The glue and grease of Trust

From That's Interesting! Towards a Phenomenology of Sociology and a Sociology of Phenomenology by Murray S. Davis. It is from 1971, so quite dated. I wonder what research emerged from this paper.

SUMMARY

QUESTION: How do theories which are generally considered interesting differ from theories which are generally considered non-interesting? ANSWER: Interesting theories are those which deny certain assumptions of their audience, while non-interesting theories are those which affirm certain assumptions of their audience. This answer was arrived at through the examination of a number of famous social, and especially sociological, theories. That examination also generated a systematic index of the variety of propositional forms which interesting and non-interesting theories may take. The fertility of this approach suggested a new field be established called the Sociology of the Interesting, which is intended to supplement the Sociology of Knowledge. This new field will be phenomenologically oriented in so far as it will focus on the movement of the audience's mind from one accepted theory to another. It will be sociologically oriented in so far as it will focus on the dissimilar base-line theories of the various sociological categories which compose the audience. In addition to its value in interpreting the social impact of theories, the Sociology of the Interesting can contribute to our understanding of both the common sense and scientific perspectives on reality.

These topics are even more pertinent in recent years with the blossoming on interest in affiliative sorting, networks and network effects, epistemic ecosystems and other issues arising from always on universal connectivity.

It is interesting what seems almost glaringly missing from the summary. Something about which we are increasingly aware today. TRUST. I suspect that "Interesting theories are those which deny certain assumptions of their audience, while non-interesting theories are those which affirm certain assumptions of their audience" is only true to the degree to which the source is trusted. Something that defies my expectations is indeed interesting only if I trust that that reporting is accurate. It is the boy who cried wolf issue. If the source of information that defies expectations also has a track record of inaccuracy or deceit, then what might be interesting is simply noise.

Always on universal connectivity is beginning to shed some light on what makes the cognitive world go around, and societal trust is emerging as a far greater glue that holds people together AND grease which facilitates epistemic sharing.