David DeSteno - The Truth About Trust: How It Determines Success in Life, Love, Learning, and More

Can I trust you? This questionthis set of four simple wordsoften occupies our minds to a degree few other concerns can. Its a question on which we exert a lot of mental effortoften without our even knowing itas its answers have the potential to influence almost everything we do. Unlike many other puzzles we confront, questions of trust dont just involve attempting to grasp and analyze a perplexing concept. They all share another characteristic: risk. So while its true that we turn our attention to many complex problems throughout our lives, finding the answers to most doesnt usually involve navigating the treacherous landscape of our own and others competing desires. When were young, asking why the sky is blue or why pizza cant be for dinner every night, though sometimes seeming of equal cosmic importance, necessitates only the transmission of facts to answer. Wondering what exactly a Higgs boson is or whether anything out of the ordinary really happened at Roswell can, its true, keep the gears of the mind whirring. For most of us, though, attempts to find answers to these questions wont keep us up at night. And while asking our financial advisor for the eighth time how to calculate compound interest might require stepping up our mental math, in and of itself, finding the answer is fairly formulaic. Bring the word trust into the equation, however, and it suddenly becomes a whole different story.

Trust implies a seeming unknowablea bet of sorts, if you will. At its base is a delicate problem centered on the balance between two dynamic and often opposing desiresa desire for someone else to meet your needs and his desire to meet his own. Whether a child can trust her parents answer to her question about the color of the sky requires estimating not only their scientific bona fides, but also their desire to appear smart even if they really dont know the answer. Whether she can trust them to make pizza for dinner, rather than simply ask why she cant have it every night, relies on divining her parents willingness to uphold their promise to cook in the face of sudden needs to work late or to take an extra trip to the grocery store to refill an empty pantry. Whether you can trust scientists to tell you why searching for the Higgs or related subatomic particles is worth the huge taxpayer expense, rather than ask them to simply provide a definition for what the little particle is, means pitting everyones desire to acquire knowledge that can lead to a better world against the scientists related desires to pad their research budgets. The same logic even applies to trusting yourself. Think about it. Whether you can trust that youll invest your next paycheck for the long term as opposed to spending it immediately to purchase the newest iPad is quite different from figuring out how much money youll have in twenty years if you do choose to invest it. Whether were talking about money, fidelity, social support, business dealings, or secret-keeping, trust isnt just about the facts. Its about trying to predict what someone will do based on competing interests and capabilities. In short, its about gambling on your ability to read someones mind, even if that someone is your future self.

Like all gambles, though, assessing trustworthiness is an imperfect endeavor; theres always a chance youre going to come up short. Sure, most of us have theories about what signals whether people can be trusted. Do they stumble over their words or avert their gaze? Do they seem too smooth? Did they come through last time? The problem, of course, is that most of us have also had the all-too-frequent experience of being surprised when our guesses turned out to be wrong. Were not alone, however; deception experts and security professionals havent proved much better. Until very recently, theres been precious little evidence indicating that anyone can accurately determine if someone else can be trusted, especially if they dont know the individual well.

Scientists have spent decades looking for markers of trustworthiness in the body, face, voice, penmanship, and the like, all to little avail. Forget what you see on television; its all science fiction. If polygraphs were foolproof, we wouldnt need juries. After all, the list of famous criminals who were found guilty based on polygraphs doesnt include the likes of CIA-spy-turned-traitor Aldrich Ames and Green River Killer Gary Ridgway, both of whom passed this physiological test. Likewise, there wouldnt be a long list of people who had to endure false accusations based on failed polygraph testspeople like Bill Wegerle of Wichita, Kansas, who was initially suspected of being the BTK killer. Entertaining movies and television shows aside, the same criticisms apply to the use of facial expressions. If a single smile or twitch could accurately predict who could be trusted, all negotiations would occur under a spotlight with video recordings. Science, put simply, doesnt yet have all the answers to unlocking the mysteries of trust. Still, finding the keys is of such importance that the business community and the military spend millions of dollars a year trying to do just that. In fact, current knowledge has been so limited that the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA)one of the central research units under the Director of National Intelligencepublished a notice in 2009 specifically soliciting scientific proposals to develop new and more accurate methods to gauge a targets trustworthiness.

This state of affairs raises some questions, however: If the need to trust is so central to humans, why is it so difficult to figure out who is worthy of it? Why after millennia of evolutionary development and decades of scientific inquiry are answers only beginning to emerge? To my mind, there are two good reasons. The first, as Ive hinted, is that unlike many forms of communication, issues of trust are often characterized by a competition or battle. As well see, its not always an adaptive strategy to be an open book to others, or even to ourselves. Consequently, trying to discern if someone can be trusted is fundamentally different from trying to assess characteristics like mathematical ability. Aptitude in math can be estimated from answers to specific types of problems. Unless the person is a genius trying to pull the wool over your eyes, there shouldnt be any competing interests pushing her answers one way or another. As a result, her answers should, on average, serve as accurate indicators of her true abilities and be solid predictors of how shell perform in the future. With trust, neither of these facts is necessarily true. As well see throughout this book, deciding to be trustworthy depends on the momentary balance between competing mental forces pushing us in opposite directions, and being able to predict which of those forces is going to prevail in any one instance is a complicated business.