Trust Ecosystems: From Feeling to Functional Framework
The Limitations of Trust Measurement
I opened up the website of world-leading company Globescan to examine their trust survey results (https://globescan.com/search/?_sf_s=trust). The amount of work dedicated to improving society is impressive. On this website I found: "Survey Question: Please indicate how much you trust each of the following institutions to operate in the best interest of our society. Would you say you have a lot of trust, some trust, not much trust, or no trust at all in…?"
I'm all for measuring how trust feels subjectively—it's a fantastic lens into social dynamics. But here's my fundamental question: if we only focus on feelings, aren't we missing other measurable aspects of trust? By examining both subjective experiences and objective metrics together, couldn't we unlock new insights about how people connect with each other—and even how we relate to AI?
Ah, the limitations of language. Trust now mainly means the feeling of trust. The word "trust," in English or in Hebrew (אמון), used to mean much more than it does now.
Trust, as a feeling, doesn't fully capture the multifaceted nature of the phenomenon we need to describe. It focuses on the emotional state growing from the phenomenon, missing the interdependent web that enables trust to exist in the first place.
The Natural Foundations of Trust
What we observe in natural ecosystems, even in the so-called "jungle," is not primarily ruthless competition but intricate networks of cooperation and interdependence. These systems don't require subjective "trust" as humans understand it, yet they function through reliable patterns of interaction—what we might call "structural trust."
The misunderstanding comes from a superficial reading of nature, where competition and cooperation aren't opposites but complementary forces building a functional whole.
This is more than philosophical musing—it's observable reality. Humans became Earth's dominant species through cooperation. Our greatest achievements in science, technology, and culture are products of collaboration. Even our competitive endeavors—from markets and sports to legal systems—depend on shared frameworks of trust. The ability to build trust across genetic lines is human and extraordinarily powerful.
When Globescan asks "...how much you trust," they're measuring the emotional output of a complex system I call the Relational Infrastructure. This infrastructure consists of observable patterns of interaction, norms, shared information systems, and behavioral predictability—all elements that can be measured separately from the feeling they produce.
Trust feeling surveys are interesting and meaningful, but understanding the structural causes gives us more leverage points for improvement than simply trying to increase "trust" directly.
Few words about game theory
Those focused purely on "winning" often miss a measurable reality. Game theory itself has evolved beyond simple win/lose matrices, showing how cooperative strategies outperform purely competitive ones in the long run.
Evidence is everywhere: high-trust societies consistently outperform low-trust ones economically; companies with high internal trust show better long-term performance; even in competitive environments, the ability to build trust alliances determines success.
The fact that cooperation and trust repeatedly emerge as optimal strategies—even in nature's "jungle"—suggests we're not imposing an artificial construct but rather emerging something fundamental about how complex systems thrive.
Ancient Roots, New Meanings
I had fun exploring the etymology of the Hebrew word for trust, אמון and suggesting better descriptive, סומכה. The three-letter root (א.מ.נ) used to depict it, once described: strength, dependence, even tutoring, but now is used to describe the emotional artifact created, almost like in English.
Some thoughts on the same leaning-out process in English. The etymology of "trust" reveals deeper layers of meaning:
- From Old Norse traust ("help, confidence, protection, support")
- Derived from Proto-Germanic traustam ("confidence, refuge, shelter")
- Linked to the Proto-Indo-European root deru- / dreu- meaning "to be firm, solid, steadfast," which also gave rise to words like "tree" (symbol of strength) and "true" (reliable, faithful).
From the Word to the Concept: The "Trust Ecosystem"
To address this gap, I propose a conceptual tool of "Trust Ecosystem." This term points to the matrix of interactions, institutions, and relationships from which trust emerges. The "Trust Ecosystem" is an expanded, better, multifaceted term. It's not about quantifying the individual feeling but describing a network of mutual support—ecological, psychological, sociological, philosophical, metaphysical, and even simply physical—that collectively exists and as a byproduct allowed human life.
Where "trust" might be seen as a type of fruit produced by a certain institutional or ecological "tree," the Trust Ecosystem is the entire tree—roots, branches, leaves, and its relationship to the surrounding environment, or as I often think, a net is a good metaphor.
Similar to the way language is more than the sum of words and grammar, the Trust Ecosystem is more than the sum of human interactions or the emotions they elicit; it is the quantifiable system of connections and processes.
