Discerning Trust: What Can I Trust You For
Replace blanket trust with evidence-based, itemized trust
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~months to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 73%
Armstrong argues that women in particular want a 'blanket trust', to trust a partner for everything, including unstated expectations he never agreed to. The flaw: one small failure then collapses trust entirely, and it makes surrender impossible. Her alternative is itemized, evidence-based trust: you can trust everyone if you pay attention to what you can trust them for. The method asks, for a mate or a business partner, 'what do I need to be able to trust this person for?', then requires proof they've demonstrated trustworthiness in that specific area before you make them that important. Because people commit far too quickly on chemistry, the framework front-loads due diligence, finding evidence before commitment rather than assuming you'll change them afterward.
Origin
Armstrong developed the model in materials she calls 'The Trouble with Trusting the Opposite Sex,' starting from 'the trouble with trusting, period', the human tendency to want blanket trust and then experience blanket violation.
Core principles
- 01Blanket trust invites blanket violation
- 02You can trust everyone if you pay attention to what you can trust them for
- 03Trustworthiness must be proven with evidence before you commit
- 04Unstated expectations are not agreements and can't be 'trusted' into existence
- 05Being a grownup means accepting you can't trust anyone for everything
How to run it
- 1
Drop the demand for blanket trust
Recognize that wanting to trust someone 'for everything' sets up a blanket violation the moment they fail once. All-or-nothing trust is the actual problem.
Watch out Blanket trust silently includes unstated expectations the other person never agreed to.
- 2
Ask what you need to trust them for
For the specific relationship, ask 'what do I need to be able to trust this person for?' in order to make them this important, to hand them your business or your life.
Pro tip When someone says 'I trust you,' the useful question back is 'for what?'
- 3
Check existing evidence
Identify what you already have real evidence you can trust them for. Trust here means they've proven trustworthy in that area, not that you hope they will be.
Pro tip Evidence, not chemistry, is the currency of itemized trust.
Watch out Don't squint past disconfirming evidence because 'he makes me feel wonderful.'
- 4
Name the high-value gap
Ask whether there's an additional thing that would make a huge difference in your life if you could also trust them for it, and whether there's evidence to support it.
- 5
Talk about what being trusted looks like
Have an explicit conversation about that gap: what would it look like for them to be trusted for that specific thing? Then gather evidence before you commit.
Pro tip Front-load the due diligence; people commit way too quickly.
Watch out Assuming you'll change them after commitment substitutes fantasy for evidence.
In the wild
Early in the conversation Chris told Armstrong he trusted her. She notes her instinct was to ask 'for what?' Women often mean a blanket trust that a partner will fulfill every stated and unstated expectation, so one small failure means 'I can't trust you' for anything.
→ Itemizing what trust is actually for prevents a single lapse from detonating the whole relationship.
Armstrong observes that most women don't trust their husbands to load the dishwasher, because he won't load it exactly like her. It's a small illustration of demanding trust be all-or-nothing and identical-to-me rather than asking what you can genuinely trust him to accomplish.
→ Recognizing the pattern lets partners hand over accountability instead of withholding it over cosmetic differences.
Common mistakes
Demanding all-or-nothing trust
Wanting to trust someone for everything guarantees a total collapse of trust the first time they fail at anything.
Trusting unstated expectations
Expecting a partner to fulfill expectations he never heard or agreed to sets up an inevitable, unfair 'betrayal.'
Committing before finding evidence
Skipping due diligence because of chemistry, and planning to change the person later, replaces proof with wishful thinking.
Is it for you?
Best for
Anyone choosing a life or business partner who tends to trust all-or-nothing.
Not ideal for
Contexts where a person has already proven fundamentally untrustworthy.
From the transcript
“You can trust everyone if you pay attention to what you can trust them for.”
“Early on, when you said you trust me, I wanted to say, for what?”
“Find evidence before you commit. People commit way too quickly.”
From the episode
How to Treat Men Better - Alison Armstrong - #1026
Alison Armstrong