Its not only makes business sense to start a relationship basing on the premise of *not* trusting an individual – it also makes a lot of sense in social relationships.
Not trusting to me is an act of self preservation. For me, in any In a transaction or a relationship, I have to know where I stand. I also need to know where to place my stop loss and when to increase it or let it go – For this I need to start with a -ve balance of trust and let it grow.. if it crosses the line and starts creeping towards the +ive, I know I can invest more.
This has always been my basis of any transaction and I feel it will be true for most people who value themselves and till date most of the relationship that matter to me have a positive balance.
I think there is a contradiction. Consider a scenario.
You meet a person. You start of the relationship not trusting the other person. Sometime later, you realise that he actually is the son of your aunty (insert any other relation/close friend) whom you never met.. you immidiately think, hes a “good” guy and you can trust him. Just because he is son/daughter/aquainted to someone you know. But everyone is someone elses son or daughter. So where do you draw the line?
Your basic premise in the scenario is wrong she does not trusts anyone by default.
Relatives (or fill in the blank) are accorded cordiality – thats the only concession
NO, no contradiction – Guess everyone does what I do but few realise/admit it. Will you invest your emotions or money is a compelte stranger (related or unrelated to you)? Money is still OK but emotions? Will you bare your soul to someone you dont know?