Can trust really be earned FULLY back?

[charlatan]

Well, I have a different spin on this: I'd say if someone betrays your trust, you might have to mistrust yourself rather than merely mistrusting others. After all, you made a misjudgment on whether or not someone is trustworthy. Not that you should blame yourself -- you're not a bad person, it's still the other's fault.

However, the question really is if you find a reason why you made the mistake, and now are satisfied that you understand what went wrong. Then you can trust/not based on whether the person actually becomes trustworthy in the future and gives you a reason to believe that.

In practice, usually I doubt trust can come back, because in practice if someone deliberately breaks your trust, and not for any real reason, they just aren't the type of person who ought to be trusted.

 

[Icedream]

Well, I have a different spin on this: I'd say if someone betrays your trust, you might have to mistrust yourself rather than merely mistrusting others. After all, you made a misjudgment on whether or not someone is trustworthy. Not that you should blame yourself -- you're not a bad person, it's still the other's fault.

However, the question really is if you find a reason why you made the mistake, and now are satisfied that you understand what went wrong. Then you can trust/not based on whether the person actually becomes trustworthy in the future and gives you a reason to believe that.

In practice, usually I doubt trust can come back, because in practice if someone deliberately breaks your trust, and not for any real reason, there's nothing going for them.

I must disagree. any self-respecting INFJ with good ni knows the unique risks that comes with a new individual person that enters their life. A healthy one would ignore that risk, because it's necessary, and you can't just go around judging people without getting to know them first, even if you're always right

 

[charlatan]

and you can't just go around judging people without getting to know them first,

This suggests strongly to me that you misunderstood my point.

My comment was that a breach of trust in the case of someone you decided to trust can suggest you might need to rethink your technique used to determine when it's OK to trust someone -- in fact, one special case of how you might've used the wrong technique could be gathering insufficient data, so if anything, your warning to not judge on insufficient data is part of my warning as well -- so clearly, my point could not have involved encouraging someone to conclude too soon.

That would be a very elementary one. Often, you might have gotten enough data but simply not have analyzed the data/recognized a general principle of human nature which would've eliminated that person. My point was agnostic as to how the technique for vetting was insufficient.

(And as a side note, it's irrelevant to try to say "but you can't know everything for sure!" because ultimately, who is saying that -- that's kind of trivially true.... it just seems to me that if you have a technique for determining when to trust at all, ie you aren't just random about it, then it seems natural to re-examine that technique upon failure. Seems kind of crazy to argue that much.)

The relevance of this to the OP's question is that, if you're determining whether to let someone back into your life, it seems to me that you have to make a judgment of whether the person has changed, minimally (you may still choose not to let them back in, even if the positive change has happened, but let's say it is a necessary, even if not necessarily sufficient, condition to let them in that they've changed). Well, I'd say that to arrive at a principle whereby you can detect the change, you need to have a principle that would explain why the person betrayed you in the first place + why this principle wasn't detected by your other methods.

 

[Icedream]

I did not misunderstand. It was necessary information to show you how you're wrong. my point was that the loss of trust shouldn't be placed on oneself in this case, because we know what we are getting into. You took the least relevant part of my sentence and turned it into my argument.

 

[Pin]

My trust hasn't been severely broken. This is a good thing because I can be quite cynical. Trust for me isn't easily broken because I rigorously test before I trust.

 

[charlatan]

my point was that the loss of trust shouldn't be placed on oneself in this case, because we know what we are getting into. You took the least relevant part of my sentence and turned it into my argument.

Nah, even looking at the rest of your argument, a lot of the same problems remain as did with that line I jumped on. You suggest a healthy INFJ IGNORES the risks when allowing someone new to enter his/her life, and subsequently say you can't just judge someone without getting to know them.

This strongly suggests to me that you're only addressing the stage where the person is really new, and just barely entering your life (ie the BEFORE you got to know them stage). You don't just ignore the risks as you start to really get to know someone. And most of the time, letting someone enter your life is very different from letting them into your most vulnerable areas.

When letting someone into the vulnerable spots, I doubt people just ignore the risks. I think people calculate whether the person will betray them or not and that calculation can be correct or not. Ignoring seems a better word for the initial stages than the most vulnerable stages.

If you let someone in almost completely + they betray you, honestly you probably did go through some reasoning process, and it probably can be refined. People aren't all successful to the same degrees in vetting out untrustworthy people, and it's very strange to me to encounter so much resistance from you to the idea of intellectually refining the process.

my point was that the loss of trust shouldn't be placed on oneself in this case, because we know what we are getting into

I'm not suggesting anywhere moral blame/shaming of someone for making a mistake for trusting someone, just in case you're assuming that. Only suggesting intellectually refining your process of vetting.

And this is especially important if you're going to (as the OP asks) re-judge the person as worth trusting again. At that point, it would be foolhardy not to ask what went wrong, else you're basically giving yourself no new and improved technique by which to let someone back in/not....just the same ones that failed before.