From Individual Actions to Ecosystem Impact
Individual gestures in the Trust Ecosystem are like small actions in any ecosystem—they cascade. Each promised line of code delivered, each cup of tea lovingly made, each sincere word of appreciation, and every boundary respected doesn't just create a momentary feeling. These actions strengthen the relational infrastructure itself.
When I teach, I try to show. Trust isn't built through grand declarations but through consistent micro-behaviors. A martial arts instructor who shows up before his students, week after week, decade after decade, models reliability. This reliability creates and strengthens a pathway in the brain, not just a textual concept. Likewise, when parents respond consistently to their child's cries, they're not just soothing emotions—they're helping to wire neural pathways that will shape how that child navigates relationships for decades.
These individual behaviors matter precisely because they're not isolated. They're threads in the social fabric. When I keep my word in one context, I strengthen the value of promises in my entire community. When I break trust, even in seemingly minor ways, I introduce cost and friction into the system that requires additional energy to overcome.
This is why personal accountability isn't just a moral stance—it's a practical contribution to collective resilience, to trust ecosystem. In high-functioning organizations, teams, and families, trust shouldn't be maintained only through control but through each person recognizing their role as both beneficiary and guardian of the Trust Ecosystem. It's something every successful criminal knows.
The Modern Age of the Trust Ecosystem: A Crisis of Interpretation
Societies experience a severe breakdown of trust in institutions. When this is misunderstood as a mere "trust crisis," it teaches me little apart from the usual banalities. Social polarity is a fracture at a quantifiable level, a level I believe we can measure. When I regurgitate the "I lost trust," referring only to the feeling, I don't see the ecosystem. This limited scope is not only individually maintained; we are witnessing the collapse of many frameworks that interpret and, in human societies, sustain the Trust Ecosystem—the institutional, social, and bodily structures that shape and preserve trust.
A Young Generation's Dilemma
Young people closed up in their rooms, feeling isolated, don't experience a feeling of trust, yet they rely on the Trust Ecosystem more than ever: buildings that provide multiple shelters, global supply chains that deliver food and power, technology that offers new forms of social connections, etc. This is a full-on, extensive Trust Ecosystem that instead of admitting dependency is getting a subjective priming for suspicion. The historical element that is lacking is tangible human contact—one that does activate the evolutionary mechanisms formed over millennia of communal living.
Human Trust Ecosystems: A Complex Heritage
In traditional communities, people benefited from Trust Ecosystems that integrated many levels of human existence. At the most basic level, nursing when young, shared physical presence, food, warmth, and coordinated group action created trust feeling anchors. Beyond that, human beings developed symbolic systems—rituals, language, music, dance, warfare—to transmit knowledge and meaning across generations. A language itself is a trust ecosystem of meaning—as Wittgenstein correctly observed.
These communities built trust across all dimensions of life—from physical touch to shared stories. But let's not romanticize the past. These societies weren't trust utopias. They had their wars, power struggles, and deep suspicions. They created powerful trust bonds within their groups while often maintaining walls of distrust with outsiders. Their trust ecosystems were tangible, but so were their conflicts.
The layered structures of interdependence (סוֹמְכָה) that existed provided stability, but never eliminated conflict or betrayal entirely (just read the Bible).
This isn't pessimism—quite the opposite. Today's world offers a more intricate web of interdependence than ever before. Technology isn't the enemy; it's an emerging, evolving ecosystem of trust with untapped potential! This presents a frontier for trust researchers: not just to study historical trust structures, but to pioneer new dimensions of connection.
Our challenge isn't to idealize some mythical past, but to deeply understand the interdependence systems shaping our present. We need to create new pathways of trust—not only for those already conscious of these interconnections, but especially for those who haven't yet recognized how profoundly interconnected our world has become.
The Paradox of Modern Life: Connected Yet Fragmented
Modern trust ecosystems present us with a paradox. They connect us across vast distances, link us to countless individuals, and weave complex networks of global interdependence that our ancestors couldn't have imagined. Yet this expansion comes with fragmentation. Where traditional ecosystems offered an integrated experience—where the physical, emotional, and cognitive dimensions of trust were woven together—modern systems pull these apart.
Even those who criticize these systems often fail to recognize how deeply their lives and actions depend on the very technological ecosystems they question.
Our bodies exist in one space, our emotions flow through digital channels, and our cognitive trust decisions rely on abstract data points rather than holistic experiences. We are simultaneously more connected and more compartmentalized than ever before. This paradox creates both unprecedented opportunities and unique vulnerabilities in how we build and maintain trust in the modern world.
Toward a Mindful Trust Ecosystem: A Roadmap
Social and political conflicts, polarization, and rising mental health challenges all stem, in part, from a sense of missing trust. I don't see this challenge resolved through slogans or cosmetic fixes. Trust feeling cannot thrive in a vacuum; it requires intentional action at the level of the entire Trust Ecosystem—the comprehensive framework of relationships, technology, and institutions that surround us.
We must recognize that many aspects of the current Trust Ecosystem—global, digital, and detached from the physical—are out of sync with the human organism, which has functioned for millions of years in intimate, tangible communal settings.
To build trust in a world of simulations and virtual interactions, we need fresh understanding and adaptations of our Trust Ecosystem—particularly its technological and abstract layers—to align with our neurological, emotional, and social makeup.
Measurement and Implementation: The Trust Ecosystem in Action
The rise of artificial intelligence offers a living laboratory for examining and measuring the Trust Ecosystem. When interacting with a large language model, for example, we engage multiple layers of the ecosystem:
- Technical Infrastructure (computing systems): The reliable servers, networks, and hardware that ensure the AI responds consistently without failures
- Cognitive Processes (natural language processing): The AI's ability to understand nuance, recognize context, and respond with relevant information
- Social Interaction (human–machine dialogue): The conversational flow, turn-taking, and appropriate tone that mimics human discourse
- Physical/Emotional Responses (our bodily and emotional reactions): The frustration we feel when the AI misunderstands, or the satisfaction when it provides exactly what we need
Studying these interactions can help quantify trust levels and identify which aspects of the Trust Ecosystem contribute or detract from successful engagement. We observe that stronger integration among different layers (consistent responses, natural language, context-awareness) increases trust. Such insights demonstrate how we can measure and improve the Trust Ecosystem and apply these lessons to other complex systems where human trust is essential—from healthcare delivery to organizational leadership.
I am in the process of developing a trust ecosystem equation that will help quantify the various dimensions and their interactions within the Trust Ecosystem. This measurable approach aims to provide a framework for measuring and optimizing trust-building processes across different contexts.
Three Parallel Steps for Solutions
-
Systemic Mapping of the Trust Ecosystem
Similar to climate metrics or economic indices, we can develop tools to measure the various dimensions of the Trust Ecosystem: governance quality (how decisions are made and who has a say), operational efficiency (how day-to-day processes function reliably), and community cohesion (how people connect through shared experiences and relationships). Measurement will pinpoint where the system works and where it fails. -
Integrated Planning
Research shows that the Trust Ecosystem is not just the sum of its parts but a product of their interaction. Good governance combined with strong community structures creates a multiplicative effect on trust. Therefore, any intervention—from urban design to technological development—must consider its impact on all layers of the ecosystem and their interrelationships. -
Cultivating Positive Dynamics
Like any living system, the Trust Ecosystem has a momentum of its own. A system that starts generating trust tends to continue doing so, while one that loses trust spirals downward. The key is to identify and strengthen leverage points—places in the system where even a small change can catalyze broader, positive transformation.
The Trust Ecosystem as a Conceptual Horizon
The term "Trust Ecosystem" is not just a linguistic invention; it is a paradigm shift. Much like "ecology" revealed the hidden connections between organisms and their environment, "Trust Ecosystem" exposes the web of interdependence between trust and social structures. It allows us to move beyond the question of "How do we restore trust?" to the generative question: "How do we build a healthy Trust Ecosystems?"
Looking ahead, trust is neither binary nor an emotion born in a vacuum. It is a value—the byproduct of a functional Trust Ecosystem. To heal the divisions of our age, we must speak not only about restoring the feeling of trust; we need to speak through the Trust Ecosystem—understanding and shaping the intricate system of institutions, practices, and relationships that enable trust to flourish. By cultivating these interconnected dimensions together, we create not just moments of trust, but sustainable environments where trust can naturally grow and endure.