If Someone Says Trust Me, do you?

Oh, I wasn't worried

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I just used myself as an example to make a general point.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The rule of thumb I work to is that about 10% of all people have no conscience, and will do whatever benefits them in a selfish way, as long as they can get away with it.

Another 10% of people are utter saints to the ridiculous extreme, and will be prepared to harm themselves in their attempts to help others. Most people fall in the middle group, and are essentially decent people, who will be happy to help you, as long as it does not cost them too much.

If you do not know which group a person belongs to, it would be crazy to trust them, since they might belong to the 10% of conscience-less a$$holes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think you have your percentages screwed up.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think they do not lie.
But there is a difference between "believers" and agnostics.
We have different standards to accept something as fact.

 

To Enmos

My percentages are not plucked out of the air. A few years back there were a series of surveys which came up with the 10% of everyone is lacking conscience figure.

It appears that this applies to all sectors of society, which explains a lot. For example : 10% of catholic priests are conscience-less a$$holes. Thus we see the large number of priest pedophiles or priests in other sex scandals. Catholic priests have the same 10% totally 'evil' bastards as the rest of society.

 

Just getting close to anyone in that 10% will change everything about your life and there's no picture I can paint that can make you comprehend like an actual experience would. Even knowing how you work it's not always very easy to know a person is a sociopath until it's to late for you.

 

I thought "10% of all people have no conscience" was a dysphemism, but I guess not then.
The only people that literally lack a conscience are psychopaths and sociopaths. Together these comprise about 5% of the population, which is half of what you claimed.

However, if you were using it as dysphemism and you just meant to indicate assholes, then your percentage was far to low in my opinion.

Also, I have serious doubts about your percentage for "utter saints to the ridiculous extreme". 10% Seems awfully high. My guess would be closer to 1% if not lower.
Do you have a source for this?

 

Enmos

The number 5% you mentioned was, in fact, the result of one survey mentioned in the New Scientist article I read on that topic. But different surveys came up with different percentages, and I use 10% as a rough average. We could debate the exact figure, and get nowhere in that debate. If you prefer to run with 5%, then I have no problem with that.

The 10% 'saint' figure is not one from a survey. That is simply my own estimate based on personal observation of human behaviour. Again, if you want to claim it to be 1%, then I am not going to argue. Any such estimate will have a large error factor, and will depend on exact definitions.

Obviously, any specific survey will get a different figure depending on its definitions, and its test methods. So big errors are inevitable. So I suggest we do not argue numbers, and simply accept that there is a significant bunch of people at each end of the normal distribution curve for empathy and altruism.

Probably the main point is that there is a very large percentage of the population that could be referred to as "normal, decent" people. Whether they make up 80% or more or less, they will be a large majority, and they can, most of the time, be trusted to behave in a more or less decent manner.

However, we still need to beware of the conscience-less minority, whether 5% or 10% or more.

 

I would ask if you are only talking about diagnosed cases? In my opinion psychopaths and sociopaths are the extreme end of that spectrum of persons lacking some level of conscience. Also there are probably more psychopaths and sociopaths loose in society that have never been diagnosed and then a much larger percentage of lessor conscience impaired persons. I think the 10% figure could very well be reasonable when you think of it that way.

 

I can live with a 5% difference

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

My confusion stemmed from my asumption that you didn't mean it in a literal sense.

Hmm.. this estimated percentage will be largely dependent on personal experience and also ones personal definition of "normal, decent people".
In my estimation the percentage of complete and utter assholes is at least 30%.

 

I'm not sure. I got the figures from the following sources:

Percentage of psychopaths: http://www.safe-nz.org.nz/Articles/conscience.htm

Percentage of sociopaths: http://www.curledup.com/sociopat.htm

Another source says that the two groups together make up between 3 and 5% of the population.

 

I think no human that has reached adulthood hasn't been some kind of asshole at least once in their life and most likely more than once.

 

Enmos

I was not actually talking about psychopaths, which is a special grouping based on a specific definition. I am happy to agree that they make up only 3 to 5% of the population.

However, this thread is about trust, and I was talking about those people who cannot be trusted because they have little or no conscience. They do not necessarily engage in psychopathic behaviour, because they are socially aware ( at least, the non psychopaths), but are prepared to cause harm if they benefit and they believe they can get away with it. Not every burglar, shoplifter, con artist, embezzler, or mugger is actually a psychopath.

 

Yes, but those are not included in my estimate.

 

But the people that have little or no conscience are sociopaths and psychopaths.
Everyone else does have a conscience.

 

I read that page and have to say she's right on the mark. The woman I knew fit that description in detail.

 

IF I'm gonna trust somebody, I dont need to tell the person I do trust on you, and the person does not have to ask me to trust him, it just happened without need to tell.

 

While what you said is true. The problem usually happens when you really want to trust someone that hasn't yet earned it over time. So when someone says “trust me” and you respond with okay. You are now a good prospect to become a mark to be taken advantage of as soon as possible and as many times as possible. Women use this on men more often than you might think.

 

I trust you when you say humans are evil.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

to have someone put in a position to need to say 'trust me' requires a promise of something wanted, and a perceived reluctance to trust,on the party to which it has been said,
IE
p1, if you give me X i'll give you Y..
p2, i want Y but don't wanna give up X
or, I want Y but someone else promised me the same thing and i gave up X for no Y..
If it sounds too good to be true it pry is..

then there is the issue not so much of whether to trust the other person, but more of how much are you attached to X,

or maybe its more of..
p1, if you do this, you'll get that.
?

but i digress..
yes it would be a red flag for me, it should not need to be said, it is a promise too easily broken,or forgotten..

i don't say it..i figure if i am trustworthy it will show..(but that doesn't account for ppls preconceived ideas of who i am..grrr..)