diff --git a/draft-documents/the-codependency-of-trust-and-community.md b/draft-documents/the-codependency-of-trust-and-community.md index f4edb500..dc979144 100644 --- a/draft-documents/the-codependency-of-trust-and-community.md +++ b/draft-documents/the-codependency-of-trust-and-community.md @@ -6,64 +6,66 @@ * Nick Meyne - [nick.meyne@smtngood.eu](nick.meyne@smtngood.eu) ## Abstract -In this paper for RWoT we propose a model of trust and community that draws on thinking in complementary disciplines such as Physics and Mathematics (Theory of Explanation), Biology (Autopoeisis) and Social Sciences (social systems). We offer a definition of trust by studying the way that it manifests between individuals and communities. We derive a conceptual model of trust by identifying key events between individuals that determine trust within a particular context and use the model to describe how larger societal structures can be built from the composition of individual trust. +In this paper for RWOT, we propose a model of trust and community that draws on thinking in complementary disciplines such as Physics and Mathematics (Theory of Explanation), Biology (Autopoeisis) and Social Sciences (social systems). We offer a definition of trust by studying the way that it manifests between individuals and communities. We derive a conceptual model of trust by identifying key events between individuals that determine trust within a particular context and use the model to describe how larger societal structures can be built from the composition of individual trust. ## The Role of Community in Trust -Typically, and more so in technical discussion, Trust is considered a quality between two people: Alice trusts Bob to do something. This section proposes that Trust, considered outside the context of a Community, is trust emasculated, for two motives - a person’s ability to trust was formed in a Community context, and the person carries a nearly innate desire for Community within their psyche not only as an indispensable tool for trust but also as a way of life. +Typically, and more so in technical discussion, **trust** is considered a quality between two people: Alice trusts Bob to do something. This section proposes that trust, considered outside the context of a **community**, is trust emasculated, for two reasons: a person’s ability to trust was formed in a community context; and the person carries a nearly innate desire for community within their psyche, not only as an indispensable tool for trust but also as a way of life. ### East versus West -In the western philosophy, I am the self, and I look out at the world, and create links to the world. This is best seen as Rene Decarte’s aphorism, “I think therefore I am.” The existence of my thoughts confirms my ‘self’ as being distinct to the world. +In the western philosophy, I am the self, and I look out at the world and create links to the world. This is best seen as René Decartes‘ aphorism, “I think therefore I am.” The existence of my thoughts confirms my ‘self’ as being distinct to the world. In other philosophies, Descarte is not the starting point. -`According to Ubuntu philosophy, which has its origins in ancient Africa, a newborn baby is not a person. People are born without ‘ena’, or selfhood, and instead must acquire it through interactions and experiences over time. (Birhane, 2017)` +"According to Ubuntu philosophy, which has its origins in ancient Africa, a newborn baby is not a person. People are born without ‘ena’, or selfhood, and instead must acquire it through interactions and experiences over time." (Birhane, 2017) -While strange to the West,it is the case that a new born baby has very little ‘identity’ or ‘self’ in comparison to that same baby years or even months later; its capabilities are limited – crying and searching for nipples, and little else – while its needs are great. +While this may seem strange to the West, it is the case that a new born baby has very little ‘identity’ or ‘self’ in comparison to that same baby years or even months later; its capabilities are limited – crying and searching for nipples and little else – while its needs are great. ### Upbringing -Whatever we think, there is a remarkable progression from day 0 to year 20. (Grigg 2021) Thinking at the other end of this journey, we see a strong, interacting, responsible, trusting adult. How did this happen? +Whatever we think, there is a remarkable progression from day 0 to year 20. (Grigg, 2021) Looking at the other end of this journey, we see a strong, interacting, responsible, trusting adult. How did this happen? -The process of upbringing is long, difficult, traumatic, and generally internalised. We as adults do not remember much of the childhood years; as parents we see it all again, but this time we are on the giving side not the receiving side. +The process of upbringing is long, difficult, traumatic, and generally internalised. We as adults do not remember much of the childhood years; as parents, we see it all again, but this time we are on the giving side not the receiving side. -Psychology says the process starts with Mother - and is primarily one of excessive attention, care for the basics of survival, and a flood of love. This is the important start, but the process quickly becomes interrupted by another, typically a father, but also other dominant individuals. The interruption is repeated, as slowly the circle of caring is enlarged: siblings, grandparents, uncles & aunts. Daycare and neighbours follow along. +Psychology says the process starts with **mother** — and is primarily one of excessive attention, care for the basics of survival, and a flood of love. This is the important start, but the process quickly becomes interrupted by another, typically a father, but