Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
.
So we can say that trust is constituted of what we call 'implicit and indirect evaluations',
that is of specific features (like 'sharpening; long; serrate', or for a person like 'tall, bold,
agile, intelligent,
For any
Y
, the more the elements in
SetQ
are owned by
Y
themoretrustworthyis
Y
for
α
/
τ
') which only apparently are just
descriptive
predicates and usually are
evaluative
predicates. These are the specific and analytic beliefs on which the global positive
or negative judgment is grounded.
Reason-based trust is in fact a
theory
about
Y
, and about his qualities and defects that
make him more or less apt and reliable for
...
; on this basis we make predictions and build
expectations about
Y
's performance and its outcome; and we explain the reasons of success or
failure; like for any
theory
.
This also means that the feedback on trust due to the observed outcome of
Y
's performance
(see Chapter 6), not only can be attributed to
Y
, that is to internal factors (and not to external
accidents or conditions), but in some cases can be specifically ascribed to a sub-feature of this
causal model of
Y
's
power on
α
/
τ
. And one can revise this specific piece of evaluation and trust:
'
Y
is not so sharp as assumed'; '
Y
is not so agile as supposed', and so on.
τ
Trust and Powers
An evaluation is a judgment about the possible powers of
Y
. In our abstract vocabulary
Y can
(has the
power of
) perform a given action or realize a given goal. It is relative to this that
Y
is
good for
. Correspondently,
qualities
are just
powers of
(to be
strong
,tobe
smart
)or
conditions for
powers of
(to be
entitled
,tobe
prepared
).
This is about not only personal powers (be strong, intelligent, skilled, etc.) but also social
powers: be influent, prestigious, being a friend of
Z
(and thus be able to obtain from
Z
something), being sexually appealing, etc.; and also
institutional powers
, the new capacities
that a given institutional role gives to its players: like nominating somebody, or proclaiming,
or officially signing, or to marry, etc.
9
So there is a complex relation between powers and trust. On the one side powers -
and in particular perceived and appreciated powers - make us trustworthy for the others
(they can need us and wish to rely on us), and this is why our
social image
and the
sig-
nals
that we give of our qualities are so important. As we will see, trust (being trusted in
a given community, and in particular being better evaluated than others) is a
capital
(see
Chapter 10).
On the other side, this is a capital precisely because it increases our powers; provides us
new powers. Since we (being perceived as trustworthy) are appreciated and demanded, we can
enter in exchange relations, we can receive cooperation, we can influence other people, etc.
This means that we greatly enlarge our
practical powers
(the possibility to achieve - thanks to
the other's cooperation - our goals) and
social powers
: powers on the others. Also for being
invested by institutional roles (and receive new special powers) we need some competence
and reliability, or even better we need some trust from the others on this. In sum,
powers give
trustworthiness and trust from the others; and trust gives powers.
9
See (Searle, 1995); as for the relationships between personal and institutional powers, see (Castelfranchi, 2003).
Search WWH ::
Custom Search