- 23 hours ago
- 6 min read
A Threat Assessment Perspective
The common aphorism “trust but verify” is a catchy cliché, tossed around haphazardly like a balloon in a Briarpatch, but it falls short of passing the smell test of reason. Like many well-intentioned maxims, this one feels great to say but fails to impart actionable wisdom.
It is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It appears that the aphorism “trust but verify,” popular though it may be, is just another stone constructing that hellish highway. And such careless trust may very well lead to a hell of one’s own making.
It is understandable that people might be hesitant to withhold trust until trustworthiness has been established. Who wants to be that person that challenges a thing before believing it or questions intentions and motivations of others before simply trusting them? This is difficult for some because it requires asserting oneself and standing one’s ground. People generally just want to get along without the pesky risk mitigation protocols mucking up their interactions. Others are afraid of offending someone by determining their trustworthiness before trusting them.
But it’s ok to suspend judgment of someone or something until trustworthiness has been confirmed. And it’s ok to wait until more is known about reliability and dependability before throwing caution to the wind. To rush into something with potential risk without confidence in that thing is not ok and can have lasting and life-changing consequences.
The saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure is apropos here. It is always better to take preventative measures at the front end and avoid preventable problems at the back end than to do nothing and hope everything works out. With personal safety and security, this is especially relevant.
Why Trusting First, Then Verifying is Unwise
How can one reasonably be expected to trust before they have verified whether a thing or person is trustworthy? To do so puts the buggy before the horse.
Would you allow a stranger to watch your child so long as they smile and say nice words? Would you permit someone to invest your money with no more than a claim they knew what they were doing? Would you marry a person on the same day you met them without any time to develop a relationship to get to know them more? Sadly, people often do these things—trust a person blindly before they verify their level of trustworthiness. And it often backfires.
To trust someone before they are proven to be trustworthy places the one trusting in a particularly uncertain position that rests solely on the “good faith” or integrity of the one being trusted. Without knowing whether the person or thing necessitating trust is trustworthy, it is risky to place trust in that person or thing. In many cases, it’s just plain foolish and it offers personal safety on the altar of carelessness.
The world in general is a wild place where ill intent and evil exist alongside good. Whether this is a popular truth or not is irrelevant to the fact that it is true. There is no hero without a villain. No good without the bad. No right without wrong. Darkness exists next to light. This is intrinsic to reality and has always been so. Ignoring this reality or engaging in delusional behavior to pretend it away does nothing for the vulnerable but much for the predator.
The sheep doesn’t become less desirable to the wolf looking for an easy dinner by pretending the wolf doesn’t exist just so the sheep can continue to graze in the pasture uninfringed. On the contrary, a willfully ignorant sheep makes for an easier kill.
It is no different for the suckers, gullible, and naïve in the human species—pretending may be fun and instill a comforting (but false) sense of security but it doesn’t change reality. The danger still exists. The predator still lurks. The one who does not want to be a victim still must choose safety and security over ignorant bliss or risk becoming a victim.
Avoiding Extremes by Striking a Balance
So, should one become paranoid? Suspect everyone before giving them an opportunity? Lock oneself away from the world and hide?
The answer to these questions is unequivocally, “No!”
It is not the case that no one should be trusted ever without first screening them thoroughly to determine whether they can be trusted. This would be unrealistic in a world that moves fast and requires expeditious decision-making to keep up with the rapid pace of reality. Some decisions must be made quickly because of circumstances or crises that call for this. This is an inevitable aspect of life.
Rather, the individual should examine each situation on a case-by-case basis to determine what amount of trust should reasonably be given to a person or situation to facilitate an effective process or interaction without exposing the one doing the trusting to unnecessary harm or avoidable hostility. The decision about which situation demands what level of scrutiny is a serious process that dictates serious consideration.
Not everyone can conduct a background check on a potential lawyer they’re thinking of hiring to represent them in a criminal case that could lead to life in prison or worse. Others may not be able to afford the cost of this. But a risk is that the lawyer has a high fail rate with clients or lacks competence in criminal defense work even if they claim otherwise. Thus, not knowing more about the lawyer before the case could be detrimental.
And it would be both cost prohibitive and impractical for most to conduct a criminal records search on every bus driver responsible for transporting their children between school and home. Nevertheless, the risk remains that the bus driver wasn’t vetted properly by the school and has ill intentions toward children or is not a safe driver.
This is playing fast and loose with a lottery of chance. Will you be the one who gets life in prison for a crime you didn’t commit? Will your child be targeted by a sexual predator or injured in a wreck? Harsh questions, sure. But realistic, nonetheless.
Which situation deserves what level of trust? This is not a question that can be answered from a disconnected perspective. It is a question that should be answered by those who find themselves experiencing the situation. And the answer should be based on how much risk the situation carries and how consequential the context is.
The one who chooses in these situations must resist the tendency to catastrophize everything while at the same time giving a situation necessary attention and response.
Don’t Surrender Your Sovereignty for False Security
Safety and security are arduous because these require the individual to remain aware—aware of their surroundings. This is exhausting. The brain must remain focused while not missing the bigger picture. It is important to see the individual trees in the forest as well as the whole forest. But this level of awareness is challenging to maintain.
Such sustained attention to the environment depletes psychical energies. It’s hard to stay tuned into one’s environment while at the same time enjoying oneself in that environment.
This is an ability that many simply cannot develop. That is why these people outsource this work to professionals with experience and resources to provide such safety and security. But this places self-responsibility on an other—something that cannot be maintained over the long term. It commercializes safety and security that was always an individual responsibly.
This is not to say depending on another for safety and security is wrong. Some people were built to protect; others to be protected. Each serves a purpose. There are the sheep and there are the shepherds and sheepdogs.
But the individual should at least develop a personal policy of not trusting what has not been verified to be trustworthy. The individual should at a minimum apply greater scrutiny to people and situations that carry greater risk and impacting consequences.
Doing so does not make the individual paranoid or pathologically suspicious but it does help ensure that their safety and security, and the safety and security of those they are responsible for, is enhanced.
It is but a simple rearranging of words—a slight syntactical adjustment—to begin saying, “Verify, then Trust,” instead of throwing caution to the wind by trusting then verifying.
Yet, the benefit of doing so can change one’s life for the better.