TLDR: it’s risky for people to do business with you, and trust is the anesthetic that lets them continue with this risk. Without trust, no one is going under the surgery that you are performing and selling.
When exactly is trust needed? It is needed in moments of vulnerability. If there is no weakness or vulnerability, trust is redundant. Commerce exposes us to a lot of vulnerabilities that hey I might do something for someone else and they might not pay me or I will pay someone and they will not do what they promised to do. Trust is what makes us go ahead despite these vulnerabilities existing. Trust can also be seen as an expectation of an act from others, whether stated by them or not.
Commerce is inherently vulnerable, and trust is what makes it possible.
Thus, the more trustworthy you are, the more commerce-able you are. Being trustworthy is the prerequisite to having social influence. Trustworthy not only in its good way but also trust that you can execute your intent, be it good or bad. We trust a terrorist with a gun that he holds the power to kill us, and we better do what he wants. We trust our employer that he has the money, and if we do the work, we will get paid, and that we have the courts to back us up. Trust solicits actions from others. Actions that can be advantageous for you economically, socially, or whatever.
I trust the doctor will fix me when I am vulnerable to a disease, Thus I will pay him. This suggests trustworthiness is fundamentally about reducing uncertainty for others about what you’ll do, which then allows them to coordinate their actions with yours so that they can reduce their own harm or enhance their own good.
Trust enables others to act strategically in their own interest by reducing uncertainty about your behavior.
Without that trust in the doctor, I would not take his treatment nor would I pay him. I would not go to the doctor if I wasn’t vulnerable to any disease either. I would go to a doctor because he seems fit for this vulnerability.
We can say that vulnerability solicits trust, and that trust solicits actions. And it would be incomplete to think of vulnerability as just some operational or logistical problem. It encompasses human beings, emotions, and longings too. Some vulnerability arises because we want to look a certain way to people or to maintain an image we have for ourselves, and to de-risk identity collapse. Ambitious actions or things that we might see as unnecessary arise out of vulnerability of internal collapse.
Customer might have some vulnerability, and your business solution might be something that can help them with that. So, your product is providing certainty of some degree when it comes to their vulnerability. On the other hand, they are paying you something, so they are vulnerable financially. Also, based on how the transaction looks, they might be vulnerable socially. Your own standing in the market determine if they trust you to carry out the transaction, even if your product is something that can fight their vulnerability.
Your product addresses vulnerability 1, and you address the vulnerability number 2.
The vulnerability I described at the start of the post was vulnerability number 2, and eventually, we got to know more about vulnerability 1. First, we understood that commerce is inherently vulnerable and is enabled only by trust. Then we realized the object of commerce is solving some vulnerability people might have. Don’t conflate vulnerability with problems, vulnerability is a superset which contains a set called “problem.”
You go to a mechanic because your car might have a problem. You go to a luxury car dealer because you’re vulnerable to social perception and need maintenance of your status. And both lead to commerce. Both require you to trust the seller enough to accept transactional vulnerability (vulnerability 2) in order to address your original vulnerability (vulnerability 1).
Vulnerability is the source of commerce and not problems because problems leave us vulnerable to things. It is the label that sits in between.
The problem (broken car) leaves you vulnerable (to being stranded, to further damage). It’s the vulnerability that drives you to commerce, not the problem itself. The problem is just what created the vulnerability. If that broken car didn’t create any vulnerability because you had another one or because you didn’t care about how people perceived you, then you wouldn’t engage in commerce.
Vulnerability is the fundamental unit. Problems alone do not drive commerce. That’s why being a trustable person who understands vulnerabilities is great if you want to do commerce.
Trust is an measure taken in face of risk around resolution of vulnerability such that we can allow ourselves to go on with the action. example : So you have a vulnerability. You might seek something to resolve it. There is an uncertainty regarding the resolution of that vulnerability. So you go ahead with it anyways because you had trust. Trust is an anesthetic that lets you go on with this uncertain surgery. Too little anesthetic, and people won’t be able to go through it. And it wears off also, so you have to maintain it.
Amount of trust needed = Amount of stakes x Amount of uncertainty.
Thus, the more trustworthy you are, the more eligible you are to partake in these actions that are so valuable to these people.
And I would argue in this world, there is no certainty. Even gravity, as we know it, stems from our empirical measure that it has always happened and based on everything we know, gravity will keep working this way. Our certainty about gravity isn’t direct knowledge, it’s faith in a method. Faith in induction, in pattern recognition, in the idea that “past instances predict future instances.” I trust that the universe is consistent enough for this pattern to hold. We trust that certainty, but hey, who knows?
And what is the certainty that can’t be trusted? Or what is the certainty that is emerging out of trust? That’s why I kind of treat “trust” as a synonym of certainty almost in this whole article. Blurring the distinction between trust and certainty because all certainty emerges from trust in something. There’s no certainty that stands independent of trust
Well, moving back to commerce.
We can see why the transaction fails with this framework. Either you were not able to go for an important enough vulnerability or you were not trusted enough to solve that vulnerability. The solution for both is simple. If you are not solving for important enough vulnerability, then move on to something that pays. If you are not trusted enough, then lower the threshold for trust. Lower the certainty by showing that you have social proof credentials or a track record. Lower the stakes by giving money back guarantees. People are willing to place themselves in vulnerable situations when they see that you don’t have much to gain if you exploit them. You won’t give a bad service if you have a money-back guarantee, because then what would be the point? And that makes them trust you. That’s also why courts are nice because not only do they say that you will have to pay back money if you cheat, you will also go to jail. So people just naturally assume that you might not cheat them because who the fuck wants to go to jail. Basically, vulnerability stays, but the perceived probability of you not exploiting them makes them feel safe and thus trust you to go on with the transaction. The feeling of safety increases as the other party feels the chances or magnitude of possible exploitation are low.
Trust can emerge only in the face of vulnerabilities. Thus, facing vulnerability places you at the doors of trust, and vulnerable people are an object of trust. To be trustworthy, you have to be around vulnerabilities. Because there are millions of vulnerabilities and uncertainties that exist. But trust is a response to exposure to them. There is no exposure, there is no risk, and thus there is no need for trust. And when there is a need for trust, trust comes from gut or inner empiricist : either your optics or track record. You cannot just be trustworthy. You can only be trustworthy with respect to exposure. Someone might trust you with their money but not with their secrets. That’s why reputation is kind of domain specific. Of course, your own personality might be such that your reputation seeps into multiple domains. But just building trust is generic advice because trust is very local and specific, not general and global. You can’t demonstrate trustworthiness in areas where you never encounter people’s exposures. Proximity to vulnerability is prerequisite to trust-building.
Keeping yourself away from vulnerable things also locks you out of any trust-building opportunities. Thus, you won’t be important enough for people. Trust is not a character trait that you possess; it is a relational trait that only activates in the presence of specific vulnerabilities. Even if you are someone who can be trusted with matters of physical strength, people still have to question themselves if you are someone who can be trusted around money, reputation, and secrets etc. You can’t be important to people whose vulnerabilities you’ve never encountered. You must have the courage to be near vulnerabilities so that you can be trusted. Entrepreneurs have to stay near market uncertainties. Doctors have to be near diseases. Therapists have to be near trauma and horrible stories
Two-vulnerability structure:
- Vulnerability 1: The original exposure that brings someone to market (disease, status threat, future uncertainty, boredom)
- Vulnerability 2: The transactional risk created by commerce itself (financial exposure, social risk of poor choices)
Implication: Being “commerce-able” means two things:
- Understanding the vulnerabilities that drive people to market
- Being trustworthy enough that people will accept vulnerability 2 (transactional risk with you) to address vulnerability 1 (their original exposure)
Vulnerabilities exist wherever people face potential negative outcomes:
- Operational exposure: What could break, fail, or stop working? (equipment, systems, processes)
- Financial exposure: Where could they lose money, miss opportunities, or waste resources?
- Social exposure: What threatens their reputation, status, or how others perceive them?
- Identity exposure: What risks their self-image or sense of who they are?