Well, from what I have observed in the world of work and personal interactions, little else matters.

The concept of bona fide, which is sincere intention to be fair, open, and honest in interactions, still exist in society and human interactions? — Shawn

I suspect most human interactions are like this.

What I also suspect, however, is that we have become addicted to catastrophe and stories of doom and zombie apocalypse and many believe that the state of humanity is rotten to the core and that meaning has been lost and the end is nigh.

Sure. Of course, those who spend their time and efforts doing so often tend to find themselves with both significantly less time and resulting means of resource or ability to do very much at all in comparison to those who may be a bit more... shrewd in their daily activities and manner of conduct. Alas, 'tis the way of the world. For a time. :naughty:

The concept of bona fide, which is sincere intention to be fair, open, and honest in interactions, still exist in society and human interactions? — Shawn

Of course. They take place in every supermarket, at every pedestrian crossing, in every bank, school, hospital and home every hour of the day. Were it not so, society would unravel and cease to function.

What I also suspect, however, is that we have become addicted to catastrophe and stories of doom and zombie apocalypse and many believe that the state of humanity is rotten to the core and that meaning has been lost and the end is nigh. — Tom Storm

I take that as a quip at the US. Having said that, I think you are right that some Americans are more fearful and paranoid than other nations. Yeah, just another stereotype; but, it rings true to me.

What do you think?

Of course. They take place in every supermarket, at every pedestrian crossing, in every bank, school, hospital and home every hour of the day. Were it not so, society would unravel and cease to function. — Vera Mont

Yet, what about all this "hustle culture" stuff going on? I intended for this to be an individual post; but, sure I'm interested in your take...

Yet, what about all this "hustle culture" stuff going on? — Shawn

It's not going on in my neighbourhood. People out here usually get 'round, sooner or later, to doing whatever they contracted to do, usually do it conscientiously and efficiently, once they get started, but then, like as not, forget to wait for payment. Our snow-ploughing guy never invoices us at the end of winter; we send him a few email reminders, then nothing happens until the first big snowfall, when he shows up and quotes a surprisingly low figure for last season. You can't get better faith than that.
I'm nut sure I put a whole lot of credence in these recently coined 'cultures'. I suspect they're an internet phenomenon, rather than a way of actual life. Or maybe it's a localized thing.

But, what about working for a corporation in the US. There doesn't seem to be much bona fide going on there or maybe I'm wrong about this?

In a competitive environment, then I suppose there's less gentlemanly behavior.

Maybe if your looking for good faith, it's over at the United Kingdom, no?

Haven't done that for a long time. Had one positive and one really shitty experience in IT contract work. In the latter, a corporation - don't know what size - was ripping off a municipal government, but we got out unscathed. IBM Canada was mostly okay, faith-wise, if not in executive decisions; a couple of other US subsidiaries were more or less inefficient and top-heavy. We always got paid, but were not always happy.

The concept of bona fide, which is sincere intention to be fair, open, and honest in interactions, still exist in society and human interactions? — Shawn

Not only bona fide does no longer matter in society but also "Winner school" no longer exists.

I can't find online some definition about it but it's about bonton that was widely popular in the region around Austria, it's bonton that was practiced in Austrian city of Vienna in the past.

An example of this bonton is to say good day to person you meet on the street regardless if the person is known or not to you.

Another example is to get up from the chair and let the elderly person sit on the chair. (ex. on a bus or in hospital)

Similar bonton exists (ed) in British society and Russian society, those are examples of countries with special bonton rules like Winner shcool..

But today people (especially younger ones) walk near your like if you're monument rather than human.
They will take the last available chair in hospital or in a bus and won't offer you, an older person to sit down instead.

So yeah, there is no bona fide either or anything similar like Winner school, human society is becoming very cold and rude centered around money.

Haven't done that for a long time. Had one positive and one really shitty experience in IT contract work. In the latter, a corporation - don't know what size - was ripping off a municipal government, but we got out unscathed. IBM Canada was mostly okay, faith-wise, if not in executive decisions; a couple of other US subsidiaries were more or less inefficient and top-heavy. We always got paid, but were not always happy. — Vera Mont

Yes, it seems that there may be differing types of corporate cultures out there. I wouldn't know how to comment on companies like Google and Apple which take ethics very seriously. Then again, I can only speak from experience and one of the most common saying that I hear US workers say is, "Fake it until you make it." Which leads me to believe that it doesn't always work out due to your circumstances or environment.

