—“I just don’t trust him.”—Arnold Brunson
You should never trust a thinker. You should only determine the truth or falsehood of his theories.
If you cannot determine that truth or falsehood of his statements two things are occurring: either you lack the knowledge and ability, or the thinker is uninterested in bearing the expense of teaching you sufficient knowledge that you, with your ability, are able to determine the truth or falsehood of the statement.
You must trust a person who has made you a promise, but you falsify an argument. There is no trust involved except in yourself, and your ability to comprehend that argument.
What you mean is that a person does not share your emotional reactions to statements, or agree with your frame of reference. But at every standard deviation of ability we are incompatible, and at every two standard deviations we are incomprehensible to one another.
I don’t pander, which is what you want: someone you feel comfortable controlling you. Instead, I practice the aristocratic strategy of seeking for men who can rise above needing control.
So, I don’t want your trust. I want you to have sufficient agency so that you don’t need to. Because if you need to trust, then you lack the agency to determine the truth or falsehood yourself.
My goal is only to give you that agency. I will only ‘lead’ as a last resort, for having to fail to manufacture by my work, leaders better than I at leading.
That’s the goal of western civilization: men who develop agency sufficient to insure one another and police the private and common. We created the only civilization that industrialized the development of agency regardless of rank. Every other did not – although the chinese did try at least for the bureaucratic class.
So understand my arguments or don’t. But don’t trust me. It means you have failed – and so have I.
And if you must trust, you deserve the fate those you trust deliver unto you – which so far, it appears, you have chosen poorly.