To be able to identify low-H people is a useful skill. If you know who they are, you’re better equipped to avoid being exploited by them, whether in the next few minutes or many years down the road. Fortunately, some of the traits that indicate low H aren’t obviously undesirable, which means that low-H people won’t necessarily even try to conceal those aspects of their personalities.
If you want a really accurate idea of a person’s level of H, you will need to observe the whole array of H-related traits as expressed in diverse situations and on many occasions. Only by observing a wide range of the person’s behaviour, and appreciating the various contexts in which it occurs, can you have any justified confidence in your assessment. Your first impressions might be mistaken, and it’s easy to misdiagnose someone on the basis of a couple of isolated, ambiguous observations, particularly if you’re starting with some prejudice (whether positive or negative) toward that person. Having said this, there will be many situations where you don’t have the luxury of time and where your main motive is to avoid being exploited. In those cases it’s better to use what information you have and to err on the side of underestimating the person’s level of H.
In this chapter, we discuss some signs that can help you identify low-H people, and we offer some advice for living in a world that contains quite a few of them. But first, we should mention some signs that you might think would mean a person is high in H—but actually don’t.
The link between respectability and the H factor is easy to overestimate. Many people assume that a well-spoken, well-dressed, and well-mannered person must also be well intentioned. These outward signs of respectability probably do indicate a reasonable level of self-control—here is someone who at least understands and can conform to what society considers desirable behaviour. Conversely, if someone is foul-mouthed and rude and generally scary, that’s obviously not a good sign. The problem is that many low-H persons indeed have that reasonable level of self-control (recall Chapter 4). And some low-H people find that by appearing to be well socialized, it’s much easier to take advantage of others. (It’s harder to cheat people effectively if you look shady to them.) A respectable appearance is not a sure indication of trustworthiness.
It’s equally unwise to take it for granted that every respectable position in society is occupied by a high-H person. If someone has a respected occupation, a prominent role in their community, and a regular place at religious services, we can again infer that this person probably has a certain amount of self-control. But here the same point applies: many low-H people can navigate social relationships quite successfully, and many low-H people aspire to a position of high status.
Perhaps the flip side of respectability is anti-conformity. By this we mean a calculated effort to be visibly different from others and to bring attention to one’s defiance of convention. (This anti-conformity contrasts with the more natural nonconformity of people who happen to be different simply by being themselves.) For example, people who have an unusual style of dress might simply be expressing their personal taste—or they might be acting affectedly in an effort to appear special. The point is that anti-conformity isn’t the same thing as authenticity and doesn’t necessarily indicate a high level of H.
As we explained in Chapter 8, genuinely religious people tend to be somewhat high in H. But some people who publicly display their religiosity, such as by attending religious services or participating in religious rituals, are low-H people who are simply aiming to create an image of respectability and to maintain status within their community. The bottom line is that outward signs of religious commitment aren’t a dependable indicator of a high-H personality.
Some people vocally defend the disadvantaged and the oppressed, and many of those people are motivated by a sincere desire to promote social justice. But for some of these champions of the underdog, this role serves merely as a vehicle for obtaining a position of high status. When you see a prominent defender of the downtrodden, it isn’t immediately obvious whether that person is a high-H idealist or a low-H opportunist.
When people criticize, they sometimes sandwich their criticism between slices of self-professed honesty: “I’ll be honest with you … [insert rather hurtful summary of shortcomings here]. I’m just being honest.” Now, sometimes this criticism may be justified; it may even be constructive and meant genuinely for the good of its recipient. But some people use the being-honest gambit to make a virtue of their habit of delivering harsh comments. Having a low threshold for criticizing others is not normally an indication of high H. Instead, it’s generally an expression of low A and may even suggest a low level of H, particularly if the intent is really to undermine the listener’s self-esteem or their esteem for a third party.
On the surface, people who give their wealth away to some worthy cause would seem clearly to be high-H people. But this isn’t necessarily so. Instead, it depends a lot on whether the acts of philanthropy are intended for public display. If the donation is highly visible, being made amid great fanfare and ceremony, then there is no need to invoke a high level of H as a cause of the generosity. Instead, the gift is more accurately viewed as a kind of informal exchange of money for social status. Consider a wealthy person who has more than enough money to enjoy a luxurious lifestyle, but who lacks the esteem and respect of other prominent people. A major donation to (say) a hospital or a university or a museum or a park will attract a lot of positive attention from the media, from politicians, and from the general public. Thus, even among wealthy people who happen to be low in H, we can expect a great deal of high-profile philanthropy.
In fact, some people who are very low in H are also highly enthusiastic contributors to charity. You can probably recall at least some cases of people who advertise themselves as philanthropists, but have also been criminally convicted, usually for white-collar offences. (If you can’t remember any such cases, try searching the Internet with the keywords “philanthropist” and “convicted”.)