Again, it seems like America is the way it is because of competitiveness and with that its most cherished activity being capitalism. Would you agree with my assumptions here?

So yeah, there is no bona fide either or anything similar like Winner school, human society is becoming very cold and rude centered around money. — SpaceDweller

Yet to make money, there's a lot of shoulders to rub and smooth talking to do. Again, it seems like when you land in a highly competitive environment with lax rules, you tend to find a lot of hustling going on.

seemingly bona fide interactions are hard to come by outside of the law and jurisprudence system(?) — Shawn

Well, they constitute quite a bit of society and human interactions and always have, before and after the time of the Roman Republic.

Yet to make money, there's a lot of shoulders to rub and smooth talking to do. Again, it seems like when you land in a highly competitive environment with lax rules, you tend to find a lot of hustling going on. — Shawn

You have surely noticed how people are kind and polite when they need something from you, but very quickly change their attitude once you provide them with help.

Ofc. not always, mostly people who are not very close to you.

Think of it like of a cat asking for food, it will meow upon you and cuddle but once it's fed you're no longer important.

I have seen bad faith actions in U.S. corporate culture.

Some of it happened in the context of managers competing for resources. But they are limited if they burn those resources at the same time.

Then there are patterns of not compensating labor and production. The latter, though, has the effect of poisoning the water. Cats who do that either have to relocate or fold their operation into another one. NYC construction has a long institutional memory.

I think there is a fundamental law of human interaction whereby man tends to satisfy his needs and desires with the least possible exertion. Good faith, I'd say, once proved easier than knavery when it came to dealing with one another. Rather than risk life and limb, or face some course of violent retaliation, people could often rely on the good faith of their neighbors to get along.

But Good Faith nowadays proves to be more difficult than knavery. I don't have any developed theory, but I would propose that the reason for this is an increase in the domain of law, it's scope as a pseudo morality, and the thousand-and-one ways with which it allows an authority to intervene our interactions. These positive, third-party interventions into our regular dealings has fostered a reliance on their presence as the moral arbiter. Less and less do we require a conscience because our disputes can be settled for us.

In short, we aren't free enough for Good Faith.

we are, in the west at least, a super litigious society. It is difficult to be convinced in bona fides as a mechanism of trust.

Well, they constitute quite a bit of society and human interactions and always have, before and after the time of the Roman Republic. — Ciceronianus

In my humble opinion it actually began formally with the Roman Republic with their laws establishing every new dominion of Rome as an ally in terms of laws bestowed upon them upon or becoming a dominion of Rome. The Romans knew what they were doing, as does Biden, who seems to be very much some kind of former member of The Club of Rome. :chin:

You have surely noticed how people are kind and polite when they need something from you, but very quickly change their attitude once you provide them with help. — SpaceDweller

Interesting observation, please go on... Again, the Romans had something called quid pro quo, which was a virtuous desire based on good faith.

Nowadays people do a tit for tat and call it a day once the transaction is over. Too cold and remorseless.

Rather than risk life and limb, or face some course of violent retaliation, people could often rely on the good faith of their neighbors to get along. — NOS4A2

Or the law?

But Good Faith nowadays proves to be more difficult than knavery. I don't have any developed theory, but I would propose that the reason for this is an increase in the domain of law, it's scope as a pseudo morality, and the thousand-and-one ways with which it allows an authority to intervene our interactions. — NOS4A2

Well if its the law that gets into the way of good moral conduct, then at least it prevents as its primary goal, the reduction of corruption. I think that having the law prevent dictatorships or autocracies from forming is a good thing. Take for example with what happened fairly recently in Poland with the Law and Justice party, perverting the law towards their own favor, and the Civic Coalition resuming power after a long eight years of some nepotism. I believe Viktor Orban is next, in Hungary.

In short, we aren't free enough for Good Faith. — NOS4A2

It's not freedom. Rather apathy and the exploitation of the law itself.

we are, in the west at least, a super litigious society. It is difficult to be convinced in bona fides as a mechanism of trust. — ENOAH

I believe you are right about this, but, can you clarify the litigiousness of which societies?

I know that it's no longer the times of the Roman Republic; but, seemingly bona fide interactions are hard to come by outside of the law and jurisprudence system(?) — Shawn

Bona fide is the sine qua non of communication.

Therefore every response to your op confirms performatively that bona fide interactions are the rule, not the exception. This is necessarily the case as the lie is necessarily parasitic on truthful communication. At the point where one cannot ever trust the response, one stops asking even such paranoid meta questions as this one.

Bona fide is the sine qua non of communication. — unenlightened

If what you're saying is really true, then why aren't more people talking about this? On my own terms, I'll just point out the polarization the world is currently experiencing and with that the hardening of ideology, what should one do about this lack of congeniality in the main stream media?

Just pointing this out; but, are you aware that the legal system will enforce the current presidential run in the US depending on what some random judge says about Trump the playboy? In 2014, when Hillary Clinton was running, she got snubbed the presidency by a mistake by Comey from the FBI a week before the election.

This is necessarily the case as the lie is necessarily parasitic on truthful communication. At the point where one cannot ever trust the response, one stops asking even such paranoid [sic] questions... — unenlightened

Well there is a saying that only the paranoid survive, which I see fully fleshed out about how we arrive at our decisions based on the current information we have. But, if you have to psychologize this response about my attitude towards communication, then I believe that by being paranoid we can, one can say, appreciate the truth and especially with it honesty and credibility, which good faith relies on.

hardening of ideology — Shawn

Yeah, it exists in case someone is wondering. A good pointer to see what the shenanigans are about see; https://www.csis.org/analysis/ideological-security-national-security

what should one do about this lack of congeniality in the main stream media? — Shawn

Call it out, rebut, complain, argue, present evidence, demand truth and honesty. Look for the honest actors in the media.

Well there is a saying that only the paranoid survive, which I see fully fleshed out about how we arrive at our decisions based on the current information we have. — Shawn

It is a false saying. Only the cooperative survive in a species such as human that is highly social and highly cooperative. We have to trust each other, even to interact as we are doing right now, otherwise our words would have no value or meaning. One has to start with trust and then be wary of deceit.

I go to the shop, I pay for my food with a card, and trust that the whole human system of bank and card readers and so on works fairly and that the food is fit to eat, and so on. I trust that the bus will tae me home in good order, and at the time on the timetable or thereabouts. One does not notice all the everyday interactions that one relies on to live, but notices the exceptions which are the scammers and cheats. Call them out, call them out, but don't lose your trust in humanity.

clarify the litigiousness of which societies — Shawn

I am suggesting (without any data or research) tgat it seems the U.S. and other common law societies like the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, are prone to litigate their disagreements in court, and are accordingly less inclined to settle for "hand shake" agreements/settlements.

I trust that the bus will tae me home in good order, and at the time on the timetable or thereabouts. — unenlightened

Yes, well certain ideologies of the past have been promising absolute trust in the government by ensuring that the trains run on time. After such bad experiences, (not to be taken in a vacuum), such as Mussolini or Nazi Germany, how can one not be wary of what other people have to say.

One does not notice all the everyday interactions that one relies on to live, but notices the exceptions which are the scammers and cheats. Call them out, call them out, but don't lose your trust in humanity. — unenlightened

Yes well, not so long ago we witnessed such a failure of trust, that only such experiences could make one skeptical if not paranoid, no?

If you live in Ukraine or Gaza, I can understand, but even there... war is also a cooperative affair.

That's not the point I am attempting to make. Let me clarify, with the sentiments of Thrasymachus, all the way back to Ancient Greece, which Socrates could not handle and Plato had no answer, then we are still witnessing his thoughts played out in the chain of history. People say we might find salvation in technology; but, just take a look at what the atomic bomb did to end the axis of evil, and even then it was utilized as a demonstration of strength or power against a foe that was on the verge of defeat.

So, I believe that throughout history people have every right to be paranoid or skeptical.