also other dominant individuals. The interruption is repeated, as slowly the circle of caring is enlarged: siblings, grandparents, uncles & aunts. Daycare and neighbours follow along. -And school! In teaching, the classroom is a microcosm of a wider community. The classroom exists within a school and community, and functions within a wider 'education system' but the formative trust relationships are in the classroom, between students and teacher and between students. A good class community experience requires that students firstly feel safe, secondly have fun / enjoyment and thirdly, learn well. The order is important: students can't enjoy school if they don't feel safe, and they can't learn effectively if there is no joy or fun in the process. A good teacher will moderate and quickly intervene in student to student dynamics and trust relationships if they make some feel unsafe. As the class micro-community develops and matures, students will play more of a part in maintaining healthy trust relations and look after each other. The teacher steps back, but is always aware of each student's needs: “A good teacher will educate you. A great teacher will joyfully inspire you to grow.” (Ashar 2022) +And school! In teaching, the classroom is a microcosm of a wider community. The classroom exists within a school and community and functions within a wider 'education system', but the formative trust relationships are created within the classroom, between students and teacher and between students. A good class community experience requires that students firstly feel safe, secondly have fun / enjoyment and thirdly, learn well. The order is important: students can't enjoy school if they don't feel safe, and they can't learn effectively if there is no joy or fun in the process. A good teacher will moderate and quickly intervene in student to student dynamics and trust relationships if they make some feel unsafe. As the class micro-community develops and matures, students will play more of a part in maintaining healthy trust relations and looking after each other. The teacher steps back, but is always aware of each student's needs: “A good teacher will educate you. A great teacher will joyfully inspire you to grow." (Ashar, 2022) -### The institution of Community -Each of these participants – members of family, school teachers, neighbours – has a role in forming the new young person. Although individualised to the point of chaos, this is a general process through which each child goes, and any particular year group of children advance forward with a clear degree of equality. +### The Institution of Community +Each of these participants — members of family, school teachers, neighbours — has a role in forming the new young person. Although individualised to the point of chaos, this is a general process through which each child goes, and any particular year group of children advance forward with a clear degree of equality. -This upbringing is done in such an organised fashion that it is what economists name as an ‘institution’ - some structure of long-standing and repetitive strength. If we were to identify the institution and name it, we would be tempted to narrowly call it ‘family’ but more accurately, broadly, it is our local community, where community is defined as “a group of individuals who share a mutual concern for one another's welfare.” (Vogl 2016) +This upbringing is done in such an organised fashion that it is what economists name as an ‘institution’ - some structure of long-standing and repetitive strength. If we were to identify the institution and name it, we would be tempted to narrowly call it ‘family’ but more accurately, broadly, it is our local community, where community is defined as “a group of individuals who share a mutual concern for one another's welfare.” (Vogl, 2016) ### We are the Product of our Community -Which is the point we are trying to reach - the child is brought up within and by community. And thus the child can be said to be manufactured by the community, to the point when they are ready to advance out into the world. +Which is the point we are trying to reach: the child is brought up within and by community. And thus the child can be said to be manufactured by the community, to the point when they are ready to advance out into the world. -Even leaving the community does not cut the ties that bind; the new adult takes her community in her mind. The new adult finds it natural to be part of communities, and unnatural to be divorced from them, or as the Zulu expression has it that “a person is a person through other persons.” (Birhane 2016) +Even leaving the community does not cut the ties that bind; the new adult takes her community in her mind. The new adult finds it natural to be part of communities, and unnatural to be divorced from them, or as the Zulu expression has it: “a person is a person through other persons.” (Birhane, 2017) -This is explored further in Karl Smith's paper: 'From dividual and individual selves to porous subjects" The dominant North / Western hemisphere conception of a 'self-sovereign' individual is contrasted with a more nuanced and complex Southern / Eastern hemisphere outlook on self within community, in which the 'self' can be considered as the sum of the different experiences within more than one community environment. "I am 'dividual' not 'individual' or atomic". "I have many links with communities that bring new experiences to me and 'I' grow over time." +This is explored further in Karl Smith's paper: "From dividual and individual selves to porous subjects" (Smith, 2012). The dominant North / Western hemisphere conception of a 'self-sovereign' individual is contrasted with a more nuanced and complex Southern / Eastern hemisphere outlook