20100703

信任

有個香港的朋友(叫他L)來探我,在我家裏住了兩天,暢談甚歡。這半年L在Berkeley做訪問學者,他來探我,要坐火車再轉旅遊車,全程約四小時,真是有心。這兩天我們不斷討論哲學問題和跟哲學有關的東西,尤其是晚飯後一邊喝紅酒一邊講Wittgenstein,真是痛快淋漓。

其實,我和L是去年才認識的,只見過兩次面,這是第三次,卻不妨我們這麼投契。他這次到訪,令我記起另一個朋友W;我只在香港透過其他朋友的介紹和W見過一次面,後來他到美國參加研討會,也是在Berkeley,我便請纓帶他和同行的女朋友到三藩市各處走走,最後還載他們到我家住了幾天。W這人思路別樹一格,想法往往跟我大異其趣;在閒談間他突然問我:「其實你不大認識我,我們只見過一次面,怎麼你就放心讓我住在你家裏?你不怕我是個變態殺人狂,半夜起來把你全家殺了?」

這問題有意思,因為這點出人與人之間的相處交往要依賴很強而又不假思索的信任。我基於對W的某些背景的認識,加上他和女朋友同來,便不假思索地相信他不會做出傷害我的事情,更不會想像他是個變態殺人狂。

這種不假思索的信任卻是無可避免的,否則就算是在街上行走,也要左顧右盼,因為擔心走近自己的人可能會突然亮出利刀橫施殺手。沒有這種信任,就難以在人群中生活,也難以跟別人建立較深入的關係。

你可以做個小小的實驗:下次坐巴士或到戲院看電影時,如果你後面的座位坐著人,你便問一問自己是否肯定背後的人不會突然襲擊你;你這麼一問,我擔保你立刻坐得沒之前那麼安然,甚至會回頭望清楚背後是個怎麼模樣的人。

這種信任雖然是不假思索,卻大底上是可靠的,因為變態殺人狂和無端向人施襲的人究竟是極少數。然而,這種信任也可以誤置,一搞錯了,後果可以不堪設想,早兩天在香港報章看到的菲傭半夜殺主取心的恐怖血案就是一例(假設報導正確)。

20 則留言:

  1. Besides, it is also about instinct and experience as well.

    The sense of trust also applies to cyber space.

    回覆刪除
  2. 這種信任係福氣.
    如果成日多多疑疑,真係人都癲!
    不會有朋友,不會開心.

    回覆刪除
  3. /*
    如果成日多多疑疑,真係人都癲!
    不會有朋友,不會開心.
    */

    我就是這類人。

    回覆刪除
  4. RandomCoil,

    //The sense of trust also applies to cyber space.//

    To a lesser degree, I think.

    回覆刪除
  5. catcat & dra,

    //這種信任係福氣.//

    - 但也不要忘記那給菲傭殺了的...

    回覆刪除
  6. Yan,

    早知你是這類人。

    回覆刪除
  7. Wong,

    為何你一早知呢?

    回覆刪除
  8. Yan,

    跟你說笑而已。不過,我的印象是你是個心理很複雜的人。

    回覆刪除
  9. They would have to trust you enough and feel comfortable enough to stay with you too. You are very generous to have them stay in your place, and by doing so, you are opening up yourself to them as a friend.

    Well, the chance that you or your friends could be some crazy murderers is extremely small. But I believe there are other risks that are more realistic that would enter into one's calculation as to whether one stays in a hotel or with the friend. Especially with your friend L, you two met only a couple of times, he traveled to your place by train, and so if things didn't work out during his stay (like you turned out to be a big weirdo), he would be kind of trapped.

    What I realize in the American society, where the home is one's castle and where one's privacy is often carefully guarded, whether one opens up his or her home to someone else, even to just a causal dinner, is a significant step in building relationships. In measures of friendship commonly used in sociology, there's often an item about whether one has invited someone to his or her home for dinner to tap into the level of friendship. (Actually, it has been used to measure inter-racial relationship/racial integration.)

    So I think the risk you and your friends took is whether to open yourselves up for the friendship.

    Sorry, social trust and social ties are something of interest to me.

    Lin

    回覆刪除
  10. This is going to sound odd... I don't think it is that different from trusting a chair when we sit on it... or trusting a bridge when we walk on it.

    It is an experience-based response...

    回覆刪除
  11. Lin,

    I agree with everything you said.

    回覆刪除
  12. RandomCoil,

    I think you are right; we need to trust many other things than just people. It's just that a chair, say, is more predictable than a person.

    回覆刪除
  13. Wong,

    我想,我只不過是心理有點複雜。

    回覆刪除
  14. Yan,

    自己知道就好了。

    回覆刪除
  15. Wong,

    Consider the students' performance in their exams, my confidence on 'future' chairs / bridges has reduced :P

    回覆刪除
  16. 從文中可見,L和W都係你同行(有些眼熟),未見面就有幾分親嫁。換成我,有同行過來開會演講,即使未見過面,也會盡量幫他們安排好。我都唔知點解會咁鬼死好心。這同教徒一踏入教會就變得“親切”起來,可能係同一條道理黎架。

    回覆刪除
  17. CYC,

    咁你就好人過我喇,有啲同行我係唔會照呼嘅。

    回覆刪除
  18. Wong,

    唔緊要,有啲人人有

    回覆刪除