Is trust the basis of friendship?

[ScholasticSpastic]

My friends:

People who wish to know me, are willing to let me know them, ask no more than I can give, and give no more than I would ask. Oh, and score-keeping is a no-no. It will all come out in the wash, or not, but keeping score puts a crimp on sharing.

That's just boiled down to essentials, of course, but the skeleton definition is pretty good. Flesh this out and you've pretty much covered all my friendships.

[Trolldor]

I don't trust anybody, I think you all look down on me.
It's real fun.

[CJ]

I don't trust anybody, I think you all look down on me.
It's real fun.

I don't trust you because I don't even know your real name. You're just an internet entity with no human face at all as far as I am concerned. Just saying what I feel, no malice intended.

EDIT. You reveal so little (none) of your real self there is nothing to trust.

[FBM]

I don't trust anybody, I think you all look down on me.
It's real fun.

I don't trust you because I don't even know your real name. You're just an internet entity with no human face at all as far as I am concerned. Just saying what I feel, no malice intended.

EDIT. You reveal so little (none) of your real self there is nothing to trust.

Trust in one's friends seems like a natural evolution in the relationship. Blind trust in strangers, though, seems like a character/behavioral flaw to me. Is it not true that you need a better reason to trust someone than just the fact that you've shared a few laughs and a few points of view? If not, any old lounge lizard could take you for all you had.

Related: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~lcabral/rep ... June05.pdf

[CJ]

I don't trust anybody, I think you all look down on me.
It's real fun.

I don't trust you because I don't even know your real name. You're just an internet entity with no human face at all as far as I am concerned. Just saying what I feel, no malice intended.

EDIT. You reveal so little (none) of your real self there is nothing to trust.

Trust in one's friends seems like a natural evolution in the relationship. Blind trust in strangers, though, seems like a character/behavioral flaw to me. Is it not true that you need a better reason to trust someone than just the fact that you've shared a few laughs and a few points of view? If not, any old lounge lizard could take you for all you had.

Related: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~lcabral/rep ... June05.pdf

I agree. This is the difference between acquaintance and friendship. So is the difference between acquaintance and friendship primarily trust gained through increasing levels of intimate exchange of feelings, personal details and eventually confidences? I feel that empathy facilitates the process as empathic individuals probably find it easier to trust and therefore go around the reinforcement cycle of disclosure leading to greater trust etc. etc faster. One can be empathic with somebody but not trust them and in that circumstance would conclude that lack of trust can prevent friendship, so trust is more important than empathy in starting a friendship. Removing empathy from the equation for a moment I contend that if you did not trust somebody at some level one could not consider them a friend? With no trust at all there can be no friendship, acquaintance yes, but not friendship.

So maybe the outcome is that trust is the basis of mutual friendship, while needs and empathy facilitate the start of the friendship and the development and reinforcement of the friendship without some level of mutual trust a relationship can not be considered a true friendship?

[Trolldor]

I don't trust anybody, I think you all look down on me.
It's real fun.

I don't trust you because I don't even know your real name. You're just an internet entity with no human face at all as far as I am concerned. Just saying what I feel, no malice intended.

EDIT. You reveal so little (none) of your real self there is nothing to trust.

I is gonna sage yo ass and say if you know what to look for, my posts reveal more about me than anything I've ever said or done to anyone.

But yeah, basically I don't have friends, not really, because I don't trust anybody. I don't think they're out to get me, but I can never be sure if they really think of me as a friend, whether it's out of pity or indifference, and so on and so forth.

Friendships aren't based on trust, they're not based on anything. They just happen. Trust is something which evolves independantly, which might very well be a part of a relationship but is not the basis for it. I trust a lot of people with certain things because their position forces them to behave in certain ways.... but the one person I trust I do so because they're my friend. They are not my friend because I trust them.

[Don't Panic]

I don't trust anybody, I think you all look down on me.
It's real fun.

I don't trust you because I don't even know your real name. You're just an internet entity with no human face at all as far as I am concerned. Just saying what I feel, no malice intended.

EDIT. You reveal so little (none) of your real self there is nothing to trust.

You don't know BAA's real name?

[FBM]

I agree. This is the difference between acquaintance and friendship. So is the difference between acquaintance and friendship primarily trust gained through increasing levels of intimate exchange of feelings, personal details and eventually confidences? I feel that empathy facilitates the process as empathic individuals probably find it easier to trust and therefore go around the reinforcement cycle of disclosure leading to greater trust etc. etc faster. One can be empathic with somebody but not trust them and in that circumstance would conclude that lack of trust can prevent friendship, so trust is more important than empathy in starting a friendship. Removing empathy from the equation for a moment I contend that if you did not trust somebody at some level one could not consider them a friend? With no trust at all there can be no friendship, acquaintance yes, but not friendship.

So maybe the outcome is that trust is the basis of mutual friendship, while needs and empathy facilitate the start of the friendship and the development and reinforcement of the friendship without some level of mutual trust a relationship can not be considered a true friendship?

Hmm. I've trained myself to feel sympathy, if not empathy, for everyone, and in particular those who cause me problems. It helps prevent active dislike of anyone in particular. Let's say that I have a deep acceptance of people near me, and with a few that develops into a deeper trust. The trust still comes well after the acceptance, though. For example, I have one 'friend' whom I've known for over a decade. I know that he tends to take more than he gives, and that he's quite the bullshit artist. We're still friends, but we've settled into a mutually-agreeable relationship in which he doesn't try to bullshit me, and I don't call him on all his bullshit. When I'm back home, we go fishing and hunting together and have a good time, but we have a tacit understanding that he's not going to sponge off me. We both consider each other to be very good friends, though. Seems like a bit of a grey area there. Oddly enough, I would trust him with my life before I'd trust him with $10.

[CJ]

I don't trust anybody, I think you all look down on me.
It's real fun.

I don't trust you because I don't even know your real name. You're just an internet entity with no human face at all as far as I am concerned. Just saying what I feel, no malice intended.

EDIT. You reveal so little (none) of your real self there is nothing to trust.

I is gonna sage yo ass and say if you know what to look for, my posts reveal more about me than anything I've ever said or done to anyone.

But yeah, basically I don't have friends, not really, because I don't trust anybody. I don't think they're out to get me, but I can never be sure if they really think of me as a friend, whether it's out of pity or indifference, and so on and so forth.

Friendships aren't based on trust, they're not based on anything. They just happen. Trust is something which evolves independantly, which might very well be a part of a relationship but is not the basis for it. I trust a lot of people with certain things because their position forces them to behave in certain ways.... but the one person I trust I do so because they're my friend. They are not my friend because I trust them.

As you have no friends what makes you think you are qualified to pronounce on what makes a friendship? Your two statements in your own post are contradictory. True you can trust somebody without being friends with them, but you can't be friends with somebody you can't trust at some level. So trust is one of the pillars upon which friendships are based and so far in my opinion the most important support of friendship. You state you have no friends and you don't trust any body, I would say the former is a cause of the later.

[CJ]

I agree. This is the difference between acquaintance and friendship. So is the difference between acquaintance and friendship primarily trust gained through increasing levels of intimate exchange of feelings, personal details and eventually confidences? I feel that empathy facilitates the process as empathic individuals probably find it easier to trust and therefore go around the reinforcement cycle of disclosure leading to greater trust etc. etc faster. One can be empathic with somebody but not trust them and in that circumstance would conclude that lack of trust can prevent friendship, so trust is more important than empathy in starting a friendship. Removing empathy from the equation for a moment I contend that if you did not trust somebody at some level one could not consider them a friend? With no trust at all there can be no friendship, acquaintance yes, but not friendship.

So maybe the outcome is that trust is the basis of mutual friendship, while needs and empathy facilitate the start of the friendship and the development and reinforcement of the friendship without some level of mutual trust a relationship can not be considered a true friendship?

Hmm. I've trained myself to feel sympathy, if not empathy, for everyone, and in particular those who cause me problems. It helps prevent active dislike of anyone in particular. Let's say that I have a deep acceptance of people near me, and with a few that develops into a deeper trust. The trust still comes well after the acceptance, though. For example, I have one 'friend' whom I've known for over a decade. I know that he tends to take more than he gives, and that he's quite the bullshit artist. We're still friends, but we've settled into a mutually-agreeable relationship in which he doesn't try to bullshit me, and I don't call him on all his bullshit. When I'm back home, we go fishing and hunting together and have a good time, but we have a tacit understanding that he's not going to sponge off me. We both consider each other to be very good friends, though. Seems like a bit of a grey area there. Oddly enough, I would trust him with my life before I'd trust him with $10.

So to build on that you trust 'bullshitter' at some level and you have reached a mutual understanding in your relationship. If he broke that mutual understanding you would probably take him up on it and re-establish the status quo. However if the trust disappeared the friendship would go with it? I do admire the world view you strive to achieve. Friendship and personal understanding of others must be very close to your heart as you took the time to be a Monk in an organisation that does value relationships and human understanding highly?

[Trolldor]

CJ, I said if the basis of friendship is trust then I don't have any friends. There are people I'd trust with my wallet or even my life, but that doesn't mean I trust that they're being honest towards me. I can trust someone will get me home after I've drunk a little too much, but that doesn't mean that I have to believe that they're doing it because they like me, I'd be more inclined to feel like they're doing it because they'd feel guilty if they didn't ie they feel obligated to. Trust is simply not the basis of a friendship. Why? Because I have friends I don't trust. We have common interests and similar sense of humour, I can rely on them, and they on me, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I trust them about everything, and some of what I don't trust them about are the important things. There have been very few people I've trusted were being honest and only of them are part of my current circle of friends.
The reason trust can't be the basis of a friendship is because there is no way my position is unique.

[FBM]

So to build on that you trust 'bullshitter' at some level and you have reached a mutual understanding in your relationship. If he broke that mutual understanding you would probably take him up on it and re-establish the status quo. However if the trust disappeared the friendship would go with it? I do admire the world view you strive to achieve. Friendship and personal understanding of others must be very close to your heart as you took the time to be a Monk in an organisation that does value relationships and human understanding highly?

I suppose I should come clean on the story of the bullshitter. We were friends for over a decade. The status quo wasn't a fixed point. More of a floating one. I'd adjust my expectation of him based on how he was behaving at a given point. That's where the tolerance and acceptance came in. It worked out reasonably well as long as I never really depended on him for anything substantial. A couple of years ago, though, he let me use his mailing address while I was back on vacation. He stole an insurance check from my mail and cashed it, then lied 3 times when I asked him directly about it. I eventually got a photocopy from the insurance copy, and he'd signed my name, trying to copy my handwriting. It wasn't a large amount, but it was the final straw. I calmly let him know that I found out about the check, told him I wouldn't prosecute, even though I could have, and left without another word. End of that chapter.

So, yes, I do value friendship, tolerance, understanding and trust very much. I've learned as a matter of self-defense to have reasonable and generous limits on how much to trust someone. But sooner or later, someone surpasses that limit and it's 'goodbye'. I'll allow myself to be used a little, but not too much. Since you mentioned my ordination experience, yes, that was a huge development in my ability to trust in others. There are some very, very sincere, kind, trusting and trustworthy people in the Order. But as anywhere else, the insincere shitheads are often the ones who rise to high positions, and that's largely why I left. I was being used as a mascot to bolster the abbot's reputation, a reputation he concocted out of mere posturing, and one he didn't deserve. I left quite a few very close friends behind, but I know I did the right thing.

[CJ]

CJ, I said if the basis of friendship is trust then I don't have any friends.

You did say you have few friends. See below.

But yeah, basically I don't have friends, not really, because I don't trust anybody.

And the reason you gave was because you don't trust anybody. Then you immediately go on to state that there are people that you trust (underlined below). If you don't trust anybody that is an all inclusive set of humanity, including yourself, so you are saying you don't even trust yourself.

There are people I'd trust with my wallet or even my life, but that doesn't mean I trust that they're being honest towards me.

But are these people your friends? One can trust somebody without calling them a friend. A paramedic for example, you trust them to do the job they are trained to do.

I can trust someone will get me home after I've drunk a little too much, but that doesn't mean that I have to believe that they're doing it because they like me, I'd be more inclined to feel like they're doing it because they'd feel guilty if they didn't ie they feel obligated to.

Understood.

