Trust, its dimensions, types, and scaling

@Gyuri posted an informative and thought-full comment about trust, a subject that I thought deserves its own topic. So, I’m responding here.

Trust is not a binary concept; it has many types, dimensions, criteria, which sociologists studied for decades. A friend of mine has even written her PhD dissertation about the subject. I have dozens of files in my research library about the same, which I will make public once my personal digigarden goes public.

Meanwhile, my take on the “scaling of trust” problem/opportunity is that one-to-one trust can scale, to some extent, in the form of swift trust and “transferred trust”, e.g.: A trust B. C trusts A. When A introduces C to B, there’s some chance that C will also trusts B.

But scaling one-to-multitudes is an issue of different type of transfer that, in best case happens one to community, then community to community. Note easily “scriptable…”

1 Like

This reminds me that the roles (Roles, redux) are described at the individual level, whereas projects are more collective and relational. Maybe A trusts B because they worked together on a project and B delivered. But does B trust A? Maybe B delivered only because A applied pressure, and so B doesn’t quite trust A, in fact. (Endless variations possible.)

Projects are something that @peterkaminski talked about with me when we first spoke, referencing his “Everything is a Project” essay/outline. Maybe it’s overly simplifying things but I’d be inclined to start to think of “trust” and “projects” together (and also interested to look at the references and scholarship you mentioned above @Technoshaman to debug my initial efforts).

A basic observation is that trust gives a sense of somewhat-repeatable outcomes within a certain scope — and as such it seems linked with patterns as well.

So far, the OGM patterns aren’t (yet) connected with a strong evidence base. In the corresponding case of Peeragogy patterns, there’s been a little more evidence that they do connect to practice, but ① maybe this is only because the Peeragogy patterns are fairly basic ones; and ② more could be done to “patternize” our actual practices. This is something that we will be working on shortly! Potentially it’s something that we could “team up” with OGM on.


here is a Ted talk “The Currency of the New Economy is Trust”

This topic has evolved with on-line reviews and personal transparency.


This is a basic property of trust between people and between people and machines. The other aspect of trust is that it can be broken. When I trust you with, say, some personal information I do not want shared, you can let me down.

Machines, on the other hand, are not in a position to provide me trust in the same way that you, as a person, can. A computer system that reveals something I want kept private is just following a set of instructions. Yeah, I can see that distinction is not as neat as I claim. Maybe I am just asserting that my relationship with you is more than the transactional relationship I have with this iMac on my desk.


belonging here as handy references, also ripe for charting trajectory of idea/ insight evolution; we might ask the man himself on his shifting perspectives on the subject over the last decade or more. what are our primary trust-related questions, as “OGM”? is our “problem of trust” especially/ essentially scalability?

@Jerry talks on trust (2012) (2016) (2016) (2016) (2018) (2018) (2020) (2020) (2020)

i was looking for the most recent unfinished festival talk but it seems to not be up, is that right J.?

1 Like

Dude! Awesome!

Thank you for the terrific curation.

Yes, the Unfinished video isn’t up, but the transcript is in a post, here.

There’s also this playlist, On Trust, which I think includes one of the videos you listed.



Next-stage curation (knowledge gardening) could include:

A) Adding chapter headings to the vids, which reflect key ideas, using YouTube chapters

B) Applying to the total population of chapters the Idea Emergence level 2 & 3 processes

C) Clustering the connected ideas into the Concepts, Principles and Practices sections of the draft of OGM Trust Credo

D) Submitting the draft to a facilitated, month-long collaborative advice process to finalize it

E) Using the OGM Trust Credo as the first, generative record in our Source Document and establishing a process for updating it when one or more members suggest doing so


As I watched that TED talk, I realized something.
China now uses a national reputation system to control its citizens, who are eternally in fear of getting a bad score, and for good reason.

I also remembered that buying votes has become an actual industry on the black market. You can buy upvotes (and downvotes), comments and other things just to make you look good - gaming the reputation system, in other words. With anonymity on the Internet, a true reputation system isn’t possible.

I wonder if I could become a “super rabbit,” as it were, to be able to earn a living while taking care of my kids.

I watched all of them, although the last 3 are essentially the same (the last being the most visually interesting), and found them to be very interesting. It also helped me to get to know you and what you’ve learned about aside from bringing people together and IT.

I did leave comments on several of them. The most important comment was to replace Hasselhoff with Shatner. :wink: