Ton Zijlstra's On the role of trust in knowledge management poses some comments to my Devil's Advocate posting; since his brand new blog isn't yet allotting comment space, well, this sort of cross-blogbanter is all part of the dialectic, right?
![[ nolan on the rocktop ]](/mt/archives/rocktop.jpg)
Anyway, to get back on topic, Ton proposes more thinking about an abstraction of trust with his "if we say we trust someone, this means that we recognize a consistent pattern of behaviour" but this side-steps my argument: We may recognize the behaviours, but viewed through the coke-bottle-bottom of a neurological state which we also 'recognize' as a trust metric. When I cite neurophysiological effects, I am talking about a real, physical sensation which we, through experiential and largely Pavlovial conditioning, come to call 'the trust feeling', and that a skilled business practitioner can exploit that effect, effectively pairing their own stimuli to that neurophysiological trust metric.
To "recognize a consistent pattern of behaviour" goes counter to my "con-man's trust" thesis that "trust" arises from a brainstate, an emotional sensation which the skilled trust-monger can willfully instill and exploit. So in a sense, yes, Ton can trust more if he trusts less: When you get an overwhelming sense that you "trust" someone, it may be a case of "if it is too good to be true, it usually is" and you should then kick in the analytic faculties to verify that trust.
![[ beauty this close ]](/mt/archives/chest2.jpg)
But ... whether Ton's leap of faith to trust himself to best-guess the consequences or if my hormonal trust-fog is the truer basis of trust in business relationships, my last statement, that one about "kicking in analytic faculties", gets back to John Moore's original thesis and back on the track of all the followup threads as posted to the KM site! It's interesting no one took this approach in reaction to my Devil's Advocate post: Everyone reactionarily tried to look away from the animal effects, discredit or avoid the hormonal trust-fog question despite this being a measurable, repeatable and demonstrable effect of neurophysiology! The more correct response is, IMHO, that while our brain colours our perceptions, humans are so blazingly successful on this planet because we can (not that we do, just that we can) transcend our physiology (when it's appropriate!) to reach for higher conclusions.
- mrG's blog
- 9226 reads

![[cover:Seal of God]](http://www.teledyn.com/mt/archives/sealofgod.gif)




As a chronic and incurable muser
As a chronic and incurable muser, the sort who just sits and puzzles and pronounces his pontificates, it's always wonderful to find myself vindicated completely by those who slog through the fundraising and late-night datasifting of real world real research. Here today, courtesy of NIMH, that wonderful piece of the puzzle that clearly says that our notion of 'trust' is solidly neurophysiological ... and not something you can simply reason out from a resume or suss from a brochure.
The key, you see, is what some Swiss researchers last year reported as the Trust Potion, a neuro-inhibitor called Oxytocin, and it's action on trimming the propagation of fear and distrust from the amygdala down through to the other cognitive centers.
The study, by the institute’s Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg and colleagues, appears in the December 7 issue of the Journal of Neuroscience. Deliciously apropos, while I might have accepted that a NLP/Hypnosis effect might be required to trigger the hormone modulation in the brain of the con's 'mark', it seems my metaphoric "sense of smell" disproof of Telework and singles-bars may not have been so very far from the reality: In the study, the subjects needed only a sniff of the hormone ... and what's to say that maybe some of us just naturally do or know how to emit oxytocin at will!
Something else interesting here from a Connectional Gestalt McLuhanist Rosicrucian sort of perspective is how what we call 'Trust' is factually a condition of it's complement, the relative dearth of fear and mistrust!
A corrollory result to ponder
A corrollory result to ponder: I was musing on how I expected the military to seize on this effect and dope their soldiers with Trust Potion before battle, which prompted me to ask So how do we induce high levels of Oxytocin? and that leading me to the above result (is that why the ancient Romans, and Alexander if Hollywood is right, promoted homosexual behaviour in the army? Because the more recently 'satisfied' field troups would be 'braver'? Would they be self-selecting to senior ranks because of acts of battle valour accrued from the chemically heightened sense of trust and self-assurance?) and then found, according to the Oxytocin entry in WikiPedia where the substance is linked to maternal 'instinct' and higher levels induced through touch; May wondered on how we are seeing increasing levels of misconduct bordering on violence in our schools and this rise is co-existant with the rise in the notion that teachers must never 'touch' the students!
Perhaps a new better rule for "conflict resolution" might be not to "shake hands and forget about it" (odd, isn't it, that we should have that expression) but instead, maybe playground adversaries should be required to hug.
Another slice of a puzzle piece, it is said The Land of Punt was never invaded, and never at war, and further, the Land of Punt was historically renouned as the source of the perfume resin Frankincense, said to provide an ideal, ethereal token of appreciation ... perhaps an oxytocin (or similar neurochemical) stimulant?
Related to all this, here's an interesting twist to the Oxytocin angle from a Christian marriage councelling website with a very interesting thesis that advocates abstainance from pre-marital sex because the mind might become clouded by oxytocin released by the intimate contact and thus give an inaccurate assessment of this other person as a potential life-partner.
Nice sentiment, and it may have something cautionary to say about Singles Bars, but if you ask me, in my long experience with the subject, I'd say you far greater need to know just how that other person is going to behave after the oxytocin wears off, rather than base your decision on judgements made under the mind-distoring influence of an extreme hunger for the substance.
More vindication on Trust vs
More vindication on Trust vs the Brain, this time applied to our sense of generosity towards others who may need a little empathy; this comes on the heels of a statement out of our children's school today that they have plans there to try and goad parents into parting with pocket cash towards some pet 'relief' project, having primed the kids first with all sorts of hard-luck tales that conveniently fail to mention how the developing nations don't really want our 'help', they just need our actions to be trustworthy.
But that's a whole other story, for the moment, we just want to ponder a bit on the chances of said school's request for yet more compulsory (impulsory?) 'donations' being questioned and/or turned down by the average affluent suburban parent ...
Some recent science on this
Some recent science on this neuro-cognitive 'trust' premise ...
In other words, your 'acceptance' of the 'face-value' and observed reputation of this salesperson could be seriously tainted by something as simple as some judicious applied aromatherapy, and that pretty much changes the facetime trust game completely.
Then again, on a positive note, if the live in-person experience could be manipulated so easily through an incense, then conversely the online experience would be completely immune to such tinkering! ... unless, of course, oxytocin could be triggered by sound, or images, or both ... which it probably can ...