Get best of the week

About trust

Recently, this topic has been worrying, I decided to speculate. I would be grateful for comments and comments.

1. Micro level


Most people are really competent in 1-2 areas. Regarding all the rest, they are forced to rely on the opinions of friends and recognized (real or imaginary) experts and opinion-makers (famous people who form public opinion by their public actions or statements). Otherwise, in any way - you cannot verify every fact, much less be a professional in all areas.

And here the interesting begins. And who to believe?

It seems that people believe on an INSTINCTIVE level - those with whom they share the value system, basic ideas about life: what is important to understand / what does not deserve attention, what is cool / what is not cool (aesthetic preferences). Someone with delight looks at the clear little boys with a shaved nape, someone admires the well-written text.

Every day from morning to evening we send signals to society: the way we move, dress, formulate and pronounce phrases, the choice of a vocabulary - all these are ways to say who we are. And attract your own kind. “I don’t care what they think of me” - kindergarten. And stop correcting those who say “RING” already. They all know, do not bother people to identify themselves.

It happened to me once in my youth that I had a drink in a company that was half-mercenary, and a petty criminal happened to be there by accident (not just a gopnik, with concepts). At some point, he gained speed and said: “Here you [me] and I do not trust you. But I trust him. ” He expressed a vote of confidence to my very muddy classmate (RIP), whom I did not trust at any stage of 10 years of acquaintance. It was very touching that in an unfamiliar company he instantly recognized “his” ...

Media personalities, politicians create an image for themselves so that they accurately fit into the value system of their target audience. Actually, they depict themselves, as a rule, - you don’t have to play much, and it’s difficult: well, stylists will dress you up, but what to do with the style of speaking and formulating thoughts?

So there is nothing surprising in the fact that on health issues they’re listening not to doctors, but to the Instagram star: “She’s such a native, we are on the same wavelength. She alone has a million subscribers and somewhere high up there (someday I am!), Communicates with the stars. In general, the same as me, only cooler and more informed, we must listen to her. "

In the world of opion makers, everything is just like in the world of people: they cross-influence the reputation of colleagues through seemingly random respect / disrespect for each other, appearing together at public events, by the very fact of participation in someone else's event. And thus they are divided into groups with an approximately shared value system or on the principle of supporting a larger figure, with representatives of opposite camps they try not to light up. If only in a debate in the context of a tough confrontation. A simple fact of meeting Grebenshchikov with Surkov was such a massive butchert provoked - I already did not expect it.

I think that the brain is well adjusted by a confident orientation in a serious profession. If you are an intelligent physician / teacher, you can judge the state of healthcare / education, understand who and what are lying about this, draw conclusions about the media personality camp to which the speaker belongs, and generally about social and political trends.

I have been watching one guy for many years. He is not stupid, until the age of 12 he was a drummer in school, teachers were very praised. In the 90s he became a petty gangster, his value system was formed on the basis of axiomatics in the style: “gop-stop - normal, take out an apartment - normal, beat women - approx. Familiar reputable boys do this, and they respect me, I, too, of course. ” Life + too many brains (for the gopnik) made some adjustments over time. But the idea of ​​beauty has not changed much. His settings have now been knocked down specifically: on the one hand, he was convinced of the inappropriateness of the gangster lifestyle and has long been a simple working man, on the other, the gangster aesthetics still delight him, he continues to despise “intellectuals” by inertia, Lenin quotes about this . Of famous people, he trusts any punks.

It is logical: if you think in the categories of “served / did not serve (man / not man) / father-battalion commander”, and then you also look at who is in the bros of the “Lyube” leader, of course, the question pops up already at the next step: “If not Putin, then who ??” And if it resonates in you that “... the dove of grace stands on its hind legs” due to the fact that the descendants of Lomonosov joyfully step “back to Arkhangelsk”, this is a completely different coordinate system.

Consuming pops is not as harmless as it seems. You will not even notice how your picture of the world will eventually be formed by those who MAKE pop music, i.e. politicians and opportunists parasitizing on the smoker's value system. The healthy person's value system, I believe, gives more chances to get a real picture of the world: he instinctively (and not only) trusts those who are worthy of trust and choose the right opion-makers. Unless, of course, there is a desire to understand.

I used to think: how can you trust these politicians and TV presenters (I'm not talking about everyone) - everything is written on their faces! A couple of years after he organized his project and began to face closely with a large number of people, he began to joke that "he had lost faith in humanity." It turned out (I really didn’t know!) That many norms were lying to achieve selfish goals. Of course, they will come up with some kind of excuse for themselves, but it’s too late: the uncontrolled process of deformation of the value system has been launched, they will soon feel comfortable in the company of others who have come up with an excuse and will trust those who do not need to. And do not trust those who need it.

For example, I trust political analyst Yekaterina Shulman. Again, half for indirect reasons: in her manner of speaking, one feels an unverified pop character who is not used to lying; in a simple and direct manner, to formulate - a deep researcher, offering a built-in logic and self-identification: “here I respect this and that,” about the rest - without insults, but its slight irony is more than enough to smear someone’s reputation in the eyes of her small audience. A few, probably because it has an extremely rare true intelligence - few receivers catch such frequencies.

2. Macro level


When he lived in England in 2008, he drew attention to how people behave in relation to each other (he subsequently noted approximately the same thing in the USA). On the street, in the subway, they look to see if anyone is stopping them from getting through. If they see that they are interfering, they will leave the road, they will also say sorry. They do not shy away from strangers who want to talk to them: as a rule, they are ready to spend time and help with advice. They will also ask again: “Do you understand?” (Now, according to rumors, the situation is changing - immigrants).

In the Moscow metro, I periodically observe the situation: two immense sizes of aunts with bags go (technically) so that they almost completely block the wide passage. Ahead of them is emptiness, behind is a human cork. They do not care that they detain a bunch of people. This continues until someone who is VERY in a hurry squeezes between them, seizing the moment, and the rest will flood after him.

Major actions are performed for various reasons, but really, IMHO, people show themselves in small things - they do not care about others, throw cigarette butts in the middle of a clean street, while the urn is very close, etc.

Ekaterina Shulman argues that professional measurements show an extremely low level of trust in Russian society compared to Western. Between people, and indeed to any information. This is fully confirmed by my personal experience. I once spent a couple of months in the USA, and to achieve my goals I needed at least four more. Visa allowed, but not enough money.

Knowing that American homes usually have at least one free guest room, I turned to a random acquaintance of 58 years old with whom I talked several times on the beach: “Tom, maybe you know some old couple who needs help Do you need a housework? I don’t need money, only housing. ” Tom, without blinking an eye: "Come to me, help me on business." I was already dumbfounded: Tom, no offence, you are not gay? “What are you, no, I live with my wife, I have children!”

I drove in. It turned out that Tom is a real American millionaire. He helped him 4 hours a day, actually lived on the position of his son, he still threw money to me from time to time. Tell me, what Russian dollar millionaire will take to his house an unfamiliar guy who speaks poorly the language of the country? For the USA it is approx.

In English there is such a concept - the community. Reading British and American newspapers, for a long time I couldn’t taste what this meant. Well i.e. I understood that the “community”, but by what principle is the community - territorial, professional, national ?? Why the

It got only in the USA. These are American fairs that are shown in films - they really often take place there. Their meaning (I don’t know how much the Americans themselves realize it) is not so much to buy something, but to meet and talk with neighbors, to find out how anyone is doing. Those. in maintaining strong social bonds. Tom’s son once said: “We know each other for many miles around, we have identified formal and informal leaders, each house has weapons. If something happens, within two hours we are an army with a built command system. ”

The community is, roughly speaking, a community of people living in a certain radius, which allows maintaining close social ties. People think of themselves as a community - this allows us to quickly solve problems together and influence the decisions of local (and sometimes federal!) Authorities, budget allocation. Personal territory is recognized as extending far beyond private housing.

Russians basically think of their personal territory as limited to the limits of the apartment. Everything that is outside is “not mine,” even though the grass does not grow there. (The trend, thank God, began to break out: more and more people, on their own initiative, are engaged in the improvement of porches and lawns near the porch, chats are organized for residents of a particular house).

I do not believe that before the revolution, Russian society was as fragmented as it is now. I blame Joseph Vissarionovich for demonstrating to the world public the stockholm syndrome that is incredible in scale and duration even before it was invented. I think that it was mass repressions in which it was impossible to trace any system or logic, combined with obviously absurd lawsuits that plunged the country into animal horror and launched the installations “each for himself”, “do not lean out” and “catch your neighbor or neighbor have you and rejoice. " So we are trying to have a friend of a friend so far at all levels. And if you think about it - in the fool as a result, everyone remains, even those who raped. It is sad.


PS I decided to speculate on the topic of trust because I am constantly dealing with this problem.

From childhood, it freaked out that people, unashamedly, judge many things without any right to do so. Nobody creeps into talking about quantum physics or surgery: he would be glad to insert a comment, but the trouble is that he doesn’t even understand WHAT professionals say ...

There is a myth in the public mind: they say, in order to judge literature or teaching, long-term preparation is required (or even NO at all is required). Because of this myth, I have occasionally had skirmishes with students: some question my individual teaching methods or recommendations, and in their minds it turns out that this is my private opinion - against them. And you can’t explain in a nutshell that they are, to put it mildly, not competent enough to have at least some opinion on this.

I even know where this myth came from: people, as a rule, go to teaching, having no idea about it, and (at best) just knowing the subject itself — physics, English. They set the standard.

On foreign language we had "Theory and Methods of Teaching Foreign Languages", and it was a disgrace, not a course. Neither intelligible information, nor teaching skills, even theoretical ones.

It is especially difficult to communicate with translators on this subject: on the one hand, these people are fluent in English, and their opinion about teaching it seems to have a right to exist, on the other hand, this opinion, as a rule, does not overlap well with reality.

Translators are people with a high level of ability in languages. To educate such people does not require any teaching art or special techniques. They will accept any way of teaching. They’ll come up with something. Some of them generally learn their own language (95% of people are capable of such a feat only in the environment, but the language will stand crooked). I have many familiar translators, their opinions about teaching are very ridiculous.

To the teacher - as a surgeon: either you believe it or not.

More articles:


All Articles