Generic REASON rejecters

“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. Generic REASON rejecters


Demographically, they are slightly over-indexed among men (male 111/women 89); among the 18-44 age groups with almost a straight-line decline from the 18-21's (index 139) to the over 65's (index 51), and in the C2 (116).

These people reject the notion that rationality - thinking about and having a reason for doing something - is the way they think. This non-thinking approach to life would seem to indicate that some of their frames for thinking would be inclined to be more emotional than rational, likely to be driven by emotional impulsivity than delayed gratification; and that they might be risk takers with anti-social attitudes willing to use some violence to ‘get their way’. There is no significant differentiation between Maslow Groups, more difference between Values Modes – as can be seen in the following Terrain Map.

Figure 2. Generic REASON rejecters

Only the Transcenders differ significantly from the base of rejectors – The Golden Dreamer and Brave New World Values Modes are over-indexed but not significantly.

Given that ‘all rejecters of REASON’ contain several Attributes that can indicate an orientation to some degree of fantasy, risk taking and violence, it seems logical to do a bit more digging into the data on REASON.

REASON rejecters make up about a third of the population – but there is also a smaller core of rejecters who reject REASON even more strongly. These people are more certain of their rejection of REASON than ‘all espousers’. They can be called ‘core rejecters’ and although small in number (just under 8% of the population)they are more differentiated in both Maslow Groups and Values Modes than all rejecters. Let’s take a look at them a bit closer to see if they are amplified in the areas of fantasy, risk taking and violence.

Figure 3. Core REASON rejecters

Demographically, these people show no significant difference in indexing between male and female (111 male/89 female). In terms of age there are only two groups showing any significant deviation from the national base; the 18-21 over-indexing (273) and the over 65’s under-indexing (58). There is no differentiation by SEG.

It is clear that the split between Maslow Groups is very different between all REASON rejecters and core REASON rejecters. In this segment of rejecters the Prospectors are significantly under-indexed (70), while the Settlers are significantly over-indexed (132). The Pioneers are more or less average at 103.

A Terrain Map view of the core rejecters shows them very concentrated an area of the Values map that's far sideways from the heart of ‘all rejecters’ of REASON.

Figure 4. Core REASON rejecters

This clearly shows that the core rejecters of REASON are more likely to be among the Settlers, and especially the Roots Values Mode – indexing at more than twice the rate of all rejecters.

The Attribute analysis highlights the rejection of violence and the espousal of a more submissive orientations (ACQUIESENCE 146, PESSIMISM 140, NON-REFLECTIVE 139) but retaining their impulsivity and fantasy orientations (INDULGENT DIET 159, BUDGET BEDLAM 148, IMPULSIVE SPENDER 144, BENDER 136). The combination of these Attributes presents a picture of people who are more of a danger to themselves than they are to society at large – though their orientations can lead to consequences for financial services they use, and support functions of government and local services, e.g. NHS and social services. Many people with this set of motivations will be major users of social and community services designed for those who have ‘fallen through the net’ at a relatively early age, i.e. not among those who have ‘learned from life’ and have mitigated some consequences of their inclinations.

This, potentially, is an explanation of why evidence-based data and rational step-by-step guides to behaviour modification, issued by reputable and well-meaning organizations and individuals, seem to fall on deaf ears. It is also a good place to start thinking about some of the subconscious motivations among those suffering from the consequences of their values set - their self-destructive lifestyles, from obesity to financial chaos to petty crime and a generalized lack of self-agency to change anything.

But, for our current purpose, this level of analysis is useful to know. This group's primarily acquiescent nature and small numbers suggest that, in terms of cultural impact, they are likely to be less influential within society than others who have a different stance in relation to the rejection of REASON.

It's now the time to look at the rejecters of REASON in the same manner that we looked at the espousers of the Attribute – through the lens of the Maslow Groups and their top over-indexed Attributes and the demographic indicators that place them in context of the British population.

This should cut through to insights that are useful for diagnosing beliefs and motivations; and other insights more useful in the establishment of policies and processes for the implementation or amelioration of affects stemming from this powerful set of motivations.

The first step is to take an overall, comparative view before diving deeper into the motivational sets of the three Maslow Groups.

Figure 5 An overview of the 3 species of REASON rejecters.

Significant Demographic index variations:

Pioneers - Age: over-indexed 18-24 (165); straight-line decline until under-indexed at 65+ (70). No gender variation. No SEG variation.

Prospectors - Age: over-indexed 18-21 (162); 22-24 (152); 25-34 (131); 35-44 (141); then steady decline until 65+ (27). No gender variation. No SEG variation.

Settlers - Age: over-indexed 45-54 (147); under-indexed 22-24 (37); under-indexed 65+ (63). No gender variation. SEG: over-indexed C2 (162); DE (159); under-indexed AB (53).