on self within community, in which the 'self' can be considered as the sum of the different experiences within more than one community environment. "I am 'dividual' not 'individual' or atomic". "I have many links with communities that bring new experiences to me and 'I' grow over time." ## A Model of how Individuals Trust -In this section we explore how two individuals, previously unknown to each other, go about the process of establishing a certain level of trust with each other in a particular context. Then, using this framework developed from the story of our hero, Angus, looking to invest money with a stockbroker, propose how one could expand this framework of two individuals going through a trust lifecycle to create a read world model of how communities interact based on the discreet Trust Events individuals from disparate communities have. +In this section we explore how two individuals, previously unknown to each other, go about the process of establishing a certain level of trust with each other in a particular context. Then, using this framework developed from the story of our hero, Angus, looking to invest money with a stockbroker, propose how one could expand this framework of two individuals going through a trust lifecycle to create a read-world model of how communities interact based on the discreet **trust events** individuals from disparate communities have. ### The Trust Lifecycle Story -When thinking about trust it is useful to start with how two individuals, initially unknown to each other, start to build a trust relationship. Importantly, the need to establish such a relationship can take many forms. From sharing interests, to needing a task to be completed or simply having a friend introduce you to someone, such intents are some of the reasons and rewards that push individuals to seek out relationships. The intent an individual carries determines how trust is built in subsequent interactions. The kinds of rewards are being sought and what risks are entailed with the engagement form part of the considerations on how an individual approaches an interaction. +When thinking about trust, it is useful to start with how two individuals, initially unknown to each other, begin to build a trust relationship. Importantly, the need to establish such a relationship can take many forms. From sharing interests, to needing a task to be completed, or simply having a friend introduce you to someone, such intents are some of the reasons and rewards that push individuals to seek out relationships. The intent an individual carries determines how trust is built in subsequent interactions. What kinds of rewards are being sought and what risks are entailed with the engagement form some of the considerations for how an individual approaches an interaction. To explore these ideas let’s take a scenario where an individual, Angus, seeks out an investment firm to help him invest $100,000. -Angus, feeling unprepared to invest this money himself, begins his search for his investment firm. Angus reaches out to Bailey, his friend of many years who herself uses an investment firm to manage her investments. Bailey introduces Angus to her broker Cayson who has managed Bailey’s investments for many years. Happy with the recommendation, Angus initiates a call with Cayson to discuss his services and expertise and both agree to meet in person for a deeper chat. In the following meeting Angus gains further insight into the experience and recent investment results of Cayson’s work and builds enough confidence to consider his investment firm. Requiring further validation, Angus calls up his friend, Deniz, who has a background in finance, for her opinion on Cayson and his firm at which point he decides that he has gained enough confidence to decide to invest $50,000 of his $100,000 with Cayson. Shortly after making the investment, his portfolio value drops to $40,000. Angus re-evaluates his position and decides to remove $30,000 of his remaining investment from Cayson’s fund. +Angus, feeling unprepared to invest this money himself, begins his search for his investment firm. Angus reaches out to Bailey, his friend of many years who herself uses an investment firm to manage her investments. Bailey introduces Angus to her broker Cayson who has managed Bailey’s investments for many years. Happy with the recommendation, Angus initiates a call with Cayson to discuss his services and expertise; both agree to meet in person for a deeper chat. In the following meeting, Angus gains further insight into the experience and recent investment results of Cayson’s work and builds enough confidence to consider his investment firm. Requiring further validation, Angus calls up his friend, Deniz, who has a background in finance, for her opinion on Cayson and his firm, at which point he decides that he has gained enough confidence to decide to invest $50,000 of his $100,000 with Cayson. Shortly after making the investment, his portfolio value drops to $40,000. Angus re-evaluates his position and decides to remove $30,000 of his remaining investment from Cayson’s fund. -During this series of events, Angus made decisions based on the level of trust he had in the individuals involved, mainly centering around Cayson. Initially Angus simply had an intent to invest his money and the unwillingness to do this himself. When his search for a potential candidate for his investments began, he relied on his trust in his friend, Bailey, to build trust with a previously unknown entity, Cayson. Prior to the introduction, he had zero trust in Cayson. After the many engagements, his trust level in Cayson had risen. In this scenario, the trust level in Cayson in the context of financial investments was higher than his trust level in himself i.e. the risk was lower by going with Cayson. This risk plays an important role in informing the decision that individuals take as they build trust relationships with one another. In this case, Angus has effectively offloaded some burden of investment risk by building a trust relationship with Cayson through his other contacts who he already shares trust relationships with. +During this series of events, Angus made decisions based on the level of trust he had in the individuals involved, mainly centering around Cayson. Initially Angus simply had an intent to invest his money and the unwillingness to do this himself. When his search for a potential candidate for his investments began, he relied on his trust in his friend, Bailey, to build trust with a previously unknown entity, Cayson. Prior to the introduction, he had zero trust in Cayson. After the many engagements, his trust level in Cayson had risen. In this scenario, the trust level in Cayson in the context of financial investments was higher than his trust level in himself, i.e. the risk was lower by going with Cayson. This risk plays an important role in informing the decision that individuals take as they build trust relationships with one another. In this case, Angus has effectively offloaded some burden of investment risk by building a trust relationship with Cayson through his other contacts, who he already shares trust relationships with. ### Sequence of Events -Let’s break down the sequence of events. As the first step in his search, Angus reached out to a friend, Bailey, who had used a broker for a number of years. Here Angus is leveraging his existing trust with Bailey to fulfil his intent in finding a suitable investment firm. During this conversation, Angus learns about Cayson, Bailey’s broker, causing a Trust Event (a change in trust), which develops a new, non-zero, Trust Level with Cayson who he previously did not know and did not trust. This Trust Level is entirely inherited from that of which he shared with Bailey as he has yet to meet or speak to Cayson directly. Here we illustrate that trust can be established between individuals as a transitive property, at which point Angus’s Trust Level with Cayson is dependent on the good word of his friend, Bailey. +Let’s break down the sequence of events: -Our second Trust Event occurs when Angus and Cayson have their call. Cayson provides an introduction to his services and eventually triggers a change in Angus’ Trust Level in him. Again this Trust Event crosses the threshold required for Angus to decide to meet Cayson, leading him to the Trust Decision to meet in person. +**Event #1: Angus consults with Bailey.** As the first step in his search, Angus reached out to a friend, Bailey, who had used a broker for a number of years. Here Angus is leveraging his existing trust with Bailey to fulfil his intent in finding a suitable investment firm. During this conversation, Angus learns about Cayson, Bailey’s broker, causing a Trust Event (a change in trust), which develops a new, non-zero, Trust Level with Cayson who he previously did not know and did not trust. This Trust Level is entirely inherited from that of which he shared with Bailey as he has yet to meet or speak to Cayson directly. Here we illustrate that trust can be established between individuals as a transitive property, at which point Angus’s Trust Level with Cayson is dependent on the good word of his friend, Bailey. -Our third Trust Event occurs when Angus and Cayson meet. During the meeting, the discussion causes another Trust Event, further increasing Angus’ Trust Level in Cayson, however not far enough for Angus to make a Trust Decision on investing with him. Instead, Angus takes the outcome of the meeting with Cayson and reaches out to another friend, Deniz, who he knows has a background in the finance world to double-check Cayson’s pitch tracks with their knowledge. +**Event #2: Angus talks to Cayson.** Our second Trust Event occurs when Angus and Cayson have their call. Cayson provides an introduction to his services and eventually triggers a change in Angus’ Trust Level in him. Again this Trust Event crosses the Trust Threshold required for Angus to decide to meet Cayson, leading him to the Trust Decision to meet in person. -Our fourth Trust Event occurs over this call with Deniz, where Angus’ Trust Level with Cayson finally crosses the threshold required for Angus to make the Trust Decision to invest with him. Importantly though, the Trust Decision may itself have thresholds and in this case the threshold for the investment amount has only reached $50,000 based on the current Trust Level resulting in a final Trust Decision for Angus to invest $50,000 with Cayson’s firm. +**Event #3: Angus meets with Cayson.** Our third Trust Event occurs when Angus and Cayson meet. During the meeting, the discussion causes another Trust Event, further increasing Angus’ Trust Level in Cayson, however not far enough for Angus to make a Trust Decision on investing with him. Instead, Angus takes the outcome of the meeting with Cayson and reaches out to another friend, Deniz, who he knows has a background in the finance world to double-check Cayson’s pitch tracks with their knowledge. -Our fifth and final Trust Event occurs when Angus finds his investment has dropped in value to $40,000. This results in a major downturn in Angus’s Trust Level with Cayson and causes a reverse crossing of Trust Decision thresholds. Angus now no longer feels comfortable investing the initial Trust Decision of $50,000 due to the loss of funds and the threshold settles to $10,000 and Angus subsequently removes all but $10,000 from Cayson’ firm. +**Event #4: Angus consults with Deniz.** Our fourth Trust Event occurs as a result of this call with Deniz, where Angus’ Trust Level with Cayson finally crosses the Trust Threshold required for Angus to make the Trust Decision to invest with him. Importantly though, the Trust Decision may itself have thresholds and in this case the threshold for the investment amount has only reached $50,000 based on the current Trust Level resulting in a final Trust Decision for Angus to invest $50,000 with Cayson’s firm. + +**Event #5: Angus loses $10,000.** Our fifth and final Trust Event occurs when Angus finds his investment has dropped in value to $40,000. This results in a major downturn in Angus’s Trust Level with Cayson and causes a reverse crossing of a Trust Threshold. Angus now no longer feels comfortable investing the initial Trust Decision of $50,000 due to the loss of funds. The threshold settles to $10,000, and Angus subsequently removes all but $10,000 from Cayson’ firm. ### The Trust Lifecycle Framework At this point let’s define the terms used above in more concrete detail, namely: Entity, Trust Level, Trust Event, Trust Threshold, and Trust Decision. These are the core concepts of the model proposed here for how two Entities establish, or lose trust in each other and form the basis of the model proposed here. @@ -72,48 +74,48 @@ At this point let’s define the terms used above in more concrete detail, namel An Entity is an atomic unit capable of forming trust relationships. They can make Trust Decisions and measure Trust Levels with other Entities. An Entity can be an individual or a group of individuals, but importantly functions as a single unit of trust within a given context. #### Trust Level -The Trust Level is a value representing the trust one entity has in another within a specific context. It is measured from the perspective of one entity as the Trust Level may not necessarily be mutual. Trust Levels rise and fall through the occurrence of Trust Events. In our example Angus built and lost trust in Cayson within the context of investing. Crucially this says nothing to the Trust Level Angus may have with Cayson with regards to other actions such as picking him up from the airport. Importantly, Trust Level contexts are derived heavily from Entity intent. +The Trust Level is a value representing the trust one entity has in another within a specific context. It is measured from the perspective of one entity, as the Trust Level may not necessarily be mutual. Trust Levels rise and fall through the occurrence of Trust Events. In our example Angus built and lost trust in Cayson within the context of investing. Crucially this says nothing about the Trust Level Angus may have with Cayson with regards to other actions such as picking him up from the airport. Importantly, Trust Level contexts are derived heavily from Entity intent. #### Trust Event -A Trust Event is a moment in which an entity has either taken in new information from the outside world or has established new co-dependencies (insert reference) from existing information they already had that results in a change in Trust Level. +A Trust Event is a moment in which an Entity has either taken in new information from the outside world or has established new co-dependencies from existing information they already had, which results in a change in Trust Level. #### Trust Threshold -A Trust Threshold is the level at which an Entity’s Trust Level must reach, either in a positive or negative move, to trigger them to make or consider making a new Trust Decision within the context of a particular Trust Level. Note that each Trust Decision may have its own Trust Threshold before being considered viable by an entity. The Trust Threshold acts as a metric proxy for the notion of risk where the likelihood of an Entity to decide to take some action is dependent on their tolerance to risk. That is reflected by how low or high a threshold might be before an Entity deems it comfortable or viable enough to commit to a decision. +A Trust Threshold is the level at which an Entity’s Trust Level must reach, either in a positive or negative move, to trigger them to make or consider making a new Trust Decision within the context of a particular Trust Level. Note that each Trust Decision may have its own Trust Threshold before being considered viable by an entity. The Trust Threshold acts as a metric proxy for the notion of risk where the likelihood of an Entity deciding to take some action is dependent on their tolerance to risk. That is reflected by how low or high a Trust Threshold might be before an Entity deems it comfortable or viable enough to commit to a decision. #### Trust Decision -A Trust Decision is action an Entity takes once its Trust Threshold is met. The threshold set for a Trust Decision is dependent on the risks the Entity is willing to take. Risk plays an important role in every Trust Decision and is, once again, dependent on a particular context and is informed by the Trust Level the individual who is making the decision has with the counterparty of the Trust Decision. Trust Decisions can themselves have Trust Thresholds for decisions that can be quantified. An Entity may change the Trust Threshold for a Trust Decision and/or its sub-thresholds if their co-dependencies (insert reference) change. +A Trust Decision is an action an Entity takes once its Trust Threshold is met. The threshold set for a Trust Decision is dependent on the risks the Entity is willing to take. Risk plays an important role in every Trust Decision and is, once again, dependent on a particular context and is informed by the Trust Level the individual who is making the decision has with the counterparty of the Trust Decision. Trust Decisions can themselves have Trust Thresholds for decisions that can be quantified. An Entity may change the Trust Threshold for a Trust Decision and/or its sub-thresholds if their co-dependencies change. #### The Trust Lifecycle With these definitions, let us now generalise the process Angus underwent above in terms of how these different elements of Trust interact and define a clear trust lifecycle for the construction and destruction of trust. -1. An intent (desire to execute a Trust Decision) causes an Entity to begin searching out a trust relationship with another, potentially new, counterpart -2. A Trust Level is established based on the prior Trust Level of a trust relationship or through a founding Trust Event -3. The Entity undergoes a Trust Event which causes a shift in Trust Level -4. Once the Entity’s Trust Level has crossed a particular Trust Threshold a Trust Decision is made -5. If the Trust Level reaches zero with any counterpart, the Entity aborts the trust relationship with them +1. An intent (desire to execute a Trust Decision) causes an Entity to begin searching out a trust relationship with another, potentially new, counterparty. +2. A Trust Level is established based on the prior Trust Level of a trust relationship or through a founding Trust Event. +3. The Entity undergoes a Trust Event which causes a shift in Trust Level. +4. Once the Entity’s Trust Level has crossed a particular Trust Threshold a Trust Decision is made. +5. If the Trust Level reaches zero with any counterpart, the Entity aborts the trust relationship with them. This process shows how an Entity may establish, grow, maintain, and lose trust with another through the lifecycle of a trust relationship in a particular context. Let’s now discuss how this model could be used to understand how trust between complex entities such as communities may form. ## From the Individual to the Community -Let’s recall. Human beings are fundamentally part of a community from birth. We are born into a household in which prior humans are members who may also be part of other existing communities. This fundamental fact of life is core to how humans build trust. (Note: There may be rare cases where people end up in “feral” states such as in stories such as the Lost Rounin or the classic raised by wolves; these outliers are not considered here). In order to understand how communities are built, we first have to study the basic case of one individual starting to build trust in another. We’ll characterise this using an example of a mutual friend introducing two people to each other to establish an important notion of transitive trust. +Recall: human beings are fundamentally part of a community from birth. We are born into a household in which prior humans are members who may also be part of other existing communities. This fundamental fact of life is core to how humans build trust. (Note: There may be rare cases where people end up in “feral” states, such as in stories such as the Lost Rounin or the classic raised by wolves; these outliers are not considered here). In order to understand how communities are built, we first have to study the basic case of one individual starting to build trust in another. We’ll characterise this using an example of a mutual friend introducing two people to each other to establish an important notion of transitive trust. -When a mutual party introduces you to a person unknown to you they generally do so through the use of some context (Miller et al 2000). Examples of this would be, “Hey this is Jolie, my friend from highschool”, or “Elora worked with me for over a decade.” In this interaction the mutual party is serving two main functions: one they are providing some information that induces a founding Trust Event which establishes an initial Trust Level with that counterpart; and second, there is an implied level of trust you now have in the new person based on your relationship with the mutual party and your shared community. Crucially, the initial Trust Level in the counterpart formed is highly dependent on the Trust Level you have with the mutual party; if you do not greatly trust the mutual, you will not greatly trust their introductee. The transitive property of Trust Levels also applies in reverse, in that if the new counterpart does something harmful, reducing your trust in them, it could also similarly affect a reduction in trust in the mutual that introduced/recommended them. +When a mutual party introduces you to a person unknown to you, they generally do so through the use of some context (Miller et al 2000). Examples of this would be, “Hey this is Jolie, my friend from highschool”, or “Elora worked with me for over a decade.” In this interaction the mutual party is serving two main functions: one they are providing some information that induces a founding Trust Event that establishes an initial Trust Level with that counterparty; and second, there is an implied level of trust you now have in the new person based on your relationship with the mutual party and your shared community. Crucially, the initial Trust Level in the counterparty formed is highly dependent on the Trust Level you have with the mutual party; if you do not greatly trust the mutual, you will not greatly trust their introductee. The transitive property of Trust Levels also applies in reverse, in that if the new counterparty does something harmful, reducing your trust in them, it could also similarly affect a reduction in trust in the mutual that introduced/recommended them. -The collective transitive motion of Trust Levels between individuals can cause entire groups of individuals to begin to reject a particular individual en masse after acting badly. In this way each individual relies on their Trust Levels with each other and their second-order Trust Levels (I trust you and I also know my friend trusts you) to form collective opinion and thus birth a community. Deep