HONEST rejecters - Species Settlers

“I believe that honesty is the basis for trust.
I would not lie; even to get myself out of trouble.”

HONEST REJECTERS are those who score in the lowest (approximate) tertile
of agreement with these statements.

Figure 1. HONEST rejecters - Settlers

Demographically these Settler rejecters of HONEST are more skewed to males than the other two Maslow groups – males making up 61% (index 124) and females only just under 39% (index 76). Socioeconomically they are significantly over-indexed in the DE group (index 140) and under-indexed among the AB’s (index 66). Unlike the other two Maslow Groups there is no straight-line correlation decrease in rejection by age. If anything, rather than rejecting HONEST as they age there is an increase in the index of rejection within the 22-44 age groups, though they also significantly under-index by the time they pass 65.

These are the Honest rejecter Settlers' top 7 Attributes:

PESSIMISSIM (index 172) – I believe that I have had a raw deal from life. I have little to expect from the future.

ACQUIESCENCE (index 160) – Nothing really excites me these days. I don’t have much hope in life.

INDULGENT DIET (index 151) – For me, it is NOT important to watch what I eat and drink in order to keep healthy. I know I have an unhealthy lifestyle, but I enjoy it.

CATHARSIS (index 149) – I believe that violence is just a part of life. I think that, when you can't take it anymore and feel like you’re about to explode, a little violent behaviour can relieve the tension.

BENDER (index 145) – I believe it’s perfectly OK to bend the rules to get what you want – just don't get caught. I think that every system has its weak points – you just have to find them.

NON-REFLECTIVE (index 144) – I believe it's a waste of time trying to figure out who I am and what I'm good at. I am who I am, and the way I react and behave is not something that I can or want to do something about.

SIMMER (index 141) – The thought of social disorder excites me. I would enjoy being involved in a street riot.

They have the least number of Attribute overlaps with the HONEST rejecters as a whole. They have only three Attributes in common – SIMMER, CATHARIS AND BENDER. These three in conjunction have the potential to create havoc and violence especially if they are in a crowd with the much more potentially violent Prospector HONEST rejecters.

However, in general Settlers are different than Prospectors. In the matter of these HONEST rejecters their Settler orientations act as mitigating factors to 'mellow out' their more violent tendencies. Specifically, the two top over-indexed Attributes – PESSIMISM and ACQUIESCENCE – are dampeners on any action, both positive and negative, active or passive. There is a degree of hopelessness that runs through these people that can burst into violence, but it will be subdued, sporadic and unlikely to be sustained to any degree.

Two other over-indexed Attributes, NON-REFLECTIVE and INDULGENT DIET, can be easily linked – but offer a more nuanced picture of the HONEST rejecting Settlers.

To understand these people the best place to start is to contrast them with the complex Pioneer rejecters, who are difficult to typify one way or the other – other than they tend to embrace truth more as they age. Similarly, the Prospectors tend to lie less as they age, but still have a propensity to violence that is potentially a driver, or support for, violent acts in many aspects of life.

The Settlers are like neither of these Maslow Groups. They tend to regard things as very black and white, not complex and to feel there is little point to anything in life, nothing to get worked up about; whether it is the promise of joining together to make a better world or the destruction of a world that is preventing their dreams coming true.

PESSIMISM (index 172) is their most over-indexed Attribute. The paired statements measuring this are:

I believe I have had a raw deal from life. I have little to expect from the future

Feeling that the life they lead is a hard one, and that it has always been so, they have little to hope that it will change. As we can see from the demographics this is most over-indexed in the early years (up to 45) of their life. It is likely that when politicians and social commentators talk about the 'left behind' these are the people most likely to identify with the label. It is also likely the years of 'austerity budgets' and recent price inflation in the UK have hit them harder than others. These HONEST rejecters over-index among the C2DE's and under-index in ABC1's. They have seen their ability to provide a basic and sustainable safety and a secure home for themselves and their families eroded by factors seen to be outside their control.

Other research has shown they were more likely to have voted Leave in the Referendum of 2016, voting to change their life in any way possible. This was like a 'closed eyes leap into the unknown'. Having a pessimistic view of their life to date they felt that if they voted to Remain, and the system remained the same, life would continue to be bleak, summed up as "it's got to better than what we have now, because it can't be any worse".

In the nearly six years since that vote and several years since Brexit officially began to impact on British society, these people still feel like they’ve had a raw deal from life and still have little to expect from the future. In the meantime, not only has Covid impacted on their expectation of personal safety, but the built-in disruption of world-wide supply chains because of Covid knock-on effects, has continued to threaten the low skilled jobs many of these people depend on – something once again outside their control.

Their reaction to factors that are perceived as being outside their control could lead to anarchic behaviour or socially disruptive actions. This is not beyond the boundaries of possibility. But the data suggests that there is a large mitigating factor against any sort of action. This is measured by the ACQUIESCENCE Attribute.

Nothing really excites me these days. I don’t have much hope in life.

Without hope there is very little likelihood that these people, or any people, will get out of bed in the morning ready for a new dawn, a new day, and new opportunities for bettering themselves and creating something better for those they care about. Those characteristics form a world view for the Pioneers and Prospectors.

That doesn't mean that the HONEST rejecting Settlers can't get excited, but it does indicate that they are more unlikely than most to NOT act upon the excitement and do something to maintain or increase the excitement. Their acquiescence is a form of protection against hope.

Hope raises expectations of 'something different' - but they believe that the something different is more than likely to be 'not different' at best and 'something worse' is probably more likely.

These people protect themselves in other psychological ways as well. Denial is one of the most powerful ways preventing changes to past thoughts and behaviours. Most of the Prospectors and Pioneers have confronted the feelings of powerlessness the Settler rejecters are feeling now. Through self -examination of their own life and motivations (usually by themselves or with the support of others) they have discovered their own power to freely chose a path in life that facilitates becoming in control of their life.

These Settler HONEST rejecters have chosen another path. This is measured in the NON-REFLECTIVE Attribute:

I believe it’s a waste of time trying to figure out who I am and what I’m good at. I am who I am, and the way I react and behave is not something I can or want to do something about.

They are 60% more likely than the rest of the population to not reflect on their approach to life and the motivations to life that have led them into a slough of despond; or what is preventing them from drowning in the slough, robbing them of hope.

Because, make no mistake about it, this is a ‘functioning system’ of denial in an effort to prevent the pain of their alienation from impacting more than it already has. In their world hope brings pain, taking control means losing control – life has handed them a raw deal, it is unlikely to change, so why try to change it when you can just accept it.

This is the Settler way; and particularly espoused by this group within the Settlers.

They can be the ‘wet blanket’ on any new ideas, or energetic behaviours. Or they can be the ‘steadying voice’ within groups that want faster change. They will be more or less influential in any group, but the degree of influence is likely to be in relation to the groups a) orientation to change and ‘something different’, or b) reinforcing existing processes.

As should be expected they are more influential among groups that are small-c conservative – fighting for ‘no change’ or reverting to systems and processes (reinforcing) that worked in the past.

In these small-c conservative activities they are quite willing to deny changes to narratives that do not fit their own. Many social movements in recent years have been built on redefining history, both in fact and in meaning. Redefining received knowledge cuts against the grain of the HONEST rejecters and they are likely to see new knowledge as an attack on them personally – asking them to reflect on what they believe.

The perceived slight on their perceptions results in a lack of trust in the motives of others who are willing to examine their own beliefs, a willingness to change their minds in the light of new information. Their small-c conservatism become more radical the more they deny the information and motives of the conduits of the information – the media platforms on the web, the print media, mainstream broadcasting, politicians, social commentators, academics, etc.

Turning ‘respectful’ disagreement into targets of hate creates the conditions for rejecting HONEST as a facet of a way of communicating. They do not believe that ‘the other side’ is telling the truth and that as a result they feel justified in shading, subverting any statement they make, with the justification that “everyone lies”.

This insight helps to understand some social manifestations that have been created by HONEST rejecters, but often misunderstood by social commentators. An example would be Prospector HONEST rejecter trolls spreading misinformation – because it is ‘ironic/funny’ and gets clicks and likes, i.e. esteem of others. Or at a more organized level the deliberate spreading of disinformation by regimes that want to subvert truth as a virtue – in order to gain power.

But to the Settler HONEST rejecters their desire to prevent the pain of change and acknowledgement of their lack control leads to personal denial of truth and trust in the world. In our research of Jonathan Haidt’s Moral Foundation Theory we can see this Settler orientation as measured by ‘Disgust’ – a revulsion of others who do not believe the same as they do. This insight is part of the Purity section of the MFT.

Framing disagreement as disgusting and ‘un-pure’ can, and does, lead to a radicalization of thought and behaviour. The HONEST rejecting Settlers do have the potential to react covertly and overtly.

The most noticeable covert activity is measured by the BENDER Attribute.

I believe it’s perfectly OK to bend the rules to get what you want – just don’t get caught. I think that every system has its weak points – you just have to find them.

In any people-centric system – families, networks at work, political systems, etc. – this is probably the main reason why rules and regulations are created; to prevent people who agree with this Attribute attaining power and control over others. Benders do not want transparency of their decision-making processes; they do not want forensic examinations of the results of their decisions; and most certainly do not want their underlaying philosophy of ‘do what you want and it is OK, until you get caught’ revealed.

The HONEST rejecter, if caught, is the most likely to deny, bloviate and outright lie. They do not acknowledge truth is a virtue and that their radical pragmatism – OK until busted – is highly dangerous to the accepted values of society.

The most obvious example of this, in the Prospector version, is the antics of the recently resigned UK Prime Minister and the continuous denying, bloviating and lying behaviours exhibited on a daily basis. The accepted rules – in this case the Ministerial Code – are disregarded over and over again – in the pursuit and maintenance of power and control. This appeals to others with a Bender orientation but creates of dynamic that ultimately leads to a weakening of traditional morality based on truth being the basis of trust and modern ethics based on trusting the ethics of personal accountability of self and others. A break down in these Big Issues – morality and ethics – leads to the diminution of open and transparent democratic institutions and organizations.

In the Settler version this is more likely to be in the defence of socially small-c conservative attitudes and rejection of the validity of obeying rules and laws that they think stupid – they over index at 127 on the STUPID LAW Attribute:

I don’t believe that the law is always right. I feel that, when I think a law is stupid, it’s OK not to obey it.

Interestingly this is about the same index as the Pioneer HONEST rejecters. The difference between the two is the tight correlation between the Pioneer rejecter espousal of INQUISITIVE (questioning everything including themselves) and STUPID LAW; and the SETTLER tight correlation between NON-REFLECTIVE (not questioning themselves about anything) and STUPID LAW.

The case could be made that the Settler version is much more emotional and spontaneously reactive, compared to a ‘rational choice’, made before their reaction, that would typify many Pioneer behaviours.

Given that the data so far has shown a deeply emotionally defensive attitude to hope and control of change it is more than likely that any rule or law that is deemed ‘stupid’ will be emotionally defended if caught out. Other data we have looked at would tend to suggest that some passionate arguments would be made along the lines of “it’s not fair”, “other people do it", “you’re just picking on me because…”. This would include all forms of self-justification predicated on a refusal to look at themselves and rooted in a fairly fatalistic view that their life will continue to hand them a raw deal.

As noted above, there is a covert aspect to the part of their values system that could lead to anti-social behaviour and even violence. BENDER is that component.

Another two over-indexed Attributes the Settler HONEST rejecters espouse are more on the dark side than the pessimistic side.

The first of these is something that does get them excited. This is measured by the SIMMER Attribute.

The thought of social disorder excites me. I would enjoy being involved in a street riot.

This looks quite disturbing to the majority of the population, who reject this set of statements. But this is a common factor between all three Maslow Groups who are HONEST rejecters. But not all Maslow Groups use this the same way as a motivation that precedes action.

It is useful to note this Attribute is an indication of the Pioneers welcoming ‘another experience in life’ – more of an interested observer than an active rioter, wrecking property and justifying violence as a release of frustrations.

It is also valid to note that the Prospector rejecter is likely to see these occasions as ‘events’ that give them the opportunity to ‘be seen to be seen’, an opportunity to create or enhance their image to others. Though they may be active participants – dependent on the image they wish to burnish – it is still more playful (playing a role) than political. This is why demonstrations that are billed as ‘political’ often attract HONEST rejecting Prospectors with an opportunity for ‘street theatre’, or ‘agitprop’ events.

Both of these are likely to differ from the Settler approach of the HONEST rejecters. Given their reluctance to hope for something better and to not believe they will make a difference, even if they try to create some control over their life anything - political actions is unlikely to attract them.

Much of the excitement and violence that is assumed to occur in riot situations remains in the daydreams of the Settlers – and stays off the streets for the most part. Primarily passive and irresolute in their approach to life they will fantasize about civil disobedience rather than become a ‘street fighting man’.

But in circumstances where civil disobedience occurs, it is the Settler rejecters who are likely to be swept up in the disturbances if the circumstances are spontaneous and consequences are not thought through.

The London riots of 2012, some of the street parties going against Covid lock down orders during 2020-21, football crowds outside grounds giving the police and security guards problems, etc. are all examples of the type of disturbances Settler HONEST rejecters are more likely to get involved with at different times.

But in the end, because of the non-reflective nature of their values system, they are unlikely to place any deep meaning on the experience, or think about what really happened and what their role in it was. Instead they are more likely to express their opinion about it as not feeling real and more ‘like being in a movie”, or ‘being like a computer game’.

