Authoritarianism...
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Thursday, January 5, 2017 01:16
VIEWED: 9901
PAGE 1 of 2
The book HKCavalier suggested is fascinating reading, and has done a lot to explain to me that it's not just "me" who sees the right the way I do; it's real. I highly recommend it for anyone else puzzled about why they are that way. We have a couple of very prime examples here, and once one understands, it explains them perfectly.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
Just one tiny excerpt that kinda sums up what I've seen and what started me wondering on the topic:
"Authoritarian followers drive through life under the influence of impaired thinking a lot more than most people do, exhibiting sloppy reasoning, highly compartmentalized beliefs, double standards, hypocrisy, self-blindness, a
profound ethnocentrism, and--to top it all off--a ferocious dogmatism that makes it unlikely anyone could ever change their minds with evidence or logic. These seven deadly shortfalls of authoritarian thinking eminently qualify them to follow a wouldbe dictator. As Hitler is reported to have said,“What good fortune for those in power that people do not think.”
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki, now that you've made it that far, try reading the outline in this link here.
http://www.naturalchild.org/alice_miller/adolf_hitler.html
And you'll realize why I attribute that behavior, which causes so much misery, to the way we treat our young, because bitter truth being, that IS where it comes from, the dark seed from which this bitter fruit grows, and unless we change our course, the harvest we shall reap from it will be grim indeed.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm interested by Prof. Altemeyer's definition and use of the term "Right-wing Authoritarian".
Quote:
Authoritarian followers usually support the established authorities in their society, such as government officials and traditional religious leaders. Such people have historically been the “proper” authorities in life, the time-honored, entitled, customary leaders, and that means a lot to most authoritarians. Psychologically these followers have personalities featuring:
1) a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in
their society;
2) high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and
3) a high level of conventionalism.
Because the submission occurs to traditional authority, I call these followers rightwing authoritarians. I’m using the word “right” in one of its earliest meanings, for in Old English “riht”(pronounced “writ”) as an adjective meant lawful, proper, correct,
doing what the authorities said.
So the folk who supported Pres. Wilson's Espionage and Sedition Acts by turning in suspicious neighbors and listening to their conversations on party lines might be termed "Right-wing Authoritarians" in Prof. Altemeyer's terms, as might the supporters of Hugo Chavez or Kim Jung Il.
So why not just call them "Authoritarians" or "Traditional Authoritarians"? The term Right-wing seems awfully loaded, especially for a book written for the North American market.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My bad; I should have put his explanation up first, for those who didn't know it. You conveniently left out the rest of his explanation. Here it is, IN TOTO:
Quote:I hope that clears it up; it is, indeed, in a way unfair to attribute these personality traits only to Conservatives, but I happen to agree with his rationale, so I accept the delineation. He mentions throughout the book where it might refer to left-leaning people, by the way.
Authoritarian followers usually support the established authorities in their society, such as government officials and traditional religious leaders. Such people have historically been the “proper” authorities in life, the time-honored, entitled, customary leaders, and that means a lot to most authoritarians. Psychologically these followers have personalities featuring:
1) a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in their society;
2) high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and
3) a high level of conventionalism.
Because the submission occurs to traditional authority, I call these followers rightwing authoritarians. I’m using the word “right” in one of its earliest meanings, for in Old English “riht”(pronounced “writ”) as an adjective meant lawful, proper, correct, doing what the authorities said. (And when someone did the lawful thing back then, maybe the authorities said, with a John Wayne drawl, “You got that riht, pilgrim!”)
In North America people who submit to the established authorities to extraordinary degrees often turn out to be political conservatives, so you can call them “right-wingers” both in my new-fangled psychological sense and in the usual political sense as well. But someone who lived in a country long ruled by Communists and who ardently supported the Communist Party would also be one of my psychological right-wing authoritarians even though we would also say he was apolitical left-winger. So a right-wing authoritarian follower doesn’t necessarily have conservative political views. Instead he’s someone who readily submits to the established authorities in society, attacks others in their name, and is highly conventional. It’s an aspect of his personality, not a description of his politics. Rightwing authoritarianism is a personality trait, like being characteristically bashful or happy or grumpy or dopey.
You could have left-wing authoritarian followers as well, who support a revolutionary leader who wants to overthrow the establishment. I knew a few in the 1970s, Marxist university students who constantly spouted their chosen authorities, Lenin or Trotsky or Chairman Mao. Happily they spent most of their time fighting with each other, as lampooned in Monty Python’s Life of Brian where the People’s Front of Judea devotes most of its energy to battling, not the Romans, but the Judean People’s Front. But the left-wing authoritarians on my campus disappeared long ago. Similarly in America “the Weathermen” blew away in the wind. I’m sure one can find left-wing authoritarians here and there, but they hardly exist in sufficient numbers now to threaten democracy in North America. However I have found bucketfuls of right-wing authoritarians in nearly every sample I have drawn in Canada and the United States for the past three decades. So when I speak of “authoritarian followers” in this book I mean right-wing authoritarian followers, as identified by the RWA scale.
Just out of curiosity, did you not read the explanation in its entirety, or did you merely quote the part you wanted to make your point? Just curious.
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem, you'll get NO argument from me! I'm pretty rabid on the subject. Especially observing the mentally-ill community, one can see SO much damage done to people by their parents, damage that will follow them the rest of their lives.
Given that childhood abuse (of all kinds) is what generally causes the genetic propensity for a mental illness to manifest, many, many of us have backgrounds we can thank for the struggles we experience...not to mention the subconscious scars from early messages which rule our reactions and beliefs despite our knowledge of the facts.
I'm always quoting Keanu Reeve's line from "Parenthood": "You have to get a license to drive, but any asshole can have kids".
I'll stop there, because if I continued, this would go on forever and be filled with 
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki,
So whats your answer... you have to have a license to have children?
Funny.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
So why not just call them "Authoritarians" or "Traditional Authoritarians"? The term Right-wing seems awfully loaded, especially for a book written for the North American market.
And in a move almost certain to be a signal of the End Times, I find myself agreeing with Geezer for the third time in a week. If this keeps up, we'll have to move to Vermont and get same-sex married! (Kidding)
This definition of "authoritarian" could also be applied to us on the left side of the aisle; after all, now that Obama's "The Man" and the lefties have taken over both houses of Congress, aren't WE the ones in authority, and aren't WE the ones decrying those who would flout that authority?
I try to keep a fairly adversarial relationship with my government, no matter which "side" wins the latest election. They ALL have "my best interests" in mind and in their hearts, but we may disagree quite vehemently about what those best interests really entail, and where their authority over my life ends and my authority over their jobs begins. :)
Truth be told, I tend to lean more libertarian, but it's a decidedly LEFT-leaning brand of libertarianism.
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Niki,
So whats your answer... you have to have a license to have children?
Funny.
Is it?
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No, Wulf, just that the remark expressed my disgust with how some parents behave toward their children. That you would make more of it than that speaks to you, not me.
Mike, his book is about authoritarianism, those who follow authority and those who lead, a mentality that, as I posted above, can be applied to left or right...the explanation he gives describes why he chose the word "right", and I agreed it's a loaded term, that there are those on the left who would classify as authoritarian followers as well, and certainly those on the left who classify as authoritarian LEADERS. The original question I was seeking an answer for was why the right-wing seems to have more people who are truly nasty, extremists and close-minded--on the two sites I've been on, and in America today.
It has no relationship to which party is in "power", it's a psychological phenomenon among some people which relates to their entire lives, not just politics, which the psychologist who wrote the book was curious about and spent years researching, testing, etc. He cites many testing situations he and others performed to back his theories, and his conclusions fit with what I've observed (IRL and on websites), that I found it illuminating.
You'd have to read the entire book to understand what it's about and how he came to his conclusions; I'm wending my way through and on Chapter 4 at the moment. Too much of it explains the phenomenon by which I was originally confused for me to disagree with his theories, and again, it's not specifically about politics, it's about psychology. It merely pertains to politics insofar as an explanation of what I personally was curious about.
He says about himself:
Quote:The fact that you wrote "I try to keep a fairly adversarial relationship with my government, no matter which "side" wins the latest election. They ALL have "my best interests" in mind and in their hearts, but we may disagree quite vehemently about what those best interests really entail, and where their authority over my life ends and my authority over their jobs begins" shows that, by his scale, you are a low RWA where politics are concerned, which probably means you are a low RWA in your life in general.
Who am I? I'm a nearly retired psychology professor in Canada who has spent most of his life studying authoritarianism. I got into this field by being lazy. When I took the exams for getting a Ph.D. at Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh in 1965, I failed a question about a famous early effort to understand the authoritarian personality. I had to write a paper to prove I could learn at least something about this research, which had gotten itself into a huge hairy mess by then. However, I got caught up in the tangle too. Thus I didn't start studying authoritarianism because I am a left-winger (I think I'm a moderate on most issues)or because I secretly hated my father. I got into it because it presented a long series of puzzles to be solved, and I love a good mystery.
The only way I could fully explain what the book is about would be to quote passages from it, and I'm sure few are that interested.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I have a liscense to beat your ass... what a lot of red tape & money, but I got it.
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
So whats your answer... you have to have a license to have children?
When should I employ my new priviledge, Wulf?
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm not. Are you? Mostly, I find liberals decrying OBAMA. And, if you've ever taken part in a left-wing organization (as I have) you'd know that it's like herding cats.
This definition of "authoritarian" could also be applied to us on the left side of the aisle; after all, now that Obama's "The Man" and the lefties have taken over both houses of Congress, aren't WE the ones in authority, and aren't WE the ones decrying those who would flout that authority?
Quote:If you form your ideas in opposition, then your ideas are just as predicated by authority as an authoritarian's, only in the inverse.
I try to keep a fairly adversarial relationship with my government, no matter which "side" wins the latest election. They ALL have "my best interests" in mind and in their hearts, but we may disagree quite vehemently about what those best interests really entail, and where their authority over my life ends and my authority over their jobs begins.
Keep your eye on reality. Dig for the truth. Be prepared to listen as well as talk. Hold yourself to the same standard that you hold others.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"... and aren't WE the ones decrying those who would flout that authority ..."
I don't see that on the left. I see a lot of people grinding their teeth about Obama and the things he's doing. What I DO see are some people pissed off at a small minority who seem to be trying to foment hatred, and who seem to be trying to prevent the vast majority from being heard.
As for Geezer's attempt to yet again mislead people, Chavez was democratically re-elected in 2006 with roughly 63% of the vote. I suspect he was elected on this basis: "Popular for spending freely on clinics, schools and food hand-outs in city slums and remote villages ..." Hardly the stuff of aurhoritarianism - people voted for him because he measurably improved their lives, not because they were slavish rule-following robots.
Funny, when people get together in LARGE NUMBERS and vote to make their own societies actually work for them, Geezer is the FIRST one to scream - Totalitarianism ! Authoritarianism ! Somehow he just doesn't seem to understand that a majority can democratically run its society just fine - without his ideology.
Hey Geezer - before you make an ass of yourself some more, try reading the book and actually addressing what it says. Give truth and honesty a try. How about it ?
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I have a liscense to beat your ass... what a lot of red tape & money, but I got it.
When should I employ my new priviledge, Wulf?"
Bring it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
if you've ever taken part in a left-wing organization (as I have) you'd know that it's like herding cats.
Like herding DRUNK cats!
Ever seen an Anarchist protest march ?
Guess who the good shepherd is who keeps them from wandering off (cause bad things happen when the jackboots catch one alone) by their mutual consent beforehand ?
Anyhows, the NON-Authoritarian position comes down to a single question that N-A's are willing to ask, and Authoritarians are not.
"And I am takin orders from YOU, exactly.. why ?"
That question in and of itself is the very essence of self-realization, and the core of Anarchism.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I hope that clears it up; it is, indeed, in a way unfair to attribute these personality traits only to Conservatives, but I happen to agree with his rationale, so I accept the delineation.
As long as you realize it's an unfair delineation.
Quote:
Just out of curiosity, did you not read the explanation in its entirety, or did you merely quote the part you wanted to make your point? Just curious.
I was originally gonna quote the whole first chapter down to the RWA Scale section, but it seemed a bit long, and the definition of the term 'rightwing authoritarian' was included in the portion I cited.
I might note that Prof. Altemeyer's historical view (30 years) seems sort of shortsighted, and leaves out American authoritarianism on the left during the New Deal, Camelot, and the New Frontier.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You forgot "bitch."
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Bring it.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wulf. Put it back in your pants.
Geezer is correct. The left's use of "Right Wing" and similar terminology to apply to either leftist or centrist authoritarianism is completely unjustified propaganda and undermines the credibility of anyone using them.