Trust is simply not the basis of a friendship. Why? Because I have friends I don't trust. We have common interests and similar sense of humour, I can rely on them, and they on me, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I trust them about everything,

The underlined could be one definition of trust.

and some of what I don't trust them about are the important things.

But you do have some element of trust in them, you said so above. One doesn't have to trust a person in all things to call them a friend, but I contend you still have to show that you have a person you call a friend who you do not trust in any way at all.

There have been very few people I've trusted were being honest and only of them are part of my current circle of friends.

A little garbled, not quite sure what you mean.

The reason trust can't be the basis of a friendship is because there is no way my position is unique.

You have not demonstrated your position yet, you have not stated that you have now or ever have had a friend that you did not trust in at least some way. You would also have to find at least one person who agreed with you to support your assertion that your position is not unique.

A relationship without trust of some sort is not a friendship, again I agree you can have a trusting relationship without that extra element of friendship, but so far you have not demonstrated to me by example or personal experience the ability to have a friendship without some element of trust. It maybe I'm just not seeing your argument or we are getting our semantics mixed in some way.

In FBMs example of 'Bullshitter' that person broke a significant trust and as a result the friendship ended, so breaking a trust can end a friendship so until convinced otherwise I still think an element of trust between two people is required for the relationship to progress to friendship. Having said that I suppose one could have a acquaintanceship with a person with whom one plays sports or computer games that could be 'friendly' but I'm still not sure that would be a relationship to satisfy a mutual need I.E. a partner to play a game with.

[Trolldor]

Trust in a person is not the same as trusting a person.
I can rely on someone to do me right, trust them to do the right thing, but it doesn't mean that I trust that their friendliness is honest. There is only one person I trust is honest with me who is in my circle of friends. The others I trust who are honest with me are not my friends. They might be "enemies" or lecturers or workmates, but I can trust them more than I can some of my friends.
You're asserting I don't have a position, but I happen to know how I think and why, and I know there are people I hang out with regularly at Uni who I don't trust, but I don't care because it's fun. They're my friends because they behave like it, even if I doubt that they want to be.
Trust is the basis of a stable relationship, but not of a friendship.

[CJ]

Trust in a person is not the same as trusting a person.

Please explain this more fully.

I can rely on someone to do me right, trust them to do the right thing, but it doesn't mean that I trust that their friendliness is honest.

Then you would have a trusting relationship but not a friendship, I get that. They may consider you a friend but not visa versa I understand that sort of relationship.

There is only one person I trust is honest with me who is in my circle of friends.

But you said you had no friends earlier. What am I missing here?

The others I trust who are honest with me are not my friends.

I understand this and as I have said many times I understand one can have a trusting relationship without being friends. I agree with this point 100%.

They might be "enemies" or lecturers or workmates, but I can trust them more than I can some of my friends.

Again this comes down to the balance of trust and friendship in a relationship. I can see a trusting relationship but I cant see the other extreme having a friendship with NO trust whatsoever.

You're asserting I don't have a position,

If that is how what I said came over that is not what I meant. You are asserting that you do hold a position on this subject and I can see the position you are asserting and I think that position is that one can have friends without any element of trust in that relationship. What I am saying is you have yet not convinced me you are correct in your assertion as you comments have often been self contradictory 'I have no friends' vs 'One friend I have' paraphrased not quoted. So at this point you position appears unsupported by your own arguments and statements.

but I happen to know how I think and why, and I know there are people I hang out with regularly at Uni who I don't trust, but I don't care because it's fun. They're my friends because they behave like it, even if I doubt that they want to be.

Then this is where I would say your definition and understanding of the meaning of the word friendship differs which is why we are in this circular argument. I would not call those acquaintances you mention above friends in the same way you do. The nearest I would get to describing them would be 'mates down the pub' people I like to hang out with as we share a mutual interest. I suppose I would concede this would be the most basic type of friendship, a pleasant acquaintance.

Trust is the basis of a stable relationship, but not of a friendship.

I don't agree that one can have a true friendship without some element of trust. Now we really are arguing the last 1% I think and that isn't really very productive. We've sort of got to the No true Scotsman as No True Friendship. So it has ended at ones definition of friendship and I think mine is different form yours. So for me I could not have a worthwhile friendly relationship with somebody unless I had some degree of trust in them.