🚩 Non-Obvious Credibility Mistakes Authors Make - TRUST-able #38

Top non-obvious mistakes that indie authors, journalists, creators, experts and consultants make online, that negatively impacts their trustworthiness.

To be trusted, first and foremost we must be honest.

Honest about who we are, what we really want and how we wish to communicate with others.

Trust is not built through achievements, proclaimations or by telling others what to do.

Trust is built by showing others who we really are, and by demonstrating through actions, that we do really care.

It does seems simple and obvious, but it isn’t. Mostly because trustworthy people are not many and - at least in my life - no one has ever stopped and dedicated time to teach me how to recognize them.

Let me make up for them and take a helpful step in this direction, by sharing what I have learned on my skin.

Robin Good

10 Non-Obvious Credibility Mistakes That Impact Trustworthiness

I speak for myself.

The following are some of the most negatively impacting, yet non-obvious mistakes that indie entrepreneurs, experts, consultants and journalists do when it comes to being credible, authentic and trustworthy online.

I don’t expect my perceptions and values to be the same as everyone else.

However, if you value authenticity, depth, honesty and humbleness in the people you put your trust into, then you may find some points of contact with my observations.

I’ve certainly made many of these non-obvious mistakes and writing this piece has been an opportunity to reflect, learn, and correct some of them.

Writing is so good for this very reason: It lets you think and look deeper into yourself, while opening new doors for remedy and growth.

1. No Face

People who have a logo in place of their face can’t compete in credibility and trustworthiness with those who do not. The more clearly your face is shown, the more I perceive you to be credible and honest. When I read something and there is the author’s face, I make an image in my head. When there’s a logo I can’t feel anything. Yes, a logo could convey more easily a message about what I am about. But in my experience it’s more important to build rapport and to feel the other person. Being easily recognized comes as a natural consequence of relationship building.

Action: Show your face. Clearly. From hair to neck. Not an avatar, not an icon, not a logo, not a medium shot. Your face from hair to neck. Avoiding sunglasses can be a good idea. Being able to look another person in the eyes provides a greater sense of being in touch with the other person vs talking to someone who wears sunglasses you can’t see through.

Evidence

• In "Thinking, Fast and Slow" Daniel Kahneman's research demonstrates that humans are fundamentally wired to trust faces and personal connections over abstract representations.

• Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink" explores how humans make rapid, intuitive judgments based on visual cues, particularly facial expressions and direct eye contact.

• Try to picture in your head whether there exist any brand/logo that you trust more than real people with whom you have built a solid relationship with.

2. No Name

I can’t really build much of a relation without a full name I can attach to that person. Those who adopt brand names, or acronyms, or just a first name and an initial, for me are unTRUST-able. I may like their work, get enthusiastic at times, but I can’t trust them. They feel like a brand, or someone hiding for reasons that are unknown to me. Seeing a full name and last name gives me a sense of knowing the person, even though superficially.

Action: Show your full name: first and last. And if for some very important reason you can’t, make up one.

Evidence

• Full names significantly increase perceived authenticity and trustworthiness in professional and personal interactions. In my personal experience, authors profiles with full names receive more engagement and are perceived as more professional compared to partial name or pseudonymous profiles.

• Malcolm Gladwell's book "Talking to Strangers" explores how name transparency correlates with perceived honesty and social credibility.

3. No Focus

I have a hard time with those who cover all kinds of topics. I do like generalists with whom I can explore and discuss almost anything, but I don’t like superficiality, variety for the sake of entertainment, gossip and newness. So if there’s no focus, there must be at least some depth. There must be some special unique way to look and dissect things. A connecting purpose, a mission, a thread.

Action: Ask yourself what’s the focus (or approach) that makes me clearly different and recognizable from those who do things similar to mine. Make sure that focus is perceivable and clear.

Evidence:

• David Epstein's book "Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World" emphasizes that true generalist thinking requires deep, meaningful connections rather than shallow knowledge.

