I read this entry and am still unclear on this. In particular on the external kind. If I am unaware of reasons for why I trust someone, then why am I trusting them? There is always a "reason", even if not logical. Maybe they have a reassuring smile, would my intuition not count as a reason of sorts? In any event, if I have no reasons (as externalist view suggests), then how is trust happening? The bolded part seems to answer that but I don't understand.
Philosophers who agree that trust can be rational...tend to disagree about the extent to which reasons that confer rationality must be accessible to the trustor. Some say that all of these reasons must be available to this person in order for the trust to be rational; in that case, the person is or could be internally justified in trusting as s/he does. Others say that the reasons need not be internal, but can instead be external to the trustor and can lie in what caused the trust, or, more specifically, in the epistemic reliability of what caused it. Moreover, the trustor need not have access to, or be aware of the reliability of, such reasons. (The latter's epistemology of trust is therefore externalist, while the former's is internalist.)