Okay. So you're saying that trust relies on the outcome of the weight we've put onto the other person. If he succeeds in what I told him I trusted him with, then I really trusted him. If he fails? Did I never trust him? I probably did.

But if I measure trust only by the outcome, isn't that not only manipulative but also conditional? Because, I could choose to "trust" anyone and see the outcome. Yet, I give my trust only to those that I believe they won't betray me in the sense of doing the opposite of what I intended them to do.

Thus, let's talk about where "trust" survives. Many times, I've seen people trusting someone, and that someone often betrayed them. Yet, these people kept their trust in them. So, is it conditional? Or is it a coping mechanism, designed to give a small bit of the weight of our existence to others, under the illusion, they won't destroy it.

However, that would imply that in this scenario " Yet, these people kept their trust in them. ", that they have no one else to put their trust in. So that must mean, there is an authentic, real type of trust.

I know all this sounds kind of messy. I'm really trying to type in what I'm feeling about it. It's just when people ask me "Do you have someone you trust?", I don't even know what that means, because it implies that trust pre-exists consequence.