 

[charlatan]

Basically, I don't see how you're even addressing my own point, and am struggling to find if you just didn't emotionally like the way I put something, or if there's content to your disagreement-- knowing the risks, as you say healthy INFJs do, doesn't change that you probably go through a process before really trusting someone, and if that process didn't manage to see that this person is a shitty person, it's natural to consider questioning the process/making it better.

 

[Icedream]

Nah, even looking at the rest of your argument, a lot of the same problems remain as did with that line I jumped on. You suggest a healthy INFJ IGNORES the risks when allowing someone new to enter his/her life, and subsequently say you can't just judge someone without getting to know them.

Yes. believe it or not, risks come with every person you meet. A keen INFJ will be able to identify these, but reserve judgements until proven right. I've seen the alternate path, and frankly, it's downright pathetic.

This strongly suggests to me that you're only addressing the stage where the person is really new, and just barely entering your life (ie the BEFORE you got to know them stage). You don't just ignore the risks as you start to really get to know someone. And most of the time, letting someone enter your life is very different from letting them into your most vulnerable areas.

Yes I am. before getting to know someone, you ignore the risks. otherwise you would have no friends. that discernment kiiinda proved my point. a little bit. When getting to know someone, you don't know them until you actually know them, so once you actually KNOW them, then you see more clearly the warnings and risks that could potentially be there. Once you reach acquaintance level and beyond, it's important not to mix warning signs with feelings. If there's clearly something wrong, sure, whatever. still, there's nothing to apologize or forgive.

When letting someone into the vulnerable spots, I doubt people just ignore the risks. I think people calculate whether the person will betray them or not and that calculation can be correct or not. Ignoring seems a better word for the initial stages than the most vulnerable stages.

yes, that's the point I was making. Also, when letting someone into vulnerable, it's important not to compare them to similar people who have burned you in the past, and it's important to keep that in mind. know what belongs to the subject, and what belongs to similar subjects, and separate them.

If you let someone in almost completely + they betray you, honestly you probably did go through some reasoning process, and it probably can be refined. People aren't all successful to the same degrees in vetting out untrustworthy people, and it's very strange to me to encounter so much resistance from you to the idea of intellectually refining the process.

What am I resisting?

I'm not suggesting anywhere moral blame/shaming of someone for making a mistake for trusting someone, just in case you're assuming that. Only suggesting intellectually refining your process of vetting.

Fair enough, but just for the record, you made plenty of assumptions as well.

And this is especially important if you're going to (as the OP asks) re-judge the person as worth trusting again. At that point, it would be foolhardy not to ask what went wrong, else you're basically giving yourself no new and improved technique by which to let someone back in/not....just the same ones that failed before.

I agree, I think. In my opinion, it's important not to take their challenges or personality into account. just the toxic symptoms you recognise from the past. does that make sense?

 

[charlatan]

What am I resisting?

I guess not much, now I read your response? My point was just to re-examine/question how you arrived at the decision to trust...and I'm talking especially in the serious, vulnerable stages, not the casual ones. I mean, it was unclear to me if you really didn't agree with my point, and now you've responded in detail, it seems you see plenty of commonality.

Fair enough, but just for the record, you made plenty of assumptions as well.

I think I made no strange/faulty assumptions in my original post, so you'll have to tell me what those are...I'm happy to apologize/retract those if I did, of course; also, I was already clear in my very first post in our exchange that I'd never blame someone morally/shame them for trusting someone who betrayed. I made this distinction

After all, you made a misjudgment on whether or not someone is trustworthy. Not that you should blame yourself -- you're not a bad person, it's still the other's fault.

Basically, once you start off claiming I'm wrong, yet haven't made it clear what I'm wrong about, I have to fish and see where you're even disagreeing. That's going to involve cataloging possible interpretations of your post, as again, I'm not sure what you even took issue with.

 

[Icedream]

I guess not much, now I read your response? I mean, it was unclear to me if you really didn't agree with my point, and now you've responded in detail, it seems you see plenty of commonality.

Sorry if I was unclear.

I think I made no strange/faulty assumptions in my original post, so you'll have to tell me what those are...I'm happy to apologize/retract those if I did, of course; also, I was already clear in my very first post in our exchange that I'd never blame someone morally/shame them for trusting someone who betrayed. I made this distinction

I never said your assumptions were faulty. they were perfectly fair. Also, I admit that I didn't read past the first paragraphs of your other posts.

Basically, once you start off claiming I'm wrong, yet haven't made it clear what I'm wrong about, I have to fish and see where you're even disagreeing. That's going to involve cataloging possible interpretations of your post, as again, I'm not sure what you even took issue with.

do you know that this was in response to your own quote?

 

[charlatan]

Well I quoted myself just to allay any doubts you might have/show you I was careful from the outset to distinguish reflecting intellectually on where one's process for screening could be improved/getting what went wrong, vs blaming yourself as a person.

The rest was just summing up/not quite responding to my own quote