The author's attempt to justify the use actually hurts, as it shows some understanding that the misrepresentation is being committed. I generally take it that almost anyone publishing anything with any political slant has limited credibility anyway, so I just read it with that filter, but that doesn't mean that a biased source doesn't have good information, it was just a sub-genius tactic.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:DADT.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Anyhows, the NON-Authoritarian position comes down to a single question that N-A's are willing to ask, and Authoritarians are not.
"And I am takin orders from YOU, exactly.. why ?"
That question in and of itself is the very essence of self-realization, and the core of Anarchism.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I suspect he was elected on this basis: "Popular for spending freely on clinics, schools and food hand-outs in city slums and remote villages ..." Hardly the stuff of authoritarianism ...
Not authoritarianism for the folks who got the money, just good old buying votes. The seizure of private property, media censorship and providing military support for insurgents in other countries, on the other hand, might qualify.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So when the public stands to gain from an official, it's "buying votes", but when the elite stands to gain, it's not??? Quite honestly, I think a government SHOULD buy my vote. That's why I'm voting for them- not??? To improve my circumstances???
Not authoritarianism for the folks who got the money, just good old buying votes.
Geezer, I believe you are misunderstanding, or misrepresenting the term "authoritarianism". Taking action is not "authoritarianism", and being wishy-washy is not its opposite.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, I believe you are misunderstanding, or misrepresenting the term "authoritarianism". Taking action is not "authoritarianism", and being wishy-washy is not its opposite.
The seizure of private property, media censorship and providing military support for insurgents in other countries seems a good start toward authoritarianism.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, I see how Chavez is following convention. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I shouldn't have started this topic without the caveat that I'm addressing it to people who have read or understood what the book is about. Yes, it answered MY questions, but it involves far more than politics, and it's become a debate on politics, or so it seems to me.
Geezer, I find nothing wrong with calling it right-wing authoritarianism, because it by FAR describes just that: the mentality of those on the far right wing. It's also a fact that his original use of right as "I'm right and you're wrong, period" is exemplified far, FAR more on the right than the left. If it offends, call it OWA, one-wing authoritarianism, if you wish, but the fact remains that the vast majority of the symptoms, mentality and actions of the OWA are exhibited by the right. It's not propaganda if it's true.
But it's much more than that, it's a mentality that is bigoted, ignores hypocrisy when committed by its own authoritarian figures, dogmatically fights for it's beliefs despite facts to the contrary, and much more. It pertains to social interaction, religion, treatment of fellow humans, ability to debate, self-awareness, questioning of things, and much more.
Yes, Signym, Frem and Rue, you've got it. It's partly about willingness to question/challenge authority, it makes for independent, changeable thought when new facts are recognized, and it DOES make for trying to herd cats. That's LOW OWA, and it's a long-held joke about the democratic party; it's one reason they have such a hard time getting IN power or doing anything once there...note healthcare. I'd be willing to bet that if it were reversed and the right had a 60-seat majority, majority in the House and President in office and they wanted to pass healthcare, it would LONG since have been done. They much more often tow the mark. It works against the dems in that way, but after better understanding it, I'll take it any day.
Oops, Signym, you got me:
Quote:You're right, if you look at what he said from that angle. I took it more as his saying he "questioned" whichever party was in power--was that what you meant, Mike? If you meant exactly what you wrote, then I'm wrong and Signym is right.
If you form your ideas in opposition, then your ideas are just as predicated by authority as an authoritarian's, only in the inverse.
Frem,
Quote:isn't actually the core of non-authoritarian thinking, but politically it's probably appropriate. From what I got, the core of it is being able to question, period. Judging things from facts, being able to change your opinion if facts disprove it, choosing things based on their merits from more than one source, not being willing to see past someone in authority's hypocrisy, not thinking you have all the answers, etc., etc. It's not just about orders, it's how your mind WORKS.
And I am takin orders from YOU, exactly.. why ?
Geezer, Signym is right:
Quote:I haven't gotten to authoritarian LEADERS yet, so I can't speak to that specifically. But the whole book is about psychology, not about actions per se, so I think the world "authoritarian" is being misunderstood here to a degree. For the people ACCEPTING all those actions, yes, it's blind following and avoidance of hypocrisy, illegality, etc. of their leader, but it's not "authoritarian" on the part of those who turned away from him when he did them.
The seizure of private property, media censorship and providing military support for insurgents in other countries, on the other hand, might qualify.
The author is using the term "authoritarian" in a specific sense, whereas we tend to use it in more than one sense. Webster says:
1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority *had authoritarian parents*
2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people
The author is using the word in relation to the first definition--and far more--to describe a specific psychological mentality, not in its more general usage. It's a way of thinking, and includes far more
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yes, I see how Chavez is following convention.
So you do agree it is an authoritarian regime? Thanks.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Geezer, I find nothing wrong with calling it right-wing authoritarianism, because it by FAR describes just that: the mentality of those on the far right wing.
At the present time. In the United States.
Consider how "Rightwing Authoritarianism" manifested itself in the Soviet Union, The Peoples Republic of China, and the Democratic Republic of Korea. Hardly Republican strongholds.
I don't disagree that many on the political far-right are way less than savory - and personally repugnant to me. A good proportion of the Religious Right comes to mind. I'm just leery of branding Authoritarianism as exclusively, or even predominantly, a politically right-wing artifact. Prof. Artemeyer's study was done in a period when most Authoritarian leaders and followers in the U.S. were politically conservative, so I'm not surprised he found more conservative Authoritarians. In the 1930's, or in another country, his findings about left/right Authoritarianism might have been different.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I suspect he was elected on this basis: "Popular for spending freely on clinics, schools and food hand-outs in city slums and remote villages ..." Hardly the stuff of authoritarianism ...
Not authoritarianism for the folks who got the money, just good old buying votes. The seizure of private property, media censorship and providing military support for insurgents in other countries, on the other hand, might qualify.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
The seizure of private property like, say, Saddam's palaces? Didn't we seize a bunch of those in the not-too-distant past?
Media censorship? Is that another euphemism for not granting "access" to the media you don't like, and granting it to the media you DO like? Or would "media censorship" involve things like "free speech zones" which are located entirely behind chain-link fences miles away from the actual Presidential appearance? Or would it involve arresting people who deign to show up wearing a "Kerry for President" t-shirt to a Bush rally?
Providing military support for "insurgents" in other countries? I thought people were SURE that "the surge" was working? Now you're saying that we were just being authoritarian in Iraq?
So by any rationale, couldn't Chavez lay as valid a claim to be "spreading democracy" as the U.S. could? What's he done that we haven't done here and abroad in the last 8 years?
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have an issue with using "right wing" as well, and also compare this to the class on politics I took in college that put fascism on the right wing as well. It's an indication of bias.
What I see here is this statement: "you see far more right wing authoritarians then left-wing authoritarians, so the description of 'right wing authoritarians' to describe the phenomenon is apt."
It's not, because you could just call them authoritarian. Calling a left-wing authoritarian "psychologically right-wing authoritarian" is a contradiction, the generalization does not apply, and this idea of "right wing authoritarians" describing a particular mindset is quite simply contrived to make a political statement about the right wing.
I consider Fascism and Authoritarianism, which have a number of elements in common (mostly the expectation of loyalty to country), to exist OUTSIDE of the normal ideology as an extreme position of two things 1) complete unquestioning faith in and a submission to an ideology, person, or nation, and 2) Defending and arguing for the correctness/naturalness/greatness of the ideology/person/nation despite any evidence to the contrary. People who have this sort of unquestioning, rabid faith are PROGRAMMED, not born, not mentally subpar or a psychological case study.
Every ideology can have elements of Fascism and Authoritarianism in it, INCLUDING Anarchism and Libertarianism, and this must be VERY CAREFULLY guarded against. Surely there are Anarchist and Libertarian demagogues.
I am going to completely undermine my credibility here by using a piece of fiction and pop culture. Please forgive me for this. Hopefully I can make it up to everyone.
The movie Fight Club. Tyler Durdan is an Anarchist, not just because he decides to bomb things, because that's not the point of Anarchism, but he wants to see an end to the government and economic system of control.
He is also chillingly, horrifyingly Authoritarian, only he is an example of an Authoritarian Leader, not a follower. The enclave he builds, of slaves who have renounced their other lives and sources of income to work to bring about the reality of his violent ideals that he is looking to force onto the broader public, who do not question Tyler Durdan or his message or his orders, they are an Authoritarian society, and they are Authoritarian followers. I also note, that Tyler Durdan doesn't seem to have any idea in mind for a new society after he brings about this fall, and seems to just want chaos to reign, and so he is both a piss-poor Anarchist AND a douchebag.
Quote:
2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people
I disagree with this. You can have Authoritarians who ARE constitutionally responsible to the people, and they are usually the worst. Because what they do, they think they're doing for the good of everyone. Or, at least, the greater good, the population LEFT OVER after they've done whatever culling they deem necessary. But hey, more food for everyone.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:So when the public stands to gain from an official, it's "buying votes", but when the elite stands to gain, it's not??? Quite honestly, I think a government SHOULD buy my vote. That's why I'm voting for them- not??? To improve my circumstances???
Not authoritarianism for the folks who got the money, just good old buying votes.
Geezer, I believe you are misunderstanding, or misrepresenting the term "authoritarianism". Taking action is not "authoritarianism", and being wishy-washy is not its opposite.
Signy, Signy, Signy... [shakes head sadly] When will you ever learn?
A politician shouldn't have to buy YOUR vote - a lobbyist or special interest group should have to buy HIS vote! And the way they do that is by getting YOU riled up enough to do the dirty work and convince that politician that he NEEDS to sell his vote to that special interest, all in the name of keeping YOUR best interests close to his heart. Remember, if YOU sell your vote to a politician, it's wrong. That's corruption. If, however, you GIVE your vote and voice to a special interest, and they bundle it together with others and then THEY sell it, that's called "democracy". Or at least that's what they're calling it here nowadays. And it's not about what you want, it's about what they can convince you that you NEED.Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Anyhows, the NON-Authoritarian position comes down to a single question that N-A's are willing to ask, and Authoritarians are not.
"And I am takin orders from YOU, exactly.. why ?"
That question in and of itself is the very essence of self-realization, and the core of Anarchism.
Heck, I never really considered myself an anarchist, exactly; I just called it my inate smartassedness. I just cannot abide people who say "because I told you to!" as a reason to do something. And my usual response is along the lines of, "And who made YOU pope of this dump, anyway?" Or, in the case of the cops, something along the lines of "And don't YOU work for ME, civil servant? After all, I'm a taxpayer, and you're on my dime, right?"
Yeah, they don't tend to take it very well, either. :)
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, this took some time, but perhaps it will put us all more closely together in what we're discussing. I apologize for presenting this in a political vein; that was what struck me about it and obviously that's why I posted it as I did. But I took some time and selected some relevant material from the part of the book dealing with authoritarian FOLLOWERS, because that's what I found most illuminating. And it does apply to right or left, so I have removed RWA and replaced it with "high authoritarian" or "authoritarian followers"...please note that it only required replacing about half his references, the other half WERE to the two above nouns.
If anyone's still interested, here it is. Personally, I found it fascinating, and have observed it so precisely in some people--yes, in my lifetime mostly the hard-liner right wingers--that it impressed me. There are MANY things left out, and he offers tests he and others performed to reference his findings, but I left all of those out too:
According to the High Laws of Science (you do not have to genuflect here), ideas must be repeatedly tested to see if they fail. So the next (and extremely important) question is, does the Authoritarian scale really measure what it says it measures? Are the test scores valid? If they are, we should find that high scorers submit to established authority more than most people do, aggress more in the name of such authority, and are much more conventional. What’s the evidence?
Authoritarian Submission.
Everybody submits to authority to some degree. But some people go way beyond the norm and submit to authority even when it is dishonest, corrupt, unfair and evil. We would expect authoritarian followers especially to submit to corrupt authorities in their lives: to believe them when there is little reason to do so, to trust them when huge grounds for suspicion exist, and to hold them blameless when they do something wrong. We don’t expect absolutes here; people are much too complicated to completely, always, blindly 16 submit, no matter what.
But IF the authoritarian scale truly measures the tendency to be an authoritarian follower, those who score highly on it should tend to do these things, right? So do they? Well, they will tell you that people should submit to authority in virtually all circumstances. If you give them moral dilemmas (e.g. should one steal an absurdly expensive drug to save a life?) they’re more likely to say, “The law is the law and must be obeyed” than most people are. but high authoritarians trusted President Nixon longer and stronger than most people did during the Watergate crisis. Some of them still believed Nixon was innocent of criminal acts even after he accepted a pardon for them. (Similarly the Allies found many Germans in 1945 refused to believe that Hitler, one of the most evil men in history, had ordered the murder of millions of Jews and others. “He was busy running the war,” Hitler’s apologists said. “The concentration camps were built and run by subordinates without his knowing it.”)
