Trust the Process

[DISCLAIMER]

Colloquially, trust is defined as assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something. In the field of mental, emotional, and behavior health care, trust is defined somewhat the same. In particular, the American Psychological Association states:

[R]eliance on or confidence in the dependability of someone or something. In interpersonal relationships, trust refers to the confidence that a person or group of people has in the reliability of another person or group; specifically, it is the degree to which each party feels that they can depend on the other party to do what they say they will do.

The key factor is not the intrinsic honesty of the other people but their predictability. Trust is considered by most psychologists to be a primary component in mature relationships with others, whether intimate, social, or therapeutic.

When considering the latter definition, I think of logic and reason. Logic is a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration. It also addresses the interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable.

Reason is a statement offered in explanation or justification. In simple terms, it’s the thing that makes some fact intelligible. Unlike what occurs with limited time in my sessions with clients, when teaching people about rational thinking through use of my blog I often use syllogisms.

Generally, a syllogism is comprised of a major premise, a minor premise, and a resulting conclusion. For the sake of argument and understanding, it’s inferred that both premises which lead to a conclusion are presumed to be true.

Bear in mind that the premises in an argument, proposition, or belief of this form will always lead to the conclusion. This is the case even when the premises aren’t actually true.

Equally, in order to be considered “rational” the argument, proposition, or belief empirically must remain in accordance with both logic and reason. Otherwise, the proposed syllogism may simply follow logical form while not remaining in accord with reason. As an example:

Form (modus ponens) –

If it is true that p, then it is also true that q; p; therefore, q.

Broken down into its specific premises, this form of syllogism is as follows:

Premise 1: If it is true that p, then it is also true that q.

Premise 2: It is true that p.

Conclusion: Therefore, it is also true that q.

A simpler form of writing this type of syllogism is as follows:

If p, then q; p; therefore, q.

Example –

If you value trust, then predictability of an individual’s beliefs or behavior is more relevant than how honest the person is. You value trust. Therefore, predictability of an individual’s beliefs or behavior is more relevant than how honest the person is.

Given this perspective, I could lie to you every single time we speak. Yet, because my behavior is predictable, even while not being steeped in honesty, my beliefs and behavior would be considered trustworthy. Regarding this topic, reliability and validity come to mind.

Per one source, “Reliability is the extent to which the outcomes are consistent when the experiment is repeated more than once,” and, “Validity is the extent to which the instruments that are used in the experiment measure exactly what you want them to measure.”

Noteworthy, my preferred psychotherapeutic modality is Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) which partially uses a scientific approach to wellness. This is where reliability and validity of research are important concepts. Understanding them can inform you about behavior.

Reliability refers to the consistency (or predictability) of a measure, while validity refers to the accuracy (or truthfulness) of a measure. A reliable measure will produce similar results under the same conditions, while a valid measure will accurately reflect the concept it is intended to measure.

The way it was explained to me when attending graduate school for counseling was that a broken weighing scale is reliable while simultaneously producing invalid results. It will consistently represent the wrong weight of an object, and inaccurately so. Thus, the scale is trustworthy.

Is this what came to mind when initially contemplating the concept of trust as you began reading this blogpost? Presuming you understand that trust doesn’t represent truthfulness, I ask that you forgive my use of a personal anecdote.

When attending graduate school for social work, I frequently heard the phrase “trust the process.” Rarely did any of the professors, lecturers, or other university staff explain what this slogan meant. Personally, recollections of trust falls were evoked, about which one source states:

A trust fall is an activity in which a person deliberately falls, trusting the members of a group (spotters) to catch them. It has also at times been considered a popular team-building exercise in corporate training events.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t automatically trust people to catch me as I deliberately fall backwards (or in any other scenario in life). And why should I? Bear in mind that trust relates to assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something.

If I don’t know you well, what assured reliance is there in your ability or willingness to keep me from being injured? The same logical and reasonable argument holds true for trusting “the” process, to whatever the series of actions for achieving a result relates.

When further contemplating this subject, I’m reminded of the track “Trust the Process” by Canadian lyricist Snak the Ripper. Although the song was initially released as a single in 2020, it was later featured on the lyricist’s 2022 album Let It Rip. The hook states:

Stop stressing over nothing

Try to control your mind

Then learn to trust the process

Do that, and you’ll be fine

[x2]

While I appreciate the uplifting message, I fundamentally disagree with a trust-the-process approach to life. This is because there are far too many unknown variables in most circumstances than to form an outlook based on assured reliance. You’re welcome to reject my perspective.

In any event, I recently discussed this matter with person X who is currently undergoing education and training regarding the field in which I professionally practice. Like me when in graduate school, person X has purportedly been encouraged to “trust the process.”

I’m reminded of my experience with the University of Texas (UT) at Austin School of Social Work (now “Steve Hicks School of Social Work”) during which I was invited to “trust the process.” Like my reminder of trust falls from a previous employer, I was having none of that.

Among other reasons for this stance, at UT, radical feminists openly advocated discrimination against males (boys and men), Caucasians, wealthy individuals, and straight people. I experienced life’s little tragedies of this variety from students, staff members, and others.

One could argue that the consistency (reliability) of unpleasant treatment I received was worthy of the definitional standard of trust outlined herein, as the accuracy (validity) of a UT’s proposed “equal” standard of treatment wasn’t upheld. Thus, trusting the process was a feasible option.

However, taking this matter out of a binary framework, I acknowledge at least three options: (1) Trust the process of being discriminated against, (2) Don’t trust the process of being discriminated against, or (3) Reject the notion of trust altogether when discrimination is at hand.

You may reasonably ask about the distinction between options number two and three. Option number two accepts the premise of trust being a worthwhile (even if invalid) consideration. Option three rejects this framing on the basis of moral and ethical grounds.

I maintain that it’s subjectively immoral and unethical to concede the legitimacy of either-or options when it comes to discrimination of the variety to which I was exposed at UT. While I tolerated and accepted the behavior, I don’t “trust the process” of an arguably bad framework.

When discussing this matter with person X, I allowed this self-determined and autonomous person to conclude what course of action this individual would take. Alas, some people will go along to get along by endorsing a debatably bad “trust the process” approach to discrimination.

If you’re looking for a provider who tries to work to help understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life—helping you to sharpen your critical thinking skills, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.

As the world’s foremost hip hop-influenced REBT psychotherapist, I’m pleased to try to help people with an assortment of issues from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.

At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply trying to help you to feel better, I want to try to help you get better!

Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW

Photo credit, fair use

References:

APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Trust. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/trust

Apple Music. (n.d.). Let It Rip. Apple Inc. Retrieved from https://music.apple.com/ca/album/let-it-rip/1613721502

Hollings, D. (2024, May 24). A scientific approach to mental health. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/a-scientific-approach-to-mental-health

Hollings, D. (2025, July 3). Another of life’s little tragedies. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/another-of-life-s-little-tragedies

Hollings, D. (2023, April 22). Control. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/control

Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer

Hollings, D. (2024, April 2). Discrimination. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/discrimination

Hollings, D. (2024, March 28). Distorted inferences. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/distorted-inferences

Hollings, D. (2025, March 12). Distress vs. disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/distress-vs-disturbance

Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Empirical should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/empirical-should-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2025, March 9). Factual and counterfactual beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/factual-and-counterfactual-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Fair use. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fair-use

Hollings, D. (2024, May 17). Feeling better vs. getting better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/feeling-better-vs-getting-better-1

Hollings, D. (2023, February 9). Feminism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/feminism

Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better

Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/

Hollings, D. (2024, August 21). In-group and out-group distinction. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/in-group-and-out-group-distinction

Hollings, D. (2025, February 9). Integrity and honesty. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/integrity-and-honesty

Hollings, D. (2025, March 4). Justification. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/justification

Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching

Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason

Hollings, D. (2024, March 4). Mental, emotional, and behavioral health. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/mental-emotional-and-behavioral-health

Hollings, D. (2025, March 16). Modus ponens. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/modus-ponens

Hollings, D. (2023, October 2). Morals and ethics. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/morals-and-ethics

Hollings, D. (2023, September 3). On feelings. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-feelings

Hollings, D. (2023, April 24). On truth. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-truth

Hollings, D. (2025, May 3). Predictability of logic. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/predictability-of-logic

Hollings, D. (2024, May 26). Principles. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/principles

Hollings, D. (2023, September 15). Psychotherapeutic modalities. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychotherapeutic-modalities

Hollings, D. (2024, May 5). Psychotherapist. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychotherapist

Hollings, D. (2022, March 24). Rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT). Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-emotive-behavior-therapy-rebt

Hollings, D. (2024, January 20). Reliability vs. validity. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/reliability-vs-validity

Hollings, D. (2024, May 26). Self-determination and autonomy. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-determination-and-autonomy

Hollings, D. (2022, October 7). Should, must, and ought. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/should-must-and-ought

Hollings, D. (2024, May 19). Sufferance in the face of sloganeering. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/sufferance-in-the-face-of-sloganeering

Hollings, D. (2023, October 17). Syllogism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/syllogism

Hollings, D. (2023, August 6). The science. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-science

Hollings, D. (2023, February 16). Tna. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/__tna

Hollings, D. (2025, February 28). To try is my goal. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/to-try-is-my-goal

Hollings, D. (2022, November 14). Touching a false dichotomy. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/touching-a-false-dichotomy

Hollings, D. (2024, September 29). Well, well, well. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/well-well-well

Lemaron, P. (2023, October 22). Differences between validity and reliability in research. LinkedIn. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/differences-between-validity-reliability-research-paul-lemaron-bgl8f

Rofian, M. (n.d.). Trust fall exercise icon line illustration pro vector [Image]. Vecteezy. Retrieved from https://www.vecteezy.com/vector-art/54615156-trust-fall-exercise-icon-line-illustration

Snak the Ripper. (2020, December 17). Snak the Ripper - Trust the Process (Official music video). YouTube. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/JdR7RjdK7sE?si=AcIFvPtnGLN3RR4o

UT. (n.d.). Statement on equal educational opportunity. The University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved from https://catalog.utexas.edu/graduate/graduate-study/statement-on-equal-educational-opportunity/

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Snak the Ripper. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snak_the_Ripper

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Trust fall. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_fall