beneficial, or identities in conflict.
So here's the hook: if Eric and I share coffee and a rousing debate abou=
t unconditional election, or total depravity, or homosexuality as God's m=
anifest punishment on sinners, would I have greater readiness to believe,=
or act on the basis of his statements? No, I think not--nor vice versa.=
We might find the conversation stimulating. We might be pleasantly sur=
prised by the civility and humaneness of our exchange. But the identity-=
based distrust which has consistently and reliably resulted from our conv=
ersations (including the long discussions of these matters here) won't be=
reduced, since some of our values can never be brought into harmony, and=
neither of us is able to alter those values without damage to our core i=
dentities.
In other words, as long as Eric pursues religious conversations with me w=
ith the goal of bringing me to share his beliefs, we aren't building exch=
anges of *mutual* benefit. And an argument designed to prove to me that =
Eric has my best interests at heart will be unpersuasive unless we share =
the values and goals he describes as "best."
The old rhyme puts it well: "People convinced against their will / Will =
hold the same opinion still." Or, as Galileo is said to have muttered af=
ter his trial at the Vatican for teaching an unscriptural cosmology, "Epp=
ur se muovo," "Nevertheless it [the earth] does move." =20
Eric further writes:
"I wish I could coerce everyone in the Palouse to use the Bible as the ow=
ner's manual for their lives. I think you might be surprised at what a n=
ice place it would be."
I have to ask, nice for whom? If I can trust the statements made in prin=
t by our local Reformed thinkers, in a Reformed Palouse, I'd be dead--or =
ridden out of town on a rail. My family would be destroyed. My Jewish, =
pagan, Muslim, agnostic, Buddhist, Mormon, Catholic, and Unitarian friend=
s? No room for them unless they convert. There'd be a lot of women out =
of work, and without the franchise. No more public education. We'd embr=
ace slavery as God's plan for some people. And we'd rejoice in the notio=
n that God created a whole bunch of people already condemned to Hell no m=
atter what they do, just because He could.
Nice is not the word that springs to mind, frankly.
Melynda Huskey
Nice? Really?Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http:/=
/explorer.msn.com
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C44432.9FCF6800
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><BODY STYLE=3D"font:10pt verdana; border:none;"><DIV>Eric writes:</=
DIV> <DIV>"I think you can argue someone into trusting you. Argue i=
s perhaps the wrong term. But I am quite sure that if you and I, Melynda,=
sat for an hour over coffee and debated some religious points I am sure =
that afterward you would feel safer with me. You would feel more trusting=
that I had your best interests in mind. Certainly more than you tr=
ust me now. You might not be one iota closer to agreeing with me, b=
ut you might want to get together again and pursue it further."</DIV> <DI=
V> </DIV> <DIV>By an amazing (or Providential) coincidence, I've bee=
n reading some research on trust recently. Most peace and conflict =
scholars define trust as "readiness to believe, or act based on, the=
statements of another." Trust arises from consistent, reliable act=
ions which meet needs, and from congruence of goals and values. =
;Scholars divide trust into two basic kinds: calculus-based tr=
ust (cbt), which comes from exchanges of mutual benefit, and identity-bas=
ed trust (ibt), which arises from shared values or core identities. =
Likewise, there's cbd and ibd--distrust based on exchanges not mutually =
beneficial, or identities in conflict.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So he=
re's the hook: if Eric and I share coffee and a rousing debate=
about unconditional election, or total depravity, or homosexuality as Go=
d's manifest punishment on sinners, would I have greater readiness t=
o believe, or act on the basis of his statements? No, I think not--=
nor vice versa. We might find the conversation stimulatin=
g. We might be pleasantly surprised by the civility and h=
umaneness of our exchange. But the identity-based distrust whi=
ch has consistently and reliably resulted from our conversations (includi=
ng the long discussions of these matters here) won't be reduced, since so=
me of our values can never be brought into harmony, and neither of us is =
able to alter those values without damage to our core identities.</DIV> <=
DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In other words, as long as Eric pursues religious c=
onversations with me with the goal of bringing me to share his beliefs, w=
e aren't building exchanges of *mutual* benefit. And an argument de=
signed to prove to me that Eric has my best interests at heart will be un=
persuasive unless we share the values and goals he describ=
es as "best."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The old rhyme puts it well:&nb=
sp; "People convinced against their will / Will hold the same opinion sti=
ll." Or, as Galileo is said to have muttered after his trial at the=
Vatican for teaching an unscriptural cosmology, "Eppur se muovo," =
"Nevertheless it [the earth] does move." </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <=
DIV>Eric further writes:</DIV> <DIV>"I wish I could coerce everyone in th=
e Palouse to use the Bible as the owner's manual for their lives. I=
think you might be surprised at what a nice place it would be."<BR><BR>I=
have to ask, nice for whom? If I can trust the statements made in =
print by our local Reformed thinkers, in a Reformed Palouse, I'd be dead-=
-or ridden out of town on a rail. My family would be destroyed.&nbs=
p; My Jewish, pagan, Muslim, agnostic, Buddhist, Mormon, Catholic, a=
nd Unitarian friends? No room for them unless they convert. T=
here'd be a lot of women out of work, and without the franchise.&nbs=
p; No more public education. We'd embrace slavery as God's plan for=
some people. And we'd rejoice in the notion that God created a who=
le bunch of people already condemned to Hell no matter what the=
y do, just because He could.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Nice is not the=
word that springs to mind, frankly.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Melynda=
Huskey</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Nice? Really?</DIV></BODY></HT=
ML><br clear=3Dall><hr>Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download=
: <a href=3D'http://explorer.msn.com'>http://explorer.msn.com</a><br></p=
>
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C44432.9FCF6800--