To pick a more current example, authoritarian followers believed, more than most people did, President George W. Bush’s false claims that Saddam Hussein had extensive links to al-Qaida, and that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And they supported the invasion of Iraq, whereas less authoritarian Americans tended to doubt the wisdom of that war from the start. Caution No. 1. On the other hand, authoritarian followers did not support President Clinton during his impeachment and trial over the Monica Lewinsky scandal. So as I said, the support is not automatic and reflexive, but can be trumped by other concerns. In Clinton’s case his administration not only had advocated for groups anathema to authoritarians, such as homosexuals and feminists, his sexual misdeeds in the White House deeply offended many high authoritarians.
Regarding authoritarian submission, it concerns authoritarian followers’ willingness to hold officials accountable for their misdeeds. Or rather, their lack of willingness--which catche
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Prof. Artemeyer's study was done in a period when most Authoritarian leaders and followers in the U.S. were politically conservative, so I'm not surprised he found more conservative Authoritarians. In the 1930's, or in another country, his findings about left/right Authoritarianism might have been different.
I agree. Hence I will think in the terms I mentioned above from now on. Truly it can be on either side--or something else. I don't think he was trying to slant it deliberately, as some have suggested, I think it's more a reflection of the time he was writing and the fact that it was the power he observed on the right which was worrisome to him at the time. We are all, after all, fallible, yes?
On the other hand, a number of the symptoms of what he calls "authoritarian", DO more often describe people on the "right wing"--dogmatic religiosity, blatant bigotry, aggresssive defense of conformity, blindly following and excusing their leaders unquestioningly, etc. So there IS some validity to the term "right wing", despite the fact that it CAN occur on either side.
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So authoritarianism is a process, not a goal. It is the process of defending what the authoritarian believes to be "the authority", which also includes the process of holding "the authority" to different standards than everyone else.
Couple of things I find fascinating, which the book might reveal:
HOW do authoritarian followers CHOOSE their authority figures? Why choose Nixon and Bush but not Obama and Clinton? Do authoritarian followers CHOOSE their authority figures on the basis of who presents the scarier world-view? Do they choose on the basis of fear and stasis rather than hope and change? Do they choose their authority figure because that particular person presents things in a very black-white manner? Pulls the SPECIFIC strings of the follower that says safety is in numbers[/]?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
The seizure of private property like, say, Saddam's palaces? Didn't we seize a bunch of those in the not-too-distant past?
Media censorship? Is that another euphemism for not granting "access" to the media you don't like, and granting it to the media you DO like? Or would "media censorship" involve things like "free speech zones" which are located entirely behind chain-link fences miles away from the actual Presidential appearance? Or would it involve arresting people who deign to show up wearing a "Kerry for President" t-shirt to a Bush rally?
Providing military support for "insurgents" in other countries? I thought people were SURE that "the surge" was working? Now you're saying that we were just being authoritarian in Iraq?
So your point is that there has been Authoritarianism at work in the U.S. in the past eight years or more? Duh. My point is that it's been at work under administrations of both "liberal" and "conservative" bent - in the U.S. and abroad. Saying Bush set up "free-speech" zones doesn't make Chavez closing opposition media any less Authoritarian.
Mike. The folks who want to stop abortion and the folks who want to take your guns are both Authoritarian. So are the folks who want to ban gay marriage or trans-fat. Pretty much anyone who will support the power of government to stop you from doing something either "for the good of society" or because "God want's it" is Authoritarian.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
On the other hand, a number of the symptoms of what he calls "authoritarian", DO more often describe people on the "right wing"--dogmatic religiosity, blatant bigotry, aggresssive defense of conformity, blindly following and excusing their leaders unquestioningly, etc. So there IS some validity to the term "right wing", despite the fact that it CAN occur on either side.
Let's restate those symptoms in more neutral terms.
Dogmatic belief in a system of values (doesn't have to be religious, does it? Folk can be as fervent about Socialism as Catholicism.).
Blatant prejudice against non-conformers with the system of values (You know...the "other", like those gun-nuts/gays/meateaters/abortionists/etc.).
Defense of the system of values(God/Marx/Science/History/etc. says it must be true. It's so obvious.).
Blindly following and excusing their leaders unquestioningly (so - this one stays the same. Sure Stalin/Lincoln/Mao/Bush/etc. got a lot of folks killed, but it was for the best.).
Let's take another step and decide that the authoritarian leaders don't have to be politicians, but can be anyone with a bully pulpit; for example The Christian Coalition, or PETA, or National Right to Life, or Handgun Control.
I'd suspect that you could find authoritarian followers for all these organizations, and for most any other - right or left - that want to tell other people what to do, or how to live.
Basically, authoritarian followers want to tell you how to live - because they have received the revealed truth from God or Marx or Jerry Fallwell or George Soros - and can't imagine you wouldn't agree with them 100%. They will force you to follow their leader for your own good, even if you resist. If you resist too much, they will make you "the other" who isn't really a person, but an obstacle to be removed.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Whoah, good post, Geeze!
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Simply, they choose the leader that treats them the way their abusive father treated them when they were young. It has to do with brazen abuse, self-righteous even. Public humiliations in front of the family. The kind of abuse that is practiced in plain sight. Physical abuse is only the most obvious, there are plenty of ways for a parent to make a child feel small and defective, to create an abusive system.
Originally posted by SignyM:
HOW do authoritarian followers CHOOSE their authority figures? Why choose Nixon and Bush but not Obama and Clinton? Do authoritarian followers CHOOSE their authority figures on the basis of who presents the scarier world-view? Do they choose on the basis of fear and stasis rather than hope and change? Do they choose their authority figure because that particular person presents things in a very black-white manner? Pulls the SPECIFIC strings of the follower that says safety is in numbers?
This is why so many who blindly follow these guys do so to their economic disadvantage. The "rich" represent the mythical "good child" who would never have needed to be abused as they'd been, the favorite and the strong child to whom they could never measure up. Economically unsuccessful authoritarians see themselves as disappointments to their Father figure and they feel they deserve whatever poverty they get. The abuse has trained them to blame themselves for all their misfortunes. The more abuse they suffer, the harder it is to maintain the image of the benevolent father and the harder they work at it. Logic is an early casualty, as is self-respect, as is self-knowledge.
It's a very patriarchal family system and requires the complicit cowardice of the mother to keep it going, or her effective impotence if she too becomes a victim of the abuse. So authoritarians tend not to have any real respect for women or their attributes, kindness to the undeserving and empathy, for instance. They may incorporate such language if it makes the father look good, but actually acting upon these ideas is distasteful, even ridiculous.
The family system was weighted against these authoritarians as children, and the social system they support as adults is also weighted against them. It all comes down to protecting the false/benevolent image they hold of their abusive parent or parent culture. We see them going to the most extreme lengths to protect that image. To such people, Obama, a black man, represents an escaped bad child who can mean the family nothing but harm. Obama's success, after centuries of being at the bottom of the social/family hierarchy, can only mean revenge and harm to Papa's good name. His mere existence is a threat to their entire way of life, you see?
Obama and Clinton very imperfectly, if at all, represent the image of the aloof, withholding, abusive father that these people recognize and feel they need. Obama and Clinton don't respect the kind of "children should be seen and not heard," "speak when you're spoken to," "don't make me do this" style of domination they're used to. And if they make gestures in that direction, they tend not to be trusted.
On the contrary, Obama and Clinton act like they care about our needs more than their own, they act as if they want us to make our own decisions and think. What is particularly damning to the authoritarians, is that such men ACT upon their kind words--they see it as shameful and womanish. Citizens who come from the sort of absolutist, patriarchal and abusive family systems I'm talking about won't recognize genuine empathy or mercy as anything but a pack of lies. They distrust the image of kindness, fearing the punishment that's to follow. And when it doesn't, they don't thank the Obamas and the Clintons of the world, they simply lose all respect for them--to them, the Clintons and Obamas of the world go from being mere liars to liars and wussies.
This may sound cartoonish, but you hear this kind of patriarchal cartoon language from the likes of Rush and Beck every day. This is the
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HK
Clinton does not deserve to be coupled with Obama. IMHO, there's not a stone throw dif between Clinton, Bush, and any tin plated dictator. The unelected unchecked executive that goes outside the law and directly enacts extremist policy...
That said, this is drifting a little from the thread...
Niki, sorry about the threadjack, I don't think that people will have read the book, it's probably not a logical assumption. Everyone gets to participate in the debate, and if these forums have a point it's to boil down core ideas into the shortest text and then discuss the implications, expound upon those...
...And also to have the partisan tools bop each other over the head like cartoon mice until they sink under the sea. 
Yeah, they're still watching to see if banghead will get through the wall to stop bash.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Signym...you got it precisely, as I see it. I'll defer to Cavalier's response about leaders, as he recommended the book in the first place and I haven't gotten that far yet. His response is admittedly depressing...sigh...but it makes sense. I'll be interested to read the rest.
Geezer: You nailed it beautifully. You're right...taken on a smaller scale, ANY group can gain authoritarian followers; certainly that's the definition of cults, as well as all those you listed. Thank you for helping me to see it from a wider perspective!
Dream, I disagree. I think Cavalier's got it right, insofar as how Clinton and Obama come across, especially to the authoritarian follower. It's not about how someone who ISN'T an authoritarian follower sees them or what political beliefs such a person (like yourself) holds; it's far more basic than that and I think he pegged it perfectly.
Yes, of course I know all you said about threads; I felt it important to clarify what I was talking about, as I had put it in political perspective initially and it's unfair to only put forth that view. I think it was great, actually, Signym and Geezer got the concept right away, and of course Cavalier understands it 'cuz he read the book.
I actually find discussing the FULL concept of authoritarian followers and leaders is more interesting than just the political aspects...I was in the throes of "yeah, that's it!" about my confusion regarding right-wing radicals, which is why he suggested the book, when I initially posted the thread. But it's so much more than that, and more interesting to read what they had to say and to look at the wider perspective.
I was just trying to set the record straight, out of fairness to the author and the subject, but they've really got it and it enhanced the discussion, for me at least.
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:DT, I think you and Geez are missing the point and in not dissimilar ways.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
HK
Clinton does not deserve to be coupled with Obama. IMHO, there's not a stone throw dif between Clinton, Bush, and any tin plated dictator. The unelected unchecked executive that goes outside the law and directly enacts extremist policy...
Who Clinton IS is not as important to the authoritarians, or to this discussion, as how he comes across, how he is accepted by his supporters and hated by his enemies. Authoritarianism is defined by the followers, not the leaders they give their fealty to.
Also, I think Clinton represents a different culture from the culture that the Bush's embody--a right-wing culture, reflecting right-wing values. Clinton himself may be a corrupt bastard, but he does not appeal to the authoritarians for the reasons I gave in my previous post. The extraordinary prominence of his wife in his administration, the partnership model of power they embody, marked him as clearly to the authoritarians as Obama's skin does.
This is why "right-wing authoritarianism" is not a misnomer. The core of the Republican party right now is solidly, psychologically authoritarian. They approve of violence against the weak, extreme violence against those they consider evil, and violence against those who threaten patriarchal power as such. The core of the Democratic party (is there even a core to the Democratic party?) is considerably harder to pin down--the whole herding cats thing.
There is a creeping authoritarianism in the Dem party as well, but it is the same authoritarianism, a right-leaning authoritarianism that tolerates the same abuses of civil rights, the same violence against the weak, the foreign and the effeminate.
And Niki, just to be clear: The book doesn't go into developmental psychology, the origins and causes of authoritarianism. For that you would be well served to seek out the works of German psychologist, Alice Miller. She has made that study her life's work.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So your point is that there has been Authoritarianism at work in the U.S. in the past eight years or more? Duh. My point is that it's been at work under administrations of both "liberal" and "conservative" bent - in the U.S. and abroad. Saying Bush set up "free-speech" zones doesn't make Chavez closing opposition media any less Authoritarian.
Doesn't make it any less authoritarian, but it does shine a little different light on it. My point was to get people thinking, get them questioning: Why is it wrong when THIS guy does it, but it wasn't wrong when this other guy did it and I supported him?
Seems a "despot" is someone we've been programmed not to like, even though he's only doing things that, if done by someone in our own particular party, would be "patriotic" or "for our own good". The deeds don't change; our names for and perceptions of those deeds do. One man's terrorist is another man's "freedom fighter", and heinous deeds are often done by both.
Quote:
Mike. The folks who want to stop abortion and the folks who want to take your guns are both Authoritarian. So are the folks who want to ban gay marriage or trans-fat. Pretty much anyone who will support the power of government to stop you from doing something either "for the good of society" or because "God want's it" is Authoritarian.
Keep going. Follow that logical train and ask the next question:
Are they wrong? Is being "authoritarian" automatically wrong, always? Is following them a bad thing? Or, more likely, are there grey areas?
I find traffic laws authoritarian. Often, the best "line" through a curve carries me across the yellow lines and into the oncoming lanes. Is that okay, or should I follow the lines of authoritarianism for the safety of my fellow commuters?
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I hope that clears it up; it is, indeed, in a way unfair to attribute these personality traits only to Conservatives, but I happen to agree with his rationale, so I accept the delineation. He mentions throughout the book where it might refer to left-leaning people, by the way.
I'm just curious Niki.... what do you consider your own political leanings? A lot of your posts lead me to believe you're quite an independent thinker, yet you seem to refer to yourself as a Liberal quite often since I've seen you in here (which has only been a few days).
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
GEEZER:
Quote:Have you even READ the book? That's not the point I got. I think you're confusing Altemeyer's ideas with your pro-capitalist Libertarianism. As I recall from skimming the book, the author set up a number of "test trials" with groups of people in a "rule the world" scenario, which had a number of realistic stressors. Authoritarian-heavy groups quickly reached nuclear Armageddon. The NA created policies and "implemented" them (in game-playing mode, of course). Their goals WERE "for our good", and they managed to solve the problems and bring the world back from the brink. In other words, non-authoritarians DID set up a "government for our own good", and I would imagine (non-authoritarians being the way they are) that not everyone agreed with the plan of action!
Pretty much anyone who will support the power of government to stop you from doing something either "for the good of society" or because "God want's it" is authoritarian.
So the essential distinction is not whether there is a government and whether or not that government is able to act effectively "for the good of the people", or even whether or not the government reaches complete consensus. The essential distinction appears to be HOW those actions were arrived at, and whether the goals REALLY are for the common good, or whether that is simply a smokescreen for a power-grab.
So strangely, Geezer, everything is NOT reducible to your anti-government world-view! Non-authoritarians are not libertarians. They seem to be able to act very well collectively, thank you. But if you want to see a great example of an authoritarian power-structure, just look at modern corporations: Driven by a top-down structure in a fierce competition for territory (markets), guaranteed to make its minions feel like undeserving pieces of shit, and set uo for the benefit of a few. And, quite honestly, anyone who shakes that model gets a very authoritarian reaction from you: Don't question it. It's worked for so many years. Don't change. With you, it's all about fear and stasis, not hope and change.
BTW- Does Prof Altemeyer have a better name for "non-authoritarians" than that? Can we reduce it to something simpler to type, please??? How about NoA??
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
My point was to get people thinking, get them questioning: Why is it wrong when THIS guy does it, but it wasn't wrong when this other guy did it and I supported him?
That's my point too. But the liberals I'm addressing here already think the U.S. is authoritarian, so I have to try to illustrate that not only the political right can be labeled such.
Quote:
Keep going. Follow that logical train and ask the next question:
Are they wrong? Is being "authoritarian" automatically wrong, always? Is following them a bad thing? Or, more likely, are there grey areas?
Now that is a good question. Was America's wholehearted support of the war effort in WWII an example of RWA followers? This calls for more thought.
BTW, I'm always in favor of grey areas. I suspect that a lot of the folk who see it as all black or white would rate high in the RWA survey.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
GEEZER:Quote:Have you even READ the book? That's not the point I got.
Pretty much anyone who will support the power of government to stop you from doing something either "for the good of society" or because "God want's it" is authoritarian.
Actually, that was my opinion, not what I gleaned from Prof. Altemeyer's book, which I'm still reading as I get the time.
However, if you'd read the sentence above in the context of the entire post containing it and my following post, you might notice the assumption that the folk mentioned as "support(ing) the power of government to stop you from doing something either "for the good of society" or because "God want's it" are pretty clearly identified as RWAs, not non-authoritarians, already.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:NO, they don't. Geezer, you're good at putting words in people's mouths. You've been speaking for Altemeyer and getting it all wrong. (Try reading the book, 'mkay?) And now you're speaking for liberals, and getting it all wrong.
But the liberals I'm addressing here already think the U.S. is authoritarian, so I have to try to illustrate that not only the political right can be labeled such.
You're neither a NoA nor a liberal. You speaking for them is laughable, so stop speaking for either. You're a pro-capitalist libertarian, so speak for them, or speak for yourself and be honest about where you're coming from and what your motives are.
I would say that Liberals don't have the blanket anti-government stance you paint them with. In fact, liberals and NoAs tend NOT to take "blanket" stances about pretty much anything. There are things about this government which are tending to be authoritarian. (As HK put it: creeping authoritarianism) There are things about this government that could be effective and useful in managing our common problems.
Quote:Bull. IF we outlaw murder for the good of society, does THAT make us authoritarians? Again, you keep speaking for Altemeyer without understanding what little you HAVE read. You keep twisting his conclusion to fit into your anti-government, pro-capitalist world view. That is not his viewpoint at all. So STOP presenting your viewpoint as if it were his. Man up. Speak for yourself.
you might notice the assumption that the folk mentioned as "support(ing) the power of government to stop you from doing something either "for the good of society" or because "God want's it" are pretty clearly identified as RWAs, not non-authoritarians, already.
Peace out.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You didn't outlaw murder....
One of the 10 commandments.
Whether you want to believe or not, that was there long before any of us.
I believe in the Constitution for the same reason even though it was manmade.
Minimum laws, minimum Government.
I believe in Government, but not centralized Government which controls and knows everything about everyone.
Don't keep fooling yourself. No matter who's in office, you're loosing your ass in terms of freedom everyday.
Any way you look at it you lose. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm registered Independent, as of the last election, because I'm sick to death of both "parties"...partly because I DO see authorianism in both. Eight years of Bush has made me a pretty rabid liberal at this point, but (and she says this in a very small voice) I actually worked and voted for Goldwater. Thank GAWD he lost! --hey, I was young; that's my story and I'm sticking to it!
Signym, you nailed it. And I doubt few here have read the book, which is why I posted some relevant passages, to let those who haven't better understand the concept. WIthout understanding the whole concept, it's easy to slip into the very "us v. them" he talks about, when it comes to politics especially.
Wasn't that "rule the world" thing fascinating? I know about the Stanford trials that had to be cut short, so the "shock" trial didn't surprise me, nor did many of the others. But the "rule the world" thing was SO telling, it surprised me.
I liked the corporate model; you're right, and it explained something else to me. How those that advance in the corporate world are most likely authoritarians or authoritarian followers, and why I got in so much trouble when I complained about inequalities! Duh...
He refers half the time to high and low RWAs, but to avoid the prejudice against "right wing", I changed all his RWAs to "authoritarian"--low and high. NA works great for me, tho' I'd like to find something that replaces "authoritarian" completely, for the same length reason. Given that's what the book is ABOUT, that's hard, tho'.
Geezer:
Quote:that one is easy to answer. Yes it's wrong, no, following them is not a good thing, because authoritarians DON'T HAVE grey areas. It IS black and white, that's part of the mentality. So while having an authoritarian LEADER may have it's good points, following one without questioning them isn't healthy.
Is being "authoritarian" automatically wrong, always? Is following them a bad thing? Or, more likely, are there grey areas?
As for WWII, did I forget to add the part about when in crisis, more people act as authoritarian followers? If I did, my apologies, that was an important point to make. Even NAs become more authoritarian followers in a crisis, which explains both WWII and 9/11--and our giving away so many of our civil rights and giving Dumbya so much power following it!
Damn, Sigynm, I admire you, again you nailed it again:
Quote:Kewl. However,
I would say that Liberals don't have the blanket anti-government stance you paint them with. In fact, liberals and NoAs tend NOT to take "blanket" stances about pretty much anything. There are things about this government which are tending to be authoritarian. (As HK put it: creeping authoritarianism) There are things about this government that could be effective and useful in managing our common problems.
Quote:was, as he said, an ASSUMPTION. That he assumed something that wasn't actually said means he misunderstood it, not said it was fact. Tho' it is an indication of the murky thinking of an authoritarian follower, it's not something I think he did deliberately, do you get my drift?
stop you from doing something either "for the good of society"
I'm going to try and bear in mind a lot of what was written about the psychological aspect of it, which MAY help me stop being so angry with authoritarian followers' points of view...help me realize that they're not deliberately changing things to fit an agenda, they're actually not understanding it as it IS, but as it fits their beliefs. That makes a big difference in how I view them and interact with them, for me. IF I can keep it in mind, which admittedly is difficult when they rant and rave (not referring to this debate or what he wrote).
Jack, the Ten Commandments may have "outlawed" murder initially, but that didn't make it LAW until it was outlawed by the government. Otherwise people of different faiths wouldn't have felt it necessary. For example, there are societies where if someone is murdered, the family of the victim is allowed--expected--to t
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thou shalt not murder... NOT... Thou shalt not kill.
Huge difference.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Basic point still stands. Besides, I thought it WAS "thou shalt not kill".
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I would say that Liberals don't have the blanket anti-government stance you paint them with.
Wrong. Liberals can be just as behind the government as conservatives. They can also be just as much authoritarian followers as conservatives. More on that in a bit.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
NA works great for me, tho' I'd like to find something that replaces "authoritarian" completely, for the same length reason. Given that's what the book is ABOUT, that's hard, tho'.
I think we should call 'em "authos." There's a nice bridge-y feeling there between the word "awful" and "asshole."
Yeah, I don't like fanatics of any banner. So shoot me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The more I read of the book, the more I come back to the RWA Scale in Chapter 1.
http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/chapter1.pdf
As I re-read the survey questions, I have come to believe that there is a bias in them, probably unintentional, which tends to make political conservatives score higher than political liberals.
Here's my argument.
Almost all the statements reference negative hot-button issues for conservatives; loss of traditional marriage and values, radical changes in society, athiesm, homosexuality, perversion, etc.
Nowhere are there hot-button negative issues for Liberals; climate change, animal rights, gun control, corporations, government surveilance, etc.
So let's grab a few survey questions and see if we can give them a liberal bias.
3. Our country desperately needs a dynamic leader who will do what has to be done to eliminate the neo-con thinking and corporate greed that are ruining us.
4. Gun-owners and Hunters and are just as ethical and moral as anybody else.
5. It is always better to trust the judgment of the knowledgable authorities in government concerning health-care reform rather than listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create
doubt in people’s minds.
6. Religious conservatives are no doubt every bit as concerned about others as those who are more liberal minded.
7. The only way our country can get through the climate crisis ahead is to reject traditional conservative thinking, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading old-fashioned ideas.
8. There is absolutely nothing wrong with church camps.
10. Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the monied class that is eating away at the fabric of an egalitarian society.
I think you get the idea.
Now I'll get my earplugs. 
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I would say that Liberals don't have the blanket anti-government stance you paint them with.
Wrong. Liberals can be just as behind the government as conservatives. They can also be just as much authoritarian followers as conservatives. More on that in a bit.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
I... don't really see the disagreement here? Isn't "don't have the anti-government stance" the same thing as "behind" or supportive of the government?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I wish there was a :rollyeyes: emoticom here. Are you saying there was no difference between Hitler and Churchill? Between Hirohito and Taro Aso? These kinds of broad-brush statements are misleading... especially to the person who makes them. Wulf, you should start making critical distinctions.
Don't keep fooling yourself. No matter who's in office, you're loosing your ass in terms of freedom everyday. Any way you look at it you lose.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Interesting. I would have said "yes" to only #4, 6 & 8.
I didn't like #3 because of "who will do what has to be done"--I distrust that.
I'd have said yes to 5, but it says "trust the judgment of the knowledgable authorities in government"--government told me marijuana was the "assassin of youth". I don't trust them completely, I'd want to find other sources to help me make up my mind.
I'd have agreed with #7 except for the "put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading old-fashioned ideas".
I didn't like #10 AT ALL!
What does that make me? I'm curious enough to try it your way, tho', let's see if I can slant it. Bear in mind I'm no psychologist, so while I tried, I may not have worded things as sneakily as he did. How about
1. The established leaders of protests generally turn out to be right about things, while those who disagree are usually just “loud mouths” showing off their ignorance.
2. Women should have to promise to obey their own minds when they get married.
3. Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the traditional ways and religions that are ruining us.
4. Gays and lesbians are dangers to society.
5. It is always better to trust the judgment of the anti-religious leaders and radical authorities than the government and religion.
6. Those who attend church regularly are no doubt every bit as good and virtuous as atheists and others who have rebelled against established religion.
7. The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to listen to people who disagree with the government, put some tough leaders in power, and turn things around.
8. There is absolutely nothing wrong with church camps.
9. Our country needs those who follow tradition who have the courage to stand up to new ideas, even if this upsets many people.
10. Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the religious leaders, government authorities and those holding traditional beliefs.
