Version française/French version: LINK
Some IT experts believe that trust is primarily summed up by encryption of transactions and user accounts, but this perspective is limiting as trust is fundamentally an expression between individuals. The notion of trust has become central in the realm of e-commerce and social networks, promoting optimized and secure relationships. However, it cannot be merely reduced to reputation graphs, as it is built on moral and technical factors and involves free choice. While digitization amplifies available information, real trust remains an individual decision.
E. Krieger
For experts in computer security, trust is often seen as a matter of encrypting transactions and user accounts. However, this perspective is reductive as trust primarily involves a dual relationship between individuals, not just interactions with machines. Over the past two decades, trust has become a major concern for e-commerce and social networks, positioning themselves as catalysts for optimized and secure relationships. Granting trust has never been easier according to them, as you can quickly determine if you’re dealing with a reliable counterpart.
Trust and Transitivity
The underpinnings of trust are indeed based on a phenomenon of partial transitivity, where the friends of my friends are assumed to be my friends. While this holds true in some cases in real life, it’s even more questionable in the world of professional or private social networks, where many members present embellished profiles of themselves. New forms of virtual exchanges based on recommendations and a sense of geographical or social closeness continue to evolve. In an era of accelerated pace, evaluating someone’s reliability must be possible in a few clicks. This is the postmodern version of Kaa, the hypnotizing python from The Jungle Book.
Fortunately, reality is more intricate, and trust cannot be reduced to a reputation graph constantly redrawn by members of a social network. Trust is both specific to an object and to an individual. With the enthusiasm of a young researcher, I once opposed Oliver Williamson’s assertion, a prominent figure in Anglo-Saxon economics, who claimed that trust had a place in personal or romantic relationships, but in the business world, it merely « disturbed the clear waters of calculation. » I struggled to accept this viewpoint, which rested on an overly utilitarian perspective of economic relations. While human relationships can be analyzed through a delicate balance of self-interest, power, and trust mechanisms, completely removing trust from the triad of « price, authority, and trust » presented by sociologists David Lewis and Andrew Weigert seemed difficult to me.
To demonstrate that trust is not reducible to utilitarian considerations, even in commercial and financial matters, I embarked on measuring trust myself, inadvertently contributing to the paradox of the dialectic between trust and calculation. These efforts began before the rise of social networks, which I’ve always regarded with suspicion, despite being an occasional user. Rejecting the benefits of the digital world would be as counterproductive as solely relying on it.
Favorable Anticipation Coupled with Assumed Risk
Trust, taken as favorable anticipation coupled with assumed risk, cannot be solely reduced to the calculation of risk and potential gains associated with a given relationship. Such reduction would be even riskier, as trust is built on both moral – the nature of intentions – and technical – competence – dimensions. Above all, trust cannot be « equated » due to the presence of an inherently irreducible dimension: free choice. Consequently, an investor might choose to extend or maintain trust in an entrepreneur despite objectively risky criteria, simply because they believe that the entrepreneur will put forth their best efforts to succeed.
For a decade, I had the opportunity to interact with the founder and investors of Xiring, a company that became a European leader in electronic transaction security solutions within a few years. It was later acquired by Ingenico through a friendly takeover. The representative of the main financial shareholder of the company shared that she decided to invest because the entrepreneur transparently presented the company’s situation: not only promising prospects but also all technological and commercial risks – risks she was fully aware of. Such transparency served as a basis for trust, and subsequent events justified it. The leader of Xiring understood that, to establish lasting relationships, it was better not to embellish a reality where opportunities inevitably carried significant risks. While digitization increases available information on a given subject, it can never substitute for our intuition and our willingness to trust or distrust a specific person.
Trust « Despite Everything, » Reflecting Our Free Will
Returning to our interconnected considerations in a society rapidly embracing digitalization, network functioning certainly facilitates trust relationships. However, the « last mile » remains an individual choice, explaining why the abuse of our trust feels more emotional than rational. Our propensity to almost systematically trust or mistrust others reflects not only our free will but also serves as an excellent gauge of our neuroses. Leonardo da Vinci is attributed with the aphorism, « Experience proves that he who never trusts anyone will never be deceived. » Such a quote from such a great scholar is as thought-provoking as Oliver Williamson’s statements.
While blind trust in almost every circumstance can lead to significant disappointments, never extending trust nearly confines one to a hermit’s existence. Folk wisdom posits that « trust breeds disappointment, mistrust breeds safety, » yet risk is inherent to existence itself.
What’s fascinating about the concept of trust is that it inherently « compels » its recipient to prove themselves worthy of it. This places us within the realm of giving and reciprocating, dear to the sociologists of Marcel Mauss’ school. However, it’s only in theory because, as Nietzsche reminds us: « Those who give us full confidence believe that they have the right to ours. This is a logical mistake; gifts can’t give rise to rights. » Joseph Joubert’s aphorism, claiming that « through trust, one can render someone incapable of deceiving us, » is therefore as debatable as Oliver Williamson’s stance and the proponents of transaction cost economics.
In the era of artificial intelligence and big data, attempts to measure the reliability of an individual through an array of reputation indices and scores take us back to the anxieties of academic assessments and rankings. The underlying logic oscillates between the German proverb « Vertrauen ist gut, Kontrolle ist besser » [« Trust is good, control is better »] and the Russian adage « Trust but verify! » Trust is an inexhaustible and highly speculative topic, prompting us to expose a part of ourselves when discussing it, beyond the digital avatars we present online. It’s also an invitation to syncretism, as few subjects allow us to mention Nietzsche, Marcel Mauss, Oliver Williamson, and Leonardo da Vinci all at once!