• Charlie Munger (Warren Buffett's business partner) famously advocated for "multiple mental models" approach. This approach is about deep, interdisciplinary understanding, not superficial knowledge gathering.

• Maria Popova (Brain Pickings) often writes about the importance of synthesizing knowledge with depth and purpose. She connects seemingly disparate ideas through meaningful insight.

4. No Viewpoint

Some spur just recipes, frameworks, step-by-step instructions and tips. But there’s no viewpoint, no perspective and no value-referenced context to appreciate what’s being shared. Let me say it in other words: if I don’t know what you’re fighting for, what moves you and directs your ideas, my trust in you can only be limited.

Action: Make clear for what and for whom you’re doing what you’re doing. Claim your why and your direction.

Evidence

• Simon Sinek's "Start with Why" fundamentally argues that great leaders and communicators inspire by clearly articulating their core purpose, not just detailing what they do.

• Viktor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning" emphasizes that true motivation comes from understanding the deeper "why" behind our actions, not just mechanical processes.

• Brené Brown's research on vulnerability highlights that authenticity and genuine connection emerge when people share their core beliefs and motivations.

5. Overconfidence

Many write in an overly assertive tone that suggests absolute certainty, even when discussing complex topics. Anytime I see this, I get very skeptical, as I have learned that true experts like to recognize the complexity and potential limitations of their know-how. A credible writer should always be showing intellectual humility. But many guru-authors, best-sellers and experts tend to share dogmatic, biblical rules and principles to which one should abide to achieve his goals with no questions.

Action: Make sure you write to share your personal experience and what you have learned from it. That’s the valuable thing. Share your experience without selling it as the only way, but as a useful reference to tap into for inspiration and experimentation.

Evidence

• What Is Intellectual Humility by Nate Barksdale shows that true wisdom cannot exist without modesty of mind.

• Philip Tetlock's landmark book "Expert Political Judgment" demonstrates that experts who acknowledge uncertainty are far more accurate than those who speak in absolute terms.

• Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman's work consistently emphasizes the importance of recognizing cognitive biases and the limits of human knowledge, particularly in his book "Thinking, Fast and Slow".

• Quote from Bertrand Russell: "The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

6. Unsupported Advice

Claiming - recommending what to do with no supporting evidence or explanatory logic. When I read a recommendation, a tip or strategy, I always expect the author to provide me with some supporting logic or evidence. Having both moves the author from the files of persuaders, evangelists and marketers into those of trusted advisors and expert guides.

Action: Always provide supporting logic for what you recommend, as well as real-life evidence examples. Consumers are more likely to trust advice backed by evidence, which enhances the authority and trustworthiness of the author.

Evidence

• Kahneman and Tversky's work in behavioral economics shows that people are more likely to trust and follow advice when it's backed by logical reasoning or real-world examples. Reference: "Thinking, Fast and Slow."

• The BMJ highlights the distinction between evidence and opinion in guidelines. It emphasizes that recommendations should be based on systematically appraised evidence to maintain credibility and trustworthiness. This ensures transparency and avoids conflating expert opinions with proven facts.

• Integrating solid evidence into advice enhances reliability and confidence among readers, particularly in the professional and academic contexts.

7. Lonely Guru

Little or no reference to other voices and ideas. Referencing the work and the words of those who are publicly recognized for having been successful in their fields always adds to your credibility. It means that you have spent time reading, learning, and understanding your field in depth. It also means that you know and are familiar with other big and small leaders in your field, and that you study and carefully analyze their work and ideas.

Action: After writing anything, research key concepts to find relevant quotes, studies and critical analyses from other authors with which to enrich your reporting.

Evidence

• Merton, R. K. (1973) in "The Sociology of Science" demonstrates how academic credibility is built through robust referencing and acknowledging intellectual predecessors.

