POLL: Majority of Americans Distrust One Another

[green73]

WASHINGTON (AP) - You can take our word for it. Americans don't trust each other anymore.

We're not talking about the loss of faith in big institutions such as the government, the church or Wall Street, which fluctuates with events. For four decades, a gut-level ingredient of democracy - trust in the other fellow - has been quietly draining away.

These days, only one-third of Americans say most people can be trusted. Half felt that way in 1972, when the General Social Survey first asked the question.

Forty years later, a record high of nearly two-thirds say "you can't be too careful" in dealing with people.

An AP-GfK poll conducted last month found that Americans are suspicious of each other in everyday encounters. Less than one-third expressed a lot of trust in clerks who swipe their credit cards, drivers on the road, or people they meet when traveling.

"I'm leery of everybody," said Bart Murawski, 27, of Albany, N.Y. "Caution is always a factor."

cont.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20131130/DAACV0QO2.html

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I also sense more distrust among co-workers. People in workplaces seem more desperate and at each other's throats. I don't know--maybe everyone is more intense being worried about their jobs. Just another sign of a slowly crumbling America.

[oyarde]

Makes sense to me , I would have trusted more people in 1972 as well .

[libertarianMoney]

I'd like to see the results of this poll compared to international results. I think that would help answer a ton of questions I have.

Is the distrust in other people causing a more tyrannical state or is the tyrannical state causing a distrust in other people?

[Anti Federalist]

And I'll just drop this off right here, OK?

According to Canadian historian Robert Gellately's analysis of the local offices established, the Gestapo was—for the most part—made up of bureaucrats and clerical workers who depended upon denunciations by citizens for their information.[36] Gellately argued that it was because of the widespread willingness of Germans to inform on each other to the Gestapo that Germany between 1933 and 1945 was a prime example of panopticism.[37] Indeed, the Gestapo—at times—was overwhelmed with denunciations and most of its time was spent sorting out the credible from the less credible denunciations.[38] Many of the local offices were understaffed and overworked, struggling with the paper load caused by so many denunciations.[39] Gellately has also suggested that the Gestapo was "a reactive organization" "...which was constructed within German society and whose functioning was structurally dependent on the continuing co-operation of German citizens".[40]

After 1939, when many Gestapo personnel were called up for war-related work such as service with the Einsatzgruppen, the level of overwork and understaffing at the local offices increased.[39] For information about what was happening in German society, the Gestapo continued to be mostly dependent upon denunciations.[41] 80% of all Gestapo investigations were started in response to information provided by denunciations by ordinary Germans; while 10% were started in response to information provided by other branches of the German government and another 10% started in response to information that the Gestapo itself unearthed.[38]

[Anti Federalist]

I'd like to see the results of this poll compared to international results. I think that would help answer a ton of questions I have.

Is the distrust in other people causing a more tyrannical state or is the tyrannical state causing a distrust in other people?

The latter.

It is the tyrannical state and its media organs constantly ramping up the fear.

See Something Say Something.

[donnay]

I distrust our hijacked government more.

[Origanalist]

Makes sense to me , I would have trusted more people in 1972 as well .

Absolutely. Back then most people didn't trust authority and ratting out you neighbor was a serious no-no.

[Origanalist]

I'd like to see the results of this poll compared to international results. I think that would help answer a ton of questions I have.

Is the distrust in other people causing a more tyrannical state or is the tyrannical state causing a distrust in other people?

The latter, unquestionably.

Eh, AF beat me to it.

[tod evans]

Makes sense to me , I would have trusted more people in 1972 as well .

I did.

And I still do.

I won't live in an area where I need to take the keys out of the ignition or lock my doors.

[Anti Federalist]

bump

[Occam's Banana]

As per usual, useless study based on unquantifiable and subjective self-reporting is uselessly unquantifiable & subjective ...


These days, only one-third of Americans say most people can be trusted.

Define "most" (50% + 1? 60%? 75%? 99.9%?). Is "most" different from "many" - or even "some" ... ?
If so, how? Would the poll results be any different if "many" (or "some") had been used instead of "most" ... ?
If not, why not? If so, would that be significant? If not, why not? If so, how so?

Define "trust." What does it mean? How is it measured?
Poll respondent A imagines one vague "feeling" when he thinks of "trust."
Poll respondent B imagines some other vague "feeling" when he thinks of "trust."
So just what is being measured here, exactly?

But let's pretend we know what we're talking about when we say & hear "trust" ...
I say I don't "trust" people (whatever "trust" might mean). But is true just because I said so?
When Ayn Rand said she was NOT a libertarian, did that make it so?
If Barack Obama said he WAS a libertarian, would that make it so?

People tend to say that they are (or are not) whatever fits (or does not fit) their own image of themselves. And even that assumes that they are genuinely trying to be honest. Maybe, for some reason, they are not. Maybe, for example, they are actually just telling the pollster what they think the pollster wants or expects to hear ...

For any given value of "trust," someone who fancies himself a cynic might say he does NOT "trust" other people - when, in fact, in real-world day-to-day practice he might very well tend to "trust" people far more (and far more often) than a self-styled optimist. The self-styled optimist, of course, would say that he DOES "trust" people - even though he might actually do so less (and less often) than the "cynical" respondent. So are they both right? Are they both wrong? Is one right and the other wrong? A reasonable case could made for any of these possibilities.

Given all this, how can the results of polls like this possibly be meaningful? A bunch of people with vague, undefined and highly imprecise (not to mention mutually incompatible) notions of "most" and "trust" gave subjective replies that are bound to be very heavily skewed in a way that both consciously and unconsciously fits their internal self-images. Their replies almost certainly have only the most tenuous connection to how they actually act in relation to other people (that is, with whether they really DO, in actual practice, "trust" other people).

And we haven't even considered absolutely critical matters such as "degrees of trust" (people are bound to "trust" some people more or less than others, for example, and for very particular reasons), or the fact that "trust" only ever occurs (or fails to occur) under particular circumstances. (It doesn't really mean anything to say that you "trust" people "in general," because it is never "in general" that you actually employ your "trust" - or lack of it. As I sit here typing this, does it realy make any sense to say that I am "trusting" anyone?)

In short: this poll is just a modern-day version of fortune-telling blended with numerology.
And the same thing goes for all the countless other polls just like it ...


[...] a gut-level ingredient of democracy - trust in the other fellow [...]

That's a new one. I haven't heard that one before. (Where do they get this nonsense?)

[oyarde]

Maybe , if the majority of Americans were not getting something out of my wallet, I would feel more positive :)