So I'm going to talk about trust, and I'm going to start by reminding you of the standard views that people have about trust. I think these are so commonplace, they've become clichés of our society. And I think there are three. One's a claim: there has been a great decline in trust, very widely believed. The second is an aim: we should have more trust. And the third is a task: we should rebuild trust.
Spregovorila bom o zaupanju, in pričela bom tako, da vas spomnim na običajne poglede, ki jih imamo ljudje o zaupanju. Mislim, da so ti pogledi že tako vsakdanji, da so postali klišeji. Mislim, da so trije. Pri prvem gre za izjavo: obstaja velik padec zaupanja, ki je zelo razširjena. V drugem primeru gre za cilj: morali bi imeti več zaupanja. In tretji je naloga: zaupanje je potrebno zgraditi.
I think that the claim, the aim and the task are all misconceived. So what I'm going to try to tell you today is a different story about a claim, an aim and a task which I think give one quite a lot better purchase on the matter.
Menim, da so tako izjava kot cilj in tudi naloga napačno zastavljeni. Zato bi vam danes rada povedala drugačno zgodbo o izjavi, cilju in nalogi, za katero menim, da ponuja boljšo rešitev.
First the claim: Why do people think trust has declined? And if I really think about it on the basis of my own evidence, I don't know the answer. I'm inclined to think it may have declined in some activities or some institutions and it might have grown in others. I don't have an overview. But, of course, I can look at the opinion polls, and the opinion polls are supposedly the source of a belief that trust has declined. When you actually look at opinion polls across time, there's not much evidence for that. That's to say, the people who were mistrusted 20 years ago, principally journalists and politicians, are still mistrusted. And the people who were highly trusted 20 years ago are still rather highly trusted: judges, nurses. The rest of us are in between, and by the way, the average person in the street is almost exactly midway. But is that good evidence? What opinion polls record is, of course, opinions. What else can they record? So they're looking at the generic attitudes that people report when you ask them certain questions. Do you trust politicians? Do you trust teachers?
Najprej izjava: Zakaj ljudje mislijo, da zaupanje pada? Če to bolje premislim na podlagi mojih osebnih dokazov, bi rekla, da ne poznam odgovora. Sem pa nagnjena k mišljenju, da medtem ko je v nekaterih dejavnostih ali institucijah upadlo, je v drugih naraslo. Nimam pregleda nad tem. Vendar pa lahko pogledam ankete javnega mnenja, in te so domnevno vir prepričanja o tem, da je zaupanje upadlo. Ko pogledaš te ankete skozi čas, vidiš, da za to ni ravno veliko dokazov. Se pravi, da ljudjem, ki jim nismo zaupali 20 let nazaj, v prvi vrsti novinarjem in politikom, ne zaupamo niti danes. In ljudjem, ki smo jim zelo zaupali 20 let nazaj, še vedno precej zaupamo: sodnikom, medicinskim sestram... Vsi ostali pa smo nekje vmes in mimogrede, povprečna oseba na ulici spada skoraj točno v sredino. Toda ali je to dober dokaz? Javnomnenjske ankete so namreč točno to, mnenja. Kaj drugega pa lahko pokažejo? Torej, opazujejo nek splošen odnos ljudi, ko jim postaviš neko vprašanje. "Ali zaupate politikom? Ali zaupate učiteljem?"
Now if somebody said to you, "Do you trust greengrocers? Do you trust fishmongers? Do you trust elementary school teachers?" you would probably begin by saying, "To do what?" And that would be a perfectly sensible response. And you might say, when you understood the answer to that, "Well, I trust some of them, but not others." That's a perfectly rational thing. In short, in our real lives, we seek to place trust in a differentiated way. We don't make an assumption that the level of trust that we will have in every instance of a certain type of official or office-holder or type of person is going to be uniform. I might, for example, say that I certainly trust a certain elementary school teacher I know to teach the reception class to read, but in no way to drive the school minibus. I might, after all, know that she wasn't a good driver. I might trust my most loquacious friend to keep a conversation going but not -- but perhaps not to keep a secret. Simple.
Če pa bi vas vprašali: "Ali zaupate trgovcem sadja in zelenjave?" "Ali zaupate ribarnicam? Ali zaupate učiteljem v osnovni šoli?" bi najbrž hiteli z odgovorom: "Da počnejo kaj?" In to bi bil tudi izjemno smiseln odgovor. In če ste razumeli odgovor na to, bi lahko rekli: "No, nekaterim zaupam, nekaterim pa ne." To je povsem racionalna stvar. Skratka, v našem realnem življenju zaupamo na razpršen način. Ne domnevamo, da bo stopnja zaupanja, ki jo lahko sicer v celoti uživa nek določen uradnik ali vodja pisarne in podobni, nekaj, kar bo enotno za vse. Lahko na primer rečem, da zaupam meni znani učiteljici v osnovni šoli, da uči brati prvošolce, vendar pa ji ne bom zaupala, da vozi šolski avtobus. Navsezadnje bi lahko tudi vedela, da ni dobra voznica. Morda bom svojemu najbolj zgovornem prijatelju zaupala, da skrbi za razpravo, najbrž pa ne tudi tega, da lahko drži skrivnost zase. Preprosto.
