# Epistemic Trust: Clarification

### _Cross-posted to [my blog](http://lo-tho.blogspot.com/2015/06/epistemic-trust-clarification.html)._

  
A while ago, I wrote about [epistemic trust](http://lo-tho.blogspot.com/2014/12/epistemic-trust.html). The thrust of my argument was that rational argument is often more a function of the group dynamic, as opposed to how rational the individuals in the group are. I assigned meaning to several terms, in order to explain this:  
  
**_Intellectual honesty_**_**:**_ being up-front not just about what you believe, but also why you believe it, what your motivations are in saying it, and the degree to which you have evidence for it.  
  
_Intellectual-Honesty Culture:_ The norm of intellectual honesty. Calling out mistakes and immediately admitting them; feeling comfortable with giving and receiving criticism.  
  
_Face Culture:_ Norms associated with lack of intellectual honesty. In particular, a need to save face when one's statements turn out to be incorrect or irrelevant; the need to make everyone feel included by praising contributions and excusing mistakes.  
  
_Intellectual trust: _the expectation that others in the discussion have common intellectual goals; that criticism is an attempt to help, rather than an attack. The kind of trust required to take other people's comments at face value rather than being overly concerned with ulterior motives, especially ideological motives. I hypothesized that this is caused largely by ideological common ground, and that this is the main way of achieving intellectual-honesty culture.  
  
There are several subtleties which I did not emphasize last time.  
  

*   _Sometimes it's necessary to play at face culture._ The skills which go along with face-culture are important. It is generally a good idea to try to make everyone feel included and to praise contributions even if they turn out to be incorrect. It's important to make sure that you do not offend people with criticism. Many people [feel that they are under attack](http://philosiology.blogspot.com/2011/04/surviving-philosopher-attack.html) when engaged in critical discussion. Wanting to work against this is not an excuse for ignoring it.
*   _Face culture is not the error. Being unable to play the right culture at the right time is the error._ In my personal experience, I've seen that some people are unable to give up face-culture habits in more academic settings where intellectual honesty is the norm. This causes great strife and heated arguments! There is no gain in playing for face when you're in the midst of an honesty culture, unless you can do it very well and subtly. You gain a lot more face by admitting your mistakes! On the other hand, there's no honor in playing for honesty when face-culture is dominant. This also tends to cause more trouble than it's worth.
*   _It's a cultural thing, but it's not **just** a cultural thing._ Some people have personalities much better suited to one culture or the other, while other people are able to switch freely between them. I expect that groups can switch further toward intellectual honesty as a result of establishing intellectual trust, but that is not the only factor. Try to estimate the preferences of the individuals you're dealing with (while keeping in mind that people may surprise you later on).