This post was originally published on akban.org
Hobbes' "Leviathan" famously describes a world without trust as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." His solution—enforced trust through sovereign power—transformed human society, enabling order on a large scale. This model, built on laws and consequences, remains effective for managing vast systems like states and corporations.
But in my daily work with smaller systems—training partners in martial arts, teams in conflict resolution, or just circles of friends—I observe trust operating differently. A training partner allows another to apply a chokehold not because of external enforcement but through a web of demonstrated competence, clear communication, and shared purpose. This trust emerges without a central authority.
Examining trust at different scales reveals distinct mechanisms. Large-scale systems rely on Hobbesian enforcement: laws, contracts, and hierarchies. Smaller systems exhibit what I call a trust matrix: interconnected capabilities that create stability without central control. Both mechanisms are essential but operate differently.
I will try to explore here how trust operates at various scales and ask: How do we build resilient trust systems in an increasingly complex world? Drawing on examples from martial arts dojos to AI-human interactions, I want to illuminate the tools we need when enforcement isn’t viable.
The Scales of Trust
Trust operates differently at different scales, much like physics shifts between quantum and cosmic levels. Large systems—governments, corporations, religions—depend on enforcement mechanisms: laws, contracts, and hierarchies. For instance, a bank customer’s trust relies on regulatory frameworks and deposit insurance, not personal connections.
Small systems, however, thrive on direct verification. In the dojo, trust builds through thousands of small interactions. Partners read physical cues, demonstrate control, and prioritize safety. Trust anchors—like competence, communication, and care—emerge organically through repeated actions. I call these trust anchors the stepping stones that support a stable system.
The distinction matters. Applying large-scale mechanisms—rules and penalties—to small systems often fails to create genuine trust. Similarly, small-scale mechanisms—direct observation and mutual understanding—cannot manage global finance. Each scale demands its own tools.
A Lesson from the Dojo
One day, a new student came to the dojo. Observing him, I learned he wasn’t there to train and learn but to "test us." This misaligned intent was dangerous. His sparring partner, unaware, was at risk of injury. Observing their interaction, I immediately stepped in, removed him from his partner, and offered him a, better for me, alternative: a sparring session with me. By adjusting the trust matrix to contain his intent, I ensured safety without compromising the dojo’s principles.
This incident highlights the fragility of trust in small systems. A single misaligned actor can destabilize the entire network unless handled with clarity and control.
When Coercion Falls Short
Enforcement-based trust has clear limits in smaller systems. In the dojo, rules and penalties cannot create the trust required for safe practice. A training partner who follows protocols out of fear of the instructor is dangerous when the instructor looks elsewhere. True trust emerges only through deeper engagement: competence, communication, and shared purpose.
This limitation is evident in conflict resolution. Organizations relying on strict policies often achieve compliance without trust. People follow the letter of the rules while missing their spirit, creating brittle systems where minor violations trigger escalating enforcement, paradoxically undermining trust.
Modern challenges amplify these issues. Remote teams lack traditional supervision. International collaborations span legal and cultural boundaries. AI-human interactions defy clear enforcement mechanisms. In these contexts, coercion often fails and breeds resentment, making alternative trust mechanisms essential.
The Trust Matrix
The trust matrix is a network of interconnected capabilities and truth values that create stability without central control. Like an ecosystem (the law of the jungle…), its strength lies in the relationships between elements rather than any single component.
Trust in Action
In the dojo, trust emerges through mutual verification. New students begin with simple exercises, gradually progressing as their control improves. Advanced practitioners adjust techniques to match partners’ abilities, demonstrating care and competence. Trust builds moment by moment.
A different memory underscores this complexity. I once discovered a student had acted in a way I found morally reprehensible, though not illegal. Speaking with him, I sought remorse but found none. The breach of trust rippled through our relationship, demonstrating how trust in small systems depends on moral alignment. When one thread fails, the matrix feels the strain.
These examples show how trust is dynamic and interdependent, requiring constant attention to its anchors—competence, communication, and shared values.
Building vs. Enforcing Trust
Trust develops differently when grown rather than imposed. Enforced trust relies on rules and consequences. Grown trust emerges through demonstrated capability and shared vulnerability. Both create predictable behavior, but through fundamentally different mechanisms.
Vulnerability as a Trust Anchor
In the dojo, vulnerability is essential. Practitioners must allow themselves to be thrown, locked, and choked—placing trust in their partner’s skill and care. This controlled vulnerability strengthens bonds and fosters resilience. The same principle applies beyond martial arts: elite military units, effective teams, and high-performing organizations all build trust through shared risks and mutual reliance.
But vulnerability is not confined to extraordinary settings. It surrounds us in daily life. Each time someone makes you a coffee, brings you food, or drives carefully, there is an implicit exchange of trust. Consider the alternatives in a world without trust: food tasters to check for poison, distrustful glances at every driver, or endless verification of every interaction. Without trust, life would slow to a crawl, burdened by paranoia and inefficiency.
The trust we extend daily is so ubiquitous that it becomes invisible. We rarely notice it until it breaks, such as when a driver runs a red light or a barista gets an order wrong. These moments of failure illuminate how much of our world functions on unseen networks of mutual reliance. Trust anchors—demonstrated competence, shared purpose, and accountability—enable these everyday exchanges. A resilient system doesn’t eliminate vulnerability but creates structures where it can safely exist.
Failure Modes and Challenges
Trust matrices are fragile. A single breach can cascade, weakening the entire system. They struggle to scale, require significant time investment, and depend heavily on individual character. They can also become insular, resisting new members or ideas.
Hybrid approaches offer solutions. Organizations can combine enforcement mechanisms with organic trust-building within smaller units. For example, clear safety rules in the dojo provide a framework (also our ethical code), while organic trust enables genuine practice. However, hybrids bring their own challenges, requiring constant adjustment to maintain balance. Let me clarify, it’s a challenge, I lost students to mistrust, more at the beginning years, less now, but still, not perfect.
Conclusion
Trust is not a binary choice but a complex matrix of interdependent capabilities. Large systems demand enforcement, while small systems thrive on mutual verification. Understanding these distinctions and where the systems interact is critical for building resilient systems in an increasingly interconnected world.
By improving processes where trust matrix integrates with Hobbesian systems—integration done through competence, vulnerability, and communication—we can bridge the gaps between Leviathan and living systems. In doing so, we not only adapt to complexity but also nurture the hidden matrix that makes cooperation possible.
Thank you for such a thoughtful and thought-provoking article. Vulnerability is so important in trust but it can be seen as something to be avoided. Yet without it, there can be no deeper trust and connection to others.
Thanks for this great post! It really helped me better understand what we’re doing in the dojo and how trust plays such a critical role in our practice and beyond