<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Over-trusting as a biological disorder</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.andrewpatrick.ca/human-nature/over-trusting-as-a-biological-disorder/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.andrewpatrick.ca/human-nature/over-trusting-as-a-biological-disorder</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Sep 2011 19:03:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: jason Nolan</title>
		<link>http://www.andrewpatrick.ca/human-nature/over-trusting-as-a-biological-disorder/comment-page-1#comment-20375</link>
		<dc:creator>jason Nolan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Nov 2008 16:35:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.andrewpatrick.ca/human-nature/over-trusting-as-a-biological-disorder/#comment-20375</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m always watching for this sort of stuff because i have an impaired social mechanism (with MRIs to prove it ;). I find this whole trust thing strange. I casually say that I trust anyone and anything, but will not make decisions based on &#039;trust&#039;. It is better to have a contingent trusting heuristic where one can watch for signs of internal validity in terms of someone&#039;s actions... how do they act in terms of themselves.  That&#039;s a better metric, imho, because I can say that action x will benefit me and this person, and this person always acts to benefit themselves (and who ever else is part of the action), so I can trust that they will act in their own best interests. Voila, I can give them whatever, and know that things will turn out as expected. I think this has served me better than people who live with the fictional delusion that they can assess moral character.  Neat post.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m always watching for this sort of stuff because i have an impaired social mechanism (with MRIs to prove it <img src='http://www.andrewpatrick.ca/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> . I find this whole trust thing strange. I casually say that I trust anyone and anything, but will not make decisions based on &#8216;trust&#8217;. It is better to have a contingent trusting heuristic where one can watch for signs of internal validity in terms of someone&#8217;s actions&#8230; how do they act in terms of themselves.  That&#8217;s a better metric, imho, because I can say that action x will benefit me and this person, and this person always acts to benefit themselves (and who ever else is part of the action), so I can trust that they will act in their own best interests. Voila, I can give them whatever, and know that things will turn out as expected. I think this has served me better than people who live with the fictional delusion that they can assess moral character.  Neat post.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

