Phil 4.1.16

7:15 – 4:15 VTX

  • Had a bunch of paperwork to do for my folks. All handled now?
  • Continuing What is Trust? A Conceptual Analysis and An Interdisciplinary Model. Done
    • Disposition to Trust. This construct means the extent to which one displays a consistent tendency to be willing to depend on general others across a broad spectrum of situations and persons
      • a general propensity to be willing to depend on others.
      • does not necessarily imply that one believes others to be trustworthy
      • only has a major effect on one’s trust-related behavior when novel
        situations arise, in which the person and situation are unfamiliar
      • Disposition to Trust has two subconstructs, Faith in Humanity and Trusting Stance
        • Faith in Humanity means one assumes others are usually upright, well-meaning, and dependable.
        • Trusting Stance means that, regardless of what one assumes about other people generally, one assumes that one will achieve better outcomes by dealing with people as though they are well-meaning and reliable
      • Because Faith in Humanity relates to assumptions about peoples’ attributes, it is more likely to be an antecedent to Trusting Beliefs (in people) than is Trusting Stance. Trusting Stance may relate more to Trusting Intention, which, depending on the situation, is probably not based wholly on beliefs about the other person.
    • Institution-based Trust means one believes the needed conditions are in place to enable one to anticipate a successful outcome in an endeavor or aspect of one’s life
      • This construct comes from the sociology tradition that people can rely on others because of structures, situations, or roles  that provide assurances (Affordances???) that things will go well
      • Institution-based Trust has two subconstructs, Structural Assurance and Situational Normality.
        • Structural Assurance means one believes that success is likely because guarantees, contracts, regulations, promises, legal recourse, processes, or procedures are in place that assure success
        • Situational Normality means one believes that success is likely because the situation is normal or favorable. (I think that this comes from very primitive parts of our brains. It can be observed in many animals and may be one of those things that separates infant and adult behavior. If you trust too much, you are likely to get eaten..?)
          • Situational Normality means that a properly ordered setting is likely to facilitate a successful venture. When one believes one’s role and others’ roles in the situation are appropriate and conducive to success, then one has a basis for trusting the people in the situation.
          • likely related to Trusting Beliefs and Trusting Intention. A system developer who feels good about the roles and setting in which they work is likely to have Trusting Beliefs about the people in that setting.
    • Trusting Beliefs means one believes (and feels confident in believing) that the other person has one or more traits desirable to one in a situation in which negative consequences are possible.
      • We distinguish four main trusting belief subconstructs, while recognizing that others exist.
        • Trusting Belief-Competence means one believes the other person has the ability or power to do for one what one needs done.
        • Trusting Belief-Benevolence means one believes the other person cares about one and is motivated to act in one’s interest.  A benevolent person does not act opportunistically.
        • Trusting Belief-Integrity means one believes the other person makes good faith agreements, tells the truth, and fulfills promises
        • Trusting Belief-Predictability means one believes the other person’s actions (good or bad) are consistent enough that one can forecast them in a given situation
    • Trusting Intention means one is willing to depend on, or intends to depend on, the other person in a given task or situation  with a feeling of relative security, even though negative consequences are possible
      • Trusting intention subconstructs include Willingness to Depend and Subjective Probability of Depending.
        • Willingness to Depend means one is volitionally prepared to make oneself vulnerable to the other person in a situation by relying on them.
        • Subjective Probability of Depending means the extent to which one forecasts or predicts that one will depend on the other person.
      • Trusting Intention definitions embody five elements synthesized from the trust literature.
        1. The possibility of negative consequences or risk is what makes trust important but problematic.
        2. A readiness to depend or rely on another is central to trusting intention.
        3. A feeling of security means one feels safe, assured, and comfortable (not anxious or fearful) about the prospect of depending on another. Feelings of security reflect the affective side of trusting intention.
        4. Trusting intention is situation-specific.(???? why? Examples?)
        5. Trusting intention involves willingness that is not based on having control or power over the other party. Note that Trusting Intention relates well to the system development power literature because we define it in terms of dependence and control.
    • Another limitation relates to Whetten’s (1989) recommendation that Who and Where conditions should be placed around models.  Whereas we have assumed that the model applies to any kind of relationship between two people (Who) in any situation (Where), this may not be the case. Empirical research is needed to better define the boundary conditions of the model.
  • Starting Technology, Humanness, and Trust: Rethinking Trust in Technology, also by D. Harrison McKnight
    • Page 881 (Basic?) Social Trust: human-like trust constructs of integrity, ability/competence, and benevolence that researchers have traditionally used to measure interpersonal trust.
    • Page 881 (Basic?) System Trust: system-like trust constructs such as reliability,
      functionality, and helpfulness
    • Page 881. First, we hypothesize that technologies can differ in humanness. Second, we predict that users will develop trust in the technology differently depending on whether they perceive it as more or less human-like, which will result in human-like trust having a stronger.  influence on outcomes for more human-like technologies and system-like trust having a stronger influence on outcomes for more system-like technologies. (Cite Kate Bush Deeper Understanding 1989)
    • Here’s the beginning of a thought: What is self-trust? Just thinking about it, it seems to be a sense of the reliability of my future self to do what my present self desires. That’s different from Social Trust, which in the literature is more about integrity, competence and benevolence. It seems closer to system trust in that reliability and functionality are more significant. There are things that I trust that I will do tomorrow: Get up, go to work, exercise if the weather is good enough. But there are also things that I can’t trust myself to do. My future self will almost certainly eat more calories than my current self desires. My grocery shopping behaviors are based around this lack of trust. There are items that I do not bring into my house because I know that they will get eaten (I was going to write that I know that my will is weak around chocolate, but that’s not really it. Or at least, that’s not all of it, or maybe even most of it..). Because (interactive?) information technology is more like a self-amplifier, I wonder if what we think of system trust can be thought of as the trust in ourselves, but the part of ourselves that is more reliable and trustworthy. A search tomorrow will work as well as a search today. Maybe better. And the effectiveness of that search reflect somehow my ability to interact effectively with the external world? This is starting to sound a lot my point of view that living a life in prolonged contact with a compiler changes you in profound ways.
    • So what would that mean? I think it’s a reasonable hypothesis to change search results from focusing on pertinence to revelation. This does not mean that the ‘Ten Blue Links’ need to go away. But it does imply that peripheral information could be just as important, so that a less casually polarized worldview might be developed.
  • Finishing up the CSE version control setup – need to write up the process for confluence – done.
  • Since I need to be able to now read in the Excella data, I was going to look to Gregg’s ontology as a way to determine the table structure. But it’s way too big and nested. In a Person’s description includes a reference to a complete organization, activities, charges, arrests, and it doesn’t even have room for nice things yet (will we have co-authors?). Anyway, To avoid this, I’m going to have basic person characteristics with an associated  StringMaps, NumMaps and DateMaps. Anything that’s not recognized as a column gets added to that. Need to see how persistence will work with that in some testing first.
  • Got the code working. JPA 2 says you should be able to build a map entirely without annotations, but I couldn’t get it to work. Modified JsonLoadable so that it goes through the Json Object and anything that is not a member of the current class is added to HashMaps of PoiOptionalStrings. It should be very straightforward to extend to number and date types. Probably worth doing?
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: