When we disagree with someone, it's tempting to assume the problem is simple: they're irrational, biased, or misinformed. But what if human reasoning doesn't work the way we think it does? What if reasoning isn't primarily about finding the truth on our own, but about exchanging arguments with others?

In this episode of TrustTalk, we speak with cognitive scientist Hugo Mercier of the CNRS in Paris and co-author of The Enigma of Reason. He explains why humans may be better at reasoning than we assume, why disagreement often turns on trust rather than logic, and what this means for science communication, polarization, and our ability to reason together.

Hugo Mercier also reflects on how confirmation bias can serve a useful function in group deliberation, why personal and local relationships often succeed where institutional messaging fails, and why, despite everything, he remains cautiously optimistic about our collective capacity to reason well.

When the United States openly pressured Denmark over Greenland, the immediate dispute faded fast. The damage to trust did not.

This episode looks beyond Greenland to a bigger question: what happens when the world’s most powerful country starts behaving like an unreliable partner? International law, trade agreements, and security alliances only work if states believe others will still play by the rules when it no longer suits them. That belief is now under strain.

With Gregory Shaffer, Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of International Law at Georgetown, we talk about power, coercion, and the quiet erosion of trust in international treaties. Is the U.S. still seen as a credible partner? Are rules giving way to pressure politics? And are we already sliding into a global order where raw power matters more than promises? This is not just a diplomatic story. It may be a systemic risk.

Trust is often talked about as if it were bad weather, something that just happens to us, beyond anyone’s control. But what if trust doesn’t disappear by accident, and what if its erosion has very concrete causes?

In this episode, Ruben Beijl, co-author of Time for Trust (Tijd voor Vertrouwen), discusses how trust is built through participation and erodes when participation is only symbolic. Drawing on his work with citizens’ assemblies, Ruben explains why people do not lose trust because they disagree with outcomes, but because their voices ultimately do not matter. He shows why disagreement can coexist with trust, while being ignored cannot, and why psychological safety is essential if people are expected to speak openly and honestly.

The conversation also explores why timing is crucial, why informing citizens is not the same as involving them, and why handing over real responsibility is often the hardest step for institutions. Ruben argues that trust grows when governments are willing to create genuine space for influence, even when that means giving up control and accepting uncertainty.

This episode offers a clear, practice-based look at trust as something shaped by everyday choices and institutional behavior, rather than by intentions alone.