REASON rejecters - Species SETTLER

“I believe strongly in thinking things through when making a decision.
I always try to identify the reasons for my actions.”

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

Figure 1. REASON rejecters - Species SETTLER


Settlers only share two over indexed Attributes with all rejecters of REASON: CATHARSIS and BUDGET BEDLAM.

Over-indexed CATHARSIS (155) is characteristic of mainstream REASON rejecters of all stripes. However, unlike the more active Prospectors, the Settlers are more passive, and their propensity to violence is mitigated within their system of over-indexed Attributes. CATHARSIS is their most powerful motivator – so it is important to examine their other key indexed Attributes to see how they 1) amplify or 2) mitigate the orientation.

Their rejection of REASON orients them to immediate short term ‘gut’ reactions to situations that more appropriately call for a pause and a step back for a better perspective. In life many situations are likely to be more complex than first assumed. Understanding this complexity (and often ambiguity) is facilitated and measured by the espousal of the REASON Attribute.

Wanting to have simple solutions but being stymied by complexity of life can, and is likely to, be a factor in reaching for a cathartic motivational set to reduce complexity; i.e. "might equals right" is an obvious answer in ambiguous circumstances to those espousing CATHARSIS. The phrase within the definition of CATHARSIS “a little violent behaviour can relieve the tension” is at the top of their mind in many ‘confusing’ situations.

Thankfully for them and the rest of society their second most over-indexed Attribute is ACQUIESCENCE. Settler REASON rejecters over-index on this Attribute 54% more than the whole population – a significant mitigation against their acceptance of violence as a way of expressing their views. They are much more likely than the population to feel they don’t have much to hope for in life and nothing much excites them today. This is a social and personal numbness to much of what happens to them in their world and the world around them. It is one of the prime factors in their ‘small life/small world’ orientation to their interactions with others – a way to justify their passivity at a personal level when faced with complexity and ambiguity. This alienation of the REASON rejecters at a personal and cultural level creates a natural barrier to change, i.e. “Why change? Nothing will happen anyway”. This Attribute should always be kept in mind.

They are 52% more likely than the population to espouse INDULGENT DIET. They believe that it is not important what they eat, and they do know they lead an unhealthy lifestyle. This could be seen as happy-go-lucky approach to diet, something that might occur with Prospectors having a good time. But given the basic passive acceptance of life, more pessimistic than optimistic, it is likely this is another reflection of their anomie and lack of self-perceived personal empowerment.

Given their downmarket and likely working poor older age group demographic, coupled with the BUDGET BEDLAM over-index (139) it is likely that many of these REASON rejecting Settlers will justify their lack of care for their diet as a function of their (as they see it) inability to afford to eat healthily. The whole profile of this group suggests it is unlikely that ‘logical and reasonable’ suggestions or guidelines will shift either their self-opinions or behaviours towards better diets and lifestyles. “Experts” are likely to be dismissed as people ‘who just have an opinion”. That doesn’t mean that they won’t be looking on social media for ways to change their health if it fails. But they are likely to listen to others ‘like me’ (testimonials by ordinary people) rather than experts. Social media algorithms are likely to guide them to sites that offer ‘alternative’ methods of health care, that often peddle ‘health cures’ available to those who reject mainstream solutions, from which these people feel alienated.

Perversely, they can end up having their finances in a chaotic state because of being exploited by alternative approaches to health, that costs them more than fresh vegetables, fresh air and walking that can be done for free. They are truly rejecting REASON and reacting with their guts.

Probably a whole book could be written about this set of Attributes; and their correlation with chronic ill health is caused by lifestyle choices rather than disease, i.e. obesity, type two diabetes, heart and circulation issues, smoking complications, etc. It seems likely that REASON rejecters, and especially the Settlers, will have been resistant to the social messaging, that has been going on for decades, about the need to moderate or eliminate factors that increase the potential to develop self-induced long-term illness.

REASON rejecting Settlers lack of self-agency when faced with complex, ambiguous and long terms issues. But their ability to project short term gut reaction onto ‘out groups’, who they define as ‘causes’ of their dissatisfaction with life in general, displays no such limitations.

They are 42% more likely than the population to espouse the TWO CLASSES Attribute:

I believe that people can be divided into two classes – the weak and the strong.
I think that issues of societal advantage or disadvantage are spurious.

This is unlike the other Maslow Groups. This is an acceptance of the injustices in life and a denial of the validity of measures to address them. In terms of the demographics, these Settler REASON rejecters are likely to be on the receiving end of cultural injustices. Down market and older, they are likely be disadvantaged in terms of achieving a good and satisfying life.

It would seem ‘reasonable’ that they would oppose the injustices that prevent them achieving more. But what other research shows is that this tends to correlate with negative attitudes towards those who are more disadvantaged than themselves – immigrants, people of colour, gender specific self-identities, people even more financially insecure than themselves, etc. The lack of social power is seen as seen as a given, i.e. it is just natural that there are those who are ‘weak’ and those who are ‘strong’. By extension, anyone who wants to change the power relationship are ‘going against nature’. This can drive many issues to do with race, gender and class – outside the purview of reason, and into the space of REASON rejection.

If the Settler REASON rejecter perceives that a person or group is weak, with less social position/social power than themselves, they are likely to resist any efforts by those groups to improve themselves. They represent a threat to their own position – something that is ‘unnatural’. This attitude is based on spurious grounds and therefore illegitimate and offensive when allowed to actuate. Jonathan Haidt comes close to defining their attitude as a ‘revulsion’ at the other group, having a deep gut feel that these others are potentially less than human and ‘disgusting’.

They are unlikely to lead any action against an outgroup or individual, because their espousal of ACQUIESCENCE tends to mitigate their revulsion turning to anti-social behaviour. But the behaviour is potentially just below the surface in their minds and can be sparked off by anti-social populist rhetoric that is based on grievances about ‘the other’ having more power than they do. This causes these Settlers to believe that they are being victimized by those who are trying to supress the 'rightful' order. The ‘proper’ order can often be typified by a nationality, a skin colour, a gender, etc. and forms the basis of much authoritarian messaging and group identities in all cultures. A gut driven ideology that is not open to reason.

Another form of this orientation among the Settler REASON rejecters is measured by the UNOBLIGED Attribute:

I feel that people who meet with misfortune have brought it on themselves.
I see no reason why rich people should feel obliged to help poor people.

Those in the general population who espouse UNOBLIGED rank CATHARSIS first among 118 Attributes and TWO CLASSES is ranked at number 5.

This extreme version of ‘justified abrogation of compassion for others’ is a hall mark of the REASON rejecting Settler, much more so than other Maslow Groups. The whole thrust of small ‘L’ liberal governments in the Western world over the last 100 years, and even more since the end of WW2, has been to reject this notion and build the edifice of political thought on shared values that negate the affects of this type of thinking.

This is the gut level reaction to complex situations. The espousal of this by REASON rejecters means that it is not open to logical argumentation, or a ‘pause for thought’. The layered Attributes system of thought is self-generated and a values set that is extremely difficult to engage with – it is not reasonable and it is fired by a feeling of revulsion to those who do not espouse it. Issues like taxation as a means of addressing inequalities of wealth and institutionalized lack of life opportunities are gut issues for REASON rejecters – and this is one of the reasons. It is not about money – it is about power relations and lack of compassion for others. The espousal is spread among all socio-economic groups, but tends to be more marked in the under 35’s and more skewed to males (60%) than females. Many younger men orientated to right-wing populism will intellectually justify their financial political attitudes with this single Attribute – when in fact this is part of an overall syndrome.

The final factor that brings a harsh edge to the values set of the Settler REASON rejecter is their attitude – once again atypical of the geeneric profile of the group – is the edgy WHIP Attribute (index 146):

I believe that sex crimes, such as rape and attacks on children, deserve more than mere imprisonment.
I think that such criminals ought to be publicly whipped, or worse.

Settler rejecters of REASON have an orientation towards punishment that pushes the boundaries of ‘reasoned’ diagnosis and search for solutions to address emotive issues in criminality. Gut reactions to injustices that society deems beyond petty crimes are driven by non-reason and emotions. Their reactions are not driven by ethical considerations that ask “what happens after the whipping and public humiliation?”, or “is society now safer because of the punishment?”. Their reactions are more likely to follow their systems of values that essentially dehumanizes others different from themselves.

Their orientation is to a morality that is based on satisfaction of needs for safety, security and belonging – protecting themselves from the vicissitudes of life. Their morality depends on being aware of threats to their small world - and their world is full of threats.

As noted previously, in this REASON rejecter world, their emotions skew towards a feeling of disgust at those who are perceived as threats to ‘order’. To them there ‘should be’ an inherent order to the world, a deep sense that the world in understandable and consistent; and ‘good people’ know the rules and live in accordance with them. By extension those who ‘should know’ the rules and chose to transgress them are ‘bad people’, or ‘immoral people’ – breaking the rules of good/moral people. Crime creates chaos and ‘disorder’ in place of order, i.e. disorder is a corruption of moral values.

Punishment for the breaking of the ‘natural order’ is a moral issue and for some crimes their disgust at the perpetrators of the crime, and revulsion at the crime, call for public humiliation – not locking away so that the criminal and the crime are hidden from the public.

There is likely to be a real feeling of satisfaction – a “warm fuzzy” – when the REASON rejecter Settler observes, participates in, or calls for more extreme punishments; a feeling that the world is moral and good and that evil is being punished.

These final few Attributes can seem to present an ‘old fashioned’ view of the world and others in it. But this is today – and this is a system of values that persists among Settlers who reject REASON.

To many in the UK these are values that confound and confuse them. Typical questions might be, “how could they think like this?”, and "are these people dangerous to social justice" as it has developed over the last 100 years, when ‘stocks’, public whipping and hanging have passed into history?”.

The saving grace is that the Settlers are the least likely of all Groups to act out their thoughts. Their essential passivity and lack of motivation to change things mitigates their potential to actuate their current (passive) behaviours. Today they are unlikely to lead a braying mob – but that is not to say they could not be stirred to supporting populist calls for increased measures of retribution.

Followers of social trends should beware authoritarian tendencies in cultures – including the UK in 2022. REASON rejecting Settlers have the potential to exhibit and support extreme versions of morality. This support is based on the assumption of a ‘natural order’ that people should respect. Their version of the natural order is likely to be an extension of the status quo as it existed sometime in the past. Today is seen as chaotic and dangerous and, by adopting a small monochrome view of the world, morality and safety/security can be maintained.

Summary: The REASON rejecting Settlers display a consistent values set that is highly moralistic, judgemental and that relates to Attributes consistent with values that were more dominant in times past. But this is a group that may support authoritarian movements in the future – and justify this on moral, unquestioning, grounds. Their emotion driven thoughts and behaviours should be understood in this context and efforts to deal with this orientation need to take this type of analysis into consideration.