For me, testing something like trust is important. I mean, it gives a real sense of how much you trust them (not how far you trust them, how much). Because, if you've never had a reason not to trust someone, you could honestly trust them with your life, but that trust might be incredibly fragile. They could make one mistake (late for a movie or something) and that trust could fall apart, whereas you could only trust someone to be there when you need to talk, but you trust them so much that when they appear to have made a mistake (they might have accidentally let it slip that you like peanut butter, jam and vegemite sandwiches or something) you also trust that there was no ill intent or anything. But yeah, just difference in opinion I guess.InterAirplay said:IMO, You don't have to test trust. That defeats the point entirely.Biosophilogical said:-snip-JemothSkarii said:I do pretty fine...I just get highly paranoid about my GF.
Just thought I'd step in and give my unimportant opinion there. Cheers.
Well the main test of trust is doubt. When you go to yourself "I had doubts, but my trust in you was greater than my doubts". It tests trust by weighing it against opposition. So the amount you trust someone (as in, how much you trust them, not how far) is equal to the strength of the doubt that can break it.InterAirplay said:I guess I should ask, how does one actually test it? I was thinking that trust cannot be tested, you simply need to spend time with someone building it. I dunno, I seem to think that testing it doesn't make sense. In my mind it's one of those things that's either there or not, and cannot be measured.Biosophilogical said:-snip-InterAirplay said:IMO, You don't have to test trust. That defeats the point entirely.Biosophilogical said:-snip-JemothSkarii said:I do pretty fine...I just get highly paranoid about my GF.
Just thought I'd step in and give my unimportant opinion there. Cheers.