11. Everyone should share the same lifestyle, religious beliefs, and sexual preferences, even if it makes them the same as everyone else.
12. New concepts and ideas show the best way to live.
13. You have to admire those who hold to the law and the majority’s view by protesting abortion, burning of the flag, or eliminating school prayer.
14. What our country really needs is a strong, determined leader who will crush tradition and help us find a new path.
15. Some of the best people in our country are those who always accept our government, never criticize religion, and hold to the “normal” way things are supposed to be done.
16. God’s laws about abortion, pornography and marriage must be challenged before it is too late, and those believe God’s laws are sacrosanct must be strongly punished.
17. There are many ultra-religious people in our country today, who are trying to ruin it for their own religious purposes, whom the authorities should put out of action.
18. A “woman’s place” should be submissive to their husbands. The days when women should challenge social conventions were wrong.
19. Our country will be great if we get rid of the ways of our forefathers, do what the leaders of the opposition tell us to do, and do away with the “religious ways” which are ruining everything.
20. There is only “ONE right way” to live life; nobody should challenge that.
21. Homosexuals and feminists should be castigated for defying “traditional” family values.
22. This country would work a lot better if certain groups of traditionalists would just shut up and accept their minority place in society.
Bear in mind, folks, that the way things are phrased represent BOTH points of view. It's about how much you would "follow" each idea, and how much you would follow it GIVEN THE AGGRESSIVE WAY it suggest. The deal is (and it's confusing):
First, you can skip your answers to the first two statements. They don’t count. I put those items on the test to give people some experience with the -4 to +4 response system. They’re just “warmups.”
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Since tradition does appear to be an essential part of the definition of "authoritarianism" , what you're saying is... Altemeyer's defintion doesn't mean what it seems to me, as long as I CHANGE THE DEFINTION. So, yeah... if you insist on changing his defintion, you can make it fit whatever you want. Good on ya!
Almost all the statements reference negative hot-button issues for conservatives; loss of traditional marriage and values, radical changes in society, athiesm, homosexuality, perversion, etc.
AFA the way you reworked the statements... I think you have once again entirely missed the point of what authoritarianism means (at least, in Altemeyer's book.) It's not about the "conclusions", specific goals, whether or not they can act effectively, or whether or not they reach a consensus. It's the whole approach to decision-making:
Do this because I say so. Do this because it's always been done this way. Do this because that's what the bosses say they need. Screw anyone who disagrees
So I find the reworked questions less meaningful than the original ones. They simply don't make sense as stated. For example:
Quote:I don't think our country needs a "leader", I think our country needs a "movement". Yes, a leader (or a Congress) not in the pocket of the wealthy WOULD be nice, but that would be more in line with removing a bias.
Our country desperately needs a dynamic leader who will do what has to be done to eliminate the neo-con thinking and corporate greed that are ruining us.
To make this short, most of the questions needs significant caveats in their answers. But I disagree with No 8: IMHO, religion of ANY sort is authoritarian by its very nature. And I agree with No 10, which I think has the weight of evidence behind it. However, I would not frame the goal as an "egalitarian" society. I would frame it as a "participative" one.
There is a concept which you slid past and I'm going to bring up again: Corporations, byt their very nature, are authoritarian. They are run by a strict top-down hierarchy, engaged in a fierce battle for territory (market share), set up for the benefit of a few, and guaranteed to make its minions feel like underserving pieces of shit. And if you even TOUCH the idea of revising corporations, you almost always get a very authoritarian response.
What I find interesting, geezer, is that you so often have excused the previous administration for some of its more egregious power-grabs, and only object when the government might "touch" the wealthy. I find your using the concept of non-authos to advance your own autho leanings to be disingenuous at best, and certainly not advancing the discussion in any meaningful way.
**************
So Altmeyer says he has a defintion of a certain type of person which is predictive of behavior. The defintion depends on a cluster of characteristics, and I'm wondering which of those characteristics are essential and how they play out in different situations. (And for purposes of discussion, these characteristics do not necessarily depend on whether one is politcally "right" or "left" leaning. The reason why the "right" tends to show up as being more authoritarian is simple because they have BEEN in power in recent past.)
For example, FEAR seems to play a big part in the formation of the autho personality. But yanno what? There are times when one should be afraid. For example, let's say that you have new evidence that shows we're heading towards climatic armageddon. Or that the world will be overtaken by radical jihadists in 50 years. Or that capitalism will be outcompeted by socialism. Being afraid... even being afraid of "the other"... does not make one an autho.
So let's say that, facing this climatic or cultural or economic crisis, significant coordinated action must be taken. According to the "rule the world" scenario, doing THAT doesn't necessarily make one an autho either.
So, for those who've read to book, help me out here. What IS the criticla d
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Dogmatic belief in a system of values (doesn't have to be religious, does it? Folk can be as fervent about Socialism as Catholicism.)."
Or capitalism, as YOU are, Geezer.
"Blatant prejudice against non-conformers with the system of values (You know...the "other", like those gun-nuts/ gays/ meat eaters/ abortionists/etc.)."
I personally have no prejudice against the 'other' - I LIKE Kwicko though we stand directly opposite on gun issues. OTOH, when you have a jackass weighing in, it's pretty easy to despise on a purely personal, individual level.
"Defense of the system of values(God/ Marx/Science /History/ etc. says it must be true. It's so obvious.)."
What a crock. Seriously. Where DO you get all your manure ? What is at issue is the inability to revisit your ideas, to test them and to change your mind. It's about DOGMATIC BELIEF above all. Hmmm, where was that point made ? Oh yes, the first one above. This --- is just so much go se - propaganda aimed at misleading people into thinking having any values at all must be authoritarian.
"Blindly following and excusing their leaders unquestioningly (so - this one stays the same. Sure Stalin/ Lincoln/ Mao/ Bush/etc. got a lot of folks killed, but it was for the best.)."
And where have you EVER seen anyone BLINDLY defend Stalin ? Or Mao ? Or even Lincoln ? Bush OTOH ? I'll give you that one.
"Let's take another step and decide that the authoritarian leaders don't have to be politicians, but can be anyone with a bully pulpit; for example The Christian Coalition, or PETA, or National Right to Life, or Handgun Control."
Apparently you don't understand the difference between those who lead by reason, logic and persuasion and those who lead by appealing to 'authority'. I'm not surprised.
"I'd suspect that you could find authoritarian followers for all these organizations, and for most any other - right or left - that want to tell other people what to do, or how to live."
And yet - in the game scenario there were people who solved problems and kept the world from blowing up - in effect 'telling people how to live', and those who ran things THEIR way and blew the world up. It's all the same to you, isn't it Geezer ? No matter how they got to the end, as long as somebody did something, they must be authoritarian.
"Basically, authoritarian followers want to tell you how to live - because they have received the revealed truth from God or Marx or Jerry Fallwell or George Soros - and can't imagine you wouldn't agree with them 100%."
No, it's because YOU - the follower-authoritarian - have received the truth and are willing to follow any authoritarian-leader who claims to be speaking it.
"They will force you to follow their leader for your own good, even if you resist. If you resist too much, they will make you "the other" who isn't really a person, but an obstacle to be removed."
Only if they are in power, like, say Bush.
What Geezer fails to acknowledge is that societies ALWAYS - without exception - tell people how to live. Not just the societies he disagrees with - every single society.
IF societies do so by appeal to received truth, by appeal to unquestioning belief, they are authoritarian.
If they do so by logic, discussion and consensus, they are not.
It's that simple.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And strangely, "the right" keeps accusing "the left" of Obama worship, but my observation is that leader-worship is generally not in the liberal's toolkit. The right is so blind to the fact that people might actually think differently that they constantly project their thought-processes on to others.
To their credit, liberals don't make that mistake. I have seldom heard a liberal "accuse" a right-winger of thinking.
[/snark]
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Right on, Signym. Changing the definition should show you're an atho IF you agree with it completely. I see his point, so tried to slant it so that athos on the LEFT would "follow"...whether I did or not remains to be seen.
It's actually THE WAY IT'S PHRASED that should show one's psychology, so I tried to put in values reversing those of the book, to see if it would "catch" left-wing athos.
And you got it. You'd disagree with the question about a "dynamic leader" because it said "leader"; bingo, you're not an AUTHORITARIAN follower.
Personally, I had no problem with it. Even the things that agreed with my beliefs were phrased in such a way that I would have had to blindly accept the entire concept, and I don't, so I didn't agree with even the things that, in theory, I SHOULD agree with.
Get it?
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There are no leaders... only representatives. That (should) follow the will of the people.
How it was set up to be? Or am I wrong?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Signym, you answered your own question. Whatever the outcome, you rejected the idea of a LEADER, and went for "movement". Authoritarian followers want a LEADER, someone who will tell them what to think and believe. Non-athos want a COMMUNITY, with differing opinions, to work things out. It's about HOW we think, not WHAT we think. It's about our mental PROCESSES, not our leanings left, right or whichever.
Those who think there should be an AGGRESSIVE LEADER to impose their beliefs on others are followers; those who accept that others different from them may be okay, too, and would rather work in cooperation with others, are non-athos. There CERTAINLY can be athos on both sides, but I'll betcha most liberals or liberal-thinkers end up being non-athos.
That's what's not being grasped by the right among us, that it's not about the issues themselves, it's about how those issues are implemented. Am I making sense? So, essentially, reversing the questions and hot-button topics makes no difference; if you don't want to force your opinions on others, if you don't want a LEADER to force those opinions on others, you're a non-atho.
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yep. I found the premises of most of the statements to be flawed.
Personally, I had no problem with it. Even the things that agreed with my beliefs were phrased in such a way that I would have had to blindly accept the entire concept, and I don't, so I didn't agree with even the things that, in theory, I SHOULD agree with. Get it?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There you go. Congratulations, you're a non-atho, hee, hee, hee!
Now let's see how everyone else thought of it, and if we have any athos on the LEFT, or non-athos on the RIGHT. Should be fascinating.
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've always wanted to try my hand at devil's advocacy. I wonder if I can wrap my brain around being a "left -wing atho"....?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
"Dogmatic belief in a system of values (doesn't have to be religious, does it? Folk can be as fervent about Socialism as Catholicism.)."
Or capitalism, as you are, Geezer
I would agree that dogmatic belief in a system of values is an element of authoritarianism. I'm not sure why you singled this out. Are you in disagreement with this?
Quote:
"Defense of the system of values(God/ Marx/Science /History/ etc. says it must be true. It's so obvious.)." What a crock. Seriously. Where DO you get all your manure ? What is at issue is the inability to revisit your ideas, to test them and to change your mind. It's about DOGMATIC BELIEF above all. Hmmm, where was that point made ? Oh yes, the first one above. This --- is just so much go se.
Why is this not an element of authoritarianism?
Is this specific in regards to the book in question, in that we are discussing in particular the views of the author of the book, and this wasn't included? (If it wasn't, I find that a startling omission)
Most of us, as it has been noted, have not read this book, and are just discussing authoritarianism as we see it.
Quote:
"Blindly following and excusing their leaders unquestioningly (so - this one stays the same. Sure Stalin/ Lincoln/ Mao/ Bush/etc. got a lot of folks killed, but it was for the best.)."
And where have you EVER seen anyone BLINDLY defend Stalin ? Or Mao ? Or even Lincoln ? Bush OTOH ? I'll give you that one.
Um, followers of Stalin, Bush, Mao, and Lincoln? Heck, even Hitler had followers. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with here.
Quote:
"Let's take another step and decide that the authoritarian leaders don't have to be politicians, but can be anyone with a bully pulpit; for example The Christian Coalition, or PETA, or National Right to Life, or Handgun Control."
Apparently you don't understand the difference between those who lead by reason, logic and persuasion and those who lead by appealing to 'authority'. I'm not surprised.
I think I have some kind of disconnect in my brain, because I don't see where Geezer talked about leading by authority versus leading by reason, logic, and persuasion. Why did you make this particular point in regards to what Geezer posted?
Quote:
"I'd suspect that you could find authoritarian followers for all these organizations, and for most any other - right or left - that want to tell other people what to do, or how to live."
And yet - in the game scenario there were people who solved problems and kept the world from blowing up - in effect 'telling people how to live', and those who ran things THEIR way and blew the world up. It's all the same to you, isn't it Geezer ? No matter how they got to the end, as long as somebody did something, they must be authoritarian.
Okay. How is telling people how to live not authoritarian? Didn't the point get made above that authoritarianism is about a dogmatic belief in something? Isn't "the world is going to be destroyed unless we do THIS, so do it" authoritarian?
I also question, just who were the authoritarians in this scenario and who were the non-authoritarians? Could likely political ideology have had any bearing on the outcome here?
Quote:
IF societies do so by appeal to received truth, by appeal to unquestioning belief, they are authoritarian.
