How blindly do you trust superior entities?

[UniqueMixture]

[MENTION=825]ygolo[/MENTION] I understand, but I think the subconscious message "They are x I am y because x =//= y. I am not x." is sent. Also, questions like these tend to be representative of subconscious fears imo which is why they are "abstracted."

 

[ygolo]

I cannot place a calculator in the same position as a spiritual entity. One you can crosschck the answers while the other has few checks and balances that are measurable. For one, the jeopardy of the outcome is low, the other could be massive. So my degree of willingness to trust or follow one over the other is variable and dependant upon the specific advice and and circumstances at hand.

This was my thought as well. There are machines and processes that spit out the right answer as long as nothing is broken, and this answer is verifiable through other means. I have a lot of trust in processes and machines that seem to be established on sound principles. For example, I trust my car to operate consistently rather than running me into a tree, I've flown in airplanes, I use electrical devices without fearing to be electrocuted as long as I don't use them in the bathtub (or some other working conditions we all know), I trust the refrigerator to keep my food unspoiled for eating, I trust medicine I buy at the store to work as directed within its normal range of behavior, etc. We all trust a lot of processes and items implicitly, once we get a sense of how they work and can weigh them as effectual from experience.

These are the products of human activity. The principles on which these are create were also described by human beings. So are you not inherently trusting the factory workers, engineers, inspectors, executives, regulators, etc. when you trust these things?

However, people often trust machines, medicines, and other human creations with very little thought. Why do you believe this is the case? Are there actually some warm-fuzzies that come along with the completely depersonalized products of human activity?

This is very different from a human being's opinion of spirituality, kind of on the opposite end, as spirituality cannot be "proven' at all or established as operating under a specific sense of principles. Instead we have different philosophies, and the most we can do is judge them historically (if they make any historical claims) or in terms of outcome if they presuppose a particular process to generate a particular conclusion.

I am not sure historicity has any bearing on this. Maybe I am wrong. Can you explain?

It seems to me that a "does it work" mentality can be applied here too, no? Are there actually no spiritual principles? Or are they just harder to discover?

For me, I actually do handle these two very different items similarly, though, in terms of principle. I first establish how trustworthy it is --are the principles consistent, do things work as claimed -- and then I weigh it accordingly. It's just that physical processes, machines, and the like are naturally far more trustworthy; people are fuzzier in both their behavior and knowledge, and their beliefs cannot be tested as strongly as to whether they work or not, as there are always exceptions, misunderstandings, contextual factors, etc.

What is it about physical processes that seem more trustworthy than people? Is the the relative simplicity?

What happens when I evaluate people? I guess at best I judge the veracity of the person; Are they consistent? Do they normally show good understanding of the world? can they reasonably predict outcome correctly? What is their own judging process like -- are they trying to test their own ideas too? Have I know them to lie in the past? Or make mistakes? What do their lives look like? What is it the outcome of their own choices, typically? This gives me an idea of the person's general accuracy and insight and sincerity levels, and helps me establish trust.

There are certainly a lot of factors involved. For me, it is a subconscious, or even unconscious process of trusting someone. Sometimes the process itself isn't that great and I end up trusting those that I should not. I used to be a lot more credulous and trusting than I am now. Usually, now, I am only fooled when I am either too eager, too lazy, too much in a hurry, too unprepared, or too much in agreement to spot the errors or warning signs.

Unfortunately, not trusting someone who I should have is something I will be unlikely to discover.

Note that even if I believe someone is typically trustworthy as well as wise, it doesn't mean they are infallible. I can give a person more credit if they have an established track record, and if I believe there is no way for me to confirm or deny their suppositions myself -- there is no good way to "test" them -- but typically if something seems to be outside of the normal range of behavior or claim, I'll typically test the idea rather than trusting it. As soon as there is an inconsistency, then I now have a question/doubt about it that I need to do something with.

Yes. I do this too. I wonder if this is what people call "Ti" on this forum, or if it is just normal human skepticism.

 

[ygolo]

[MENTION=825]ygolo[/MENTION] I understand, but I think the subconscious message "They are x I am y because x =//= y. I am not x." is sent. Also, questions like these tend to be representative of subconscious fears imo which is why they are "abstracted."

I am not sure I follow. I'll expand on my own interpretation of your responses:

Who would be "they" and who "I" in this situation? The "superior entity" is "them" and I would be "I"?

Also, is the fallacy (that subconsciously may be inferred) is that this "superior entity" has the ability to do x, while I am not this "superior entity" and therefore I do not have the ability to do x?

The subconscious fear then would be that "I may not be able to do x", whatever that x may be?

If this interpretation is correct, how is this necessarily harmful to growth?

I've stated this before, but I don't believe fear is inherently a bad thing. If it is rooted in reality, it provides a good way to protect oneself from potential harm. If it is not rooted in reality, then it can be harmful. Someone who is either counterphobic or ignorant of real dangers in the world can put both himself and those he cares about in danger.

 

[Totenkindly]

These are the products of human activity. The principles on which these are create were also described by human beings. So are you not inherently trusting the factory workers, engineers, inspectors, executives, regulators, etc. when you trust these things?

Yes, I am trusting to a degree that that people who were assigned to build such devices had established track records and built them according to reasonable specification. Again, we get into the "purchase decision" process with this, which is another form of what you are describing -- note the competition between brand names (for example) and generic, where with generic you are taking a chance that the product will still behave as desired even if it is not subject to the same branding or R&D or thorough testing that the name brand is. Here, you are willing to accept lesser performance in order to save money, because it is still "acceptable" performance. Or compare it to airlines, where the trust factor drops for particular airlines when performance takes a hit via the discovery of flaws and/or tragedies.

Some of our trust in those situations is "fuzzy" trust -- we know the product is being widely used with little report of negative events, hence we get a sense of the product as trustworthy and the range over which is has been shown to be trustworthy.

However, people often trust machines, medicines, and other human creations with very little thought. Why do you believe this is the case? Are there actually some warm-fuzzies that come along with the completely depersonalized products of human activity?

Well your original question was asking me how I approached the matter personally. If you want to expand it to include other people besides me, I think we each have different processes we use to judge trust and performance, and some people use different criteria than I do. Obviously some people accept things unrelated to performance (such as tradition, or emotional gratification/rush created by an ad campaign or a particular sponsor, etc.) as judges of the item's ability.

I am not sure historicity has any bearing on this. Maybe I am wrong. Can you explain?

It has SOME bearing. For example, if we can prove a guy named Jesus existed, that's one link in the chain of accepting the rest of the Jesus claims. If we can prove a city existed at that time that fits with a city in the narrative, that's another link. And of course, if you have a witnesses example of a particular miraculous event that can be corroborated, that would be a much larger link in the chain. A lot of various independent links, hooked together, can create a chain of larger proportion. For me, it's still not "foolproof," but it lends credibility, and lots of times we are forced to make decisions based on less than complete information.

It seems to me that a "does it work" mentality can be applied here too, no? Are there actually no spiritual principles? Or are they just harder to discover?

Well,there is an issue where (I think) spiritual principles still usually are contextual rather than entirely universal, unless the rule is general enough. Many cultures seem to independently come up with some broad concepts such as protecting the innocent, protecting someone's property, protecting people from harm, etc. ANd they make rules and punish such crimes accordingly. Because if they do not, society tends to crumble in a predictable way. THere are other rules that seems less obvious, that cultures and individuals show more variance over.

And then of course you get into spiritual claims where someone says "God believes such-and-such is wrong" but the evidence itself is inconclusive, whereas maybe another religion doesn't believe in a personal human-like God at all, and the same.

What is it about physical processes that seem more trustworthy than people? Is the the relative simplicity?

Why not drag this into the T vs F thing? Impersonal truth vs personal truth? The impersonal rules can be reached by anyone following universal reasoning principles, whereas the personal rules are far more... personal... often making sense to only the person who has concluded them. Processes are based on impersonal principles and "how things work," whereas the people truths are based on personal principles and what resonates with the person.

 

[UniqueMixture]

I am not sure I follow. I'll expand on my own interpretation of your responses:

Who would be "they" and who "I" in this situation? The "superior entity" is "them" and I would be "I"?

Also, is the fallacy (that subconsciously may be inferred) is that this "superior entity" has the ability to do x, while I am not this "superior entity" and therefore I do not have the ability to do x?

The subconscious fear then would be that "I may not be able to do x", whatever that x may be?

If this interpretation is correct, how is this necessarily harmful to growth?

