Thanks for sharing. I'm not sure I prefer multiplying. For instance, I have next to no intimacy with Joachim or the creators of this equation, but they seem to have credibility and reliability with no worrying level of self-interest, so I trust in the usefulness of this tool.
I would say you do have some intimacy that is built up over time as you read these articles. I do share personal details and anecdotes and that is already a form of increasing intimacy.
Imo the most problematic factor in the equation is I.
As the sociobiologist Robert Sapolsky points out in his book Behave, we like people just like ourselves.
Our brain, body and biology have been found to make life-defining decisions in milliseconds, or are shaped by genetic influences over millennia. Babies only 6 months old have been found to orient toward similar others and away from dissimilar others.
Now, we could say we can morph into the person the other person wants us to be, but then authenticity goes out of the window (where's that in the equation?)
So the constraint and barrier to intimacy in confined and cobstrained by deep-trenched biological realities that are often not very malleable, either.
Thus, while the trust equation looks good on paper, I'm not convinced it plays out quite like that in real life. That said the main points of the article are sound ones and it could be argued that the companies referenced acted inauthentically, too.
I wasn't aware of it but I love the equation
You improved the equation. By multiplying (rather than adding, as in the original book https://trustedadvisor.com/why-trust-matters/understanding-trust/understanding-the-trust-equation ) the values in the numerator you make a key point: if *any* of these values is zero , the result is zero no matter how big the others are.
Thanks for sharing. I'm not sure I prefer multiplying. For instance, I have next to no intimacy with Joachim or the creators of this equation, but they seem to have credibility and reliability with no worrying level of self-interest, so I trust in the usefulness of this tool.
I would say you do have some intimacy that is built up over time as you read these articles. I do share personal details and anecdotes and that is already a form of increasing intimacy.
Yes, correct!
Love the equation. And I love how you are able to reduce a complex system to its essence.
Personally, I like to say business is essentially about branding, and branding is no more than a promise.
For example, I somehow enjoy flying with Ryanair, because they keep their promise of low-cost, not unfriendly, reliable transportation.
I keep my dealings with German banks to a minimum because the only promise they keep is to obey laws (until they find some loophole).
Intimacy in this respect is almost worse than useless, because my bank manager can be replaced on short notice.
You lost me at "I enjoy flying Ryanair" :-D
I mainly cited that example for the shock effect
This is a great tool!! Thanks for sharing.
"Trust is the most powerful economic force in the world" Charlie Munger
Imo the most problematic factor in the equation is I.
As the sociobiologist Robert Sapolsky points out in his book Behave, we like people just like ourselves.
Our brain, body and biology have been found to make life-defining decisions in milliseconds, or are shaped by genetic influences over millennia. Babies only 6 months old have been found to orient toward similar others and away from dissimilar others.
Now, we could say we can morph into the person the other person wants us to be, but then authenticity goes out of the window (where's that in the equation?)
So the constraint and barrier to intimacy in confined and cobstrained by deep-trenched biological realities that are often not very malleable, either.
Thus, while the trust equation looks good on paper, I'm not convinced it plays out quite like that in real life. That said the main points of the article are sound ones and it could be argued that the companies referenced acted inauthentically, too.