Honor is the demand for appreciation of integrity.
Integrity is the possession of fixed habits of thought. Integrity can also be phrased as the tendency to adhere to one’s principles, or to “stick to your guns”. This is a virtue among friends and allies because the predictability of behavior it produces allows for communication and collaboration in pursuit of common ends.
Recognition of integrity is necessary for a man to develop a reputation of integrity. When I say “demand” for recognition, I mean this both in the typical sense and in the economic sense. A TT, for example, may have integrity and may or may not be recognized for it, but they don’t demand recognition either for themselves or for others. Thus, they have little to no concept of honor. An MM may or may not actually have integrity, but they will demand recognition for it. Therefore, they often have honor and always wish to be seen as honorable.
Typically, the honorable and dishonorable can be distinguished by projection- an honorable man will almost always insist on recognition for integrity when it appears in others. A dishonorable man may give the appearance of this but his appreciation will be a poor predictor of actual honor. I suspect T-front is a good predictor of undervaluation for the reputation part, and T-back is a good predictor for undervaluation of integrity itself. (Here it may be helpful to note that the working definition of integrity does not require honesty, although habitual honesty is a type of integrity.) Therefore, an MT will value integrity highly but fail to demand public recognition of it. For example, pinning a medal on an MT (or a TT) in front of a cheering crowd is a great way to make them feel like they’re being punished for something horrible they did.
A TM will demand public recognition of integrity, but internally not value the thing itself very much. They are thus the most likely of the Edenic types to be seen as dishonorable. A T-back will often privately recognize integrity if you ask them directly: “Can we trust X to continue being Y in situation Z?” But it’s a cold observation of some abstract parameter about an object showing predictable behaviors, rather than a valuation of a human subject. They don’t see much point in talking about it except when it’s instrumental to something else, like accounting for biases in a witness’s account. For example, when I describe Koanic and Vox Day as extremely consistent, I don’t mean it as a compliment or an insult. It’s just a property of the material, like the rigidity of a metal, which predicts how frequently they will change form.
There’s a common lower class speech that I like to mock which goes “You gotta respeck me! You disrespeckin and I’ma disrespeck you back but you want respeck you gotta respeck me first!” There’s wisdom hiding in this bravado. Effectively, it’s a claim to belong in the class of honorable men who can bargain and negotiate with each other on reasonable terms.
The problem is that the signal tends to be a counterfeit because it’s so easy for impulsive people to claim, right before impulsively victimizing someone and back-rationalizing it as justifiable. Hence the misspellings above, which are meant to represent the tendency for the unintentional associated signals (speech patterns, etc.) indicating contradictory values. It’s not exactly impossible for a poor person to have integrity, but it is unlikely. People atomized by hard economic realities have greater difficulty forming habits of thought, just as wagies who don’t know what their hours will be next week can hardly form habits of behavior.
Two of the reasons highly virtuous people often enjoy imitating low-class behavior are 1) it filters for observers who can pick out the signal of integrity in the noise, and 2) it’s a form of peacocking, because integrity in a poor person signals greater inherent genetic character.