Philanthropic acts are much more likely to reflect a high level of H when the donor gives without seeking any attention. Donations made anonymously, or with instructions not to reveal the identity of the donor, are much more consistent with the outlook of high-H persons, because the gift is a genuine act of altruism rather than simply a purchase of social status.
This doesn’t mean that high-profile philanthropy is a sign that the donor has a low level of H. Some wealthy high-H people might feel a certain degree of social pressure to donate money, and they might want to make some publicly visible gifts in order to relieve that pressure, beyond any gifts that they might make (or might prefer to make) privately.
Even when publicly displayed generosity might not be motivated by a high level of H, it can still be beneficial to society. The very fact that social status must be purchased by making worthwhile gifts to the public good is encouraging, as it suggests that low-H people must play nice in order to have the respect they crave; they can’t simply bully or threaten us all. But then again, if the wealth of the low-H pseudo-philanthropist has been gained dishonestly, the net effect on society will still be negative.
It might seem obvious that you shouldn’t trust people who tell you—without joking—about various ways of breaking the law. But some people who brag about how to beat the system—for example, by evading income taxes or customs duties, or by stealing from businesses—may come across as roguishly charming and harmless. And they may rationalize their actions as being not really wrong, because no single person is directly harmed to any significant extent. Don’t be fooled: people who will cheat an institution will likely cheat individuals too, and that includes you.
Some people can be very friendly and polite and pleasant—but mainly toward people who have something they want, or who hold some position of influence. Sometimes you can observe this as a third party: consider the player who is attentive to a prospective conquest until he has sex with her, or the politician who is the best friend of whichever interest group must be courted next. It can sometimes be more difficult to discern this kind of ingratiation, as we saw in the study of co-workers in Chapter 5: unless you know a person very well, it isn’t easy to distinguish flattery from sincere respect, or affectation from genuine politeness. The point is simply that people who are selectively nice, reserving their affection and compliments for those who are or will be useful to them, are not likely to be loyal friends.
Some low-H individuals say that people who don’t act in this way are simply being naive, but in most cases this claim simply reflects their own cynicism. Many people are well aware that they could use false ingratiation as a way of getting what they want, and may even feel tempted to do so, but decline as a matter of principle to use such tactics. Apart from really dictatorial settings, where one’s welfare may really depend on the whims of powerful people, the use of ingratiation tactics is largely a function of a low-H personality.
Gamblers tend to be low in H. More precisely, people who often bet a lot of money—at casinos, on sports events, in card games, or whatever—usually have a low level of H, often combined with a low level of E. (People who become addicted to gambling are probably also low in C.)1 The same applies to people whose financial investments amount to short-term speculation, whether on currencies or commodities or real estate or stocks. Of course, many high-H persons will buy a weekly lottery ticket or play some low-stakes poker, and many high-H persons will invest money in business ventures that have a real risk of failure. But people who regularly risk a lot of money in gambling or speculation probably have a strong desire to get rich quickly or to get something for nothing. Such people tend to be low in the H factor, so it’s best not to be too trusting of them.
As we noted in Chapter 9, people who cheat on their romantic partners tend to be low in H, and the same is true of people who try to poach the partners of others. Although such persons will often find it wise to be subtle or sneaky in their behaviour, many of them are quite happy to express their cynical outlook on sexual relationships. Moreover, a low-H man is likely to boast about his sexual conquests, and a low-H woman is likely to boast about the material benefits of her relationships or the status of her partners. The point is that people who are sexually unfaithful to their partners, or who take an instrumental approach to sexual relationships, are likely to be low in the H factor.
A person who displays wealth ostentatiously is trying to signal that he or she is an important, high-status person. But what conspicuous consumption really signals is a low level of the H factor. Materialistic and ostentatious people tend to be selfish, deceitful, and insincere: people who want more than their share generally feel entitled to have more than their share, and they’re willing to take it by force or by fraud, if they judge that they will succeed in doing so. So when someone shows off a lot of expensive things—home, car, clothing, jewellery, food, drinks—you should be wary of getting into any business or romantic relationships with that person. The same goes for someone who is readily impressed with such displays and who aspires to match them.
Keep in mind that what matters here is the overall pattern of conspicuous consumption, not merely an isolated extravagance or two. For example, a high-H birdwatcher might own an expensive pair of binoculars, a high-H antiques fan might own an expensive old table, and a high-H car enthusiast might own an expensive automobile. But in those cases, the person probably appreciates the item for its intrinsic qualities rather than for its ability to impress other people. In contrast, it’s very unlikely that someone would own (or aspire to own) a wide variety of highly visible luxury items out of some intrinsic interest in each of those particular items. Most people who display many different kinds of expensive items are expressing a low level of H.
Low-H people sometimes defend greed on the grounds that it motivates hard work and innovation, thereby driving economic progress. (Recall the “greed is good” speech in the 1980s movie Wall Street.) Now, it’s true that people—even high-H people—generally prefer having more wealth and status rather than less, and that people are less likely to work hard and innovate if there is little reward for productivity. But this doesn’t mean that the greediest people—those who most desire money and luxury and power—will be particularly diligent or creative. On the contrary, the consistent finding in personality structure research is that materialistic, social-climbing people are no more hard-working or innovative than everyone else. What’s more, greedy people will try to get something for nothing: if they judge that they can get away with it, they’re happy to sell you things you don’t need, to sell you things that don’t work, and even to sell you things that could kill either you or the worker who made them.
Name dropping is analogous to conspicuous consumption, but the objects of display are social affiliations rather than material goods. Some people will bring your attention to their relationships with famous people or their memberships in prestigious institutions. Think of the person who displays photographs of himself or herself with celebrities or politicians, or who tells you all about his or her connections with those persons.
Some people decide that they belong to a special class of persons to whom the normal rules should not apply. Their self-appointed membership in this elite may be based on their social class or ethnicity, or on what they perceive to be their own superiority of intellect, or attractiveness, or athleticism, or talent, or any other asset. Depending on your own position in the pecking order as they see it (or as they would have you think they see it), they may assure you that you, too, belong to this elite. Don’t be seduced by this. When people see themselves as Nietzschean supermen and superwomen who should be exempt from the laws and norms that govern lesser beings, they will also feel quite justified in exploiting the latter in one way or another. You can see this when a high-ranking bureaucrat puts extravagant spending on the government’s tab, or when the board of directors awards its members a bonus at investors’ expense. But you also see this when wealthy or famous or high-ranking people are caught shoplifting (yes, shoplifting): they simply feel entitled to take without paying.
Incidentally, the self-appointed supermen and superwomen generally aren’t any more super than the rest of us. Even if we put aside their rather less-than-super approach to personal ethics, there is not much that is impressive about people who have a strong sense of entitlement: on average, they aren’t any tougher or prettier or smarter, and they don’t have any more talent or (genuine) charm. The low-H person tends to claim any of his or her personal strengths as proof of entitlement; the high-H person doesn’t.
By the way, don’t confuse this low-H attitude of entitlement with mere overconfidence. Some people are inclined to overestimate their abilities or attributes—say, their intelligence or athleticism or attractiveness—without seeing themselves as deserving of special status. By contrast, low-H people do see themselves as superior beings, but they don’t necessarily overestimate their own level of any particular asset.
People who are high in H don’t necessarily believe that all human groups are equal in every observable characteristic. But high-H people generally do believe that people of every group are deserving of dignity and fair treatment. Thus, when some people take delight in making disparaging comments about other groups, this is a sign of low H. For example, low-H people are more likely than high-H people to make ethnic jokes of any but the most good-natured variety. They’re also more likely to mock other groups or to make dehumanizing comments about them.
What should you do when you realize that someone is probably very low in H? First of all, don’t get carried away. It’s probably not a good idea to proclaim your diagnosis to others. And it’s definitely not a good idea to undertake any vigilante-style action against that person.
The best advice is simply to limit your interaction with people who are low in H. Don’t choose them as romantic partners. Don’t choose them as business partners. Don’t even choose them as tennis partners, or as bridge partners. Just stay away from them.
Now, if you’re a low-H person yourself, it’s not obvious what advice we should give you. On the one hand, high-H people won’t try to take advantage of you in the way that low-H people will, so you might be better off seeking the company of high-H people. On the other hand, you’ll much prefer the approach that your fellow low-H people take in dealing with the world. Probably your best bet is to figure out which low-H people would make the most effective allies in your quest for money and power, and then team up with them. Just be sure to watch them very carefully.
What if you’re already in close contact with a low-H person, either professionally or personally, and can’t easily get away? Don’t fool yourself into thinking that you can somehow teach a low-H person to appreciate the joys of being fair for the sake of fairness. The better approach is to find ways of aligning your interests with their interests, so that they get what they want by doing what you want. But we realize that it’s easier to say this than to do it, and the challenge is that the low-H person will always be alert to ways of exploiting you. Fortunately, the most serious forms of exploitation are recognized as crimes, so in the worst situations you should go to the police. As we discussed in Chapter 4, however, low-H people vary a great deal in their potential for really criminal, predatory behaviour, depending on their levels of the other personality dimensions. For example, a low-H person who is high in A, C, and E will probably be rather annoying, but he or she is much less likely to be a psychopathic or dangerous person than is someone who combines low levels of these traits with low H.
The flip side of avoiding low-H people is seeking out high-H people. As we explained in Chapter 6, people tend to form most of their close relationships with those who have similar levels of H and hence have similar values and world views. People generally aren’t even aware of this tendency, but if you’re a high-H person, you can make a conscious choice to associate with other high-H people. This strategy also applies to places: when deciding where to work or where to live, you can seek out organizations and communities that share the values of high-H people. By gaining the benefits of cooperation with one another, high-H persons can thrive in what often seems like a low-H world.