Nope, people will tend to act just like human beings, and the thesis is a distinction between “emotion trust” on steroids, and “The Trusting Character”. I “fall back” on at least three of the bullet points, and they are (1) A “trusting character” is proactive, always ahead of the offense with a loving stance, (3) A “trusting character” knows that while others may be hurtful, frustrating, angering, and disappointing at times, they also know that deep inside they desire not to be that way, and (4) A “trusting character” is strong with grace, and always prepared to cover offenses with a beckoning love, inviting others to reflect and “self-correct”. This assumes “innocence” in the contest of reality. One of my closing comments is, “The bottom line is this, if you want to stimulate others to grow, then they have to feel free to make the mistakes that come with flexibility and spontaneity.” So, my faux pas was beginning with my weird and sometimes misunderstood way of making a point. If you weren’t a “trusting character” you would be upset with me! :) Since you are a “trusting character”, I am learning and will “self-correct” by modifying the article for future publication! Thanks, I needed that!