Frederick’s Timelog

The Anatomy of Trust as it applies to everyday secrets

Trust is based on the principle that humans can depend on other humans. It involves the mutual understanding that one will act in the interests of the other, and that certain pieces of information may be shared without negative repercussions. Trust is a good thing; there is no doubt about that. However, it remains to be determined whether confidentiality and secrets are in one’s interests.

Anatomy of a Secret

Secrets are pieces of information known only to an elite — that is, confined to the knowledge of a (usually small) group. A secret is divulged willingly when the following conditions are met:

• Person A trusts person B to exercise “good judgement” in the application of the information
• A trusts B to keep the secret “secret”, known only to a small group
• A is the source of the secret OR A is not under obligation to keep it entirely secret to the existing elite

Additionally, secrets are willingly divulged with the following restrictions:

• B will not reveal the information to anyone unless A approves
• B will not harm or attempt to harm A directly or indirectly

(On a side note, it is entirely illogical and unreasonable for B to impose restrictions on A with regards to the secret, since the propagation of the secret will not harm B, who is not the source of the secret.)

At first glance, secrets appear to be good because they require trust (already proven to be a good concept) and establish a purpose-driven relationship. However, the reality is that secrets are built on the basis of a lack of trust.

By definition, secrets are known only to a small group, of which the members are ‘trustworthy’ according to the judgement of the source. This implies:

• The knowledge is NOT known to a much larger group

The primary reason that secrets are kept is that the information could be misused in some way to harm the source of the secret. This implies that those who know will NOT misuse the information, having gained trust. This also implies that those who are denied knowledge could misuse the information — this suspicion is termed ‘mistrust’.

‘Mistrust’ is the belief that those who may be trustworthy have an ulterior motive or intend malice. The application of this hostility takes place in the divulging of secrets.

Much more insight follows the jump.

Inclusive Secrets

The term ‘inclusive’ here refers to the secret ONLY being known to the persons who are ‘included’ in the elite. The selection of the elite thus follows a policy of inclusion: ONLY allowing — for instance, B and C — to know the details, because B and C meet the criteria and can accept the restrictions; in short, because A trusts B and C.

The problem here is that inclusion of a small group means exclusion of a much larger group, and those who are not included are not included because they are implicitly untrusted. This demonstrates hostility.

Exclusive Secrets

However, I would argue that secrets — sometimes necessary but often eliminable — are best kept in the ‘exclusive’ manner. The term ‘exclusion’ is often used in reference to bad behaviour, but you will shortly see that a policy of exclusion is preferable to inclusion.

Exclusion depends on keeping a group outside the loop. (Therefore, the secret is no longer known to an elite but to all BUT an elite; in many senses, we are escaping the sense of a ’secret’.) It depends on a preestablished trust of ALL humans and the optimistic initial premise that no one intends malice. If there is evidence to support the belief that persons X, Y and Z would not use sound judgement in applying the information, then there must be the explicit understanding among A–W that X, Y and Z cannot be trusted for those reasons. As long as A–W do not share anything with the untrusted X–Z, then no harm will come to A.

Why does this work? It works because it is actually based on trust as a precondition; in other words, it establishes a good relationship with B–Z until that trust is broken. It appeals to the moral centres in all humans to never abuse trust. Furthermore, it establishes the willingness to not abuse the information because any misuse will lead to the realization of the disincentive — future exclusion.

Should Secrets Exist?

My arguments for exclusionary practices may indeed be interpreted as arguments against secrets altogether. I argue that all persons are inherently good, and that the practice of trusting everyone encourages appropriate behaviour.

Unfortunately, my arguments depend on the unspoken presumptions that:

• All persons follow rational courses of action
• Mutual trust is valued by the majority

(Fortunately, these presumptions may be proven to be ALWAYS correct, although in a document far more complex than this one.)

To better understand whether or not secrets should exist, we must ask and answer the question: what does someone have to gain from misusing the information? Well, the answer is quite simply a strange form of amusement. Interestingly, causing harm (through misuse of information) for the purpose of amusement is clearly not a moral or rational action, therefore those who are irrational do not satisfy the presumptions above; perhaps this indicates to us that our initial blanket trust should extend to all rational beings. In such a case, things do work out.

Conclusion

It must always be true that no one knows everything about another person. So, in a sense, there will always be secrets. However, it is not necessary to limit knowledge to a small group for the purpose of self-protection; rather, exclusive practices will reduce mistrust and distrust among the members of a community and should theoretically boost trust, improve relationships, and reduce harm.

If you liked this post, you may wish to subscribe by e-mail: