Forced this/that decisions in early grade school define many aspects of our personality and, more broadly, several cultural dimensions. This particular mechanism revisits the Good Faith Spectrum, but specifically for concealed information (i.e., secrets).
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
We tend to assess the risks of disclosed secrets different for each context, which makes them somewhat “spiky”. However, we often don’t have sufficient information, so we bias one way or another. This bias broadly classifies people into two camps based on what they believe is safer.
The Protectors
Most people have learned from childhood to believe transparency has inherent risks:
- They may have caused trouble for themselves by speaking the truth.
- They might have profited from nondisclosure.
- They may have been afraid to share information, but the consequences proved their intuition right.
- They might have witnessed someone else experiencing any of the above.
They have come to believe secrets should stay undisclosed. Whether for preserving society or personal gain, they work to maintain the precedent of not stating the unsaid things.
They typically don’t see it, but this value system takes work to maintain. Every alleged fact will contain an additional layer of information:
- The fact itself
- The scarcity of people knowing this fact
- The social impact of that fact’s disclosure
- The type of behavior necessary to manage that scarcity and social impact
In larger groups, they can frequently become very proficient with knowing who knows what information. This skill can make them very savvy at seeing the information they’d need to avoid holding (e.g., “plausible deniability”).
These people, in summary, are the information “Protectors”, and they represent most people in society.
The Reals
A minority of people, however, have come to believe something entirely different since their childhood:
- They may have experienced zero adverse consequences for stating what they saw.
- They may have profited from the public chaos that ensued from outing something scandalous.
- They could have an obsessive interest in the truth, transparency, or audacity.
- Like the Protectors, they could have witnessed someone else experiencing any the above.
They have come to believe there is implicit merit in disseminating previously undisclosed information. They have a purpose-driven mindset more concerned about delivering the truth than planning for its consequences.
New information, to them, is always welcome, since it fuels good decisions without the maintenance costs of the Protectors.
These people are simply “Real”. They’re almost always in the minority of any group, and are usually outliers (either leaders or on the fringe).
Dirty lenses
These represent very distinct and irreconcilable views. We can best understand both of them by seeing how the other side sees them.
The Reals (as seen 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 simply say things without thinking about them.
- They say shameful things, which brings condemnation and strife on everyone they’re around.
- Even when what they’re saying affects the group at large, they simply want to watch everything burn.
They also only say things to others for an agenda they’re trying to advance.
- The more scandalous and concealed, the more they’ll latch onto it.
- They’re unwilling to back down, even when informed over the risks of the information they’re trying to draw out.
Whenever they repent or take accountability for anything, they are clearly hiding more than what they say. Every possibility means they’re likely manipulating the situation. They’re either hiding the greater crime with the lesser one, or receiving less punishment through confessing.
These people are unkind, insufferable jerks, and their only rehabilitation is through more temperance and consideration. In failing that, they aren’t trustworthy and represent a risk to everyone’s way of life.
- Leaders should quarantine these people to the best of their ability.
- To prevent further risks, members should follow their leaders without question in preserving the institution.
The Protectors (as seen by Reals)
The Protectors never say things plainly, and they’re concealing information because they are afraid of something.
- Even when directly asked, Protectors hedge their words and don’t disclose what they really think.
- They are clearly afraid of a legitimate confrontation, which means they may be conspiring to prevent its disclosure.
- Their further inaction and avoidance means they have something to gain from keeping the secret hidden.
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 are shameful cowards, and untrustworthy because they can’t handle 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 represents 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:
- Social classes – the underclass has more Reals while the upper class has more Protectors
- Neurodivergence – autism is almost always (painfully) Real, while narcissism is almost always (painfully) Protector
- Leadership – leaders must adopt at least some Protectorship, while workers and low-level leaders must have some Realness
- Christian religion – while the Bible promotes being Real (within reason), the culture of Christianity skews toward Protector
The risks for Reals
Most Reals have been dealing with truth more regularly, so they are more likely to integrate their shadow self. This makes them more self-aware.
While this sounds like a good thing, they’ll approach taboos more often with less fear than Protectors. Society will frequently react harshly to them or their assertions. Depending on the truths they won’t compromise over, many of them have comparatively more antisocial lifestyles than Reals.
They must consciously develop a few skills to coexist in society:
- Humor, to soften their delivery of truths
- More patience with Protectors’ verbose and roundabout language
- Comfort with Protectors’ unwillingness to hear truth, which is the art of “Not Saying The Patently Obvious Thing”
The risks for Protectors
Their social management skills are highly effective, so they can usually handle most casual conflicts more easily than Protectors. Sometimes, their extra conflict skills will make them superb with crucial conflicts.
However, prioritizing their focus on the image over the truth makes integrating their shadow much more difficult. This makes them less self-aware.
They must consciously develop a few skills to keep the truth in focus:
- Sincerity with themselves and others (i.e., abandon lying entirely)
- Open-mindedness when Reals say controversial things
- Able to accept when privileged information can no longer stay hidden
The cold reality for both
This reality is an unpleasant duality with no right answer or third option: live by truth or conform to society. We get to choose connection or self-sufficiency.
- The cause is due to humanity’s inescapable sin nature. There would be no need Protectors or Reals if nobody hid their sins.
This entire arrangement is unpleasant for both sides.
- Protectors have constant Reals destroying their otherwise well-crafted social system.
- Reals face direct, hostile antagonism from the Protectors, who almost always represent a majority.
There is no way to reconcile these views, and each person must succeed by separate measurements:
- Protectors will succeed socially through outward influence, at the expense of their personal development.
- Reals will succeed against the majority, at the expense of fitting into the crowd.
Spanning across life, the “best” approach comes through our religious metaphysics: