Trust, Distrust, and Decentralisation: The Convergence of Bitcoin and Therapy
Imagine a world where power is not concentrated in the hands of a few but distributed among the many. This isn’t just the ethos behind Bitcoin, the decentralised digital currency that challenges traditional financial systems, but it could also serve as a metaphor for the journey of personal growth and self-discovery through therapy (or similarly, routes of meditation, psychedelics or spiritual emergence).
Just as Bitcoin operates without a central bank, could our minds operate without the pre-installed ‘default settings’ of our upbringing and society?
This comparison, while metaphorical, invites us to explore how both systems — financial and psychological — might benefit from a philosophy of decentralisation.
Bitcoin, often referred to as digital gold, is the first and most well-known cryptocurrency. It’s a decentralised digital currency without a central bank or single administrator, allowing direct transactions between users based on cryptographic principles. Bitcoin operates on a blockchain, a distributed ledger that records all transactions across a network of computers, ensuring transparency and security without reliance on traditional financial intermediaries. Bitcoin is more than a digital gold, a currency or a speculative asset.
Bitcoin’s importance lies in the ways it organises society, differently from fiat money, as it questions and challenges our inert psychological makeup deeply set in the trust-based society.
Bitcoin vs fiat money–two different ways of organising society
Traditionally, fiat money has been a tool for governments and banks to control economic activity, influencing behaviour and societal norms through fiscal and monetary policies. Unlike commodity-based currencies, fiat money derives its value from government regulation or law. Central banks–i.e. “money issuers”–as state institutions, have the exclusive right to create and regulate this currency, effectively controlling monetary policy. This centralised control over money supply allows governments to influence economic activities, manage inflation, and stabilise financial crises, often intertwining economic policies with political objectives. By setting interest rates and reserve requirements, central banks can steer the economy, affecting everything from individual spending power to investment climates. We, the people, as “money users”, are subject to these policies shaping our financial decisions and economic environment. This centralised monetary system inherently ties financial stability and economic growth to governmental or central bank decisions, embedding societal trust in these institutions for economic governance.
Bitcoin introduces a paradigm shift by operating outside these traditional boundaries. By removing the need for trust in centralised institutions, Bitcoin promotes the mindset of individual responsibility and scepticism towards authority. In the world of Bitcoin, everyone is essentially a money issuer, as individuals can create and manage their own wallets, participate in transactions without intermediaries across borders, and even mine new coins, which alter the economic power dynamic. This transformation fosters a society where economic power isn’t just wielded by a few but is distributed among all, challenging the very concepts of modern money and trust as a building stone of society and our psyche.
But not everyone is excited about Bitcoin and decentralisation. Understandably bankers, governments and…Yuval Noah Harari, an author of Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, who argues that Bitcoin is a currency of distrusts as opposed to traditional money which fosters trust between strangers. Whilst he recognises that Bitcoin’s proponents may have valid reasons to distrust traditional banks, according to him, losing trust in human institutions such as banks may ultimately detriment society, handicap economic activity and cooperation. To understand the one-sidedness of Harari’s notion, we must grasp the very concept of trust.
Trust and distrust–two sides of one coin
Sure, trust is the bedrock of the society and our psychological development. From birth, we are inherently wired to trust for survival; infants trust caregivers for nourishment and protection. This primary mechanism of minimising entropy forms the template for all future relationships and expectations. It is a foundation for our biases and the ways we relate to the world and ourselves. As we grow, we continue operating on trust despite social relationships becoming more complex and nuanced. We trust doctors choose the best course of treatment for us; the media to tell us the truth (lol); regulators to protect us, the food industry to sell us healthy products; leaders, we elect to have our best interests in mind. We trust that what we believe in is the right thing. And we get let down. Repeatedly. But we keep trusting because it is the only way we know and because we rarely have all the data available to assess the whole situation, so how else would we survive?
Niklas Luhmann, a sociologist, argues that the function of trust inherently involves distrust. Trust without the capacity for distrust leads to blind dependence, akin to our earliest stages of life, where we are completely reliant on others. Bitcoin introduces a system where distrust isn’t a flaw, but a feature. By not requiring trust in institutions but in transparent, verifiable code, Bitcoin embodies Luhmann’s notion. It doesn’t eliminate trust but redefines it by embedding distrust as a safeguard against manipulation. Its algorithm has introduced distrust into organising society in a way that has not been achieved before (sure, good old democracy has been attempting to incorporate distrust through checks and balances and elections, yet it often falls short because of several inherent flaws such as impact of lobbyists, bureaucrats, and other unelected figures skewing democratic processes, voters lacking full information, relying on biased media or oversimplified political messages, majority’s interests overriding minority rights and so on).
Perhaps self-inquiry process, or in other words, therapy is another system where trust is not blind but informed. In therapy, we re-evaluate our thoughts, behaviours, and past patterns, which in effect is a form of distrust towards our own established mental frameworks. Just as Bitcoin’s nodes question the validity of transactions, therapy is questioning our own “transactions” or life experiences, crucial for growth and change. Effective therapy leads to a client becoming their own authority. Instead of relying on external validation or societal norms (akin to a centralised system), therapy helps in decentralising personal power to the individual, empowering them to make autonomous decisions based on their own internal verification processes.
Pain as a signal of change introducing distrust into the equation
So, what Bitcoin has achieved through the code introducing distrust to prevent misuse of power, in the realm of the human psyche, it is therapy, where pain often serves as the initial signal propelling us to verify our internal and external constructs. Something isn’t right and needs our attention. This could be emotional pain from unresolved issues, cognitive dissonance, or existential angst.
From childhood, we absorb norms, values, and behaviours from our environment — parents, culture, and societal structures. These become our “priors” or biases, the initial assumptions we used to navigate life. When these patterns are predominantly top-down (imposed by authority figures or societal norms, which money is a form of, by the way) regardless of their validity for what is really happening in our life, we can call them dysfunctional. For instance, if our priors include irrational beliefs, outdated survival mechanisms or harsh inner critic, we have an exaggerated negative outlook on situations, fears and phobias or unhealthy striving for perfection. We can live like that, trusting our old patterns until we burn out, suffer from panic attacks or go through yet another breakup.
Introducing distrust — or critical questioning — into this trust system is vital for personal growth. It’s akin to scientific inquiry where hypotheses are tested and retested. Challenging our ingrained beliefs and patterns allows us to refine or discard those that no longer serve us. Similarly how Bitcoin’s nodes verify transactions and instead of leaving it it to the intermediaries which would ultimately lead to centralisation of power.
The process of integrating distrust into our trust system doesn’t dismantle trust, but reforms it. It builds a more robust trust in oneself — one that’s tested and proven through personal experience and reflection. This is akin to how Bitcoin’s algorithm creates trust through verifiable consensus. This analogy underscores how essential it is for both technological and psychological systems to incorporate mechanisms for verification or distrust to maintain their integrity and adaptiveness.
Trust + Distrust = More Resilient Trust
Having explored how integrating distrust can lead to personal empowerment, let’s revisit Yuval Noah Harari’s perspective on societal trust, considering how his concerns might interplay with these individual transformations. While his perspective highlights valid worries about the social fabric, it’s essential to differentiate between blind trust and informed trust. Exploring this further could reveal that Bitcoin’s model might not dismantle trust but strengthen it. This nuanced discussion, however, merits its own exploration, suggesting that both perspectives might hold truths worth considering in different contexts.
Our societal structures often rely too heavily on trust. This can lead to exploitation, as seen in the fiat money system, corporate-influenced politics or personal relationships where trust in harmful patterns persists despite evidence to the contrary. Bitcoin doesn’t aim to eliminate trust, but to reform it. It introduces a framework where trust isn’t assumed but earned through open, verifiable processes. This isn’t about distrusting for distrust’s sake but introducing systems where trust is based on transparency, much like how therapy encourages questioning of ingrained beliefs for personal growth.
Rather than eroding trust, Bitcoin might cultivate a new form of trust — one that’s critically engaged. This approach encourages a shift from trusting authority without question to trust systems that are open, auditable, and decentralised. This shift is not about less trust, but about more accountability. Bitcoin could inspire a cultural evolution where trust in institutions and each other is contingent upon transparency and consensus, mirroring therapy’s journey from external validation to self-trust. By integrating Bitcoin’s philosophy, we’re not undermining societal trust but refining it, ensuring that, like in therapy, our trust systems are robust, informed, and adaptive.
As you reflect on the interplay between Bitcoins’ decentralised structure and your personal psychological journey, consider this:
In what areas of your life could the principles of decentralisation and transparency bring about positive change? How might questioning your ingrained ‘trust settings’ lead to personal empowerment or societal change?
Use Bitcoin as more than just a financial tool; let it be a lens through which you scrutinise and possibly restructure your own trust networks. Explore, question, and perhaps, like Bitcoin’s blockchain, you’ll find new blocks of knowledge and self-reliance added to your life’s ledger.
