Maybe,you've got a bit of both.

That'd be a pretty typical condition.

I've been accused of being a cynic and control freak.

But,"micro-managing" lets me have some influence over what goes on in my life and if pessimism lets me be prepared for a worst case scenario that never happens...well,I guess that's better than being blindsided by the disasters that do occur.

I catch myself preferring that people's sinful nature be due to evil rather than stupidity.

(One can repent from villainy or make a conscious decision to avoid a particular transgression.

It's harder to set aside foolishness or become intelligent at will.)

The bad guys often betray their intentions in ways that warn us to take care and defend ourselves.

Those who are innocently destructive give no such tells.

They can be too clueless to know the mistakes they've made or the harm they've inflicted.

I find it easier to forgive those who know what they do because,if they repent,the damage won't be repeated.

I need a far more loving nature than I have to forgive those who never mean to hurt anyone and don't quite "get" what's wrong.

They can feel stricken when things blow up in their faces and are as apt to feel apalled as defensive,if confronted or chastised.

But,if they never repeat that mistake (not likely),they find others to make that are just as horrendous.

Staying angry at them is pointless so forgiving them becomes more about healing oneself of resentment than getting closure or seeing improvement in their character and their actions.

It becomes a matter of giving the love one would want for oneself.

But,somehow,it's easier to face an armed enemy in the midst of the din of battle than to dwell on the likelihood of friendly fire and the fact that one never hears the bullet that strikes home.

Paranoia serves no purpose other than extracting the sweetness and hope from life.

"Gullibility" can translate as a default assumption that the world is good,people can be worthy of respect and our instincts can be correct.

It's hard to trust when the stakes are high and the dangers are many.

It helps when one can begin with a foundation of common sense.

Look for potential problems.

Take sensible precautions.

Prepare for what you can.

Seek the solution before you need it.

After that,one can turn to faith,an expectation that things can go well and the reassurance that one has done all that one can.

Concentrating on how circumstances can be avoided or improved makes for enough confidence and security to make trust easier and more appropriate.

Too much suspicion and too little are both crippling.

The best scenario involves a hard,thorough look at things as they are then going ahead with life based on what one has seen.

I prefer to trust people, but I have been on this planet too long to expect them to live up to my expectations of fulfilling what trust means to me. I still find it easier to believe that people want to do the right thing and meet their commitments. What I have noticed about those who let me down (by my definition) is they fall into three distinct categories.

The first is -- "life got in the way" types. These people seem to believe that, they can say they will do something and then fail by rationalizing all the things (outside themselves, of course) that prevented them from succeeding. They seem to feel they should get credit for making the commitment and sympathy that "life" prevented them from succeeding. These types can't fathom how you can be upset with them. They believe you should sympathize with their hard lot in life. YOU let them down!

The second group is the "path of least resistance" group. They will commit to anything if you press them. They have no intention of ever doing it, they hope you will forget about it or find someone else to do it. If you call them out on their failure: they'll either shuffle their feet and claim they didn't know it was THAT important to you; or they'll get defensive saying you didn't let then know HOW important it was to you, as it didn't look like a big deal to them.

The third group, in my mind is the worst. They are the "priorities (theirs) over principles" (the right thing to do) group. They are the "I " type persons. These people will commit to anything that looks like it will benefit them, be it prestige, money or goodwill. But if something better or more lucrative comes along, you and their commitment to you will be cast aside. They will even be offended when you point out how they have let you down. They will tell you that you are foolish for failing to understand the "big picture."

How do I continue to trust? I trust everyone the first time around and when they fail I guess I place them in one of the above categories. I then moderate any future dealings with them, as I know what to expect.

"No one is alway totally perfect."

The rule: Always be watchful, without being obvious.

The rule: Trust no one totally, rely on others as little as possible.

"In God I trust" No human I know is a God!

Do not confuse "reliance" with "trust".

Peace

I have always considered myself a very trusting person until I started to write this comment and I found myself writing and then saying to myself ... No that isn't correct and erasing.

*I am pretty picky about who I would leave my child with,I don't trust just anyone with my child. So I failed that trust point.

*I find myself inclined to lock my car doors when going through a neighborhood that looks scary...so there's another trust point I lost.

*I wouldn't ask a stranger at the airport to watch my luggage while I went to the restroom...so another trust point lost.

*I would never pick up a hitchhiker.... another point I lost.

*If I am home alone at night I will not answer my door... I think I may be running low on points by now but I just lost another trust point.

*In Fact I lock my doors when I am not at home and at night...lost a trust point here too.

Is it different that we only trust people we know? Is that really trust?

I know I do try and give people the benefit of doubt and I have been burned many times because of being gullible. I try very hard to believe what people tell me until they give me a reason not to believe them any longer.

So after evaluating myself I have come to the conclusion I am not very trustful of people I do not know, I am more of the gullible nature.

Don't we all?

I guess I'm more suspicious of "harmless" people because they and other benign parts of Nature can still cause trouble.

I'd rather know to avoid nettles and not find out the hard way about crape myrtles.

I'd prefer a world where I could toss out bulging cans and not have to worry about botulism on a fresh salad.

I stay away from rattlers,water moccasins,wasps and spiders but,for me,woollyworms and brown ladybugs, (while not necessarily lethal) are also problematic.

I guess I can forgive the evildoer because he's rare and easier to detect.

I have permission to fear,resent and avoid him.

Give him sufficient incentive to behave and self-interest might override malice.

(Category #3 comes in on our side.)

But,it's almost impossible to truly forgive a sin that has been retconned out of existence.

If I downplay or deny an injury or if the perpetrator doesn't recognize the misdeed (or doesn't learn from his mistakes),then the necessary corrections aren't made and spiritual wounds aren't cleansed enough for them to heal.

If the pain stays with me a while,I become at fault because I'm unable to forget an unpleasant incident as readily as the one who caused it.

The worst thing about the unintentional sin is that we are all guilty of it.

Whether it be something we do or leave undone,it makes certain that we don't have the luxury of living in little boxes marked "hero" and "villain".

Instead,we are assigned quarters in a gray maze where "Oops!" is the foulest four-letter obscenity.

To be trustworthy,one's nature must be known and one's actions should be easily anticipated.

That's not easy for most of us.

So,while I think I've outgrown "Shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out", I haven't progressed beyond "Trust everyone-but cut the cards."

I may not always play with a full deck but I'm reluctant to take a gamble unless I've seen the cellophane come off the pack at my table.

I have come to the same place as countrymom on trust. I know that everyone acts in his or her own best interests, including me. So with countymom's indulgence, I have thought about it a lot, and would like to explain it in a way that doesn't sound so cynical.

Best interest means, what satisfies my basic needs and makes me feel safe in the world. If I am a kind, humane, and compassionate person I feel good when others feel good. If I am a paranoid, psychopathic, narcissistic person, I feel good when I can control and hurt others so I can feel safe.

There is another element of this too. Most peoples best interests include the well being of others; that is that they feel good when they can make the world better for those around them. On the other end are those who care only for themselves. It is a matter of degrees, for some it is a small group of family and friends for others it is global. Ghandi, Albert Schwietzer, Mother Theresa

Then there are those whose best interests include others but only to exploit and control...these are dangerous because often they look more like first kind, the good guys. Hitler, Madoff,

Trust is not something I really think about when assessing the reward or threat level I can expect from someone else. I want to know what drives them, what they consider their own best interest and how they figure the rest of the world into that. I already know the people that include me in their equation...and it is reciprocal.

I must trust that my heart will be broken and risk loving anyway. The alternative is terrifying.