It has become a cliché that China nowadays are lacking trust. It has
been talked about as if it would be the root cause of all disturbing
social phenomenon as well as the one single cure of all social disease
← if only there were trust between people, between vendor and
customer, between government and its subordinates, between investor
and business owners... especially w/ backdrop of ZTE (which is being
depicted as a case of
not keeping its promise) and the most recent
fatal crime by Didi driver. We want trust; we need trust; let's
But, and this is really a big BUT. But, I would argue exactly the opposite! No, this society is not lacking trust. On the contrary, China lacks criticism, suspicion, argument, challenge, show-me-the-proof mentality. The very last thing they should promote is exactly not trust, but everything that speaks and yells and shouts with a stern, dirty, annoying look "I don't trust!".
That's right. You heard me. Isn't the blind trust that people dive
into whatever the government's policy says, eg. 大众创新， 工业4.0, 人
工智能，大数据, because they argued that the most trustworthy entity
in this society is the government, because, well, you can't trust
anyone else. So authority becomes the last hope to represent
trust. Then, exactly because the same blind trust of so called
theory, and even a
neutral word such as
data (which I have argued in data digit &
data & credit score that China has totally misunderstood, perhaps
intentionally, about the meaning of data, and is actively abusing the
data up to what I would simply call an intellectual crime),
that has misled audience astray with or without a dark thought of
manipulation — with, in the sense that many do know what they
are selling; without, in the sense, that many do believe what they are
selling (and this is infinitely worse because they are becoming
This is not only scary, but outright wrong, and is the root cause of all these sad, really, sad, reality that is being unfolded in front of our eyes. Why would I trust a stranger and get into his car? why should I trust a company who actively advocate that ride is fun because you can have encounter w/ pretty girl as passenger? why should I trust government's policy if his track record has shown over and over and over again that:
- he never admits he did anything wrong
- he never said "I'm sorry"
- he changes his mind 180 degrees in many occasions, which had brought tremendous headache to your private life — how about the policy of having baby, for one example? and the right to buy a house, for another?
- and hi never discloses his decision making process, nor his budget book.
If taking him as an individual person, I challenge anyone would say, "you know what!? He is a great guy, let's marry my daughter to him." So, why should there be any trust!?
Then, all the BS data published, all the BS theory circulating in
wechat and among friends & family, all the BS advice to be long-lived
or just to be healthy.... everything, I do mean everything, should be
challenged, should be criticized, and should be suspected! There isn't
such a thing as TRUST. As a matter of fact, I would say TRUST can only
exist when the foundation is being extremely doubtful, thus extremely
cautious, thus extremely conservative and protective. TRUST only exist
when there is an army of measure to deal with it when it goes
wrong relative to 1 that describes the "right" scenario ← like
writing programs, really, the majority of the code is to deal with
conditions or guard conditions that will crash the system, while only
a minor amount will end up being the feature implementation. Follow
this you can even argue that all the code to deal with
course (in UML's syntax) is part of the feature/requirement itself,
and that's exactly right.
Will you trust a car that have no brake, just because its normal course/main feature is that it moves forward!? Will you trust yourself, at all, if there is no hospital/doctor ever, in this world, because the normal course of life is be in the same state tomorrow like today, and today like yesterday?... you get the idea. It will be simply crazy to agree that normal course is all; and it's simply a crime if normal course is being presented as the ONLY course possible, available, or advisable.
Then, why the hell you would trust an author and his/her saying while there is no counter arguments!? why to trust a data when nowhere in its analysis it first defines its assumptions? why to trust a government policy that you can only hear exactly ONE WAY of interpretation, while in fact NO LANGUAGE in the world, including math, is capable to do that!? Think about it, even the Bible, which speaks THE TRUTH, has different ways to read its story and message. And there it is, a policy rolled out fresh out of oven, is being viewed without ambiguity, without doubt, without challenge, without critics, without uproar from somebody, some group → this just can not be! This only means one thing, that opinions have been suppressed, and whoever is promoting this wants you to have one possible conclusion. But now since I have laid these out flat, if you look at this logic chain again, I will be really curious that who would want to do that to you!? and who would want to live in that!?
anti trust, someone like me, a lot of me. Trust, is a
result, of debate, proof, and clarity; it is not a cause. Whoever
promotes this idea is actually getting it reversed. Well, see, I'm
practicing my own preach here → I don't trust these guys, don't
take their statement easily. People will find me just annoying, I
guess. But it's ok. I trust my own judgement more than others'. I
trust quite a few authors, whose book and writing, though I don't
understand, I find them intriguing — social contract, the
road to serfdom — am I committing the same foolishness that
I'm criticizing here!? No. I trust them, exactly because all these
writings are in tone and in spirit of do not trust!
Yes, if you can't be as angry and as annoying as I am, take Reagan's word for a starter at least:"Trust, but verify".
— by Feng Xia