I agree that's a major part of an authoritarian society, but I think the definition of authoritarian may be broader and encompass more than this. I see not just unquestioned belief, but also a call to action involved in authoritarian societies. The way a policy is implemented can itself be authoritarian.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If you have reached a consenus, if there are reasons behind the rules.
Okay. How is telling people how to live not authoritarian?
Quote:yes, but having rules is not the same as a "dogmatic belief" if the rules are subject to validation* and revision.
Didn't the point get made above that authoritarianism is about a dogmatic belief in something?
Quote:Is "If you touch the red-hot stove you will get burned" authoritarian? No, because it happens to be a fact.
Isn't "the world is going to be destroyed unless we do THIS, so do it" authoritarian?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
If you have reached a consenus.
What about the people who aren't part of that consensus or who are deliberately excluded?
Quote:
yes, but having rules is not the same as a "dogmatic belief" if the rules are subject to validation* and revision.
Where did I talk about rules?
Quote:
Is "If you touch the red-hot stove you will get burned" authoritarian? No, because it happens to be a fact.
In the context of the question I asked, "the world is going to be destroyed unless we do THIS, so do it" is technically an order, not a fact. It's also a false dilemma, there could be other options. The "so do it" part could be removed and it would still be an order, because the "necessary" action is implied.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Interesting. I would have said "yes" to only #4, 6 & 8.
I didn't like #3 because of "who will do what has to be done"--I distrust that.
I'd have said yes to 5, but it says "trust the judgment of the knowledgable authorities in government"--government told me marijuana was the "assassin of youth". I don't trust them completely, I'd want to find other sources to help me make up my mind.
I'd have agreed with #7 except for the "put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading old-fashioned ideas".
I didn't like #10 AT ALL!
What does that make me?
I'd say a person not likely to be sold a bill of goods by the powers that be of any stripe.
I do note the "defend the standard, no matter what" folks in this thread, who instantly leap to personal insult when their boat is rocked, seem to be of the liberal bent (Hi, Rue. Hi, Signym). Could they be Authos?
BTW, I scored 63 on the original RWA survey. I'll try yours when I get a chance.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There will seldom be unanimous agreement. The person who get off on serial rape will never agree to laws against it. All you can do is state the goals, open it up for discussion, and hope to synthesize a collectrive agreement.
What about the people who aren't part of that consensus or who are deliberately excluded?
Quote:You seemed to conflate "telling people how to live" (rules) with "dogmatic belief in something", at least insofar as you implied they were both authoritarian and one sentence immediately folllowed the other. I was simply trying to say that one is not the other. If that was not what you meant, then it was my misdunerstanding.
Okay. How is telling people how to live not authoritarian? Didn't the point get made above that authoritarianism is about a dogmatic belief in something?... Where did I talk about rules?
Quote:I'm assuimg the statement came about after discussion, and that its validity had been tested and that other options had been eliminated. So IF the statement met all the above conditions, would it still be considered authoritarian?
I asked, "the world is going to be destroyed unless we do THIS, so do it" is technically an order, not a fact. It's also a false dilemma, there could be other options. The "so do it" part could be removed and it would still be an order, because the "necessary" action is implied.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What "standard" am I defending? BTW- if you can't state it in one or two sentences, it's not a standard.
I do note the "defend the standard, no matter what" folks in this thread
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Good points. I'll try to address what you've written, but my questions feel pretty much satisfied for now.
Quote:
There will seldom be unanimous agreement. The person who get off on serial rape will never agree to laws against it. All you can do is state the goals, open it up for discussion, and hope to synthesize a collectrive agreement.
If I'm going to argue about people who are excluded, I'm going to have to factor in people who may be excluded for valid reasons. There are some rules, such as those against killing, theft, and abuse, which are certainly necessary to any functioning society. And those are rules I'm not sure have any exceptions, not and for the people breaking those rules to be as human as they were.
Quote:
You seemed to conflate "telling people how to live" (rules) with "dogmatic belief in something", at least insofar as you implied they were both authoritarian and one sentence immediately folllowed the other. I was simply trying to say that one is not the other. If that was not what you meant, then it was my misdunerstanding.
No, I suppose you did understand, and I didn't realize the full implications of what I was saying.
I think that there can be a dogmatic belief in rules, and that some rules are bad or unnecessary. I also think that a society that tells people how to live may go too far. There may be too many rules, or maybe the nature of the rules may be crippling because the people who made the rules may be malevolent.
Quote:
I'm assuimg the statement came about after discussion, and that its validity had been tested and that other options had been eliminated. So IF the statement met all the above conditions, would it still be considered authoritarian?
Hmm. There's rarely ever situations where there are no other options or no negotiation or no room for individual measures in a positive direction. But... Hmm. If I say yes outright, that could be a product of my own bias. But I don't think it's no. I think my main problem is that I see this as a small group making decisions for a larger group, and that in order for this game to play out, those directives can not be refused or questioned by the larger population.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer
Dogmatic belief in a system of values (doesn't have to be religious, does it? Folk can be as fervent about Socialism as Catholicism.).
Rue
Or capitalism, as you are, Geezer.
Byte
I would agree that dogmatic belief in a system of values is an element of authoritarianism. I'm not sure why you singled this out. Are you in disagreement with this?
I'm just pointing out that Geezer, who claims to be a non-dogmatic libertarian, is precisely an authoritarian about capitalism.
Geezer
Defense of the system of values( God/ Marx/ Science /History / etc. says it must be true. It's so obvious.).
Rue
What a crock. Seriously. Where DO you get all your manure ? What is at issue is the inability to revisit your ideas, to test them and to change your mind. It's about DOGMATIC BELIEF above all. Hmmm, where was that point made ? Oh yes, the first one above. This --- is just so much go se.
Byte
Why is this not an element of authoritarianism?
Is this specific in regards to the book in question, in that we are discussing in particular the views of the author of the book, and this wasn't included? (If it wasn't, I find that a startling omission.)
I'm pointing out that it's not just ANY system of values that is authoritarian - it is a very specific set of values that holds 'authority' above all. Science isn't authoritarian. A study of history (and I do mean study) isn't authoritarian. Geezer's post was propagandist go se, designed to confuse people into thinking holding ANY values at all MUST be authoritarian. That is simply a lie.
Geezer
Blindly following and excusing their leaders unquestioningly (so - this one stays the same. Sure Stalin/ Lincoln/ Mao/ Bush/etc. got a lot of folks killed, but it was for the best.).
Rue
And where have you EVER seen anyone BLINDLY defend Stalin ? Or Mao ? Or even Lincoln ? Bush OTOH ? I'll give you that one.
Byte
Um, followers of Stalin, Bush, Mao, and Lincoln? Heck, even Hitler had followers. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with here.
Despite his attempts over many paragraphs to erase the real differences between liberals and authoritarians like himself, no 'liberal' here on the board meets this criteria.
Geezer
Let's take another step and decide that the authoritarian leaders don't have to be politicians, but can be anyone with a bully pulpit; for example The Christian Coalition, or PETA, or National Right to Life, or Handgun Control.
Rue
Apparently you don't understand the difference between those who lead by reason, logic and persuasion and those who lead by appealing to 'authority'. I'm not surprised.
Byte
I think I have some kind of disconnect in my brain, because I don't see where Geezer talked about leading by authority versus leading by reason, logic, and persuasion. Why did you make this particular point in regards to what Geezer posted?
By mixing authoritarian with non-authoritarian organizations as examples he is implying that ALL organizations are authoritarian, just by virtue of having a POV. That is not the case.
Geezer
I'd suspect that you could find authoritarian followers for all these organizations, and for most any other - right or left - that want to tell other people what to do, or how to live.
Rue
And yet - in the game scenario there were people who solved problems and kept the world from blowing up - in effect 'telling people how to live', and those who ran things THEIR way and blew the world up. It's all the same to you, isn't it Geezer ? No matter how they got to the end, as long as somebody did something, they must be authoritarian.
Byte
Okay. How is telling people how to live not authoritarian? Didn't the point get made above that authoritarianism is about a dogmatic belief in something? Isn't "the world is going to be destroyed unless we do THIS, so do it" authoritarian?
ALL societies tell their members how to live. It's how you make the rules that counts.
Byte
I also question, just who were the authoritarians in this scenario and who were the non-authoritarians? Could li
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It seems that Geezer is having a hard time identifying my "standard".
But, I have to go too.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I do note the "defend the standard, no matter what" folks in this thread, who instantly leap to personal insult when their boat is rocked ..."
A liar by any other name ... is just as bad. And, well, that's very obviously you Geezer.
Now, if I hadn't pointed out in great detail WHAT your lies were, you might have a point. You could rightly claim that ALL I did was 'leap to personal insult' ... and fail to address the topic. But I did point out each and every one, and you can't seem to refute anything I say.
And I note for the record that ALL you did - rather than refute my logic - was to sling personal insults.
Your bad.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, I understand better. Thanks, both to you and Signy for discussing and explaining. :)
Mostly just two points I want to talk about more.
Quote:
I'm pointing out that it's not just ANY system of values that is authoritarian - it is a very specific set of values that holds 'authority' above all. Science isn't authoritarian. A study of history (and I do mean study) isn't authoritarian. Geezer's post was propagandist go se, designed to confuse people into thinking holding ANY values at all MUST be authoritarian. That is simply a lie.
Science is a very useful tool that does it's best to police itself of bad ideas or falsehoods. An idea MUST be testable. If the idea is wrong, it is discarded, or at least a different route of investigation occurs, all as a part of trying to piece together little pictures into a bigger picture. If an experiment has a positive outcome, then the idea is tested again, many times, different aspects of it, different applications, different predictions.
The Scientific Method is not at all authoritarian, because it demands that we discard belief and bias depending on hard data.
However, there are some ideas in Science that are unquestionable, and schools that greatly decry any questioning of those ideas.
Although I do wish that religion would not meddle with science. I do actually see the two systems as completely incompatible, however, I don't think one should be discarded in favour of the other. Some things work better for some people than others. I do not believe in Genesis, I believe in Evolution because I think it explains a great deal of what I know and observe. However, a person who believes in Genesis thinks it explains a great deal of what THEY know and observe, and also finds comfort in it. I do not think this is necessarily BAD, just different. Since progress seems to be happening in the scientific sector, I have no problem keeping science to the science sector and to people who like and believe science, and anyone who doesn't like science may still reap the benefits while they believe what they want.
History... It's worth studying history, but I do see a lot of bias and misleading information, depending on the source.
Both history and science must always be questioned. That's how both fields remain academically honest. Perhaps some questions aren't even worth entertaining, but it's best I think to take those on a case by case basis.
Quote:
I agree that's a major part of an authoritarian society, but I think the definition of authoritarian may be broader and encompass more than this. I see not just unquestioned belief, but also a call to action involved in authoritarian societies. The way a policy is implemented can itself be authoritarian.
I'm not sure you can draw that distinction. Please keep this in mind - ALL societies tell their members how to live. This is without exception. The difference between authoritarian ones and non-authoritarian ones is how those rules are drawn up.
Hmm, I still feel compelled to add "and what is/ how they are implemented."
A society might agree on something, for example, like health care NEEDS to be reformed, and that new rules might need to be made. But even something well meaning could be authoritarian, or implemented in a way that is authoritarian, and this must be carefully guarded against. Most of the fears about health care reform are fears about being FORCED/ordered to do something. I think many people would see forcing compliance to a system as an authoritarian action, stemming from a belief in authoritarian ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What "standard" am I defending? BTW- if you can't state it in one or two sentences, it's not a standard.
Well, in this particular thread, it seems to be the standard that liberals or leftists can't possibly be authoritarians or authoritarian followers.
Hmm. One sentence.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No, that's not what I said, and I tried very hard to make it clear. The Magic Eightball says: TRY AGAIN.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I'm curious enough to try it your way, tho', let's see if I can slant it. Bear in mind I'm no psychologist, so while I tried, I may not have worded things as sneakily as he did.
Now we’ll do the rest of your answers, starting with No. 4.
Niki2. Please check your scoring for the second set of answers: 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18, 20, and 21. The values don't seem correct to me.
For example, disagreeing strongly with question 4 - Gays and lesbians are dangers to society - gets a 9, while agreeing with it strongly gets a 1. This wouldn't seem to properly reflect authoritarian thinking, regardless of who you listed as "dangers to society".
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Valid. We forgot to mention that a group of "elites" were chosen who made the decisions and handled the money. Since some of the discussions turned to this game, here it is:
a small group making decisions for a larger group, and that in order for this game to play out, those directives can not be refused or questioned by the larger population
The setting involved a rather sophisticated simulation of the earth’s future called the Global Change Game, which is played on a big map of the world by 50-70 participants who have been split into various regions such as North America, Africa, India and China. The players are divided up according to current populations, so a lot more students hunker down in India than in North America. The game was designed to raise environmental awareness, 24 and before the exercise begins players study up on their region’s resources, prospects, and environmental issues.