• "Creating Interdisciplinary Campus Cultures" by Klein, J. T. (2010) argues that true expertise involves synthesizing ideas across different domains and acknowledging diverse intellectual contributions.

• The book by Steven Johnson "Where Good Ideas Come From" explores how innovation emerges through connecting ideas across different fields and building on existing knowledge.

8. Authenticity

Some like to open their writings with an emotional jolt, a promise, or a startling question. They like to use scientifically tested frameworks, templates, prompts, and keyword combinations to draw you in. The net result is that I “see” them doing it, and if we were in real life, those would not be the people I’d trust. To me, if you are credible and trustworthy, you don’t need to put up any show or gimmick to have me interested. Just match my specific interest and inform me to the best of your ability without additional stuff or persuasion tactics, and I’ll pay close attention. Authenticity in writing stems from embracing imperfections and focusing on genuine connections rather than showmanship.

Action: Be more discrete. Provide substantive analysis. Be authentic without excessively dramatizing. Storytell. But stick to facts. Share your experience and what has given you, what you’ve learned from it. Sharing emotions is OK, is part of being authentic. It is the leveraging of emotions for specific marketing purposes that detracts from one’s credibility.

Evidence

• Brené Brown's research book "Daring Greatly" (2012) explores vulnerability and authenticity as key elements of genuine human connection, arguing against performative communication strategies.

• Robert Cialdini himself in his book "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" warns the reader on how certain communication tactics can feel manipulative, reducing rather than enhancing credibility.

9. Excessive AI

I know that the temptation is strong. I know that many think, “yes I let AI do it, but then I am deciding what to keep and what not and I edit the generated text”. The results are lower grade content not so much because of its style and grammar, but because it completely lacks your most precious asset: your viewpoint and your personal voice. Overly polished AI-generated content generally lacks the author's authentic voice and depth of analysis, which is what I value most. Humans are imperfect, and that’s what makes them unique. They are not like academic books. They are like dogs. Unpredictable, sociable, sometimes angry, sometimes friendly.

Action: Write the outline and the section titles of what you want to write about. Then ask AI to see where your structure could be improved. After that write the content of the individual sections and once done, ask AI to review, correct and polish your work.

Evidence

• Nicholas Carr's book "The Shallows" presciently explores how technology can diminish depth of thinking and personal creativity long before AI became mainstream.

• MIT Technology Review article on AI content homogenization states: “AI can make you more creative—but it has limits”. Although it can boost individuals’ creativity, it seems to homogenize and flatten our collective output.

• Risks of AI writing shows how over-polished AI content alienates readers seeking genuine human insights.

• Exploring the Limitations of AI in Writing: What You Need to Know

10. Presumption

To me, giving for granted that the others know what your focus and mission are and what you have to offer is a sign of low-professionality and indirect presumptuousness (you think I clearly know who you are, what you do and offer). The reality is that new people discover my work daily, and those who already know me also read tens of other publications and newsletters, and maybe can forget a bit what I focus on and what I help others do. So, if I don’t tell my readers who I am and what I do, how and when are they going to find out?

Action: Reminding while clarifying what you are about and what you have to offer is not just an opportunity for monetizing, but a duty as an author. It helps your readers be reminded of what you are about, who you speak to and where you are directed.

Evidence

• "Marketing Management" by Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2015) highlights that audience attention is fragmented. This makes repeated, clear messaging crucial for brand recall.

• Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow" explains how human memory and attention work, supporting the need for repeated, clear communication to penetrate cognitive filters.

• Successful brands like Patagonia repeatedly reinforce their mission and focus to deepen trust and loyalty.

Trust and credibility aren't static. They evolve with every interaction and decision.

Questioning these communication strategies and revising them can greatly help in increasing one’s own credibility and trustworthiness.

Question for you: Which of these mistakes is, in your opinion / experience, the hardest to overcome and why?

Post your reply in the comments.

Follow a path with a heart.

The time is NOW.

From Koh Samui (TH)
Robin Good