How can I possibly ever again trust?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : HumptyDumptyY2K : One Thread

Y2K looks to me to cause a WHOLE LOT of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome to dwarf many many times overthat of our soldiers in Vietnam.

How will we heal our trauma?

How will we heal our trust in our leaders?

How will we heal our trust in each other?

And if caught unprepared, how will we heal our trust in ourselves?

-- Leslie (***@***.net), September 20, 1999

Answers

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California

Trust but verify.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), September 21, 1999.


(1) We are building trust - in each other. Each time someone gives a good tip...I trust that person more. (and there have been lots of good tips!)

(2) Hopefully, we won't trust those who deliberately lied to us...and will find someone else to lead us.

(3) Those who we care for will trust us, if we prepared...and it is necessary.

(4) We will trust those who work side by side with us in the recovery phase.

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), September 21, 1999.


Many in the great depression generation that were caught in bad situations never got over it. Never again went into a bank, never again went into debt. The kind of trauma I think we're headed for is going to leave some real deep scars.

You don't trust these leaders, you replace em! With, I hope, some that can be trusted.

I don't understand the one about trust in each other, could you elaborate.

I'm about as prepared as I can be. I hope it's enough.

-- LM (latemarch@usa.net), September 21, 1999.


I think that there are several kinds of trust that we can talk about. On the personal level, there is trust in persons, trust in mediating structures, and trust in organizations. There are also different kinds of trust. For example, you can trust some one in their sincere concern for you and yours, and you can trust another to make as much money as possible with your investment because this is in their best interest. I need to think about this more, myself. And I welcome help in doing so.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 22, 1999.


Bear with me as I make a convoluted exploratory mental journey (think.)

I am thinking about the relationship of communities and trust. With technological specialties, federal and multi-state/national industries, interest forums on the internet, a strange sense of un-natural physically fractured "community" has evolved. I can recite how this has created great polarization in the physically "natural human communities" in which I work. In addition, modern life has fractured natural "families and tribes."

Natural physical communities of the past seemed more conducive to "trust-building." Agriculturalists here, for instance, are incredibly stable. Most are descendent from ancestors who settled here 5 generations back. Under such circumstances, a community which is largely ag based is often a large extended family or tribe. There is a high chance that the population holds similar values and that many experiences have been shared. It is more likely that community consensus can be achieved in such areas as morality and law. It is likely that a loyalty to the local community has evolved.

Recently, our local ag communities have seen an influx of yuppie transplants, retirees, etc. These have asserted values, opinions and a desire for a "community vision" and land uses that are in conflict with those of the "old-timers." This, in itself, is not necessarily a "trust buster."

I believe that there are peaceful processes involving education, tolerance, laughter and dialogue that can work out the dynamics of a community shift to embrace a greater diversity of opinion. However, it somewhat requires everyone being thrown into the same community pot with "high walls that cannot be scaled." Isolation in y2k may be a catalyst for this community-building process.

Those who enter a community and identify as "a part of it," have a chance of building trust. Those who act "upon" a natural community, while largely identifying with an "outside interest" community is alien. Trust under these circumstances is very difficult to achieve.

If you are different and you do not accept my values or "vision," you probably will do nothing to reaffirm my rank or status in the community. If you assert values that demean me or threaten or challenge my purpose and my value to my family and community; I will not trust you.

Soooo...the converse would be healing - things and actions that promote identity and loyalty with a natural community by positively affirming people's "place" and value in a community.

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), September 23, 1999.



The problem with the concept of "trust" is that it is quite frequently used as a tool of expediency. We choose to "trust" someone, because it would take too much work to determine if they really are trustworthy.

There's rational basis, for this. Think of how many people there are, in the average modern person's life. A lot of us work for large companies, so we might have hundreds, if not thousands of co-workers. We have an entire legion of people on the TV, to consider - Newspersons, celebrities, various experts, etc. We have access to efficient transportation, so our social circle is likely to be pretty wide. All of these people impact us, in one way or another, so we have to decide if we "trust" them or not. With that large a number, we make snap decisions that we frequently come to regret later.