Then the facilitators who service the simulation call for some member, any member of each region, to assume the role of team leader by simply standing up. Once the “Elites”in the world have risen to the task they are taken aside and given control of their region’s bank account. They can use this to buy factories, hospitals, armies, and so on from the game bank, and they can travel the world making deals with other Elites. They also discover they can discreetly put some of their region’s wealth into their own pockets, to vie for a prize to be given out at the end of the simulation to the World’s Richest Person. Then the game begins, and the world goes wherever the players take it for the next forty years which, because time flies in a simulation, takes about two and a half hours.
The Low RWA Game By carefully organizing sign-up booklets, I was able to get 67 low RWA students to play the game together on October 18th . (They had no idea they had been funneled into this run of the experiment according to their RWA scale scores; indeed they had probably never heard of right-wing authoritarianism.) Seven men and three women made themselves Elites. As soon as the simulation began, the Pacific Rim Elite called for a summit on the “Island Paradise of Tasmania.” All the Elites attended and agreed to meet there again whenever big issues arose. A world-wide organization was thus immediately created by mutual consent. Regions set to work on their individual problems. Swords were converted to ploughshares as the number of armies in the world dropped. No wars or threats of wars occurred during the simulation. [At one point the North American Elite suggested starting a war to his fellow region-aires (two women and one guy), but they told him to go fly a kite--or words to that effect.] An hour into the game the facilitators announced a (scheduled) crisis in the earth’s ozone layer. All the Elites met in Tasmania and contributed enough money to buy new technology to replenish the ozone layer. Other examples of international cooperation occurred, but the problems of the Third World mounted in Africa and India. Europe gave some aid but North America refused to help. Africa eventually lost 300 million people to starvation and disease, and India 100 million.
Populations had grown and by the time forty years had passed the earth held 8.7 billion people, but the players were able to provide food, health facilities, and jobs for almost all of them. They did so by demilitarizing, by making a lot of trades that benefited both parties, by developing sustainable economic programs, and because the Elites diverted only small amounts of the treasury into their own pockets. (The North American Elite hoarded the most.) One cannot blow off four hundred million deaths, but this was actually a highly successful run of the game, compared to most. No doubt the homogeneity of the players, in terms of their RWA scores and related attitudes, played a role. Low RWAs do not typically see the world as “Us versus Them.” They are more interested in cooperation than most people are, and they are often genuinely concerned about the environment. W
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If authoritarianism were a simple matter of ideology, then sure, most ideologies can be arrived at through relatively rational means, just as any ideology can be arrived at irrationally. Ideologically, most points of view are on an even footing.
But the book is not about ideology, it's about psychology. The questionnaire was developed over decades of research--at first, you can be sure, all sorts of questions were asked, but the ones that didn't indicate for an authoritarian range of behaviors and ideation were dropped. What remains are the strongest indicators for or against RWA. From these data one can draw conclusions about why right wing ideology would be particularly attractive to the authoritarian psychology, both the authoritarian follower who accepts abuse from their leader as right and just, and the leader who sees such people as easily controllable. You don't like it, take it up with human psychology--do your own study and get back to us in 20 years.
As the conversation continues, the problem boils down to this: do you see the leaders defining the social order, or do you see the followers defining the social order? So-called "left-wing authoritarianism" can only refer to the leaders of such movements, the Moas and the Stalins who dupe their lefty underlings into freedom crushing policies in the name of left-wing ideals. Such fascist strongmen dress themselves in "left-wing" ideology, but they are not left-wing people. They are nationalists, xenophobes, constitutionally violent men who hate the things they pretend to promote. They get called "communists" when they emphatically have nothing to do with communism, and stamp out the actual practice of communism where they find it.
Look at Great Britain. They're a disarmed people. According to some, this should indicate that the British government is an oppressive regime on the order of Stalinist Russia. But observation shows that it is not.
Right-wing authoritarians, on the other hand, may be cynical, but they don't have to be, and that's a big difference. Right-wing authoritarians that are open about it are rightly distrusted by everyone but their right-wing authoritarian followers. Right-wing authoritarianism is psychologically coherent from the top of the hierarchy to the bottom, while "left-wing authoritarianism" requires active deceit between the leader and people he dupes into following him.
The kind of even-handed, "fair" discussion of authoritarianism that some here demand, can only be found in terms of ideology, not psychology. Take everyone's favorite political diagram, the so-called political compass. 
First of all, the political compass is a purely ideological creation, created to map political leanings in such a way as to highlight libertarian concerns. It is certainly psychologically relevant, but it doesn't tell the whole story.
If we take it as an adequate reflection of human psychology, then we would expect each of the four ideological quadrants to be more or less equally represented by humanity, but that is not remotely the case. Unless you game the questionnaires, no one is gonna end up in the extreme lower right hand corner. It is not psychologically tenable. Some economic theorists may imagine life viewed from the lower right, but human beings haven't spent any real time in that area of the map and aren't likely to for a number of reasons based in human developmental psychology (Sorry, Ms. Rand).
Right-leaning libertarians will tend to dip just south of the line and no further. The further south, the further libertarian, people go, the more they skew left. There are important reasons why this is so, folks. The likes of Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, MLK and Nelson Mandela will all be found firmly entrenched in the lower left quadrant. There are no such men on the right, and there are no such men to speak for authority. Altmeyer's book goes some distance to explain why that is.
Right-wing authoritarianism is not a p
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Since tradition does appear to be an essential part of the definition of "authoritarianism" , what you're saying is... Altemeyer's defintion doesn't mean what it seems to me, as long as I CHANGE THE DEFINTION.
Almost all the statements reference negative hot-button issues for conservatives; loss of traditional marriage and values, radical changes in society, athiesm, homosexuality, perversion, etc.
No. actually I'm not. All I'm saying is that messing with traditional marriage - one man and one woman - is a hot button issue for conservatives. I would suspect that messing with traditional Socialsit doctrine is a hot-button issue for Socialists.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, that's not what I said, and I tried very hard to make it clear. The Magic Eightball says: TRY AGAIN.
Please enlighten me, then.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry, Geezer, I tried to alter the questions...obviously I didn't do it right, from what you said. Like I said, I'm not a psychologist. It would be too much trouble to go back and try to figure out how to work the scoring, word the text, etc. I get points for trying, maybe, and you're welcome to try YOUR hand at it to see if we can find any RWA liberals....
No, Rue: "It's about DOGMATIC BELIEF above all". It's not. It's about a mentality, a way of thinking, of which dogmatic belief is one symptom, and one symptom only. Byte has it right, it's ONE ELEMENT of authoritarianism.
And yes, Byte:
Quote:That's what I got, too.
I see not just unquestioned belief, but also a call to action involved in authoritarian societies. The way a policy is implemented can itself be authoritarian.
As far as
Quote:, I believe it was more like "let's decide how to deal with X crisis", and those in charge in the game got together and decided collectively how to deal with it. Certainly that made it necessary for them to tell their people what to do, but I think it was more about how the POWERS dealt with things than how the people did, and there was no doubt some grumbling within the people at what was decided...dunno. He doesn't go into that much detail. I can see how telling the people "do this" is authoritarian, so that leaves the question unanswered--except insofar as SOMEONE always tells "the people" what to do, and it's a simple game, without governments, etc., so...?
"the world is going to be destroyed unless we do THIS, so do it"
Quote:Nope. Geezer, I reread and didn't see Sig as defending a standard; more like debating points. Certainly I saw some personal stuff in there, a lot from Rue, and I disagree with some of her conclusions, but I think
Well, in this particular thread, it seems to be the standard that liberals or leftists can't possibly be authoritarians or authoritarian followers.
Quote:is pretty on-point. Doesn't cover the whole topic, but I'd agree with it.
IF societies do so by appeal to received truth, by appeal to unquestioning belief, they are authoritarian. If they do so by logic, discussion and consensus, they are not.
I think maybe? some of the personal stuff might have slanted your view somewhat. You made some very good points, but so did others. I guess my own responses would be:
Quote:
Dogmatic belief in a system of values (doesn't have to be religious, does it? Folk can be as fervent about Socialism as Catholicism.
Blatant prejudice against non-conformers with the system of values (You know...the "other", like those gun-nuts/gays/meateaters/abortionists/etc.)
Defense of the system of values(God/Marx/Science/History/etc. says it must be true. It's so obvious.)
Blindly following and excusing their leaders unquestioningly (so - this one stays the same. Sure Stalin/Lincoln/Mao/Bush/etc. got a lot of folks killed, but it was for the best.)
Let's take another step and decide that the authoritarian leaders don't have to be politicians, but can be anyone with a bully pulpit; for example The Christian Coalition, or PETA, or National Right to Life, or Handgun Control.
Basically, authoritarian followers want to tell you how to live - because they have received the revealed truth from God or Marx or Jerry Fallwell or George Soros - and can't imagine you wouldn't agree with them 100%. They will force you to follow their leader for your own good, even if you resist. If you resist too much, they will make you "the other" who isn't really a person, but an obstacle to be removed.
I think you nailed a good portion of it exactly. There's a lot more to it than that, but what you got, I believe you nailed, and it can be ANY issue, what's important is how dogmatic the followers are, how closed they are to any other option/suggestion/facts AND how aggressively they act.
Rue, I disagree with
Quote:
By mixing authoritarian with non-authoritarian organizations as examples he is implying that ALL organizations are authoritarian, just by virtue of hNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Whatever the outcome, you rejected the idea of a LEADER, and went for "movement". Authoritarian followers want a LEADER, someone who will tell them what to think and believe.
I'm not sure if there's that much of a distinction here. Can you think of many successful movements that did not have either one or a very few charismatic leaders, teachers, gurus, philosophers, etc. who provided the "truth"? For that matter, folk can rally around an idea or ideal in a similar way.
"1) a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in their society;
2) high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and
3) a high level of conventionalism."
With a few changes:
"1) a high degree of submission to the established ideas/ideals of their society;
2) high levels of aggression in the name of their ideas/ideals; and
3) a high level of conventionalism."
"Conventionalism" is an interesting term, since it could apply equally well to the bible-thumping religious conservative or the doctrinaire Marxist.
Of course, folk can also rally around a leader, guru, idea, etc. while still retaining a properly skeptical view of what they're being told.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Uhhh, I think personal insults aren't exactly new in RWE, are they? And they can be caused by a number of emotions, like frustration, personal animosity; they don't indicate authoritave-follower mentality.
High levels of aggression in support or opposition aren't by themselves indications, either, or even the two put together.
Nice try, tho'.
I do agree that a "movement" can be as authoritarian as a "leader", and movements have leaders. Except that spotting the word "leader" and disagreeing with it indicates a desire for more than one person make decisions, and in no way indicates that the person is an authoritarian follower. An athos follower would buy the "leader" thing without thinking twice, so I stand by my response with regard to that.
I find myself wondering if you are trying to say something or prove a point? Just the impression I'm getting...have gotten all through, actually. It's as tho' it's terribly important to you that the concept of authoritarianism NOT be most often exemplified by the right, but that you'd like to prove it's equally valid to the left. I may be wrong, that's just kind of what I'm getting.
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually, you included "radical changes in society, athiesm, homosexuality, perversion" in addition to changes in traditional marriage. From YOUR statement I gleaned that the problem is that the questions challenged MANY aspects of tradition, and the problem was challenging tradition itself not any particular aspect (religion, marriage, the military etc)
No. actually I'm not. All I'm saying is that messing with traditional marriage - one man and one woman - is a hot button issue for conservatives.
Quote:I haven't met any, but I don't think that's the point. The point is that I haven't met any progressives/ liberals/ left-wingers who are willing to lie, cheat, and steal their way into power.
I would suspect that messing with traditional Socialsit doctrine is a hot-button issue for Socialists.
Quote:Since you made the point, isn't it up to you to back it up???
Please enlighten me, then.
But (sigh).. okay, once more into the breach... Somewhere up there, I said that I thought it possible for there to be athos lefties, but that it was less likely because lefties have not BEEN "the authority" and therefore do not have a cadre of loyal unthinking followers who are following a socialist doctrine simply because it represents "the authority".
I did spend a lot of time trying to point out that simply having a viewpoint, a plan of action, or a government, did NOT make one authoritarian.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I would add that, even when IN power, it's less true; it's less likely because lefties are generally more independent thinkers, less dogmatic, religious, prejudiced against "others" and any number of other things which comprise authoritarian thinking.
it was less likely because lefties have not BEEN "the authority" and therefore do not have a cadre of loyal unthinking followers
One of the points he made in the book was that those with high RWA, when exposed to different opinions and different people, tend to get lower RWA scores over time. He mentioned that a high RWA who comes to know a homosexual would be less inclined to hate homosexuals. But that high RWAs tend to stick to their own circles, thereby validating their beliefs.