The other dark side Attribute is one they share with the Prospector HONEST rejectors – ranked 8 out 118 – but ranked 4th among these Settlers. This is one of the strongest indicators of the use of violence as a fact of life in the whole survey – CATHARSIS:

I believe that violence is just a part of life. I think that, when you can’t take it anymore and feel like you’re about to explode, a little violent behaviour can relieve the tension.

This would seem to be a very significant indicator pointing to small (personal) and large scale (social) affects that would have grave consequences to those involved.

The normalization of violence can never be seen as a ‘good thing’ to people who believe trust is an enormous factor in a healthy society. And the use of violence as a way of ‘clearing the air’ is not a justifiable defence in societies that encourage ‘dialogue’ to clear up frustrations. In a climate of lies and half-truths generated by HONEST rejecters violence and dialogue are less likely to resonate as viable options.

But the preceding analysis illustrates that it is unlikely these Settlers will actualize the violence they perceive as normal. They will however be less inclined to disapprove of violence conducted by ‘others like themselves’. To those they use justifications like, “they had no choice”, “the other guy started it”, “what else were they supposed to do?”.

However, that does not stop them judging others ‘not like us’ in harsh stereotypical terms like, “they are all like that”, “you can’t trust them, they were brought up different”, or the more dehumanizing pretext for violence, “they’re all animals”.

This is likely to remain an internal monologue, only revealed to others they think of as being like themselves – and unlikely to lead to violence they personally perpetrate.

But … they are open to exploitation by populist politicians and communications warning of the danger of ‘the other’, i.e. anyone with ideas different than their own.

This is a process that looks something like the following.

They may come across something targeting their values on a website, follow up the original communique and gradually absorb the message into their values system – if it is a ‘voice’ that resonates with their values system. If they get around to attending an event where there are other like-minded participants (unlikely, as most Settlers are not activists) they can be guided towards spontaneous violence.

This is a process that has been exploited by populist groups and politicians in the United States and there are some signs here in the UK that it could be exploited here in the coming years. The anarchic crowd that broke through barriers and broke windows to climb inside the Senate building in Washington D.C., as the vote to certify the election of the President of the United States was occurring, is an example of this.

A deliberate lie, led to a populist message very likely created by a Prospector HONEST rejecter, turned into violence, by people who normally wouldn’t be found in political party or community organizations.

This is atypical of the Settler HONEST rejecter, but it just goes to show anything is possible by ‘bad actors’, if given sufficient time and resource to stir up the usually passive Settlers.

Lastly, there is INDULGENT DIET:

For me, it is NOT important to watch what I eat and drink in order to keep healthy. I know I have an unhealthy lifestyle, but I enjoy it.

After all the commentary on violence and social upheaval this might seem trivial and incidental. Finally a break in the bleakness of the HONEST rejecting Settlers! Or is it?

Denial of the consequences of behaviours is a thread that runs through the values system of these Settlers – and this is no different. Enjoying something as basic as the food e eat is important to all human beings. But most people will try to balance out the good and nutritious with the slightly dodgy but fun diet. The HONEST rejecting Settlers, pessimistic and skeptical of any authority that is not like them (from dietary experts to healthy eating ‘influencers’) know their diet is unhealthy but chose not to change their behaviour – which is consistent with their orientation that it won’t change anything anyway.

Making appeals to them based on dying younger or having a shorter ‘healthy living’ length of life, or being a drain on the NHS with the consequences of their behaviours (obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart and circulation problems, etc.) is likely to have little effect on changing their diet. An unhealthy diet might be justified on economic grounds, “a good diet cost’s too much” (something that is socially acceptable). But it can also be justified as “I don’t have a lot in life and not much to look forward to – so why shouldn’t I eat what I like, and not be made to feel guilty by experts (the people unlike me)”.

Denial and a basic fatalism drive these HONEST rejecting Settlers – and even their diet is a reflection of their behaviour and values system. This same orientation will be seen in their approach to the consumption of alcohol and use of tobacco products. Pioneers and Prospectors also use these types of substances - but are less likely to continue with the behaviours when they start impacting on their health. As noted previously their ability to be use self-reflection and a more optimistic outlook leads to easier behaviour change. The Settlers have less of these virtues and therefore find it harder to change. Indulgence (a lack of balance) is a way of achieving a small success in terms of control, i.e. “it may be bad for me, but I like it”.

Summary: Fatalistic and passive they are attracted to thoughts of violence but unlikely to act upon their fantasies. Their basic submissive natures can lead them following ‘strong men’ type leaders. Not having a strong sense of a ‘better future’ they are likely to be chaotic in their immediate life. A distrust of experts, because ‘everyone lies’, they are more likely than others to seek immediate gratification and be in denial of longer term consequences.