June 24, 2009 at 6:42 am
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Trusting Online
June 24, 2009 at 6:43 am
Since I've found that I can trust the vast majority of people, I start out by trusting and then stop doing so if it's warranted. Makes it much simpler, and works for me.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
June 24, 2009 at 12:45 pm
GSquared (6/24/2009)
Since I've found that I can trust the vast majority of people, I start out by trusting and then stop doing so if it's warranted. Makes it much simpler, and works for me.
Same here and I think it is easy to get trusted online because if you like to help people, they just keep coming back because you have solve their problem in the past.
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie
June 24, 2009 at 11:31 pm
I just follow my gut. Sometimes I just get feelings of trust or distrust from people...
In fact there is only one group of people that I instantly distrust, regardless of everything.... Vehicle Drivers; I have seem too much on the roads to ever trust any of them 😛
-d
June 25, 2009 at 6:39 am
I agree, gut instincts almost never fail; especially as you get older.
And, I also agree you should always assume any "other" driver will take an action that puts you at risk. (And remember that you are also the "other" driver.)
I will add one of my favorite sayings: "You don't have to be a farmer to smell bullshit."
Thank you Steve for never offending my sense of smell...
June 25, 2009 at 9:06 am
I try not to start with trust or distrust - as much as possible start at neutral short of a bad vibe, because you should trust your instincts. Real trust is earned, and it's always intrigued me that while hard to earn, you can lose it in a instant with a relatively small misstep. Earning back trust after that is hard, sometimes impossible.
I'd say my main measure of a person (and of myself) is whether they do what they say they will do. That's not the same as trust, but for me it's a sizeable part of it.
June 25, 2009 at 9:39 am
There are two old sayings that I've come to live by regarding trust...
In God we trust, everyone else needs data.
I can see that Steve supports this one based on the fact that he double checks Paul Randal's and, presumably everyone else's answers.
When trying to gain someone's trust, you have to follow Andy Warren's advice and follow through with what you say you will do which leads to my second old saying:
Let your yes be yes and your no be no.
June 25, 2009 at 9:52 am
trust (or distrust) is one of the most sophisticated of human behaviors. There is a strong instinctive basis, and we spend much of our formative years refining it. It makes human culture and cooperation possible.
A vast portion of our mental machinery is dedicated to the concept. Researchers have found that by framing a logic problem as a cheater detection people solved it much more quickly than framing the same problem in a more abstract manner.
trust is layered and relative. There are people I trust on line to varying degrees, due to experience and the risk involved. A $20 trinket purchased from a stranger on Ebay is an easy trust, buying an antique car online requires a great deal more caution.
But in the end, online trust is exactly like every other trust we develop.
1) based somewhat on experience
2) affected by degree of risk if the trust is violated
3) is dynamic and constantly subject to update.
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
June 25, 2009 at 10:22 am
Your use of the word "trust" worries the heck out of me. I think you meant to say "respect" and if I reread your editorial and replace every "trust" with "respect" it sounds much better, much more natural.
You make a rather astonishing statement; "Gaining trust online is the same as gaining trust in the real world". I think if you believe that you have really missed the short history of the web.
In the real world we deal usually in multiple contexts with people where on the web - as with your trust of Paul Randal's advice - its a single-thread context. Thats not enough for trust. Respect, yes, trust no.
Sorry to be absurd about it - but to make the point - Do you trust Paul Randal to say, manage your finances? Babysit your kids? Borrow your favorite car? You see my problem - you use the word "trust" when I think what you meant to say was that you highly respect Paul Randal's SQL advice in that narrow context. That does not then translate to "trust".
I get your editorial point - but the wording needs a rewrite. Anyone who would trust anything over the internet and not check and verify is well, an accident waiting to happen.
June 25, 2009 at 10:28 am
blandry (6/25/2009)
Your use of the word "trust" worries the heck out of me. I think you meant to say "respect" and if I reread your editorial and replace every "trust" with "respect" it sounds much better, much more natural.You make a rather astonishing statement; "Gaining trust online is the same as gaining trust in the real world". I think if you believe that you have really missed the short history of the web.
In the real world we deal usually in multiple contexts with people where on the web - as with your trust of Paul Randal's advice - its a single-thread context. Thats not enough for trust. Respect, yes, trust no.
Sorry to be absurd about it - but to make the point - Do you trust Paul Randal to say, manage your finances? Babysit your kids? Borrow your favorite car? You see my problem - you use the word "trust" when I think what you meant to say was that you highly respect Paul Randal's SQL advice in that narrow context. That does not then translate to "trust".
I get your editorial point - but the wording needs a rewrite. Anyone who would trust anything over the internet and not check and verify is well, an accident waiting to happen.
I have to disagree. I think "trust " is the correct word. You "trust" a doctor to provide you with proper medical career, but would you "trust" him with your favorite sports car, checkbook, or to rebuild your desktop PC?
Trust comes in many forms.
June 25, 2009 at 10:43 am
Trust! Trust, but Verify! This was a signature phrase of Ronald Reagan. Even if you fully trust someone it is extremely wise to run the tests yourself.
While the Trustee may have given you a procedure that is great for the common masses - He or She does not have all the facts and variables of your situation so it may not work for you.
Joe 😎
June 25, 2009 at 10:48 am
So... what're you sayin', Steve? You don't trust me? :hehe:
June 25, 2009 at 10:59 am
Lynn Pettis (6/25/2009)
...I have to disagree. I think "trust " is the correct word. You "trust" a doctor to provide you with proper medical career, but would you "trust" him with your favorite sports car, checkbook, or to rebuild your desktop PC?
Trust comes in many forms.
I agree. Trust is not binary. It's a highly fluid calculation tht we make using mental machinery not even accessible to our conscious mind. Trust/distrust mechanisms are far older than our species and are highly nuanced.
And yes, trust online involves many of the same mechanisms short of body language that are used in our web of trusts in the 'real' world. You tend to trust people whose thinking you can understand, who've dealt well with your in the past, who've dealt well with others that we trust. It's all a mental calculus, that while refined by experience, is significantly instinctive.
Without this subtle skill society could not function. So much resources (mental and physical) would be consumed by protection of self and assets that cooperation would be impossible.
No trust is immune to being misplaced, and the close trusts violated are far more emotionally devastating than trusts that are more at arms length (violation of trust by spouse vs by a hired contractor, for example)
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
June 25, 2009 at 11:51 am
Double-checking a solution suggested by the more seasoned gurus on this or other sites is perfectly fine. If I run it on my own desktop, and it doesn't work, either there was a typo or error in remembering all of a table's or view's columns (for example, can you all name, off the top of your heads, what all the columns are when selecting from sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats(...)?). As long as the logic and spirit of the solution is sound, you can still be confident in that person's abilities.
People being people, however, a bona fide mistake, an error in the logic, will eventually occur. Give the person the same professional feedback as they gave you and they should be grown up enough to say, "Oh! How did I miss that? Thank you."
I can only imagine the discussions that Paul and his wife, Kimberly Tripp[/url], have when they catch each other's mistakes, rare as they may be. Eventually will want to make it to a SQL conference and see them both present the same subject. I've heard they're quite spirited. 😀
Gaby________________________________________________________________"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." - Albert Einstein
June 25, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Gaby Abed (6/25/2009)
I can only imagine the discussions that Paul and his wife, Kimberly Tripp[/url], have when they catch each other's mistakes, rare as they may be. Eventually will want to make it to a SQL conference and see them both present the same subject. I've heard they're quite spirited. 😀
It's ... an experience. Almost like it's a cross between a presentation and a comedy.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 22 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply