You don’t solve coordination problems by being blindly trusting and you certainly don’t do this by spreading “noble lies”. You do it by becoming trustworthy, i.e., not defecting against those who haven’t defected against you.
In fact all a “noble lie” will do is make it harder to determine who is or isn’t trustworthy, thus making it harder to punish defectors.
By using the verb “to defect” I am assuming you are familiar with the button-pressing tit-for-tat game-theory stuff. AFAIK one simple yet efficient algorithm is “reciprocate what the other player does, but when you both are stuck in mutual non-cooperative loops, offer “forgiveness” by pressing the cooperate button once and see if it is reciprocated and you both can enter a mutually cooperative loop. This “forgiving” press is clearly unearned trust!
Being trusting is even riskier (and stupider).
The point is making it mutual. Assuming it is a coordination problem.
You don’t solve coordination problems by being blindly trusting and you certainly don’t do this by spreading “noble lies”. You do it by becoming trustworthy, i.e., not defecting against those who haven’t defected against you.
In fact all a “noble lie” will do is make it harder to determine who is or isn’t trustworthy, thus making it harder to punish defectors.
By using the verb “to defect” I am assuming you are familiar with the button-pressing tit-for-tat game-theory stuff. AFAIK one simple yet efficient algorithm is “reciprocate what the other player does, but when you both are stuck in mutual non-cooperative loops, offer “forgiveness” by pressing the cooperate button once and see if it is reciprocated and you both can enter a mutually cooperative loop. This “forgiving” press is clearly unearned trust!