Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




How do you know when you can trust someone?

I have a basic question. This is a dog eat dog world. Your friends will be your friends until someone pays them better. Is the world so mechanic that people will only trust you while their interests are aligned with yours? Don't people keep their promises any longer?

How can you find out if someone is trustworthy?

The Cream in the Pie
Sunday, August 01, 2004

In watching the Democratic National Convention, one commentor was asked about whether or not John Kerry's past, particularly his military service, should come in to play, and the answer was - the best way to tell what someone will be like, is by their past behaviour.

www.MarkTAW.com
Sunday, August 01, 2004

If you have to ask, the probably are not.  Or... MORE likely is you are not.  Today, a man is bound by his lawyer not his word.  I see examples here at least a couple of times a month "I signed a bad contract." "I agreed to do this and now want out..."  etc. 

If you want to trust someone you must first be trustworthy.  We all experience the dog-eat-dog mentality and if honest with ourselves feel slighted when someone takes advantage and gets ahead. While it "will all work out in the end" is a good philosophy, it is hard to swallow.

Make your word, your bond and you can expect the same of others.  Make yourself a trustworthy person and you can expect it of others.

Anonanonanon
Sunday, August 01, 2004

There's an old saying: "You can't cheat an honest man". If you go in with your eyes open and never kid yourself, it's hard to be conned by someone else.

.
Sunday, August 01, 2004

In the book "I heard You Paint Houses" (about the guy who claims he shot Jimmy Hoffa) there's an interesting comment. The hitman was a good friend of Hoffa's; when asked why he had agreed to kill his friend, he said "If I didn't do it, Jimmy would still be just as dead, and I'd be dead too".

Anony Coward
Sunday, August 01, 2004

"best way to tell what someone will be like, is by their past behaviour"

He signed up for the Navy and went to Vietnam, then came home and became and anti-war protester with Jane Fonda.  I'm not sure what I can tell about him as a presidential candidate from that.

Tom H
Sunday, August 01, 2004

"I'm not sure what I can tell about him as a presidential candidate from that. "

Um, maybe that you're guaranteed that Kerry won't be a president who avoided military service himself yet adopts a doctrine of 'preemptive' war.

Helpful hinter
Sunday, August 01, 2004

A person who has been to war and dislikes it is better than a person who hasn't and loves it.  Not being at war is better than being at war.

Flasher T
Monday, August 02, 2004

I've always tried to live my business life by the credo "trust, but verify".

It seems to be working reasonably well.

www.ChristopherHawkins.com
Monday, August 02, 2004

Give us the juicy details. What happened?

Fernanda Stickpot
Monday, August 02, 2004

We planned to leave town together, look for work in another bigger city. Suddenly someone waved a job at my friend and he dumped me. Of course, for me to be so pissed off this was done when we were about to go.

An apartment had been procured, certifications had been taken, resumes had been sent and job proposals had been refused in order to pursue the big dream.

RP
Monday, August 02, 2004

.... is by their past behaviour.....

yes, sort of. However, it is not that I have always lived up to
other people's and my own ethical standards, and after I have 
screwed something/someone, I usually decide to do that
particular thing better next time. Call it the learn effect, if you
want
     

Conservare in un luogo asciutto e fresco, al riparo dal sole.
Monday, August 02, 2004

"you're guaranteed that Kerry won't be a president who avoided military service himself yet adopts a doctrine of 'preemptive' war"

Or maybe you're guaranteed a president who backs down in the face of terror, which is what Clinton did.

Tom H
Monday, August 02, 2004

- Get same initials as beloved President. Check.
- Get my ticket punched in Vietnam. Film deeds, real or imagined, for use in future campaign ads. Check.
- Return home. Lie about combat experiences in front of Congress. Call former comrades baby-killers. Check.
- Marry rich heiress. Check.
- Seek elected office. Check.

JFK
Monday, August 02, 2004

JFK, I'm not an american, but I believe doing all those things (even if their all lies in the case of John Kerry) is way better than going to war "just because he tried to kill my dad".

Slow Learner
Monday, August 02, 2004

"Can't we all just get along?!"

For the children.

Rodney
Monday, August 02, 2004

Slow learner-

Going to war because they tried to kill my dad is actually appropriate, especially if your dad was a former president of the US.  Clinton should have knocked Saddam's ass off years ago for that one.

You can't cheat an honest man?  Sure you can.  It's pretty easy in many cases.

To the OP, some people keep their promises these days and I have seen no objective evidence that promise breaking is any more prevalent today than it was 50 years ago.  It may be, but where is the evidence.

You have answered your own question.

My thinking is this- anyone (with the exception, possibly of one's mother) would screw you over for enough money.  The way to tell your friends is by how much money it would take.

Don't judge people too harshly.  We are all imperfect and we all need friends.

name withheld out of cowardice
Monday, August 02, 2004

Whatever makes you think trust is a boolean attribute?

Just because I trust you to cut my lawn, doesn't mean I trust you to babysit my infant daughter.  Or remove a tumor from my stomach. ...

%
Monday, August 02, 2004

Trust is only dangerous if you have to rely on it. Which, unless absolutely forced to, you shouldn't.

anon
Monday, August 02, 2004

Old western poker wisdom:  trust everyone at the table, but cut the cards.

GML
Monday, August 02, 2004

Just curious.

Is there an update to Godwin's law that accounts for references to George W. Bush and the Iraq war?

Jim Rankin
Monday, August 02, 2004

"Um, maybe that you're guaranteed that Kerry won't be a president who avoided military service himself yet adopts a doctrine of 'preemptive' war."

Right, because being a president who did go to war and then adopted a doctrine of preemption would be totally different.

What I want to know is, who's going to work out the differences between the Johns.  Because John E. says he will destroy all the terrorists, but John K. only says that he will respond after America gets attacked again.  So which is the official campaign position?  Or will they just work it out between the two of them after they get in office?

Jim Rankin
Monday, August 02, 2004

When, exactly, did Bush go to war, again?

muppet
Monday, August 02, 2004

I shouldn't fan the fire, but what the hell, I've got a case of the  Mondays...


In 1992, military service in a combat theater (hell, military service of any kind) was not a vital qualification for President of the USA. Twelve years later, it is. Discuss.

JFK
Monday, August 02, 2004

in 1992, wasn't it health records, or something equally stupid?  Militiary service is simply the newest "LOOK AT ME, NOT THERE, HERE!" issue.

muppet
Monday, August 02, 2004

It seems to me that it became relevant when a guy who used family connections to avoid fighting beside the poor folk later started calling himself a warrior to fire up his marginally employed (and therefore immasculated) fan base.

The stakes got higher when his media goon squad went to work attacking the decorated military career of the other guy, a guy who happened to actually brave real, personal danger once or twice in his lifetime.  (It doesn't have to make sense, you just need to repeat something a lot for most monkeys to believe something.  That's especially true for the sort that listen to radio goons to learn what to believe.)

Astoundingly, the guy who'd actually gone where shots would be fired at him seemed to be not far ahead on the security issue to the guy who sat at a desk and said "go get 'em boys," and later "bring it on" from behing that same safe desk.  Why then any wonder about the interest?

Conan
Monday, August 02, 2004

"The stakes got higher when his media goon squad went to work attacking the decorated military career of the other guy, a guy who happened to actually brave real, personal danger once or twice in his lifetime."

Because, as we all know, no one on the other side ever said anything less than kind 'bout W.

To be blunt about this, the fact that Senator Kerry hates war may cause hesitation in civilian citizens when they consider pulling the lever.  Many Americans believe violence will continue to be necessary in the coming years, and may be nervous about electing someone too hesitant to use it.

Jim Rankin
Monday, August 02, 2004

"When, exactly, did Bush go to war, again?"

Sorry, trying to be too clever, I guess.

The original poster did not specifically say that a Kerry presidency would guarantee a non-preemptive policy.  Only that there would be no non-preemptive policy enacted by someone with no combat experience.

Silly semantic hair splitting.  I'll go sit in the corner now.

Jim Rankin
Monday, August 02, 2004

c/f the thread on the prisoners' dilemma.

The most effective approach is to trust someone until they demonstrate untrustworthy behaviour, no matter how small. Then never trust them again.

Works for me.

WoodenTongue
Tuesday, August 03, 2004

In Spain some years back I remarked to a Civil Guard friend from Andalucia that whilst in Catalonia everything had to be in writing, and preferably stamped by notary public in Old Castille things would be done orally, and somebody's word would be their bond.

"Ah, yes," he said. "We have the same system in Andalucia. A man's word is his bond -but only if there were a load of other people who heard it" :)

Stephen Jones
Wednesday, August 04, 2004

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home