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.

My guest today, Gert Tinggaard Svendsen challenges one of the most common myths about high-trust societies: that trust is cultural or “in the DNA.” In Denmark, he argues, trust is built, not inherited. It grows from institutions, incentives, and everyday experiences of fairness.

He defines trust in practical terms: the likelihood of being cheated. When corruption is low and the rule of law applies equally, people learn that cooperation usually pays. That is why corruption is so destructive, it signals that some people are above the rules, and once that belief takes hold, trust quickly erodes.

Much of Denmark’s resilience, Gert explains, comes from long traditions of face-to-face trade and strong social norms. People learned that cheating carried social costs. That still matters today. Most people are what he calls “hard riders”: willing to cooperate and contribute. Trust survives because “tough riders” step in when someone breaks the rules, correcting behavior before it spreads.

The same logic applies to politics. High trust makes consensus possible. Citizens carry a lifetime record of successful cooperation — a “trust rucksack” — which makes compromise feel safe. Compared with the Netherlands, Gert sees Denmark as less polarized, partly because political dialogue remains strong even with extreme parties.

Strong institutions are just as important. Low corruption and real meritocracy allow people to believe the system is fair. In welfare states, this is crucial: citizens must trust that taxes are used well and that everyone who can contribute does so. When that balance holds, welfare becomes a form of collective insurance rather than a source of resentment.

Gert warns against over-control. Treating everyone as a potential cheat undermines trust and raises costs. As he puts it: 100 percent control equals zero trust. The biggest long-term risks for Denmark are creeping bureaucracy, centralization of power, and declining face-to-face interaction. Trust, he says, is like a winning sports team — it only lasts if you keep training. Once taken for granted, it can disappear faster than anyone expects.

On Christmas Eve, Santa Claus joins TrustTalk to discuss trust, doubt, and why listening to ourselves and to others matters as we look ahead to a new year, referring to Rudyard Kipling’s poem "If" on how to be confident without ignoring the doubts of others.

Our guest, Mara Revkin, a leading scholar of governance and justice in conflict zones, talks about how civilians make trust decisions when the state collapses and armed groups take control.

Drawing on fieldwork and survey research in places such as Mosul, this conversation challenges the idea that trust in wartime is driven by ideology or belief. Instead, it shows how trust under extreme conditions is often pragmatic. Civilians compare dangerous alternatives and look for the authority that appears more predictable, less arbitrary, and more likely to follow its own rules.

The episode explores why predictability and procedural fairness can matter more than political values or formal freedoms. Even harsh systems of rule may generate compliance when courts function quickly, corruption is limited, and rules are applied consistently. This does not produce genuine legitimacy, but it can feel safer than alternatives marked by chaos or bribery.

We also discuss how civilians navigate situations of competitive governance, where states and armed groups both claim authority. Trust becomes relative rather than absolute and is shaped by everyday experiences with justice, security, and basic services. This form of trust is fragile and erodes quickly when governance becomes more coercive or unpredictable.

The conversation examines how military conduct affects civilian perceptions during active conflict. Civilians judge armed actors by perceived intent, proportionality, and communication. Harm that is poorly explained or left uncompensated can undermine trust, even when unintended, while material compensation often matters more than apologies alone.

Finally, the episode turns to post-conflict justice and reintegration. Externally imposed solutions often struggle to gain trust when communities are excluded from their design. While rehabilitation, apologies, and compensation can help rebuild social relations, there are limits shaped by the severity of past harm and time.

A central insight runs throughout the episode: trust in wartime is not about shared values or moral approval, but about survival and predictability when every option is risky.

Trust isn’t tested in calm moments; it’s exposed when leaders face uncertainty, conflicting demands, and real human consequences. This episode traces that reality across multiple organizations and industries. We look at Boeing, where leaders underestimated the depth and duration of a crisis that reshaped global aviation trust. We examine Nokia’s Bochum layoffs, a case that shows how a single restructuring decision can destroy trust not only with employees but with governments and the public.

We also dive into Twiddy’s pandemic playbook, where open communication became a lifeline; Itochu’s long-term social commitments, which contrast sharply with Western quarterly pressures; and the Financial Times’ transparent approach to generative AI, setting a new benchmark for media trust.

Together, these cases reveal patterns: leaders often misjudge crises, overlook human impact, and underestimate how long it truly takes to repair trust, yet the organizations that get it right show that trust can be a real competitive advantage.

Our guest, Kathryn Judge from Columbia Law School, explores how trust quietly sustains the financial system and why it becomes most visible when things start to break. She explains that in finance, trust means acting despite incomplete information. Depositors often have little insight into the health of their bank, yet they continue to keep money there, relying on signals, habits, and confidence. When that confidence falters, trust does not fade slowly. It snaps, as seen in the rapid bank runs of 2023. Judge points out that technology accelerates these reactions, while strong relationships, particularly in community banking, can still hold panic at bay.

We examine how post-2008 rules improved resilience but also created expectations that governments will always intervene. That expectation has its own dangers. If markets believe support is guaranteed, discipline erodes, and when the government reaches its limits, panic can spread even faster. Kathryn stresses that credible transparency paired with the ability to act remains essential. She highlights the successful stress tests after the financial crisis as a rare example where disclosure built trust instead of shaking it. Balance sheet strength, liquidity, and established human relationships continue to be powerful stabilizers.

We discuss the current political environment and the pressures facing central banks. The Federal Reserve’s independence, she notes, has always been fragile, designed to avoid short-term political influence over monetary policy. Once doubt about that independence grows, long-term inflation expectations and sovereign credibility can shift, which households eventually feel in the form of higher prices, interest rates, and economic uncertainty.

Kate Judge also touches on her work on the middleman economy, describing how long supply chains and platform-based systems create efficiency but reduce direct connection. Efficiency comes with fragility, and the loss of human connection makes trust harder to form and easier to lose.

Toward the end of the conversation, we move to Europe and the debate over Eurobonds. She explains that shared debt across EU member states could deepen trust and strengthen the financial system if supported by genuine political commitment. At the same time, linking national financial destinies increases scrutiny and potential friction. Trust and vulnerability rise together, and success would depend on a shared willingness to stand together in good times and in crisis.

Her core message is straightforward: trust makes finance work until the moment it breaks, and rebuilding it is far harder than maintaining it. Real stability comes from credible commitments, transparency paired with action, and deeper human and institutional relationships.