Many aspects of our personality are driven by forced this/that decisions we must make in early childhood. This addresses one of the more significant social ones.
This could be considered an amalgam of several cultural dimensions, but this revolves specifically in how we handle secrets.
This domain connects closely with the Good Faith Spectrum, and is somewhat “spiky” within each of us based on our individual risk assessment of specific secrets. However, we often bias one way or another in the absence of sufficient information.
Before continuing, let’s define a secret:
- Information that could affect someone’s decision or opinion of someone else
- That someone probably doesn’t have that information
- There are potentially dramatic consequences if others were to find out that information
The Protectors
Most people have been trained from childhood to believe that transparency has inherent risks:
- They may have gotten in trouble for speaking the truth.
- They might have profited from nondisclosure.
- They may have been afraid of sharing information, and were proven right.
- They might have seen someone else’s experiences of the above.
Whatever the case, they have come to believe that secrets are generally meant to be kept. They work to preserve society and maintain social cohesion and harmony.
The consequence of this value system means there is a composed layer of information for every alleged fact:
- The fact itself
- The scarcity of people knowing this fact
- The social impact of that fact being disclosed
- The type of behavior necessary to manage that scarcity and social impact
Therefore, almost every piece of information has a mandatory maintenance requirement.
- In larger groups, they can often become very skilled at managing who knows what.
- That maintenance requirement means they become very savvy at seeing information they’d have to maintain (i.e., “plausible deniability”).
These people, in summary, are the information “Protectors”.
The Reals
A minority of people, however, have come to believe something different since childhood:
- They may have been exposed to zero adverse consequences for stating what they saw.
- They may have profited from the public chaos that ensued from outing something.
- They could have an obsessive interest in the truth, transparency, or audacity.
- Like the Protectors, they could have seen someone else’s experiences of the above.
However it happened, they have come to believe disseminating information has implicit merit.
These people have developed a purpose-driven mindset that doesn’t concern itself too much with what the information contains.
- The more scandalous and concealed, the more they’ll latch onto it.
- They’re always in the minority, so they’ll often conclude the battle for transparency is worth fighting for.
New information, to them, is always welcome, since it fuels good decisions without any maintenance costs.
These people are simply “Real”.
Dirty lenses
Since these represent such distinct and irreconcilable views, the following is a depiction of them from the opposite viewpoint.
The Reals (as perceived by Protectors)
The Reals are a direct assault on everything the Protectors stand for, even when they keep their mouth shut.
- Reals are reckless with their words, and just say things without thinking about them.
- They are shameful, and say and bring shame on everyone they’re around.
They only say things to others for some agenda they wish to advance.
When they repent over anything, they clearly are hiding more than what they say, which means one of the following:
- They are master manipulators, and are saying the lesser crime to hide the greater one.
- They expect a diminished punishment for their openness.
In other words, they shouldn’t be trusted, and represent a risk to society.
- Leaders should quarantine these people to the best of their ability.
- Members should follow their leaders in that purpose to prevent further risks.
These people are unkind, insufferable jerks, and their only rehabilitation is through more temperance and consideration.
The Protectors (as perceived by Reals)
The Protectors are concealed because they are afraid of something, and never say things plainly.
- Even when directly asked, Protectors hedge their words and don’t disclose what they really think.
- They are clearly are afraid of a legitimate confrontation, and bring shame upon themselves through their cowardice.
When they ever do disclose information, they treat it like it’s a big deal, which implies they’re hiding more information.
In other words, they shouldn’t be trusted, and represent a risk to the truth.
- Leaders shouldn’t trust their silence.
- Members should watch for their sneaky tactics.
These people are cowardly snakes, and their only rehabilitation is through their secrets coming to light.
Propagation of Both
With respect to personality, this tends to represent as the difference between one’s desire for truth (Conscientiousness) and social harmony (Agreeableness).
Society seems to provide some distinctive patterns where each show up more often:
- Within social classes – the underclass has more Reals while the upper class has more Protectors
- Within neurodivergence – autism are almost always (painfully) Reals, while narcissists are almost always (painfully) Protectors
- Within leadership – managers and large-scale leaders must adopt at least some Protectorship, while workers and low-level managers must have some Realness
- Within Christian religion – ironically, the Bible itself advocates being Reals (within reason), but the culture skews toward Protectors (due to perpetual religiousness)
The risks for Reals
Since most of them have been dealing with truth more regularly, they are more likely to integrate their shadow self, which comes with the benefits of more self-awareness.
This sounds like a good thing, but they tend to stumble onto taboos more often, and are typically unafraid to confront them, so society will oftem pushes back against them or their assertions.
At the farthest end, it’s not uncommon for them to carry out lives of general alienation due to the truths they weren’t willing to put away for the sake of coexistence.
To conform to society, they will be forced to develop a few skills:
- Humor, to soften the blows of the truths they deliver.
- Patience with Protectors being unable to use language appropriately to say what must be said
- Acceptance over what Protectors may not be ready to hear, and the art of not saying The Patently Obvious Thing
The risks for Protectors
Their social management skills are highly effective, meaning they can expertly handle most casual conflicts effortlessly, and may even be superb with crucial conflicts.
The consequence, however, is the prioritization of resources toward seeing the image over the truth, and their journey will not naturally lead to an integrated shadow.
To keep the truth in focus, they must develop a few skills:
- Sincerity with themselves and others (i.e., abandon lying entirely)
- Open-mindedness toward Reals who say controversial things
- Acceptance over information that can’t be suppressed any longer
The cold reality for both
This entire arrangement is unpleasant for both sides.
- Protectors have constant chaotic Reals coming in to destroy their otherwise well-crafted system.
- Reals have to deal with being direct, hostile antagonism from Protectors.
If this social reality is parsed deeply enough, it is a disgusting duality, with no universally better way to decide: live by truth or conform to society, choose connection or self-sufficiency.
Yet another disgusting reality comes through why this exists, and it sits exclusively with the ever-present reality of our inescapable sin nature: there would be no need for Protectors if nobody hid their sins.
There really is no reconciling these views, and all we can do is to succeed within our lanes:
- Protectors will succeed socially, and will attribute that success through outward influence, at the expense of their personal development.
- Reals will succeed against the majority, at the expense of fitting into the crowd.
Whether this whole endeavor is worth it has a lot to do with your metaphysics: