Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
'It is commonly accepted that people behave in accordance with their knowledge' (notice
that this is precisely our definition of a
cognitive agent
but it would be better to use the word
'beliefs' instead of 'knowledge'). '
The more certain the knowledge then the more likely, more
rapid and more reliable is the response
. If a person strongly believes something to be correct
which is, in fact, incorrect, then the performance of the tasks which
rely on
this erroneous
belief or misinformation will likewise be in error - even though the response may be executed
rapidly and with confidence.' (p. 8). (Hunt and Hassmen, 1997).
4
Thus under our foundation of the degree of trust there is a general principle: Agents act
depending on what they believe, i.e.
relying on
their beliefs. And they act on the basis of the
degree of reliability and certainty they attribute to their beliefs. In other words, trust/confidence
in an action or plan (reasons to choose it and expectations of success) is grounded on and
derives from trust/confidence in the related beliefs.
The case of trust in delegated tools or agents is just a consequence of this general principle
in cognitive agents. Also, beliefs are something one bets and risks on, when one decides to
base one's action on them, although, frequently, without an explicit deliberation about this,
but with a procedural and implicit assumption about their reliability. Chosen actions too are
something one bets, relies, counts on and depends upon. We trust our beliefs, we trust our
actions, we trust delegated tools and agents. In an uncertain world any single action would be
impossible without some form of trust (Luhmann, 1990).
3.3 A Belief-Based
Degree of Trust
Let's call the degree of trust of
X
in
Y
about
τ
:
DoT
XY
τ
(3.1)
with
0
1
means full
trust (in fact, a sort of
faith
): these two values are in fact two asymptotic limits (they are
contradictory to the definition of trust as always including some risk:
5
≤
DoT
XY
τ
≤
1
, where
DoT
XY
τ
=
0
means absolutely no trust, and
DoT
XY
τ
=
although, strictly
subjectively speaking, the risk might be ignored).
As described in Section 3.1, we can distinguish between evaluative beliefs (about the
qualities of the trustee or its contextual environment) and meta-beliefs (how much the trustor
is sure about that evaluative belief). Suppose
X
is considering
Y
's ability (
Ab
Y
, with
0
≤
Ab
Y
≤
1
)
about the task
. For different reasons (direct experiences, reasoning about categories in which
Y
is included, and so on)
X
could have several values to attribute to
Ab
Y
(
Ab
1Y
=
τ
0.2
,
Ab
2Y
=
0.4
,
Ab
3Y
=
0.8
). Each of these possibilities has different strengths (suppose
Bel
X
(Ab
1Y
)
=
0.7
,
=
=
Bel
X
(Ab
2Y
)
0.4,
respectively) (see Figure 3.2).
Imagine, for example (see Figure 3.2), the case in which
Xania
observed
Yody
carrying out a
specific task (many years ago: so the strength of the source is not that high (0.40)) performing
rather well (0.80), in addition, someone not so reliable as source (0.50) informed her about a
0.5, Bel
X
(Ab
3Y
)
4
This correct view, is just incomplete; it ignores the dialectic, circular, relationships between action and beliefs:
a successful action - based on certain assumptions - automatically and unconsciously reinforces, 'confirms' those
beliefs; an unsuccessful action, a failure, arouses our attention (surprise) about the implicit assumptions, and casts
some doubt over some of the grounding beliefs.
5
In the case of
DoT
XY
τ
=
1
we would have no risks, the full certainty of
Y
's success. In the case of
DoT
XY
τ
=
0
we
would have absolute certainty of
Y
's failure (analogously no risks, that subsume uncertainty).
Search WWH ::
Custom Search