Do you think parents should teach their children to be trustworthy but not too trusting of others?

  I believe that one of the most telling limitations on this topic is the perception that something such as trust can be "taught".  While it's true that parents have or should have the responsibility to teach their children a vast array of life lessons, it's also true that experience can be a great teacher, and in some instances, a better teacher than any parental warning, anecdote, admonishment, etc.  Unfortunately, that reduces some parental duties to merely providing guidelines for the child to follow and ultimately, it's the child's role to either heed or not.  People's personalities, traits, mental acuity, lucidity, etc, all play into how they act or react in given situations.  The fact that a parent or parents or grandparents taught certain lessons does not guarantee that the child absorbed them.
  For instance, my wife and I are extremely hard-working and goal-oriented people (I'm even a workaholic).  We thought that we were actively passing that ethic down to our children in the literal lessons we gave while they were growing up, and we thought that we were also passively passing it down through the examples we set for them along the years.  The results are that to this day, they have not exhibited even the slightest interest in establishing themselves financially in a way that prepares them for the future.  Of course, it's an emerging trend among many youngsters of their age, so it may or may not reflect directly on our parenting, but either way, it causes us distress.  Now that they're adults, the problem is in their hands, except for those times when they bounce back to Ma and PA with puppy-dog eyes and entreat us with how difficult things are out there.  (We already know, that's why we harped on this stuff from the time they could understand human language.)
  I digress, however.  I have a tale to tell concerning trust and teaching it to children.  When I was growing up, I noticed that in cartoons and comic books and children's books, etc, the easiest, fastest, and probably most effective way of identifying the protagonist and the antagonist was by the way they looked.  Good guys were usually Caucasian, or at least had fair complexions; were "good-looking" as defined by the standards of those who produced the material, and in these cases, that meant Caucasian also; usually wore simple, neat and clean-looking clothing, spoke very well, spoke kindly, were benevolent, etc.  On the contrary, bad guys were the exact opposite: were not Caucasian, or if they were Caucasian, had darker features, such as hair or complexion; were less facially and physically attractive than the protagonist(s); their clothing was ragged or unkempt; spoke roughly or gruffly, or had poor grammar, also spoke disrespectfully; were mean or cruel or bullying.  In short, I was being indoctrinated into the white-is-right mentality.  Fast forward twenty-five to thirty years later when my own children were young and watching the popular cartoons and movies of their own time.  I saw that they were exposed to many of the exact same themes that had caught my attention as a child.
  I was concerned with stranger-danger, pedophilia, child-snatchers, etc, so I sat my children down and explained to them that just because someone looks nice, looks good, speaks well doesn't mean he or she can be trusted, and vice-versa, just because someone is dark or darker, is less attractive, speaks poorly, etc, doesn't mean that he or she cannot be trusted.  This ties into the theme you've brought up here, but on a much smaller level.  I was trying to protect tiny children from potential dangers, and it most likely had an effect on other aspects of trust as they grew and learned more and experienced more.

This post was edited by Randy D at November 3, 2017 5:37 AM MDT