nth-order Trust Levels are what create the notion of commonality between groups of individuals; there are a large number of mutuals. The resulting community can then be said to be able to function as an atomic unit of trust, based on the mutual Trust Levels, and further to this use such Trust Levels to derive community actions such as enforcement, rejection and acceptance. +The collective transitive motion of Trust Levels between individuals can cause entire groups of individuals to begin to reject a particular individual en masse when they act badly. In this way each individual relies on their Trust Levels with each other and their second-order Trust Levels (I trust you and I also know my friend trusts you) to form collective opinion and thus birth a community. Deep nth-order Trust Levels are what create the notion of commonality between groups of individuals; there are a large number of mutuals. The resulting community can then be said to be able to function as an atomic unit of trust, based on the mutual Trust Levels, and further to this use such Trust Levels to derive community actions such as enforcement, rejection and acceptance. -This notion of community actions is crucial to how humans function within groups, communities, and within institutions. Bi-lateral trust is simple as single individuals decide for themselves how to respond to trust. Once it extends beyond bi-laterality, common knowledge of mutual trust becomes the dependent factor on how groups of people act in unison. An example of this is how a school might enforce against bad behaviour. The enforcement mechanism is built into the institution of the school such that a bad pupil in your working group is expected to be moderated or even punished by the teacher. That is to say that within the context of a community there is an expectation that someone who acts counter to the community interest will have some form of punitive measures applied to them, whether that be some form of penance to make up for their actions or, in an extreme case, ostracization from the community. The method in which this occurs can either be pre-determined by the community as a set of rules or laws, or in an ad hoc manner where the community organically rallies behind a certain response. +This notion of community actions is crucial to how humans function within groups, communities, and institutions. Bi-lateral trust is simple as single individuals decide for themselves how to respond to trust. Once it extends beyond bi-laterality, common knowledge of mutual trust becomes the dependent factor on how groups of people act in unison. An example of this is how a school might enforce against bad behaviour. The enforcement mechanism is built into the institution of the school such that a bad pupil in your working group is expected to be moderated or even punished by the teacher. That is to say that within the context of a community there is an expectation that someone who acts counter to the community interest will have some form of punitive measures applied to them, whether that be some form of penance to make up for their actions or, in an extreme case, ostracization from the community. The method by which this occurs can either be pre-determined by the community as a set of rules or laws, or in an ad hoc manner where the community organically rallies behind a certain response. -These concepts can be seen in institutions where the burden of risk is mitigated by jurisdictional, legal procedures and even extends into software systems where users of a system place a certain amount of trust in the developers of that system in order for you to rely on the system to perform certain tasks. In these examples, trust is placed, not on specific individual members of the community but on the community as an Entity. There is a reliance on the community-arbitration mechanisms that maintain the expected function or utility of the community such that bad behaviour and their effects are corrected. In this way communities can learn to trust other communities as separate Entities and interact with each other through Trust Levels and Trust Decisions of their own. +These concepts can be seen in institutions where the burden of risk is mitigated by jurisdictional, legal procedures and even extends into software systems where users of a system place a certain amount of trust in the developers of that system in order for them to rely on the system to perform certain tasks. In these examples, trust is placed, not on specific individual members of the community but on the community as an Entity. There is a reliance on the community-arbitration mechanisms that maintain the expected function or utility of the community such that bad behaviour and their effects are corrected. In this way communities can learn to trust other communities as separate Entities and interact with each other through Trust Levels and Trust Decisions of their own. ### How Community Takes the Burden of Risk By forming communities, individuals can offload the burden of risk of interaction from themselves to the community; there is always a collective response to acting maliciously. Individuals can then trust their community to help maintain robust trust relationships between each individual within a given context. -By leveraging the model, we can build up a notion of trust within a community based on the trust between collections of individuals. We can then further build on this to form inter-community trust by modelling communities themselves as individual entities to understand how small communities can band together to form larger communities; families to countries. +By leveraging the model, we can build up a notion of trust within a community based on the trust between collections of individuals. We can then