Now this is pure supposition, but I can't escape the feeling that many of the people who express such anger at TPTB, on the TB2000 board, are people who got their hearts broken, at some point. They decided that the gov't or the media were people they were supposed to trust, simply because someone told them they were. Their anger is as much at themselves, for their naivete', as it is at the people who betrayed them.

What we really need, is a new paradigm, for trust. Dancr said it. Trust but verify. Marsh also brings up a good point, that it's easier to do in smaller communities, so this may occur naturally. However, as things return to a mass scale society (which will happen. we are a social species), we need to keep in mind that if you trust out of expediency, you have made a choice that most likely sets you up for heartache, and inevitably leads you to "trust no one".

There's a balancing act involved. If there is no trust, civilization cannot survive and thrive. But giving in to too much blind faith is equally damaging.

(In case someone is not in the mood to read a long disertation, I'm doing you the courtesy of deviding this into several parts. Part 2, starts here)

The more removed someone is from you, the more likely they are to view you as part of an abstract, aggregate mass. Gov't is the best exampole of this. The inherent role of gov't (ANY gov't), is too oversee the promotion of the "greater good", by it's own definition of what "greater good" means. You, as an individual, on the other hand, see no such abstraction. You see the very real, day to day needs of you and yours.

Frequently the two are at odds. The gov't, dealing with abstractions, may have simply missed the mark, on what really is for the "greater good", or you, as an individual, may be in the minority and not a part of the "greater" for whom the "good" is being directed at. Now you may have done your homework, and feel guaranteed that the people in power are men and women are of good moral character (please, please, please! No arguments about the Clinton administration. I'm speaking hypothetically here, and not about the current people in power), but that still doesn't mean that every single thing they do, will be in your best interest. In other words, you "trust" that they are good people, but you still keep a critical eye on each new law and proclamation that they issue.

This is where populations have always gone off the rail on a crazy train, when you look at history. Mussolini, got the trains running on time, so therefore he must be good, and the Italians decided they could always trust him to lead them right. Hitler ressurected the German economy, so anything he said, got the German stamp of approval.

"Trust" should only mean that you give a person the benefit of the doubt; not that you blindly believe and obey their every word.

I personally don't believe that our gov't is an "evil empire" out to destroy us, but does that mean I don't feel a need to occasionally protect myself from the gov't or to make contingency plans? Quite the contrary. Remember, they see me as part of a homogenous aggregate mass, while I see myself as an individual, with very real day to day needs. The gov't, rightly or wrongly may believe that the "three day storm" scenario will serve the greatest good, by keeping down panic, and therefore give them more time to prepare. They may see that Y2k collapses will kill millions, but that panic will cause the deaths of tens of millions. But I think of my individual situation, and say, "No way, Jose'", it could easily get much worse than a three day storm and I have no desire to be one of the ones sacrificed, for the "greater good".

The same is true of "the media". They are a business, plain and simple. They are in the business, to make money, same as a company that makes automobiles, or the store that sells you food. They are not doing this, because of some altruistic desire to serve humanity. They're doing it, because they want what all good capitalists want - Money. If sensationizing a story will improve the bottom line, then they will sensationalize. If their profits are best enhanced by downplaying a story, then they will downplay. The same is true about outright burying a story and pretending it never happened.

One of the most important things to the media, is their access to gov't officials, so they can obtain the product they sell - information. This leads to them being easily controlled. All that has to happen, if a newsperson has angered someone in gov't, is for some low level functionary (doesn't even have to be one of the top dogs), to set up some sort of impediment to that access. For the media, no access to the gov't means the loss of an important revenue source.

You may feel that a specific newsperson is a very decent sort and very trustworthy. However, by accepting the job, he or she also accepted the responsibility of doing what it takes to maintain the economic health of the employing news organization.

Learning to read between the lines, is an important skill to have, when getting info from the media. That doesn't mean you don't "trust" them, it just means that you acknowledge the nature of the beast.

(part three....Hey! I've been thinking about this for three days now, so it's bound to be loooooonnnnnnng)

An anecdotal postscript: My wife views me as having a "time" problem. You know, one of those people who would be late to his own funeral. To compensate for this, she frequently employs the device of telling me the time for our next engagement is an hour earlier, than it really is. I have absolutely no lack of faith, in my wife's love and devotion for me, yet she sometimes "lies" for our own good. And frankly, I have to admit that my rather "relaxed" tendencies, probably would have caused us great harm, in a few situations.

It's an easy bit of intellectualized horse-pucky, to say that if someone truly loved us, they would never lie. But I think most of us would be pretty angry, if a loved one sat idly by, while we indulged our more unconstructive or outright self-destructive tendencies.

What it all boils down to, is that for most people, "trust" is one of those fuzzy words that they think they know the meaning of, but they've never really stopped to think about it.

-- Bokonon (bokonon@my-Deja.com), September 23, 1999.


I guess my answer is more about distrust as a function of alienation and disenfranchisement. We identify as a small group of rural communities - a minority who's interests are not represented in government, the news media, industry, etc.

A standard joke here is; "We're from the government and we're here to help you." As a rule, no one here trusts anything the government tells us or does "for our benefit." Few people will give interviews to the press, because the results get so twisted to feed the well funded eco-party-line.

There is absolutely no trust in federal or state government. There is some in local government. There is trust on other than resource issues by some in regional and national press. Everyone argues in the editorial page of local papers, so I guess there is no trust there - lol.

We have grown to expect the lie and the betrayal.

It feels like we have been at war for more than a decade now. The stress has been tremendous and has taken a social toll on our families and communities, tearing them to pieces and scattering them to the four corners. Leaders are burned out and angry. Timber is gone. Mining is gone. Grazers are hanging on by a slim thread and now ranchers and farmers are fading away. The presence of "flatlanders" grows larger as the years go by; living in their fancy residential settlements, encroaching on the forested mountains and green waves of grassland once maintained as timber, pasture and farmland.

I guess for us, y2k will not be a big trust issue. We have already gone through that. I guess my previous answer was focussed on the possibility that y2k might be a healing force in our communities that could cauterize the deep wounds that have emerged over the past decade.

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), September 23, 1999.


I was reading William McKinley's Second Inaugural Address (delivered Monday, March 4, 1901) and was reminded of Bokonon's reflections on government when I came across these words:

"Honesty, capacity, and industry are nowhere more indispensable than in public employment. These should be fundamental requisites to original appointment and the surest guaranties against removal."

Perhaps, it has some bearing on what we might hope to expect of public servants.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 24, 1999.


Stan,

I believe in the ultimate power of the people. Just the sheer weight of will alone, can effect great change. However, no power is without it's burden of responsibility. The reason for my cynicism, is that I see us as a group shirking that responsibility.

There is a common tendency to see spin-doctoring, lies and disinformation, as strictly the pervue of gov't (Ours or anyone else's). This is far from the truth. One only has to look at the TB2000 board to find ample examples of all of the above. Lies are hard to prove, unless you want to spend hours, if not days on research, so you have to just go with your gut. However, the spin and disinformation tactics are readily obvious. And this isn't just one group or another. It's across all view points.

I don't know how many times I've read a post where someone took a rather minor point and spun it into something major, or spun the opposite way.

A poster named "No Talking Please" posted "The 25 Rules Of Disinformation". (I printed these out, but neglected to copy the URL of the thread. If anyone did copy the URL, please post it. It's a good list to be able to locate.) You can go thru any thread of any length, and easily find examples of these "dirty tricks" being used. The most common one, is #5, "sidetrack opponents with ridicule and name-calling", followed closely by #2 "become incredulous and indignant", #4 "straw man", #7 "question motives" and #18 "emotionalize, antagonize and goad opponents", with 19 of the other 20 putting in the occasional appearance as well (Number 24, silencing someone by death or blackmail has, to my knowledge, not been employed, to this date).

As a culture, we not only tolerate these tactics, we frequently use them, without a second thought. They are seen as "the way to get things done". Efficient and expedient, they allow us to get our way, without having to "waste" too much time on silencing the opposition.

We, the people, have awesome power, so of course our gov't will be a reflection of ourselves. No matter how astray our gov't may have gone, it's still the one we elected. In short, we got what we wished for, even if we weren't consciously aware of the wish.

If we change gov't, either by election or revolution, but we ourselves are not changed, we get more of the same, regardless of the ideology the new gov't expresses. Sure, they might behave themselves for a little while, but if we're giving the nod and the wink to behaving less than honorably, this new gov't will quickly fall in line.

The key is not in the gov't, but in ourselves. We have to change our view that a dirty trick is only dirty, when it's the opposition employing it. We have to accept the responsibility that everytime we reach for expediency, we're trading off something.

I share your notions about what an ideal gov't should look like, but until we evolve in our own conciousness, I don't see how it could possibly come to be.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), September 24, 1999.


Thank you everyone for your thoughts and willingness to share.

"If we change the govt....but not ourselves, we get more of the same." (Bokomon)

The community of 12 step programs seems to be one that has a structure to avoid organization that does not contribute to the "group consensus". I personally have come to trust the 12 tools and community more than family, organized church or government. I have looked upon the explosion of 12 step groups as people searching for authentic face to face community; a type of family for our society whose families are fractured and separated by long distances.

I mentioned the "how can we ever again trust ourselves?" because trauma changes people. Look at the Vietnam vets, rape or assault survivors, trauma survivors. Many have Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSS) with flash backs intruding into their present lives when traumatic memories are somehow triggered, leaving them doubting that they can trust themselves, let alone anyone else. I think Y2K might leave many trauma survivors, if they survive at all.

People who went through the 1029 market crash and the resulting depression were traumatized. Many COULD not trust banks and markets ever again.

After 14 months of lurking on Ed's forums, I'm convinced that many posters are not only suffering from anticiipatory grief but also anticipatory traumatization. I struggle with both myself.

The Vietnam Vets have shown us much about PTSS; their distrust in the government and VA resulted in the Vet Centers with trauma groups and Vets reaching out to Vets to try to help them "come home".

I suspect they show us a bit about how trauma might be healed. First attempts came from the VA and failed; Vietnam Vets traumatized do not trust the government or the VA.

So, if Y2K leaves people traumatized, how will the country function and heal if so many do not trust it, the media, each other or themselves?

-- Leslie (***@***.net), September 24, 1999.



Trust is for suckers,every time you trust you may be hurt.To my way of thinking,it's worth the risk.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), September 25, 1999.

marsh,

Just a couple of random half-baked thoughts for you. Further down the state we have had the mixed blessings a changing economy can bring. I spent the the first half of my life in the city, and have lived in a rural spot for nearly 20 years. We're surrounded by the 5th generation that you write about, whether their ancestors were 'natives', whalers, ranchers, miners, loggers, robber barons, or any of a host of occupations. I'm a bit of a history buff and know that the land use plans for this area prior to the recession of the 1890's was dramatically different { I've since been told that it has been reclassified as a depression}. I have a feeling that we will see a situation much like that, rising fuel prices alone would reduce the rate at which we're losing prime ag land to developments for bedroom communities. We may get a unwanted breathing room in the future to consider some of the difficult choices that face us.

Speaking form experience, a 'good' disaster does bind you closer to your neighbors. You quickly learn who you can trust when your fat is in the fire. Good luck all.

PS I don't think that Ashton & Leska read this forum, but I wanted to acknowledge a quick phrase they turned earlier in the week. They were writing of their elderly patient, how she had the 'grit and graciousness' of days past. Many of us appear to be children of the sixties in one way or another, I too wonder how many of us will stand up to the test with our grit & graciousness intact

-- flora (***@__._), September 25, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