So if we've got those evidence in our ordinary lives of the way that trust is differentiated, why do we sort of drop all that intelligence when we think about trust more abstractly? I think the polls are very bad guides to the level of trust that actually exists, because they try to obliterate the good judgment that goes into placing trust.
Torej, če imamo v konkretnem življenju dokaze, da je zaupanje nekaj razpršenega, čemu potem zavržemo to vedenje, ko o zaupanju razmišljamo abstraktno? Menim, da so ankete slab pokazatelj stopnje zaupanja, ki obstaja v resnici, to pa zato, ker zabrišejo zdravo presojo, ki jo uporabljamo pri oblikovanju zaupanja.
Secondly, what about the aim? The aim is to have more trust. Well frankly, I think that's a stupid aim. It's not what I would aim at. I would aim to have more trust in the trustworthy but not in the untrustworthy. In fact, I aim positively to try not to trust the untrustworthy. And I think, of those people who, for example, placed their savings with the very aptly named Mr. Madoff, who then made off with them, and I think of them, and I think, well, yes, too much trust. More trust is not an intelligent aim in this life. Intelligently placed and intelligently refused trust is the proper aim. Well once one says that, one says, yeah, okay, that means that what matters in the first place is not trust but trustworthiness. It's judging how trustworthy people are in particular respects.
Drugič, kaj pa glede cilja? Cilj je imeti več zaupanja. Resnici na ljubo, mislim, da je to neumen cilj. To ni nekaj, k čemur bi sama težila. Jaz bi težila k temu, da bolj zaupam tistim, ki so tega vredni, ne pa tistim, ki tega niso. Pravzaprav sem bolj gotova v to, da ne zaupam tistim, ki niso zaupanja vredni. In menim, da tisti, ki so npr. zaupali svoje prihranke g. Madoffu (finančni goljuf, op.p.), le-ta pa jih je odnesel s seboj, in ko pomislim nanje, pomislim, da je šlo za preveč zaupanja. Več zaupanja ni pameten cilj v tem življenju. Pametno dajanje in pametno zavračanje zaupanja pa je ustrezen cilj. Nekoč je nekdo rekel, prav, torej v prvi vrsti ni pomembno zaupanje, temveč vrednost zaupanja. Gre za presojo, kako zaupanja vredni so ljudje v konkretnem pogledu.
And I think that judgment requires us to look at three things. Are they competent? Are they honest? Are they reliable? And if we find that a person is competent in the relevant matters, and reliable and honest, we'll have a pretty good reason to trust them, because they'll be trustworthy. But if, on the other hand, they're unreliable, we might not. I have friends who are competent and honest, but I would not trust them to post a letter, because they're forgetful. I have friends who are very confident they can do certain things, but I realize that they overestimate their own competence. And I'm very glad to say, I don't think I have many friends who are competent and reliable but extremely dishonest. (Laughter) If so, I haven't yet spotted it.
In ta presoja od nas zahteva, da pogledamo na tri stvari. Ali so ti ljudje kompetentni? Ali so iskreni? Ali so zanesljivi? In če ugotovimo, da je oseba kompetentna v določenih zadevah, da je zanesljiva in iskrena, potem imamo dober razlog, da ji zaupamo. Ker bodo zaupanja vredni. Če pa so po drugi strani nezanesljivi, potem jim ne bomo zaupali. Imam prijatelje, ki so kompetentni in iskreni, ampak jim ne bom zaupala, da mi odpošljejo pošiljko, ker so pozabljivi. Imam prijatelje, ki so zelo samozavestni, lahko naredijo nekatere stvari, toda spoznala sem, da so precenili svoje kompetence. Z veseljem lahko rečem, da mislim, da nimam veliko prijateljev, ki so kompetentni in zanesljivi, a skrajno neiskreni. (Smeh) Če pa so, tega nisem opazila.
But that's what we're looking for: trustworthiness before trust. Trust is the response. Trustworthiness is what we have to judge. And, of course, it's difficult. Across the last few decades, we've tried to construct systems of accountability for all sorts of institutions and professionals and officials and so on that will make it easier for us to judge their trustworthiness. A lot of these systems have the converse effect. They don't work as they're supposed to. I remember I was talking with a midwife who said, "Well, you see, the problem is it takes longer to do the paperwork than to deliver the baby." And all over our public life, our institutional life, we find that problem, that the system of accountability that is meant to secure trustworthiness and evidence of trustworthiness is actually doing the opposite. It is distracting people who have to do difficult tasks, like midwives, from doing them by requiring them to tick the boxes, as we say. You can all give your own examples there.
In vendar je to tisto, kar iščemo: vrednost zaupanja pred zaupanjem. Zaupanje je le odziv. Vrednost zaupanja je tisto, kar je potrebno presojati. Seveda je to težko. Zadnjih nekaj desetletij smo si prizadevali zgraditi sisteme odgovornosti za različne vrste institucij, strokovnjakov, uradnikov ipd., pri katerih bi lahko lažje presojali, koliko so zaupanja vredni. Velik del teh sistemov deluje z obratnim učinkom. Ne delujejo tako, kot se od njih pričakuje. Spomnim se, ko sem govorila z babico, ki je rekla: "Veste, problem je, ker nam več časa vzame delo s papirji, kot pa porod otroka." V celotnem javnem življenju, našem institucionalnem življenju, vidimo ta problem, da ta sistem odgovornosti, ki naj bi skrbel za vrednost zaupanja in dokaze o vrednosti zaupanja, dela ravno obratno. Gre za oviranje ljudi, ki naj bi izvajali težke naloge, kot npr. babice, da se namesto svojega dela od njih zahteva, da delajo kljukice, kot pravimo. Vsak od vas lahko ponudi kakšen tak primer.
So so much for the aim. The aim, I think, is more trustworthiness, and that is going to be different if we are trying to be trustworthy and communicate our trustworthiness to other people, and if we are trying to judge whether other people or office-holders or politicians are trustworthy. It's not easy. It is judgment, and simple reaction, attitudes, don't do adequately here.
Toliko o cilju. Cilj, tako mislim, je vrednost zaupanja in to se bo spremenilo le, če bomo poskusili sami biti zaupanja vredni in to prenašali tudi na druge. In če bomo presojali ali so ljudje, najsi bodo vodje pisarn ali politiki, vredni zaupanja. To ni enostavno. Gre vendarle za presojo in preprosta reakcija ali nagnjenje ni nujno ustrezno.
Now thirdly, the task. Calling the task rebuilding trust, I think, also gets things backwards. It suggests that you and I should rebuild trust. Well, we can do that for ourselves. We can rebuild a bit of trustworthiness. We can do it two people together trying to improve trust. But trust, in the end, is distinctive because it's given by other people. You can't rebuild what other people give you. You have to give them the basis for giving you their trust. So you have to, I think, be trustworthy. And that, of course, is because you can't fool all of the people all of the time, usually. But you also have to provide usable evidence that you are trustworthy. How to do it? Well every day, all over the place, it's being done by ordinary people, by officials, by institutions, quite effectively. Let me give you a simple commercial example. The shop where I buy my socks says I may take them back, and they don't ask any questions. They take them back and give me the money or give me the pair of socks of the color I wanted. That's super. I trust them because they have made themselves vulnerable to me. I think there's a big lesson in that. If you make yourself vulnerable to the other party, then that is very good evidence that you are trustworthy and you have confidence in what you are saying. So in the end, I think what we are aiming for is not very difficult to discern. It is relationships in which people are trustworthy and can judge when and how the other person is trustworthy.
In tretjič, naloga. Reči le, da je naloga ponovno zgraditi zaupanje, nas ne bo pripeljalo prav daleč. Kajti to bi pomenilo, da bi jaz in vi morali ponovno zgraditi zaupanje. No, lahko bi to naredili zase. Nekaj zaupanja vrednosti lahko ponovno zgradimo. Lahko to naredimo v dvoje, da izboljšamo zaupanje. Toda zaupanje je nenazadnje drugačno, saj je nekaj, kar dobiš od drugih. Ne moreš kar zgraditi nečesa, kar ti lahko dajo drugi. Morate jim dati osnovo za to, da vam pričnejo zaupati. Torej biti morate vredni zaupanja. To pa zato, ker ne morete slepiti vseh ljudi ves čas - vsaj običajno ne. Toda pri tem morate zagotoviti tudi uporabne dokaze, da ste vredni zaupanja. Kako to narediti? Vsak dan in vsepovsod to že počno običajni ljudje, uradniki, ustanove, in to kar učinkovito. Naj vam dam preprost trgovski primer. Trgovina, kjer kupujem nogavice, pravi, da jih lahko vrnem brez vsakih vprašanj. Vzamejo jih in mi povrnejo denar ali pa mi ponudijo par nogavic v barvi, ki jo želim. To je super. Jaz jim zaupam, ker so se mi pokazali, da so lahko ranljivi. Menim, da je v tem velik nauk. Če ste pripravljeni vašo ranljivost pokazati drugemu, je to kar tehten dokaz, da ste vredni zaupanja. In tudi vi verjamete temu, kar govorite. Torej na koncu mislim, da to, proti čemur stremimo, ni prav težko dojeti. To je odnos, v katerem so ljudje zaupanja vredni in lahko sami presodijo, kdaj in kako je druga oseba vredna zaupanja.
So the moral of all this is, we need to think much less about trust, let alone about attitudes of trust detected or mis-detected by opinion polls, much more about being trustworthy, and how you give people adequate, useful and simple evidence that you're trustworthy.
In nauk vsega tega je, da moramo manj razmišljati o zaupanju, pri miru je potrebno pustiti odnos do zaupanja, ki ga zaznavamo iz javnomnenjskih anket, več pa o tem, kako biti zaupanja vreden, in tem, kako ljudem dajete ustrezne, uporabne in preproste dokaze, da ste zaupanja vredni.
Thanks.
Hvala.
(Applause)
(Aplavz)