further build on this to form inter-community trust by modelling communities themselves as individual entities to understand how small communities can band together to form larger communities, families to countries. -In this paper we aim simply to establish the concepts for how two individuals build their personal trust relationship, how individuals form communities, and move through trust lifecycles and leave this idea of applying this framework to a real world model of these various forms of entrusted systems to future work. +In this paper we aim simply to establish the concepts for how two individuals build their personal trust relationship, how individuals form communities, and move through trust lifecycles and leave this idea of applying this framework to a real-world model of these various forms of entrusted systems to future work. # Conclusion -Trust is often thought about as a personal state – I either trust or do not trust you. However we have learnt that trust always comprises a decision making process through many considerations, one of which is the context in which trust is being built. This context is inseparable from the way we build our trust in others and their trust in us such that community actually plays a very pivotal role in advising who and how we trust. +Trust is often thought about as a personal state: I either trust or do not trust you. However we have learnt that trust always comprises a decision making process through many considerations, one of which is the context in which trust is being built. This context is inseparable from the way we build our trust in others and their trust in us such that community actually plays a very pivotal role in advising who and how we trust. By understanding the primitives of trust building from a bi-lateral perspective, we can model how trust is established, built, maintained and broken between individuals and thus construct a deeper understanding of trust in communities. We hope that the insights contributed in this paper can help guide coordination efforts in communities and create collectives that are less prone to breakdown or corruption and maintain the raison d’etre for their existence: serving the people. @@ -144,22 +146,11 @@ By understanding the primitives of trust building from a bi-lateral perspective, * Wojtowicz & DeDoo, From Probability to Consilience: How Explanatory Values Implement Bayesian Reasoning: * [https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/fulltext/S1364-6613(20)30228-X?rss=yes ](https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/fulltext/S1364-6613(20)30228-X?rss=yes) - - - - - - - - - - # Appendix A - On the term "Trustless" Within the world of blockchain, cryptocurrency, and Self-Sovereign Identity there is the notion of a “Trustless” system. When interacting with a software system, a system is considered “Trustless” if two parties making use of the system do not need to take on the burden of establishing trust between each other, but rather both leverage the fact that as participants they have entrusted those who develop, operate and govern the system, within its entire socio-economic context, to function as claimed. They perceive they have offloaded the burden of risk to the software system as developed. This pattern should feel familiar to those who have read the above writing; because of this we would like to put forward a new term that may take the place of “Trustless”. -What actually happens in these “Trustless” systems, of which Bitcoin would be the most well known of a system described as such, is that each party making use of the system is entrusting the system to behave as the developers claim and thus decide that they are comfortable relying on the system to properly complete this very high risk action of sending money. It is not that the individuals have no trust, or are trustless, but rather that they have both entrusted the software system, and community of developers and all participants in that ecosystem (core developer, miner, holder, exchanges, wallet developers etc) to act in the manner advertised. Effectively here we have an analogous case to our discussion of groups and communities above, but 'trustless' only in the much narrower context of reliable consensus algorithm code penalising 'bad' behaviour such as collusion across nodes, by making it costly. +What actually happens in these “Trustless” systems, of which Bitcoin would be the most well-known example of a system described as such, is that each party making use of the system is entrusting the system to behave as the developers claim and thus decide that they are comfortable relying on the system to properly complete this very high risk action of sending money. It is not that the individuals have no trust, or are trustless, but rather that they have both entrusted the software system, and community of developers and all participants in that ecosystem (core developer, miner, holder, exchanges, wallet developers etc) to act in the manner advertised. Effectively here we have an analogous case to our discussion of groups and communities above, but 'trustless' only in the much narrower context of reliable consensus algorithm code penalising 'bad' behaviour such as collusion across nodes, by making it costly. To be clear, an entrusted system enables trustless interactions between users. Whilst trustless may still be a viable term, we should be careful about where it is used such that we are not mis-representing the reality of how trust is being assigned. So we challenge those who are involved in this fast-expanding digital space to consider, is your system a “Trustless System”, or could you describe it better as an “Entrusted System”? As a note we would like to credit Sean Conway in finding this replacement term. -