Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark have a remarkable trust in their fellow citizens, but is the income equality the cause or the effect?
Germany and the Netherlands have a similar – low- inequality, but the Germans don´t share that trust in others.
It´s an image which is part of a series in The Spirit Level, a 2011 book addressing income inequality and promoting a more level playing field.
This is the case the authors make:
We tend to choose our friends from among our near equals and have little to do with those much richer or much poorer. And when we have little to do with other kinds of people, it’s harder for us to trust them. Our position in the social hierarchy affects who we see as part of the in-group and who as out-group — us and them — so affecting our ability to identify with and empathize with other people.
Nice theory, but the data don´t seem to back it up. Is trust indeed based on a homogeneous society, or is it a cultural bias based f.i. on perceived corruption or an established class society based on authority instead of income?
What do you think explains the differences in the way we trust each other?
A question which is relevant as social media are replacing existing trust-relations and income inequality is hard to factor in. #LinkedTrust is crucial in recommendations. If I know person x and he or she linked to a company, a service or a solution I will be more inclined to follow it.
Would that work across nations or do we stick to the ´own people´ first principle of trust and use nationality as a crucial factor. Or, – the other hand around -, is income equality independent of country of origin, the equalizer in that chain of trust which makes us follow recommendations?
Does a notion of common ´class´ even exist in social media?
#FutureOfCommerce #ConnectedEconomy #MaxMusings #SocMed
I base any trust I place in an individual because of my interactions with that specific person. Using wealth [or the lack thereof] to gauge a person's trustworthiness is akin to using the color of their skin or their religion in the same manner – it's all a bunch of bias.
In general I feel that most people can be trusted to put themselves first, and this, in a way, is a form of trust, though not always engendering good will nor any further trust beyond that simple expectation.
I like to see the best in people, regardless of their "hierarchical" status. If one can demonstrably prove their trustworthiness then one shall gain my trust; yet if one proves at any point thereafter they cannot be trusted then my trust is rescinded immediately.
No idea if this has anything to do with it, but the 5 top trusting countries also happen to be countries where people generally speak multiple languages reasonably well.
+Gijs van Dijk interesting observation..
+Alexander Schulte Like you I doubt if there´s a causality between whatever society and trust levels. The high trust countries are also small in terms of population. Maybe it´s easier to trust a smaller community on face value.
Indeed I believe population size and density have something to do with it, +Max Huijgen. Here in the US there are so many people of so many differing origins/beliefs/practices that it is hard for many people to trust all these other people. I, however, thrive on this diversity and find that those I trust most form quite a large, diverse network of differing peoples [and differing reasons for them to have my trust.]
Interesting combination of quantitative and qualitative.
I'm from the UK so I don't trust anyone involved with this survey.
..but it is interesting none the less.
Does correlation imply causation? Can a study sponsored by an organization named The Equality Trust be trusted?
The Equality Trust's motto: "Because more equal societies work better for everyone" (equalitytrust.org.uk)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
Class society +Quentin Besnehard
Oh nice, another example of the french "culture of distrust" ^^
I can see another clear correlation, the farther from the equator (therefore, with a cooler/colder climate) the more trust within the population. Outliers: Israel (most of its population emigrated recently from northern countries), France (some of its population came recently from Northern Africa). This might also "explain" why Japan and France or even Portugal scored lower than expected, or why New Zealand and the US (most of its population came from northern countries) scored higher.
Yes, that and very old wounds dating back to World War II as well as years of politicians playing with communautarianism.
Makes sense – because high income inequality is based on a small number of people having inordinate fears of lacking wealth.
I'd suggest that it's a bit of a tautology to call this lack of income equality – it's probably more a case of lack of income parity. In other words, even in places like Japan, there are differences in income. The point is not to engineer society to remove the ability to have more income, but to engineer it such that it provides a reward incentive for individual achievement but not to the degree which it removes capital from the base of society that supported their achievements.
As you can yes France and Germany are still low and as they both pull the purse strings in Europe making themselves among the richest countrys plus the they will send a country bankrupt to take control of them.
+John Blossom yes, I am glad you used the word parity – when using words such as equality with respect to wealth or other similar metrics, one may often find that the language used [specifically one's own vocabulary] as well as the perception of the concept both highly influence individuals' reaction and response to any questions asked. We are, after all, merely human – and not too many humans take a full/honest psychological stock of themselves before/during the answering of such questions. Nor do most people readily admit to and accept the implications of their own biases and preconceptions. Therefore the data returned after a survey like this can be skewed greatly and follow unpredictable "vectors of local consciousness." [<– a term I coined just now to describe how opinion/perception of an idea/concept tend to be biased more in one 'direction' within a specific region of the world, such as how disparate groups of people have vastly differing opinions of one other yet manage always to seem to be following very similar routes when reaching such conclusions. Each individual will follow a "median vector of local consciousness" by adhering to cultural norms and being influenced by local stereotypes of others (foreign). I have found that these "vectors of consciousness" (when discerned whilst gathering data) can be far more influential upon the recorded output than the original question itself.]
I really hope I didn't just muddle the issue too much… I typed this all on my phone without a lot if review. Let's hope it makes good sense… 😀