It is evidently true that human beings sometimes are not to be trusted, but it is not always true. You need to satisfy/confirm or dis-affirm your suspicion before you trust or distrust someone. You need not to conclude on what you see or hear from the scratch, it should be proven or researched into before. Jumping into conclusion hastily could be misleading and lead to loss of faithful, reliable, and trustworthy people. Faithful, reliable, and trustworthy people are scarce to find.
In terms of trusting people someone, we need to know that as our faces differ so are our trust, behaviours, actions and inactions. Therefore, prior experience of trust with someone may not automatically be same for someone else.
Having stereotype perception of people on the bases of gender, origin, race or cultural persuasion may not translate into trusting them or not. Each individual irrespective of gender, origin, race or cultural background is unique in terms of behaviour, attitude and inaction in relation to trust.
Trusting someone would mean that an individual under review has that attribute in him or not already. Exhibiting an attitude of trust cannot be bought or faked, it comes out by itself or not once you interact with coworkers, friends, family members and acquaintances, etc.
Trust is apparently linked with honouring promises or agreed upon activity between two or more people. Once a party to a promise or agreement delivers his part of bargain, then trust is found in him. If a party to agreement willfully and intentionally dishonours his part to that agreement or promise over a repeated times or period, then that individual cannot be trusted.
In conclusion, there should be empirical evidence before concluding on whether or not to trust some