I've stated this before, but I don't believe fear is inherently a bad thing. If it is rooted in reality, it provides a good way to protect oneself from potential harm. If it is not rooted in reality, then it can be harmful. Someone who is either counterphobic or ignorant of real dangers in the world can put both himself and those he cares about in danger.

your interpretation of what I said is correct. my challenge to you is "what if reality is perception?" or "what if by perceiving differently you can alter reality?" So much of -who- we are is defined by other people's REACTIONS to us. however, by changing our perception and forcing others to change theirs by CHALLENGING their tropes while altering body language, behavior, and outer appearance we change their reaction and thus the mutual perception. this is what Se types refer to as "fronting"

 

[ygolo]

your interpretation of what I said is correct. my challenge to you is "what if reality is perception?" or "what if by perceiving differently you can alter reality?" So much of -who- we are is defined by other people's REACTIONS to us. however, by changing our perception and forcing others to change theirs by CHALLENGING their tropes while altering body language, behavior, and outer appearance we change their reaction and thus the mutual perception. this is what Se types refer to as "fronting"

I suppose "fake it till you make it" is another way to say this. I am not sure how this is very different from having a vision of yourself in the future that is different from what you believe you are now, and making this happen.

I still think the relevance to the idea of trusting someone or something who can do something better than me is a bit tenuous.

We cannot be all things. I think it is perfectly OK to trust people or things who have gotten better at certain things than me. But I will try to sanity check and make sure what they are doing for me or advising me of makes sense. I answered "slightly" on my own poll.

 

[UniqueMixture]

Yeah, I hear you. You're being realistic. I just get pissed at "the game" and want more intps to play it to their advantage because I think the world would be a better place if more people like you were in positions of greater influence/power.

 

[kyuuei]

Not to offend all of the people that voted 'slightly' but I find this mentality to be childish. "If I can't understand it, it must not make sense." I don't know how many times I've had to deal with people making jobs more difficult on themselves and others just because they don't want to trust the people that work over them even a tiny bit.

"WHAT?! I have to work the weekend?! That doesnt make any sense, I worked LAST weekend!" Cue stomping around, and bursting into my office all pissed off and red-faced.
Me: "You requested your brother's wedding off next month. So-and-so said they'd agree to it if they went to a wedding this month, so I switched ya'll on the schedule."

Then suddenly, the light bulb comes on, and instead of just trusting me to do the basics of my own damn job they have to go crazy and complain and worry about what EVERYONE ELSE is doing.

Its even worse with army people. They worry about what this unit is doing, why this squad gets to wake up late, why these people don't have to do PT and they do... It's ridiculously selfish. They claim they trust their supervisors, but at the first sign of something looking bad for them, they start to cry.

/rant.

 

[skylights]

Every question biases the results. How would you have preferred it phrased?

True, good point. Still, the word "blindly" seems particularly negative to me, connoting ignorance, as in "the blind leading the blind". I suppose "To what extent do you trust superior entities?" would seem more neutral to me. That is in my culture, however. I didn't comment further because I wasn't sure how widespread that opinion may be.

Can you unpack this a little? How does your own competence the area in question affect how much you trust? Are you talking about trust in the entity as a whole (not just competence in a particular domain)? How does the significance and time frame affect how much you trust?

It seems from the specific scenarios, what you perceive to be a potential for loss is important, and that the greater the potential for loss, the less you will trust. Is this right?

Well, I've been trying to break it down, but it seems incredibly multifaceted to me.

I would say yes, absolutely, the greater significance (ie more potential for loss), the less I trust. If I just delegate trust without fact-checking, I feel like that's me ducking out of my inherent responsibility to use my abilities to try to make a good world. The more riding on the decision, the more people who will be affected by the information we use, the more it's important to make sure that it's the best information available.

However, the more time I have, the less I trust, since verification of information takes a good deal of time. To expound upon my doctor example, if someone was clearly having a medical emergency, I would probably place a great extent of my trust into the nearest doctor's decisions - the medical profession generally being a humanitarian one, most doctors in my country undergoing years of intense training, and me not having enough time to fact-check before risking a life. It would be a calculated risk.

The more competence I have in an area, the less I trust, since that makes fact-checking much more quick and easy on my part. If I'm an expert, I'm likely to know almost immediately if something is risky or not.

The less I feel comfortable around a person, the less I trust. I had a previous supervisor who irked me because she seemed narcissistic and unreliable. Sure enough, it eventually came to light that she made up her own rules and often twisted others to her own benefit, while screwing the rest of us. I think instinctual impulses and intuition are helpful in terms of knowing when you need to investigate. Sometimes you might find nothing, and sometimes you might find layers of complexity, but other times you find lies and intentional misinformation.

It's just that physical processes, machines, and the like are naturally far more trustworthy; people are fuzzier in both their behavior and knowledge, and their beliefs cannot be tested as strongly as to whether they work or not, as there are always exceptions, misunderstandings, contextual factors, etc.

This is true. Physical processes are perhaps most trustworthy because they weren't built by or aren't operated by fuzzy people. Then machines, which reek of humans. Then humans, who are messy and complex.

 

[Totenkindly]

Not to offend all of the people that voted 'slightly' but I find this mentality to be childish. "If I can't understand it, it must not make sense."

I don't think I voted because I think the categories are malleable... i.e., in some contexts I don't trust others at all, in other contexts I very much do.

I agree with your complaints about the specific behaviors you are describing; in that context, a lack of trust is rather simplistic, self-absorbed, and emotionally immature. However, some people who might have answered "slightly" are likely to have other contexts in mind, so it seems kind of a mistaken broad brush to introduce your post with this line.

 

[ygolo]

Not to offend all of the people that voted 'slightly' but I find this mentality to be childish. "If I can't understand it, it must not make sense." I don't know how many times I've had to deal with people making jobs more difficult on themselves and others just because they don't want to trust the people that work over them even a tiny bit.

"WHAT?! I have to work the weekend?! That doesnt make any sense, I worked LAST weekend!" Cue stomping around, and bursting into my office all pissed off and red-faced.
Me: "You requested your brother's wedding off next month. So-and-so said they'd agree to it if they went to a wedding this month, so I switched ya'll on the schedule."

Then suddenly, the light bulb comes on, and instead of just trusting me to do the basics of my own damn job they have to go crazy and complain and worry about what EVERYONE ELSE is doing.

Its even worse with army people. They worry about what this unit is doing, why this squad gets to wake up late, why these people don't have to do PT and they do... It's ridiculously selfish. They claim they trust their supervisors, but at the first sign of something looking bad for them, they start to cry.

/rant.

The 'very little' option is much more of an "If I don't understand it, it doesn't make sense [to anyone]" mentality. Actually, even here, they may realize that things make sense to others, but believe that "sense" is mistaken.

The 'slightly' option gives the benefit of the the doubt to the superior entity. But if things keep not making sense after further investigation, then the benefit of the doubt is lost. Understanding something, and things making sense are essentially the same thing to me. Things may make sense to someone else, but that means they understand, not me.

If someone designs something or espouses a principle that does not make sense to me, I feel it is my duty to point this out. Even the supposedly brightest minds make mistakes. The process of questioning and explaining is rather important to learning, discovery, and innovation. I believe I am rather capable of changing my mind, and if someone explains something clearly to me, I will understand it.

The "a good amount" option is to be much more earnest in attempting to change ones mind, and gives a lot more time and leeway for the superior entity. Unfortunately, in a lot of scenarios, this much time can be enough for a building to crumble, a bridge to break, a bug to be released, and so on. But I can see how in situations that require a quick response time, how the relative time frames shrink.

 

[ygolo]

True, good point. Still, the word "blindly" seems particularly negative to me, connoting ignorance, as in "the blind leading the blind". I suppose "To what extent do you trust superior entities?" would seem more neutral to me. That is in my culture, however. I didn't comment further because I wasn't sure how widespread that opinion may be.

I suppose "blindly" does have a bit of a negative connotation to it. But I wanted a way to capture the fact that in the scenarios I cared about, you, yourself cannot "see" (understand, comprehend, etc.) what the superior entity does. Do you know of a more neutral way of capturing that aspect of things?

Well, I've been trying to break it down, but it seems incredibly multifaceted to me.

I would say yes, absolutely, the greater significance (ie more potential for loss), the less I trust. If I just delegate trust without fact-checking, I feel like that's me ducking out of my inherent responsibility to use my abilities to try to make a good world. The more riding on the decision, the more people who will be affected by the information we use, the more it's important to make sure that it's the best information available.

However, the more time I have, the less I trust, since verification of information takes a good deal of time. To expound upon my doctor example, if someone was clearly having a medical emergency, I would probably place a great extent of my trust into the nearest doctor's decisions - the medical profession generally being a humanitarian one, most doctors in my country undergoing years of intense training, and me not having enough time to fact-check before risking a life. It would be a calculated risk.

The more competence I have in an area, the less I trust, since that makes fact-checking much more quick and easy on my part. If I'm an expert, I'm likely to know almost immediately if something is risky or not.

The less I feel comfortable around a person, the less I trust. I had a previous supervisor who irked me because she seemed narcissistic and unreliable. Sure enough, it eventually came to light that she made up her own rules and often twisted others to her own benefit, while screwing the rest of us. I think instinctual impulses and intuition are helpful in terms of knowing when you need to investigate. Sometimes you might find nothing, and sometimes you might find layers of complexity, but other times you find lies and intentional misinformation.

I think I have the same preferences:

1. More general trust leads to more trust in a specific area.
2. Greater significance leads to less trust.
3. Less time leads to more trust.
4. The more competent I am in an area, the less I would trust.

This is true. Physical processes are perhaps most trustworthy because they weren't built by or aren't operated by fuzzy people. Then machines, which reek of humans. Then humans, who are messy and complex.

I am still processing this idea. In many ways, I can see where people are coming from. But, if I was trying hard to make this question about scenarios where you trust things that don't make sense to you. The reason I trust physical processes is that I feel I have some level of understanding of them.

If a calculator gave me answers that didn't make sense to me, or if a machine was functioning in a way that didn't make sense to me, I don't believe that I would necessarily trust it more that other things that don't make sense to me. Certainly, in most cases with computation it is a case of "Garbage-In, Garbage-Out", but I don't know if that is quite the same thing as trusting the superior entity.

 

[EcK]

I dont think trust has anything to do with our alien overlords

 

[kyuuei]

I don't think I voted because I think the categories are malleable... i.e., in some contexts I don't trust others at all, in other contexts I very much do.

I agree with your complaints about the specific behaviors you are describing; in that context, a lack of trust is rather simplistic, self-absorbed, and emotionally immature. However, some people who might have answered "slightly" are likely to have other contexts in mind, so it seems kind of a mistaken broad brush to introduce your post with this line.

I attempted to be clarifying, quoting the aspect I found childish, maybe not as much as I should have been.

The 'very little' option is much more of an "If I don't understand it, it doesn't make sense [to anyone]" mentality. Actually, even here, they may realize that things make sense to others, but believe that "sense" is mistaken.

Right, I saw that, but I more meant the aspect of "If it doesn't make sense to *me*, then it is not trustworthy even if others agree" sort of thing. Many times in my line of work we make decisions that are on bigger, broader aspects of the job.. They go well beyond the scope of one's individual tasks. When those decisions don't make sense within those tasks, they get to whining and crying and hootin' about a lot of nothing.. As if I always owe them an explanation for doing my job to standard. I explain when it is necessary and I know something will seem very out of character, but I do not have to explain "Hey, we're working out in the mornings instead of the evenings" to everyone just because they don't like the mornings and things are more convenient for them in the evenings. They can't put together the puzzle that creates a simple decision like that.

The 'slightly' option gives the benefit of the the doubt to the superior entity. But if things keep not making sense after further investigation, then the benefit of the doubt is lost. Understanding something, and things making sense are essentially the same thing to me. Things may make sense to someone else, but that means they understand, not me.

Many times as a manager though, I find the only times people 'understand' is when they realize something immediately benefits them. When it is long term benefits, or something to help out others and not necessarily themselves, it's suddenly stupid and useless. "Why do we have to have meetings in the morning before work? I don't get paid to go to those.. I already know all this stuff." I hear it all the time. And a few decisions that are seen in an employee's eyes as "bad" is enough to negate a lot of decisions that they didn't realize helped them out later on, or the times they explained a decision and it made sense more.

I explain as much as I can, but sometimes you just have to trust your superiors. They are in that position for a reason. Questioning them should be tactful and with some serious base and merit, and to be honest many people do not put that much thought into their dispositions.

If someone designs something or espouses a principle that does not make sense to me, I feel it is my duty to point this out. Even the supposedly brightest minds make mistakes. The process of questioning and explaining is rather important to learning, discovery, and innovation. I believe I am rather capable of changing my mind, and if someone explains something clearly to me, I will understand it.

But are you really owed an explanation for everything? For the life of me, I cannot figure out why women in the military are REQUIRED to wear skirts and high heels to formal events--no part of that makes sense to me, and it never will. And I have yet to find an answer in the army that explains it. But at the end of the day, I'm wearing the skirt. There are public relations things that go on in that aspect that I will just never understand. If you question everything, people get the impression you find them incompetent as well. It can be extremely annoying to spend a lot of time creating something only for people to assume you're an idiot because they don't get every working mechanism that went into that.

If you only question the things that seem blatantly wrong or off, and you generally get a sense of understanding for what is going on in the workplace, why vote slightly? To me, slightly sounded very "Eh... You don't seem like a total moron, but I'm watching your every move anyways..."

The "a good amount" option is to be much more earnest in attempting to change ones mind, and gives a lot more time and leeway for the superior entity. Unfortunately, in a lot of scenarios, this much time can be enough for a building to crumble, a bridge to break, a bug to be released, and so on. But I can see how in situations that require a quick response time, how the relative time frames shrink.

I don't assume my bosses are incompetent or that I know their jobs better than they do until I walk in their shoes. I have had completely idiotic superiors before, and I've had to work under them--I'm well seasoned in the dealing-with-morons department. But even then, I wouldn't think of myself with my experience as 'slightly'.. I'm not so quick to think that everyone shouldn't be given a chance a their job.

Maybe the slightly option just sounds much more severe to me than you meant it to.. Slightly sounds like a hare above "very little" which is basically none. The description made it sound, to me, quick to notice a pattern of incompetence, whether warranted to hold that grudge or not. I also feel slightly jumps straight to a good amount too fast. There are some people that don't put much thought into it one way or the other--they go, do their job, and if something is really outrageous they bring it up.. sometimes they get an answer, sometimes they don't, but either way they just go back to doing their job. If there are an option that sounded this way, a more neutral response, I'd have voted that way.

 

[ygolo]

I attempted to be clarifying, quoting the aspect I found childish, maybe not as much as I should have been.

As [MENTION=7]Jennifer[/MENTION] pointed out, the employee-boss relationship is just one scenario of many under consideration. This could even include getting directions to a good place to eat from someone local when you drive into an unfamiliar town (perhaps less relevant w/ the advent of GPS). Can you see if "slightly" is just as off-putting an answer in all the scenarios mentioned?

Also, for someone to be considered "superior" I took it as a presumption that the person answering the question genuinely believed the entity in question is superior. For a lot of people, someone being their boss does not automatically mean that the bosses have superior judgement/knowledge. But for the purposes of answering the question, in a boss-employee situation, the presumption needs to be that the boss actually does have superior judgement/knowledge.

The other presumption is that the advice/instruction/order/answer does not make sense to you, and the trust aspect is regarding whether or not you believe the advice/instruction/order/answer is correct...not whether or not you will follow it.

In a job situation, there is a notion of "disagree and commit". Here, even if one disagrees with a course of action, and do not trust that it is the right course of action, one still does one's best so as not to accidentally(or intentionally) sabotage a situation. But I still consider this different from trusting a decision.

Right, I saw that, but I more meant the aspect of "If it doesn't make sense to *me*, then it is not trustworthy even if others agree" sort of thing. Many times in my line of work we make decisions that are on bigger, broader aspects of the job.. They go well beyond the scope of one's individual tasks. When those decisions don't make sense within those tasks, they get to whining and crying and hootin' about a lot of nothing.. As if I always owe them an explanation for doing my job to standard. I explain when it is necessary and I know something will seem very out of character, but I do not have to explain "Hey, we're working out in the mornings instead of the evenings" to everyone just because they don't like the mornings and things are more convenient for them in the evenings. They can't put together the puzzle that creates a simple decision like that.

To me, depending on the tone of the questioning, it seems like someone holding this attitude is not familiar with the "disagree and commit" notion, does not actually think the manager has superior judgement, and/or has "Very Little" trust in superior entities. If the tone is very brash and presumptuous, I would go so far as to say that someone like this should answer "Not at all".

Many times as a manager though, I find the only times people 'understand' is when they realize something immediately benefits them. When it is long term benefits, or something to help out others and not necessarily themselves, it's suddenly stupid and useless. "Why do we have to have meetings in the morning before work? I don't get paid to go to those.. I already know all this stuff." I hear it all the time. And a few decisions that are seen in an employee's eyes as "bad" is enough to negate a lot of decisions that they didn't realize helped them out later on, or the times they explained a decision and it made sense more.

I explain as much as I can, but sometimes you just have to trust your superiors. They are in that position for a reason. Questioning them should be tactful and with some serious base and merit, and to be honest many people do not put that much thought into their dispositions.

Again, its seems to me in work situations like this, the "disagree and commit" portion is what is (not) in play. The way I had intended the question, to say that I trust some entity, is to honestly believe that he/she/it is right about something that I don't understand, and that given time and effort, I will come around to this point of view. The question is how much time or effort will I put in?

I used to work with an engineer who would go around saying "It's never gonna work, we're wasting our time" almost till the end of a project, but still put in really good work, and may have actually been the one most responsible for making the project work in the end. He disagreed but committed. In a way, his ability to see all the potential pitfalls was key to making the project successful.

He didn't spend a lot of time or effort to change his own mind, but nevertheless did his job as an engineer to design things as well as he could. It wasn't till he actually saw things working that he said, "Maybe this thing will work, maybe."

But are you really owed an explanation for everything? For the life of me, I cannot figure out why women in the military are REQUIRED to wear skirts and high heels to formal events--no part of that makes sense to me, and it never will. And I have yet to find an answer in the army that explains it. But at the end of the day, I'm wearing the skirt. There are public relations things that go on in that aspect that I will just never understand. If you question everything, people get the impression you find them incompetent as well. It can be extremely annoying to spend a lot of time creating something only for people to assume you're an idiot because they don't get every working mechanism that went into that.

So do you trust that the requirement for wearing skirts and high heels is right, and that you eventually see why given time and effort, or is this a case where despite disagreeing you will do your job?

If you only question the things that seem blatantly wrong or off, and you generally get a sense of understanding for what is going on in the workplace, why vote slightly? To me, slightly sounded very "Eh... You don't seem like a total moron, but I'm watching your every move anyways..."

I should have perhaps made it clear that in the scenarios I was talking about, the person answering the question genuinely believes the entity is superior in a particular domain. Also, this has to do with situations that don't make sense. That's why I included the word "blindly".

I don't assume my bosses are incompetent or that I know their jobs better than they do until I walk in their shoes. I have had completely idiotic superiors before, and I've had to work under them--I'm well seasoned in the dealing-with-morons department. But even then, I wouldn't think of myself with my experience as 'slightly'.. I'm not so quick to think that everyone shouldn't be given a chance a their job.

Again, I am presupposing a few things in all situations:
1) You genuinely believe the entity in question is superior.
2) The statements from the entity (whether it is advice, instruction, answers, or whatever) do not make sense to you.
3) Trust in this case is meant regarding the veracity of the output of the superior entity. In situations like this, one may still follow orders without believing that the orders are the best.

I should probably add this to the OP.

Maybe the slightly option just sounds much more severe to me than you meant it to.. Slightly sounds like a hare above "very little" which is basically none. The description made it sound, to me, quick to notice a pattern of incompetence, whether warranted to hold that grudge or not. I also feel slightly jumps straight to a good amount too fast. There are some people that don't put much thought into it one way or the other--they go, do their job, and if something is really outrageous they bring it up.. sometimes they get an answer, sometimes they don't, but either way they just go back to doing their job. If there are an option that sounded this way, a more neutral response, I'd have voted that way.

Perhaps the wording is a bit strange. The fact that nobody selected "Very little", but some chose the options above and below is some indication that I didn't communicate exactly what I intended.

 

[Mole]

Learning to be skeptical of superior entities like Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha or Confucius; and learning to be skeptical of our parents, our priests, rabbis, immams and gurus, of our teachers, of our politicians, our artists and our scientists, is part of growing up.

Most of us grow old without growing up, and so we maintain our childhood trust in superior entities.

 

[ygolo]

Learning to be skeptical of superior entities like Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha or Confucius; and learning to be skeptical of our parents, our priests, rabbis, immams and gurus, of our teachers, of our politicians, our artists and our scientists, is part of growing up.

Most of us grow old without growing up, and so we maintain our childhood trust in superior entities.

I agree with you.

But growing up in an unbalanced manner can be painful. Something needs to balance skepticism, but I am not sure that that is.

 

[garbage]

In urgent and time-critical situations, I can't afford to spend mental energy scrutinizing what an entity tells me. If a source is highly reliable (e.g. a doctor giving me advice when my leg has just been severed off), then I'll roll with what they tell me.

In important situations where I can afford to deliberate over what an entity tells me, I'll investigate their line of reasoning and corroborative for their stance. I like knowing why I do the things that I do, but sometimes I'll investigate after the fact. I don't want to be a pushy asshole toward an entity in the moment--from the entity's standpoint, dammit, sometimes shit just has to get done.

We tend to calibrate and validate calculators, clocks, computer models, etc. before they're put to the field. They're also usually used for less important tasks--say, arithmetic or decision support rather than outright critical thinking. So I can 'blindly trust' them more than I can human sources.

Long and short, I usually investigate out of curiosity rather than skepticism--though I can be motivated by both. Sometimes, I wind up believe that the entity's right; sometimes, I don't.

Ooh, let me answer the specific scenarios:

Scenario 1:
The use of a calculator or computing device to calculations. How blindly to you trust the answers spit out?
Essentially always, but as someone who develops computer models myself, I trust that I know when to be skeptical. Sometimes, I'll double-check my inputs.

Scenario 2:
Someone that you, yourself, believe to be more wise and worldly gives you advise about a situation where you believe (s)he has superior judgement. How blindly do you trust him/her?
I'll take their principles to heart and 'try them out' in the real world. If they work, then they become a part of me. If they don't, then I discard them.

Scenario 3:
An alien comes to Earth and explains how to create world transforming technologies (specifically in space travel and inter-species communication).
man what this alien up to :hmm:

Scenario 4:
Someone that you know is better at processing emotions gives you advice about how to handle an emotional situation.
I'd have to balance their perception with my own, but this is one of those situations where I'd have to determine whether I feel that their advice is 'true for me.'

Scenario 5:
Someone you know to be more knowledgeable about a particular field tells you some facts about the field.
I'd be inclined to believe them, and, out of curiosity, look 'em up on Wikipedia and explore the field later on.

Scenario 6:
Someone you believe to be significantly better informed about medical issues (perhaps a doctor or nurse) gives you medical advice.
My fiancee's a nurse, and I blindly trust her when it comes to me getting sick, feeling pain, etc. But I do ask her why certain treatments work because I'm curious.

Scenario 7:
Someone significantly more knowledgeable and experienced in business, finance, and money gives you financial advice.
In this particular domain, I like to simplify. Experts make shit way too complicated because it's easy for them and they get a kick out of their field. I'm not so curious about economics. When I'm given financial advice, it's usually met with a "Look, I'll consider it, but I'm probably just going to stick with my money market and real estate."

Scenario 8:
A health advisory board, that you have come to trust, puts out advice on diet.
I might try it if I'm concerned about my health; if it doesn't work, I'll not try it any more.

Scenario 9:
A science advisory board, that you have come to trust, puts out a booklet about what it believes is true about a subject.
Another situation where I have time to investigate their claims--moreso out of curiosity than skepticism.

Scenario 10:
Someone you believe to be more spiritually aware and wise in that sense gives you advice in matters of the spirituality.
Try it, see if it's true for me, etc.

Scenario 11:
A source of spiritual doctrine (perhaps a pastor or biblical scholar reading from the Bible, a rabi quoting the Torah or Talmud, or a guru quoting the Gitas or the Vedas, or a Mullah quoting the Quran), that you have come to trust, tells you what ought to be done for spiritual reasons.
Take a relevant slice from it and incorporate it into my daily life and set of principles, discard the rest.

Scenario 12:
An organization that makes food, that you trust to make good food, gives you food to eat.
Yeah, I tend to not worry about food so much

Scenario 13:
A mechanic you trust, and you believe knows more about cars than you, tells you what needs to be done with your car.
I tend to blindly trust my trusted mechanics, because I don't know crap about cars.

Scenario 14:
An organization you trust to make "ingredients" for your work gives you a product that it claims meets certain specifications.
Oh, I'd have to investigate that shit. Validate it to all hell. Subject it to testing and scrutinization of all sorts.

 

[Cellmold]

How blindly do you trust superior entities?

[MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION]

Ive never trusted that [MENTION=15886]jontherobot[/MENTION] deity...have you?

 

[WALMART]

[MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION]

Ive never trusted that [MENTION=15886]jontherobot[/MENTION] deity...have you?

Believe in me, for I believe in you.