I used to wonder why the two Coasts were almost invariably more liberal than the center of the country. Had it explained to me that we're exposed to more different cultures because of being on the Coast...which doesn't explain Texas or any of the Gulf, by the way. But if you make the correlation between what's postulated in The Authoritarians and that explanation, yes, exposure to "differents" would tend to lower our RWA score, so it fits.
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Couldn't resist.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki2 and HKCavalier
Geezer is not a religious authoritarian - he is an ideological pro-capitalism one. He himself states that people could be authoritarian about anything - though conveniently he left capitalism off his list (of course).
If you were to remove the words: god, morals, ten commandments etc from the questionnaire and substitute: capitalism, profit, free market etc you would find that Geezer is, indeed, highly authoritarian. BTW - this is not the first time I have put this idea up, and it is not the first time Geezer has essentially claimed credentials with a 'low' score. Consider, though, if, as a non-religious person, he were to take a revised version that highlighted his particular BRAND of religion you would see that indeed, he his extremely authoritarian. But don't take my word for it - stick around and watch him weasel and propagandize his way through an economic discussion of the problems of capitalism. (No such thing ! besides which, it's all explicable ! And anything that WAS done was well intentioned - or at least, better than the alternative - or, OK, it was expedient ... and besides the US NEVER intervened in supporting dictators or juntas ANYwhere --- I have the security clearance to prove it ...)
And BTW, when you have read enough of Geezer supporting torture, political assasination, spying on Americans, tasering for minor non-compliance, US military domination across the globe etc etc you will realize that what he SAYS about himself and what he actually is - don't match up. Just a thing to notice as you continue with your reading. For the record, that makes him, in my book, a liar.
As for authoritarians in the general population - with an average score of 90, US adults are only slightly less authoritarian than not, on average. I think the book points out how entirely common it is (though not the majority), not how rare, or how extreme. Though some authoritarians are extreme, of course.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue, what do you want me to do? I know what Geezer is. He's not a high RWA. He's not nearly as irrational as you paint him. He's just kind of a jerk who likes to eff with people from his astonishingly complacent POV. Over the years during which you have taken him on at every opportunity, you have made exactly zero headway, right?
He's not the enemy. He's a distraction. And he has been distracting you more than most for over 5 years now. Let it go.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Look at everything he supports - torture, spying, military and economic dominance, support of dictators, police authority to do anything they want etc - and tell me WHY he's not a high RWA.
He may put a genteel southern gloss over it, but it comes down to the same thing.
And BTW - I have been too right about too many people to think I am wrong here.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue, Rue. You're just the dueling dualist aren'tcha? Step back a minute. I like you. I admire you. I just think you're wasting your time tilting at the windmill that is our mutual friend Geezer.
Y'know, I don't know what Geezer believes in other than gay rights. Everything else he will finesse and qualify and reframe as long as he can string you along. He's not too worried about a damn thing as far as I can see. I get it that such people can be dangerous, but here in cyberspace, he's only a cathode tiger. His chat is worse than his bite.
But look what he's done to this thread. It's all about him and his half-baked ideas about a book he won't even bother to read. He's had years to read that book now if he were really the least bit interested. But he's not, you see? And yet, y'all just keep on arguing with him and he keeps on slipping away and out of your grasp.
I do know one thing about him: he's having fun. Are you?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
From YOUR statement I gleaned that the problem is that the questions challenged MANY aspects of tradition, and the problem was challenging tradition itself not any particular aspect (religion, marriage, the military etc)
I used the word "tradition" to indicate the traditional belief system conservatives support. Probably should have included - and emphasized - the "belief system" bit, because a belief system - not whether it's traditional, progressive, New Age, or whatever - seems to me the key to the issue. If folks believe in a leader, or a movement, or a theology, or an idea unthinkingly, they're prime candidates to be Authoritarian followers.
Quote:Quite possible. You may be in the wrong place and the wrong time. Consider the first few years of the Russian Revolution, or Mao's Long March in China. Even back when the ideology was pure, there was plenty of badness and internecine bloodshed going on. In a less bloody mode, there's the old stories about the dead in Chicago and Texas rising up to vote for Kennedy and Johnson.
The point is that I haven't met any progressives/ liberals/ left-wingers who are willing to lie, cheat, and steal their way into power.
Quote:
Somewhere up there, I said that I thought it possible for there to be athos lefties, but that it was less likely because lefties have not BEEN "the authority" and therefore do not have a cadre of loyal unthinking followers who are following a socialist doctrine simply because it represents "the authority".
And I don't disagree with that, with the caveat "At the present time". There have been leftists who were authos in the past - in the Soviet Union and China for example - and there could be in the future.
Quote:
I did spend a lot of time trying to point out that simply having a viewpoint, a plan of action, or a government, did NOT make one authoritarian.
And I don't disagree with that either.
My point all along is that, given certain circumstances, pretty much anyone from any political, religious, ehtnic, etc. persuasion can be an autho. This doesn't mean that they will, or that they're even likely to. However, the skeptical person's gotta keep alert to the signs in both others and themselves.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HKCavalier
I am not here to convince Geezer of anything.
I am here to point out to others that he is not who he portrays himself as being. That he has a years-long history of exclusively supporting\ excusing\ minimizing\ denying heinous things done by 'authorities' in the name of US economic and military power. That his debate tactics are those of a professional disinformationalist (which I would lay good money on that he is).
And while it is not fun, I think it's a necessary thing to do. The reason I do this is because:
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem
At some point we replaced the lawful/chaotic/good/evil with friendly/obnoxious/easy going/aggressive personality models similar to the one above...
Still, I thought there was opportunity here for a large number of roadrunner cartoons, or their anime equivalent.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer, I think we've agreed that ANY idology can be a form of authoritarianism to those who are high athos, athos followers. I got it at least, and I don't have any argument.
But I do with
Quote:No, "anyone" can't; it's a psychology, a mentality, which the author agrees may have genetic components but is mostly formed by experience, from childhood forward. Whether it's Communism or religious right, the same concept applies...someone who does not have authoritarian mentality won't BECOME a high-athos just because of what they believe in. That seems to be a point you haven't quite grasped yet, and I think I'm through repeating it. It's not about left or right or up or down or any particular philosophy/group/cult/religion/politics. It's about HOW the person thinks, and how AGRESSIVELY the defend/act out on their beliefs.
My point all along is that, given certain circumstances, pretty much anyone from any political, religious, ehtnic, etc. persuasion can be an autho.
I don't happen to believe that in America, authoritarian mentality can exist much beyond what we experienced with Bush--there are far too many non-athos here who eventually change things. Other countries, I can see it can happen and has, but as far as I'm concerned, this is the only country that interests me in that regard, and here authoritarianism applies most cogently to the right wing, one reason it's so difficult to elect a liberal President. I recognize your opinion differs from mine, so I'll agree to disagree and let it go at that.
Rue, as far as Geezer's concerned, it does no good to tell me what he "is". And trying to bring "the truth" to light is a waste of time. Those who are high-athos may well believe whatever you say and make him an "other". My way of being is to take everyone as I see them, as they interact with me, and make my judgments from there. I have my own opinions about everyone I'm meeting here more than once, and will continue to do so. I can see that you have strong feelings about him and his attitudes, but as Cavalier has said, he's a "paper tiger" here, he can't do anyone any harm unless they let him.
I would ask that, if you would, you'd let me make up my own mind about those here. I came from another Firefly website. When I first came there, I was appalled by the nastiness, right-wing rants and raves, personal attacks and the way most anything I posted in disagreement with the coterie that pretty much "ran" their equivalent of the RWE forum was responded to; I also expressed my shock at what I found.
I was told "it's been this way for years, like it or leave it", and by others privately and on the forum that they'd encountered the same thing as I and learned to stay away from the RWE. I like debates, as I've said, so I tried numerous ways of dealing with the problem. I bowed out of "debates" that got circular and where the other people wouldn't or couldn't hear what I was actually saying; I got called a coward for doing so. Occasionally I remarked on the nastiness; I got called a controller who was trying to "make" people do what I wanted.
When I first arrived, having come from mostly friendly, moderated boards, I shared my life and things about it. Every single one was used against me in particularly ugly fashion, and I was told that anyone who shared about themselves was fair game. It was, of course, too late by then to take back what I said, so I had no choice but to accept the abuse.
I tried putting the worst offenders on "ignore"; they came into conversations I was having with others, and by the others' responses it was obvious what they were saying about me.
I tried giving as good as I got. I was chastized by milder members of the forum for fanning the flames and being as bad as the others, tho' I was NEVER as awful to them as they were to me.
I even tried, with the worst person, merely reversing what they threw at me back at them by changing a few words. They didn't even notice it, and went right on attacking.
At one point one of the really awful people there posted a long
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, I think Nik wins the typing contest.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But 
I just "talk" too much.
p.s. Thanx for calling me "Nik"...only one other person has ever done that, and it feels nice.
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Gorammit, the inet ate my reply. 
Quote:Mmm… not sure that’s true. I think the author may have a specific interaction in mind between leaders and followers in an authoritarian system. Believing in a leaderless theology or movement does not contain the element of “leadership/ followership” that seems to be required for authoritarian systems. And if one’s belief is anti-authoritarian… say, SargeX’s belief in a system of rebels… it would not attract people with the need to follow.
I used the word "tradition" to indicate the traditional belief system conservatives support. Probably should have included - and emphasized - the "belief system" bit, because a belief system - not whether it's traditional, progressive, New Age, or whatever - seems to me the key to the issue. If folks believe in a leader, or a movement, or a theology, or an idea unthinkingly, they're prime candidates to be Authoritarian followers.
Quote:The key here, I think is… given the right circumstances. Given the right circumstances, any particular person is capable of doing a lot of things they might not otherwise. This is a truism but doesn’t say much.
My point all along is that, given certain circumstances, pretty much anyone from any political, religious, ehtnic, etc. persuasion can be an autho. This doesn't mean that they will, or that they're even likely to. However, the skeptical person's gotta keep alert to the signs in both others and themselves.
I will repeat a statement I made previously, simply bc you haven’ responded to it the first two times: A government “could” become authoritarian, but one organization is inevitably so, and that is the modern corporation. That’s prolly why I prefer cooperatives rather than corporations.
*********************
I’m still doing what drove Finn nuts… testing the boundaries of a definition. For example, its clear that having a plan of action, an organization, or a statement of fact, or a fear, does not make one authoritarian. If that were the case, then anyone who ever made a discovery, was frightened, solved a problem, or acted in cooperation with others would be authoritarian… clearly not the case!
But if authoritarianism is a system of leadership/ followership (more pointedly, a system of followership based on fear) and non-authoritarianism is based on consensus… how many people have to be included and agree on something before it’s considered a consensus? What do you do with the people who disagree? What if they disagree violently, or are intent on subverting the consensus? What if they’re intent on supplanting the system of consensus itself, and replacing it with their own authoritarian system?
Couple of thoughts on this: If there is ONE rule that a non-autho system must have, it is the rule not to allow authos. (Thanks to Rue for expressing what I have been trying to say for years: You do not get rid of authoritarianism simply by removing authorities. You must change the system.)
The other thought is that, despite SargeX’s rejection of any “imperfect” systems (A perfect system is one in which people are allowed to act in total freedom) such as system will never exist.
There are as many possible societies as there are stars in the sky, including societies which have run headlong off figurative cliffs while clutching their belief systems. One group subject to dislocation and starvation develops a culture of thievery and cruelty. Another develops a culture of sharing. One culture worships children, another sacrifices them to the gods. One culture believes women are the ultimate leaders, another treats them as less than cattle. One island society, on the verge of ecological disaster and starvation, start implementing population control, another chops down the last tree and devolves into a nightmare of starvation, cannibalism, and extinction. “Thou shall not kill” is not a statement to which we “all” agree. There is nothing instinctive or god-given about our societies… no perfect consensus on any topic… nothin
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Geezer, I think we've agreed that ANY idology can be a form of authoritarianism to those who are high athos, athos followers. I got it at least, and I don't have any argument.
But I do withQuote:No, "anyone" can't; it's a psychology, a mentality, which the author agrees may have genetic components but is mostly formed by experience, from childhood forward.
My point all along is that, given certain circumstances, pretty much anyone from any political, religious, ehtnic, etc. persuasion can be an autho.
You're gonna make me be more careful with my words. Thanks.
Properly phrased, the sentence should have read, "My point all along is that, given certain circumstances, pretty much any political, religious, ethnic, etc. persuasion can have autho followers."
"Anybody" was obviously a poor choice of words, and did not properly convey what I was thinking. My bad.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME