Authoritarianism...
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Thursday, January 5, 2017 01:16
VIEWED: 9901
PAGE 2 of 2
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM: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.
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.
But I'm expressing my ideas about the subject, not the author's. I have encountered people who reflect all the authos follower's traits listed farther up in the thread towards a movement, gun control for example, rather than towards a leader.
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.
"Right circumstances" doesn't have to mean a life or death situation. It might be, probably would be, where the particular leader, idea, etc. had a strong appeal to the preconceptions of the potential authos follower, causing them to follow uncritically.
Quote:
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.
As you can probably guess, I'd have to disagree with the proposition that corporations are inevitably authoritrian. We've been around this topic too many times, so I'm not going there again.
Quote:
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.
Authos to the wall, then? But wouldn't the folk willing to get rid of the authos, for the protection of society, be authos themselves? Do we need a bigger wall?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Corporations: ruled in a top-down hierarchy, guaranteed to make its minions feel like underserving pieces of shit (bc if you're poor it must be YOUR fault), and based on the fear of poverty. Anti-corporatism is attacked not only with harsh words but with guns and bombs. Think I've made my case, I believe that YOUR belief is... uncritical.
"Authos to the wall" : Well, maybe authos to a place where they can practice their autho behavior amongst each other? A conundrum that is best minimized as much as possible, but can never be eliminated. The choice is between a society that is less free, and one that is more free. Absolute freedom???? Don't think it will ever happen, so don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Signy, good thoughts:
Quote:I concur. But again, it's HOW a person thinks, not the system/leader/whatever that they believe IN. And is there such a thing as a leaderless theology or movement? If there was, yes, it would be harder to ACT OUT one's authoritariansim unless one was close to others in same and could get support in what they believe, but autos can be anywhere and believe in anything...it's how they think about the thing that makes them authos.
Believing in a leaderless theology or movement does not contain the element of “leadership/ followership” that seems to be required for authoritarian systems
Quote:Yes. Way back somewhere I mentioned that the author said in a CRISIS, some people will adopt an autho stance which they wouldn't otherwise. Ergo 9/11, perfect example. A lot of people bought into the entire Bush Doctrine and the things he put in motion in this country, initially, because of fear.
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.
Quote:Nope. Doing those things has nothing to do with authoritarianism; again, it's HOW one thinks/acts on their beliefs which makes one an autho follower, not the thing itself.
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
Quote:I'm not sure what you mean by this, clarify, please?
THAT is a “tyranny of the majority”… there is no way around it.
I think we've gotten away from the concept of an autho follower and are dealing with what they might or might not follow. It's about HOW they think, how they believe, how they act--a psychological thing...it has nothing whatsoever to do with WHAT they believe, think about or follow. It's possible anywhere, and I think any society has some, because athos will always seek SOMETHING or someone to follow and believe in, inevitably someone/something which reinforces the beliefs they already have formed through their life and are dogmatic about.
Quote:Ooops, yeah, that's what I just said. Yup. You got it. In fact, I'd change "can" to HAS.
My point all along is that, given certain circumstances, pretty much any political, religious, ethnic, etc. persuasion can have autho followers
Maybe it will help if I list again the aspects of an athos follower. This is a shortened version, but you can refer to the earlier post for a more full description:
1. Illogical Thinking:
High RWAs have trouble figuring out that an inference or deduction was wrong. Remember the following syllogism:
All fish live in the sea.
Sharks live in the sea..
Therefore, sharks are fish.
The conclusion does not follow, but high RWAs would be more likely to say the reasoning is correct than most people would. If you ask them why it seems right, they would likely tell you, “Because sharks are fish.” In other words, they thought the reasoning was sound because they agreed with the last statement.
2. Highly Compartmentalized Minds
As I said earlier, authoritarians’ ideas are poorly integrated with one another. It’s as if each idea is stored in a file that can be called up and used when the authoritarian wishes, even though another of his ideas--stored in a different file-- basically contradicts it. We all have some inconsistencies in our thinking, but authoritarians can stupify you with the inconsistency of their ideas. Thus they may say they are proud to live in a country that guarantees freedom of speech, but another file holds, “My country, love it or leave it.” The ideas were copied from trusted sources, often as sayings, but the authoritarian has never “merged files” to see how well they all fit together.
3. Double Standards
I have found many other instances in which authoritarian followers show a double standard in their judgments of people’s behavior or the rightness of various causes. For example they will punish a panhandler who starts a fight with an accountant more
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I was losing track of all of the OTHER characteristics which make up authoritarianism. Thanks for that. Needs more thought.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Okay, agreed. But I think they're in the minority by far, and they need to have ALL the criteria of an atho follower, and I don't think you'll find a lot who would fit.
I have encountered people who reflect all the authos follower's traits listed farther up in the thread towards a movement, gun control for example, rather than towards a leader.
Quote:Again, they'd have to display the symptoms, and it'd take something pretty hefty, I should think, to make a non-atho think completely like an atho. A leader who had a strong appeal to the preconceptions of an atho follower, but following him doesn't make him specifically an athoritarian, only the way he THINKS and ACTS in following/believing.
"Right circumstances" doesn't have to mean a life or death situation. It might be, probably would be, where the particular leader, idea, etc. had a strong appeal to the preconceptions of the potential authos follower, causing them to follow uncritically.
Quote:Certainly corporations would draw a lot of atho followers, and those who weren't who worked for them would have a harder time, but it doesn't make corporations inevitably full of atho followers. In the wider meaning of authoritarian, corporations certainly are, but we're talking about a mentality here, not the wider meaning.
one organization is inevitably so, and that is the modern corporation.
Quote:Exactly. Any society where everyone excludes atho followers by agressive means, or actually get rid of them at ALL, dooms its citizens to being authoritarian followers.
But wouldn't the folk willing to get rid of the authos, for the protection of society, be authos themselves?
Yes, it's a DAMNED shame we have so many of them, and they're so active (speaking of currently and the past eight years),AND that their means of pushing their agenda are so effective--remember, there is no "conscience" or "questioning" so lying, cheating, not holding your leaders accountable, makes it MUCH easier to be in power.
But they're as much a necessary part of society as non-athos, as I see it. Like I said above; first, a non-atho society would be chaos; second, you have to have traditional values for non-athos to question, and if you tossed 'em all out, you make your own traditional values; third, if you throw them out, you are acting in an authoritarian manner, making them the "others" and agressively excluding them. Just as you said:
Quote:There you go.
Absolute freedom???? Don't think it will ever happen, so don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
It's tough, isn't it?? And it's so easy to get away from the mentality, the seven aspects, and into theological, political, etc. BELIEFS as part of making someone autho.
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Corporations:
Not going there.
Quote:
"Authos to the wall" : Well, maybe authos to a place where they can practice their autho behavior amongst each other? A conundrum that is best minimized as much as possible, but can never be eliminated. The choice is between a society that is less free, and one that is more free. Absolute freedom???? Don't think it will ever happen, so don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Exile, then.
So who decides who are authos? For that matter, who decides who are the folks who disagree with the consensus about what "Freedom" is and need to be removed for things to run smoothly? You can't really test for it, since it'd be obvious you were doing so and those doggone disagreeable folk would cheat. Probably informers. Maybe a bit of surveillance. Would trials or due process be neccessary if the consensus said their removal was really needed?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Again, that's not my point. I agree that it would be difficult, and require unusal circumstances, to make a non-autho act like an autho. I'm saying that leaders, ideas, etc. of most all political stripes can appeal to those disposed to autho-type behavior. It might be difficult to find a Buddist Autho.
Originally posted by Niki2:
Again, they'd have to display the symptoms, and it'd take something pretty hefty, I should think, to make a non-atho think completely like an atho.
Quote:
Yes, it's a DAMNED shame we have so many of them, and they're so active (speaking of currently and the past eight years),AND that their means of pushing their agenda are so effective--remember, there is no "conscience" or "questioning" so lying, cheating, not holding your leaders accountable, makes it MUCH easier to be in power.
Okay, I'm gonna get in trouble again here, because I doubt that the autho followers, at least, consider themselves as having no conscience. They probably believe they are doing what is necessary to maintain the correct way of life. They don't go out in the morning thinking "I'm going to do evil things today {evil laugh}", even though you or I may think they are doing the wrong thing. Your enemy is not evil in his own eyes.
Quote:
It's tough, isn't it??
Sure is.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is hopelessly dualistic. You've just clearly and concisely categorized all the impaired thinking of the authoritarian mindset and then conclude that society needs its impaired thinkers or it would devolve into chaos?
Originally posted by Niki2:
But they're as much a necessary part of society as non-athos, as I see it. Like I said above; first, a non-atho society would be chaos; second, you have to have traditional values for non-athos to question, and if you tossed 'em all out, you make your own traditional values; third, if you throw them out, you are acting in an authoritarian manner, making them the "others" and agressively excluding them.
Impaired thinking is the problem. And the solution is not to forcibly remove all the impaired thinkers you can find, because, yes, of course, that would be impaired thinking as well. It would mean objectifying the impaired thinkers as an "other." It would be, in short: ignoring the psychological basis of the problem. That's what happens when people politicize psychological phenomena. That's what happens when people ignore the reality of psychological healing.
But there are other ways to get rid of impaired thinking. #1: education. #1a: psychological healing. And #2: DON'T IMPAIR IT IN THE FIRST PLACE! The kind of impaired thinking we're discussing here, your 7 characteristics of authoritarians, are not inborn--they are induced. Abusive systems create this kind of impaired thinking.
There are all manner of non-authoritarian traditions, just not so much in the deeply hierarchically minded western world. Traditions of shamanism and eastern martial arts are two examples I've studied and practice to this day. Such traditions can survive for centuries without turning authoritarian. Both traditions are grounded in reality and incorrect practice is determined by the practitioner through their failures, not through dogma. A dogmatic martial artist will only get so far before her skill is undermined by her delusions--at which point she may turn to politics.
I have studied in such traditions for years without encountering any of the 7 deadly abusive thought patterns. I have also encountered abuse in one martial arts school I attended, but it was far from necessary to the tradition, it was cancerous and many students were hurt by it and the school closed.
Impaired thinking, resulting from long term abuse, is NOT necessary to keep society in order. But, tellingly, thinking that it is necessary for society is crucial to the abusive system's survival. Realizing that a cycle of abuse can be ended is the first step toward healing.
I think you're mistaking what I would call "anti-authoritarianism" with non-authoritarianism. Most of us hereabouts are children of a patriarchal, intolerant, dogmatic, abusive system of some kind and to some degree. Some stay there and become authoritarians. Others get out, but only so far, and spend their lives shadow-boxing with the authoritarians, remaining thus bound to that world and never really being free. And some of us free ourselves even of that struggle (for the most part, most days
) and find our own meaning in life.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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
But there are other ways to get rid of impaired thinking. #1: education. #1a: psychological healing. And #2: DON'T IMPAIR IT IN THE FIRST PLACE! The kind of impaired thinking we're discussing here, your 7 characteristics of authoritarians, are not inborn--they are induced. Abusive systems create this kind of impaired thinking.
Okay. Gently I speak, fearing wrath, but having to express concern.
How might you be able apply this education, psychological healing, and pre-emptive stoppage of inducement towards authoritarianism to a good percentage of the population without using massive amounts of coercion, invasion of privacy, and loss of personal freedoms? The term "re-education camp" comes to mind, and that's not a pleasant image. And once again, who decides who is in need of this treatment?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Interesting question. I just accepted "that's how it is".
The author wrote that people exposed to other than their own tight circle had their RWA scores lowered, but that it's a problem because authos tend to stick close to their "birds of a feather". Pretty obvious, from the symptoms, that they would.
So I guess the easiest answer is "expose them to other ideas, people, etc." How do you do that? To me, any kind of forced anything isn't acceptable; it creates its own authoritarianism, and is just plain wrong.
Dunno how you get ideas/people/etc. INTO their circle, or if it can even be done, but that's the only thing the author suggests--oh, wait, I forgot; the last chapter is entitled "What’s To Be Done?" I'll read it and let you know what HIS suggestion(s) is/are.
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Y'know, I'm sorry for getting so upset about all this--it's just at the core of The Problem as far as I'm concerned. That's me.
Originally posted by Geezer:
Okay. Gently I speak, fearing wrath, but having to express concern.
How might you be able apply this education, psychological healing, and pre-emptive stoppage of inducement towards authoritarianism to a good percentage of the population without using massive amounts of coercion, invasion of privacy, and loss of personal freedoms? The term "re-education camp" comes to mind, and that's not a pleasant image. And once again, who decides who is in need of this treatment?
Geezer, I keep thinking I've answered this question half a hundred times before, in half a hundred threads and here it is again. I must just suck at explaining myself!
Here's the thing: the only way to apply this education is individually. The only person with the credentials to determine who needs this education is the individual him/herself. When the student is ready, the teacher will appear. When we recognize that we have a problem, that's when we seek help.
You want children to grow up free of this abusive shit, then don't perpetrate it on them.
Mental health really must never become politicized in terms of coercion, invasion and brainwashing--because these practices specifically undermine mental health--both for the ones doing the coercing and their victims. I treat this as a psychological fact. Children need to be respected above all else--experience will teach them what is real and what is not, if we simply respect them enough to let them learn.
I'm hoping for a purely cultural revolution here, a baseline of mental health being reached by enough people that it achieves a critical mass and society as a whole becomes a li'l bit healthier. I have to believe that, ultimately, once we understand our natures thoroughly enough, mental health is a naturally preferable state to mental illness and delusion. I see such healing happening every day. As a survivor of incest, I cannot imagine living as well or as happily--as consciously--as I do today at any other moment in our history. Incest has been so misunderstood for pretty much the entirety of human history until very, very recently in this century.
Gay rights initiatives, f'rinstance, get passed because enough people realize that gay people are entitled to the same rights and privileges as everyone else (not because of coercion, or invasion of privacy or "re-education camps"). This becomes known as a fact of human nature, not just one faction's fractious opinion.
Sure, there are activists agitating for this change I'm talking about. In my way, I am an activist (still writing that novel over here). In Frem's way, so is he. I believe activism is most effective as a means to educate--to raise awareness. 'Cause, once you're made aware of a reality, it's hard to go back to ignorance--you have to really work at it at that point and you can never quite get ignorance back again.
Lies will fade without constant reinforcement, while the truth eventually is all that's left.So, in terms of the human race wising up, I gotta take the long view here. But I see individuals wising up every day. Recognizing authoritarianism when we see it--seeing what sorts of ideology are most consistent with authoritarianism and what sorts of ideology tend to interfere with authoritarianism--is an important step in loosening authoritarianism's grasp on humanity.
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
Actually, I'll be lazy. I'll just give you the text. There may be references to earlier parts of the book; there will undoubtedly be little numbers that refer to notes. But here it is (geez, if I keep this up, I'll be copying the whole BOOK here, hee, hee, hee). He gives a lot of IMpractical solutions initially, then goes on with the following:
Long-term Reductions in Authoritarianism: More Practical Solutions
Like I said, it’s not going to be easy. And knowing you as well as I do, I think you’d probably be suspicious yourself of anyone who says he’s got a Magic Pill that will cure our spell of authoritarianism overnight. But some approaches have been blessed by data, and I can give you the “short list” here. (Uh, there is no long list, but future research should add justifiable means to our end.)
Wanting to be “normal.” By and large, these approaches are not based on what high RWAs might become, but rather on what they are. For example, we can catch a favoring breeze from the fact that high RWAs want to be normal. Studies show they will moderate their attitudes and beliefs just from finding out that they’re different from most people. They don’t usually realize how extreme they are because they stick so closely with their own kind. They need to get out more.
How can you possibly accomplish that since--like “Hugh”--they love staying in their tight circles? Through common cause, believe it or not. Low RWAs and high RWAs land on the opposite ends of a certain personality test, but they’re not really, totally, from head-to-toe opposites. They disagree about lots, but not about everything.
People tend to overemphasize their disagreements and underrate their commonalities. And keep in mind that high RWAs open the door to those who seem to believe what they believe. Find your common grounds, and meet on them.
Many fundamentalists, for example, are becoming concerned about the damage being done to the environment. God gave us dominion over the earth and all its creatures, they believe, and we are doing a pretty crummy job as God’s caretakers. So environmentalists should reach out to them, uniting on local projects that everyone can see need to be done. The “tree-huggers” will be glad they did; fundamentalists work hard for causes they believe in.
High RWAs will be most likely to come to meetings, do some picketing, or clean up a stream when they can come in pairs, threes, and so on--or especially have you join them. Don’t be surprised if they try to convert you while you’re pulling tires out of the creek. I don’t recommend you proselytize back, but it would be important for them to learn, in a non-confrontational way, that people who disagree with their religious views have reasons for their stand. Dropping the drag net in a can-filled stream and shouting at each other from the opposite shores will not get anybody anywhere. It’s not an argument you can win, especially if you win. (Couples who live together learn this about certain arguments.)
Instead, you’ll be amazed how bonding it is when four people wrestle an old washing machine out of the brown water that none of them could have managed alone. This is called a superordinate goal, and social psychologists can cite many studies that show it really does open doors between groups.
You’re not asking the fundamentalists to come through the door to your side. You’re not trying to change their religious beliefs. You’re just trying to augment their awareness of others, and increase their Christian charity, by simply giving them the chance to see through an open doorway. Meeting different people in a situation where all are joined in common cause, where all have to work together, can open such vistas. (Of course, if you’re a disgusting person that no one would enjoy meeting [ask around], take a pass on this.)
For another example, non-fundamentalists churches can extend their hand to fundamentalist faiths. People often think that low RWAs are all atheists and agnostics. They’re not. Most (62%) of the low RWAs in my big 2005 parent stud
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Geezer, I keep thinking I've answered this question half a hundred times before, in half a hundred threads and here it is again. I must just suck at explaining myself!
Here's the thing: the only way to apply this education is individually. The only person with the credentials to determine who needs this education is the individual him/herself. When the student is ready, the teacher will appear. When we recognize that we have a problem, that's when we seek help.
I pretty much agree with this, but as somebody said, "Aye, there's the rub".
How do you get people who honestly believe that their worldview is the correct one to voluntarily decide to completely re-make themselves? Some, through encountering reasonable and patient people of other world-views will open their eyes to alternate views. I've seen this happen. Howecer, it's not all that common.
I think that the answer lies with the children. Conside that, from my observation, racism has decreased quite a bit in the last 50 or so years. Oh, it's still out there, but I'd guess with a lot less adherents. I suspect the reason is the end of "Separate but Equal" and integration. As Kids started going to school with kids of other races and ethnicities, they found that those other kids weren't all that different.
Madame Geezer suggests that all schools should have mandatory courses in Critical Thinking, starting as young as possible, as an innoculation against both illogical ideology and illogical advertising. Seems like a good idea to me.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:SNORT! Like it's not happening already???? How do you supposed people grow up being authoritatian in the first place???
without using massive amounts of coercion, invasion of privacy, and loss of personal freedoms?
Quote:If they're adults... When they've hit bottom. And some... never bottom out.
How do you get people who honestly believe that their worldview is the correct one to voluntarily decide to completely re-make themselves?
Quote:GREAT IDEA! It'll be just as easy as getting comparative religion in the curriculum.
Madame Geezer suggests that all schools should have mandatory courses in Critical Thinking
Unfortunately, there are a LOT of people in this society who have a vital interest in keeping people from thinking.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I think those who associate authoritarianism with dogmatic or strong beliefs in things are missing the boat a bit. Everyone feels strongly about something, yeah? Religion, Capitalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Anarchy, Order, Free Love, Celibacy, whatever.
I might be the uneducated wanker here, but it seems to me that Authoritarianism isn't about having a strong, nearly unshakable belief in something. Nor is it about following leaders who have those same strong beliefs. (Almost all people follow leaders, whether we want to admit it or not.)
To me, Authoritarianism becomes Authoritarianism only when you are prepared to force other people to live by your strongly held beliefs. You can hate or love a thing from here till doomsday, but until you're prepared to force other people to adopt those beliefs, you're not an authoritarian figure or follower.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
You didn't outlaw murder....
One of the 10 commandments.
Keep digging. It's not a "christian" thing, or even a "jewish" thing. Keep going back. Those alleged "commandments" didn't really have anything new to say that hadn't already been said and written down before.
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Madame Geezer suggests that all schools should have mandatory courses in Critical Thinking, starting as young as possible, as an innoculation against both illogical ideology and illogical advertising. Seems like a good idea to me.
Doesn't it just...
Teach critical thinking and problem-solving skills. "Why do I think that?" "What part of this complex system is broken? Where's the fault?" Boil things down, and you'll often be surprised both at the answers, and at how simple they were to find if you knew where to look and how to ask...
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Re: #2: DON'T IMPAIR IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!
While not a viable longterm measure or solution - smashing the machinery and infrastructures of the systems which do the imparing is a damned useful immediate and interm one.
Quote:
You want children to grow up free of this abusive shit, then don't perpetrate it on them.
Bingo, s'what it boils down to - and those who DO such things, knowing full and well what they're about, and doing so for reasons of power and politics ?
I can assure you that in less than three generations from now, they'll be reaping the bitterest harvest of the crop they planted, in ways they could never possibly have expected.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:SNORT! Like it's not happening already???? How do you supposed people grow up being authoritatian in the first place???
without using massive amounts of coercion, invasion of privacy, and loss of personal freedoms?Quote:If they're adults... When they've hit bottom. And some... never bottom out.
How do you get people who honestly believe that their worldview is the correct one to voluntarily decide to completely re-make themselves?Quote:GREAT IDEA! It'll be just as easy as getting comparative religion in the curriculum.
Madame Geezer suggests that all schools should have mandatory courses in Critical Thinking
Unfortunately, there are a LOT of people in this society who have a vital interest in keeping people from thinking.
You know, SignyM, sometimes it seems like you're trying really hard to work yourself into believing that the only way for your consensus-based society to deal with those you consider authoritarians is execution or exile.
BTW, How do you identify those Authos and contrarians again?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Bingo, s'what it boils down to - and those who DO such things, knowing full and well what they're about, and doing so for reasons of power and politics ?
I gotta reiterate. I doubt most of the authoritarian followers who are the ones handing down what we'd consider racism, sexism, religious bigotry, etc. think of themselves as doing it for power or politics. They mostly truly believe that they are protecting their way of life, and that it's the correct way of life. They're not wrong in their own eyes.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well as to the followers...
All I really need is one good crack in the foundations of their worldview, and time to exploit it - at which point they wind up drinking MY koolaid.
Although from that point, rather than being the dick about it I could be, they get weaned offa the koolaid entire - I'd rather they make up their own minds about stuff.
"Me, I'm no leader, I do what I have to, sometimes people come with me."
-Edgar Friendly.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Unfortunately, all too true.
It'll be just as easy as getting comparative religion in the curriculum
Quote:ou nailed it, Anthony; the author states that the three personality characteristics of an atho follower are:
To me, Authoritarianism becomes Authoritarianism only when you are prepared to force other people to live by your strongly held beliefs. You can hate or love a thing from here till doomsday, but until you're prepared to force other people to adopt those beliefs, you're not an authoritarian figure or follower.
Quote:Gotta go walk the dogs before it gets hot; dying to read the rest of this...
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.
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Or as YOU put it:
You know, SignyM, sometimes it seems like you're trying really hard to work yourself into believing that the only way for your consensus-based society to deal with those you consider authoritarians is execution or exile.
Quote:Please stop projecting your thoughts onto mine, and putting your words into my mouth.
massive amounts of coercion, invasion of privacy, and loss of personal freedoms? The term "re-education camp" comes to mind, and that's not a pleasant image. And once again, who decides who is in need of this treatment
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, lessee:
Quote:I think that's an excellent idea; for all children. Problem is, autho followers, again, "flock together", there's stuff in the book about how atho-follower parents try hardest to send their kids to parochial schoosl, religious universities, church groups and the natural tendency is to be with "their own", which the parents foster. How do you get them to teach critical thinking and problem-solving skills, which it pretty much goes against their belief, which is to follow/perpetuate their own belief system? Like was said: it's like trying to get prayer OUT of schools...good luck!
Teach critical thinking and problem-solving skills
Frem, your idea of
Quote:is, unfortunately, forcing beliefs on others in the end, since I assume what you'd put in place would be a "system" which would be the opposite, which would try and "force" them away from their beliefs. I don't think that's viable: seems to me it would only push those beliefs underground and strengthen them, and make something DIFFERENT become 'tradition', so both be authoritarian in its own way and CREAT atho-follwers of its own.
smashing the machinery and infrastructures of the systems
Given your background, I accept that you see things this way, but I think your background and experiences have molded you into a bit of an autho-follower in your own right, in that you see violent overthrow as the solution to most problems. I don't see it that way.
Quote:From what I read, I don't get the conclusion those things are what CREATE authoritarianism, they're the end result, and certainly perpetuate it.
massive amounts of coercion, invasion of privacy, and loss of personal freedoms?
He wrote, by the way, that a large percentage of those raised by RELIGIOUS atho-followers end up rejecting the religion; they see/experience too many contradictions, hypocrisy, etc. that doesn't jive with what they were taught. He IS speaking of university students, of course, who are exposed to more different things in their lives in the first place. But it's interesting...He cites it as one of the main reasons for such persistent prosletyzing, that without new converts, religion would slowly be eroded.
Of course, those are in the minority, and prosletyzing is part of authoritarianism, but it's important to note--especially that in recent times, despite the religious right's power and attempts to force their beliefs on others, people have been rejecting organized religion in increasing numbers.
I'm not sure what you mean by
Quote:How does an authoritarian follower hit bottom? If they continue to be an authoritarian follower, it's just reinforced and they continue to believe the way they do and be aggressive about it.
When they've hit bottom
Quote:I agree. I think it's the authoritarian LEADERS who see it as a way to gain power, and use the weaknesses of the atho followers to do so.
I gotta reiterate. I doubt most of the authoritarian followers who are the ones handing down what we'd consider racism, sexism, religious bigotry, etc. think of themselves as doing it for power or politics. They mostly truly believe that they are protecting their way of life, and that it's the correct way of life. They're not wrong in their own eyes.
Ah, Frem:
Quote:I think you're forgetting one of the major aspects: Dogmatism. Without hunting around or all the specific pssages, here's a couple that point to the fallacy of your theory:
All I really need is one good crack in the foundations of their worldview
Quote:
You might as well talk to a brick wall. Thus authoritarian followers may really mean it when they say no discoveries or facts could change their beliefs about the important things in life.
Thus I have asked people who believe in the traditional God, “What would be required, what would have to happen, for you to not believe in the traditional Judeo-Christian God? That is, are there conceivable events, or evidence, that would lead you to not believe? Virtually all right-wing authoritarians say there simply is nothing thatNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Coincidentally, I just heard Max Blumenthal, the author of Republican Gommorrah www.buzzflash.com/store/items/1789
this morning, and without once referencing Altemeyer the author traced out the EXACT pathology behind the right-wing's extreme authoritarianism, and the people behind it.
One of the people that he traces this to is Dobson, who wrote Dare to Discipline and The Defiant Child, textbooks for violent authoritarianism (not my assessment, but the assessment of a book reviewer). In these books, Dobson writes
Quote:and
"Pain is a marvelous purifier... the spanking should be of sufficient magnitude to cause the child to cry genuinely." "
Quote:www.stoptherod.net/dobson.html
"By learning to yield to the loving authority...of his parents, a child learns to submit to other forms of authority which will confront him later in his life -- his teachers, school principal, police, neighbors and employers
Blumenthal says that the whole right-wing is infused with a kind of sick sado-masochism. While it's too early to get online quotes from Republican Gommorrah, I found this sarcastic review of Dobson which echoes Blumenthal's views
Quote:
James Dobson "lovingly" guides parents to assume the dominant position over one's children so they are taught submission and obedience. Something he says they desperately need later in life. Paddling your children over the knee (OTK) prepares them for future "healthy" relationships as adults mixing pain with pleasure. Dobson says it's not enough to just beat your child, you have to immediately comfort and tell them you love them. This imprints on the child's brain a connection that love has to hurt and making love can only be satisfying if pain is involved. Essentially "reliving" the humiliation they experienced as children.
"The reason I suggest a switch or paddle is because the hand should be seen as an object of love - to hold, hug, pat, and caress. However, if you're used to suddenly disciplining with the hand, your child may not know when she's about to be swatted and can develop a pattern of flinching when you make an unexpected move. This is not a problem if you take the time to use a neutral object."
Thank goodness! Because making your child's bottom red really can sting your hands! Better to use something that doesn't cause pain to the giver, only the receiver should experience pain. That would insure the dominant/submissive relationship stays "pure." {Also, it wouldn't DO for a child to flinch in public, as it might expose the parent as an abuser!-Signy} To any parent that doesn't think that paddling your child isn't sexual abuse I ask this: If an adult not related to you says that he would like to take your child over his knee and give them a spanking, wouldn't you assume that he has some sick perversion? But it's not perverted when you do it to your own kid???
www.nospank.net/dobson2.htm
According to Blumenthal, the whole right-wing is infused with dominance and submission, which makes a point of taking advantage of... and in the case of children, creating... personal crises to "break" a person, then bringing them "lovingly" into the fold. So when Geezer said
Quote:And I responded wtih
massive amounts of coercion, invasion of privacy, and loss of personal freedoms? The term "re-education camp" comes to mind, and that's not a pleasant image. And once again, who decides who is in need of this treatment
Quote:I refer you to these books, which describe exactly HOW this is happening already, creating little authoritarians out of children and people in crisis.
As if this isn't happening already?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So when you made your remark about (what?). Curiosity killed the cat, and it never did me no good either
As to the rest, it made me shudder. Very interesting, aside from disgusting and disheartening.
I'm not surprised that anyone who studied authoritarianism would come up with the same things; it's not too hard to spot the similiarities in all their thinking.
And yes, as far as I'm concerned, in today's world, in America, "RWA" is the precisely correct label...it IS right-wingers who exemplify this to the extreme and obvious. And scary. Tho' hopefully now Dumbya's out of power, IF Obama survives, IF another Dumbya doesn't get in power any time soon, their power will be diminished to a good degree. Hopefully!!!
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Re: Schools.
There's also a lot of distortion and propaganda in civics/history classes, which was one of the things that also set me off when the official line was that the Federalist papers were a mere explaination of events to the masses from our betters, with not even a hint or mention of the Antifederalists or their arguments - and having recently got my hands on a full used set of encylopedia britannica, I took issue with the disparity.
Still goin on too, as evidenced here.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6581189.html
I used to collect old history and social studies textbooks, you can pick em up real cheap at yard sales and whatnot, and comparing them, you can clearly see the political distortions and how they changed over the years - there's some SERIOUSLY racist shit in textbooks from the 50's and 60's that while obvious now, was likely not quite as noticeable back then cause it was so deeply etched in the culture of the time.
Re: Smashing the machinery.
Nah, given the machinery getting smashed (the hellcamps) it shouldn't be replaced at all, with *anything* - they're an aberration, and one whos time is all but over, accellerating the decline saves more folk the horror and it really is best that they are mercifully forgotten.
The longterm best solution is at it's root, the simplest one - convince folk to stop listening to authoritarian types, shatter the illusions and myths by allowing folk enough information to make their own judgements.
I might hedge the line a bit here and there, but outright coercion is something I flat will not save in the gravest extreme, and even so I hold no illusions about it being wrong.
Re: One good crack.
You'd be surprised, while there are folk that dogmatic, they're not as common as one might expect, and over time I can be very, VERY persuasive to someone who's listening, even when they're desperately pretending not to.
On the other hand, the utterly dogmatic ones are useful too, cause I take it the other way, get in their little pin heads and start breakin shit, yank all the levers, push all the buttons and send them into a total full bore meltdown right in front of their little collective, a high speed variation on an idea I swiped from an afterschool special, in fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wave_(TV_special) <-Add manually
There's a dark side to stuff like Milgram, Stanford, and all the other evidence of how low a person can sink when they don't question, and that is that someone who DOES have the knowledge can turn it on you, exploit and manipulate you, or even cause a full on breakdown simply by pulling all the triggers in there at once.
And knowing where and what those triggers are is the simplest thing, since just watching the dynamic for a while will tell you this.
In the end, for me it really DOES boil down to folk simply asking...
"And I am takin orders from you, exactly why ?"
Mankinds greatest gift is the ability and willingness to commit heresy, and in the end that simple, single thing will be our salvation.
-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
Oh don't even get me STARTED on Dobson and Ezzo, the forefathers of the social dynamic that created those never to be sufficiently damned hellcamps.
That was the evil root which spawned the malignant growth of bastards like Sembler, Lichfield, Kay and all the rest of em.
The Wellsprings of Horror in the Cradle
http://www.alice-miller.com/articles_en.php?lang=en&nid=46&grp=11
The Neurodevelopmental Costs of Adverse Childhood Events
http://www.childtrauma.org/ctamaterials/Neuroarcheology.asp
It's not just an affliction, it's a process, and you break that chain in between the ends, you CAN snap it, even if you are powerless to directly intervene.
The Essential Role of an Enlightened Witness in Society
http://www.alice-miller.com/articles_en.php?lang=en&nid=41&grp=11
-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
Good find, Signy. Those quotes from Dobson's book are simply, and I don't use the word lightly, evil. 
I hope you can see why Frem and I keep going on about early childhood experience. Because all the impaired thinking we associate with the authoritarian personality is simply the child's attempts to square the circle, as it were, of the abusive parent; the consequent atrophy of critical thinking brought on by years of enforced neglect.
And Mr. Dobson is quite correct, it does set the stage for submission later in life.
Scratch a torture advocate and you'll find an advocate of "disciplining" children. And again, the "R" in RWA is there for a reason. Because even if the abusive parent is himself so compartmentalized as to give lip service to politically liberal causes, the abuse is conditioning his child to submit to right-wing authoritarian power; conditioning the child to understand that might makes right and that violence is a veritable Swiss army knife of psychological utility--to control, sure; to punish, of course; to relieve stress, naturally; spice up the bedroom, don't knock it til you've tried it!--but most of all, to educate, educate, educate!
Thing is, though the authentic self can be beaten and burried under a mountain of fear and lies, she cannot be extinguished. And once removed from her confines, will naturally rejuvenate if given a fighting chance.
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Or as YOU put it:
You know, SignyM, sometimes it seems like you're trying really hard to work yourself into believing that the only way for your consensus-based society to deal with those you consider authoritarians is execution or exile.Quote:Please stop projecting your thoughts onto mine, and putting your words into my mouth.
massive amounts of coercion, invasion of privacy, and loss of personal freedoms? The term "re-education camp" comes to mind, and that's not a pleasant image. And once again, who decides who is in need of this treatment
Okay, you win the "Taking Out of Context" award once again. Guess I should retire the trophy.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:Quote:From what I read, I don't get the conclusion those things are what CREATE authoritarianism, they're the end result, and certainly perpetuate it.
massive amounts of coercion, invasion of privacy, and loss of personal freedoms?
Wow! Has that sentence fragment been taken out of context.
I was responding to HKCavalier's post about turning authoritarians around psychologically.
He said:
"But there are other ways to get rid of impaired thinking. #1: education. #1a: psychological healing. And #2: DON'T IMPAIR IT IN THE FIRST PLACE! The kind of impaired thinking we're discussing here, your 7 characteristics of authoritarians, are not inborn--they are induced. Abusive systems create this kind of impaired thinking."
My response was,
"How might you be able apply this education, psychological healing, and pre-emptive stoppage of inducement towards authoritarianism to a good percentage of the population without using massive amounts of coercion, invasion of privacy, and loss of personal freedoms? The term "re-education camp" comes to mind, and that's not a pleasant image. And once again, who decides who is in need of this treatment?"
I was looking for suggestions as to how one could educate, heal, and break the educational cycle of authoritarians without having to resort to coercive means.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer, the words "execution", "exile" "coercion", "invasion of privacy", "loss of personal freedoms", and "re-education camp" are your words, not mine. Your choice of words is YOUR choice of words. Your frame of reference, your concerns, your bent, your bias, is YOURS not mine.
Several possibilities have already been posted, from being a "helping witness" to "finding common ground". But you keep returning to authoriarian mechanisms like a compass keeps pointing north.
I choose not to participate in that discussion, so why don't we look at the possibilites which have ALREADY been posted?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Signy, maybe he keeps returning to it because you won't let the thread move on until Geezer admits to being a loathsome hypocritical bastard. News flash: that ain't gonna happen.
Seriously. Signy, as I tried to tell Rue before, whether or not Geezer is a bad man, is really, REALLY off topic and irrelevant. You don't like him. We get it. You don't trust him. So what?
He brought up coercion and invasion of privacy and such in the context of how I might go about re-educating authoritarians. Is that not a valid question, Signy? You add NOTHING to this discussion that I can see by trying to arm wrestle him into admitting that he himself is an evil authoritarian. NOTHING.
And heck, if he is an authoritarian, is this YOUR way of re-educating him??? Good luck with that.
I don't understand it. Disagree with him, call him on his b.s. when it shows itself--but why make it your life's mission to constantly hector and malign someone in an Internet forum?
I loved it back when you and Rue were the fact checkers around here--you guys were my freakin' heroes!--bringing the sources and the documents and letting them speak for themselves. You guys kicked ass without even trying.
Who are you benefiting with these endless attacks now? The noobies? Don't you think they can make up their own minds? Isn't letting folk make up their own minds part of what you're fighting for?
(Sorry everyone for focusing so much on these meta-thread matters, but I guess I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore or something. Forgive me. I need a vacation. And presto! I'll be on the road for Labor Day weekend. Heading down to John Day Fossil Beds to commune with the Ancients. If you've never been, and you live in the Northwest, I highly recommend it. Take care all.)
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
My apologies, Geezer. You quoted yourself as saying how could we ELIMINATE authoritarian thinking "without using massive amounts of coercion, invasion of privacy, and loss of personal freedoms?"I saw the quote of just the words, not the "WITHOUT" and misunderstood. I, too, would like to know how else it could be achieved, tho' I think the author's suggestions are probably the only viable ones.
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mmm. You're right. This isn't doing anyone any good. But I have to say in my defense, I USUALLY try to stick to the topic, facts, logic despite provocation. Sometimes I have to grit my teeth and take a deep breath (hard to do at the same time!) so I feel a little stung that my heroic efforts haven't been recognized.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I find debating/discussing with you wonderful, Signy, so if you go or Rue go off sometimes into personal missions or something, it doesn't bother me. Gives me insight to the community on the board, actually, and doesn't make me like or dislike anyone any more or less. Just FYI.
Hey, I put up another thread (after many hours of distilling and cleaning up!) on authoritarian LEADERS...dying to know what you guys think of that.
Also couldn't resist his remarks on a perfect example of an authoritarian leader/social dominant (he postulates that you need both to be an effective authoritarian leader), namely, Bush. That should be interesting to see what people have to say about THAT, too.
I admire all you guys and your ability to debate--I know, I'm a broken record, but speaking as someone who loves to debate, question, theorize, etc., I have trouble pulling myself away...
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Its easy to debate with people you agree with.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I haven't agreed with many things throughout this thread...how is that "debating" with people who agree with me? Have YOU agreed with me all along?
It's not debate when everyone agrees, and we haven't, by a long shot. I guess you haven't read the thread or something...?
Everyone here has questioned, dissected the meaning of different things, postulated that authorianism doesn't have to be one side or the other, expanded/expounded on the theories, argued, gotten personal, etc., etc. I've agreed with you and disagreed with others with whom I agree on other things, and you've done the same.
I don't think that was a reasonable statement, I think that was a crack. An innacurate one. And an unnecessary one. So I'll say 
and 
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
"Authos to the wall" : Well, maybe authos to a place where they can practice their autho behavior amongst each other? A conundrum that is best minimized as much as possible, but can never be eliminated.
I'm reminded of a painting done by a friend of mine, titled "Foreign Policy". It was a busload of Napoleons, seventeen of them in all, with one Napoleon driving, another navigating, and the rest arguing amongst themselves as to where they were going and how to get there...
Can you imagine trying to live in that segregated place where all the authoritarian leaders and followers have been corralled? Talk about too many chiefs and not enough Indians...
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Its easy to debate with people you agree with.
And so very, very difficult for you to debate at all...
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer: Authoritarian programming and authoritarianism itself are self-destructive life-styles. By nature, authoritarianism tries to spread and escalate. But by escalating, by becoming stricter and more harsh, which is a result of the human innate resistance to the abuse that authoritarianism represents, it creates further resistance, stronger resistance, until those who can resist break out, rebel.
There was one thing which I think that Marx got right, and that is his idea of class warfare, the dialectic, that eventually, the proletariat WILL revolt from underneath an oppressive system.
There's three tools that help erode authoritarianism. The first is diversity, which others have mentioned on this thread. The second is teaching people not what and how to think, but encourage them to QUESTION, as with your recommendation for required critical thinking classes (which, BTW, I agree with). And the third and very most important is support and respect, because the authority will be very, VERY angry at you for leading away any stray sheep.
To destroy authoritarianism, you can't do it systematically, you can't turn the same draconian measures on the followers to convince them, and can't force them to see things your way, you can't reeducate or exile or execute and expect the problem to go away. But face to face, person by person, conversation by conversation... You will see results. You will see generations of kids who increasingly grow away from the intolerant ideas of their parents.
This can be done, because this is inevitable. And we can hurry the process along, but only if we are careful how we do it, because otherwise, we only breed a different kind of authoritarianism.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nik,
You're arguing with Wulf. This is never good.
Wulf,
Sorry man, you need to chill. If it seems like I've been beating up on you, I have, but not intentionally. I view each new post as a new entity, infinite chances at redemption.
By that I don't mean "agree with me." Lots of people don't agree with me. I get along fairly well with some people who never agree with me, politically speaking.
I just posted two posts in agreement with Whozit. You're probably politically closer to me than him, outside of the race issue. Which, if I were you, I'd drop.
Just accept that some things are unacceptable. One is, on a show that has two principle black characters, some of the audience is black, they're not going to be a good audience for the argument that blacks are stupid and violent. Actually, you might not find a good audience for that argument. But you are very sure not to find it here.
I would say the same to Pirate News on "jews" and have, but at this point, no offense John, it would be wasting my breath, err., fingers. He's sabotaging every argument he makes by his continual assault on jews.
Pirate,
Just because. Here's a little of Henry Ford, a man often accused of anti-semitism, but one who also had a lot of very valuable things to say:
"I am not opposed to Jews, the people I oppose happen to be Jewish, there's a big difference."
And there was. Henry Ford predicted the holocaust, and that Israel would be a disaster, and thought that the Jewish leadership would be responsible for both. Sure, Ford also funded the Nazi party, at least early on, so some people could say Ford was to blame, or make some sort of argument... But I don't really care. My point is, the people you oppose happen to be jewish. So are a lot of other people. You'll find that a lot of the people you oppose aren't jewish, once you take off this blinder.
And, you'll be more credible.
Oh, and work on your definition of Jew. There is no Jewish race. Some jews are semites, most are the descendents of converts. I know you know this. But then you must also agree that ergo, Judaism is not inherited. Kyrias Joel is a jewish disaster. FOX NEWS is not. I think that this sort of conspiracy theory is rubbish. FOX caters to Israel because they have money and power, and Rupert loves money and power. (And to people who write shows with characters named Rupert, and Fox) Yes, people are that simple.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have been thinking about 'authoritarianism', three non-hierarchical and peaceful societies, the 'peaceful' baboons and the 'nasty' chimpanzees.
Starting w/ the 'peaceful' baboons: the most aggressive baboons cornered the local dump, from which they contracted TB from tainted meat, and died. The elimination of the most aggressive individuals was a transforming event for the group. After that, aggression against females and juveniles was no longer tolerated. That dynamic has held true for many decades, despite 'imports' of males raised in virulently aggressive troops, and despite the fact that males who are 'exported' go on to have aggressive lives.
And then there are the chimps, normally social, who displayed consistent dominant\ aggressive behavior when faced with a wealth of luscious fruit all in one pile --- who then reverted back to their normal sociable behavior when the fruit was spread out and easily accessed by all.
This argues to me that aggressive\ dominant\ 'authoritarian' behavior is not a personal trait or learned mindset so much as a response to the environment.
And then we have three non-hierarchical societies with no evident palaces, or slums --- and no signs of war.
I think this is related. Somehow, they achieved a distribution of resources that did not evoke economic predation\ social aggression. I think their economies resulted in those particular societies, not the other way around.
To get rid of authoritarianism, I think all you need is an economic structure that makes the gaining of economic advantage impossible.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Starting w/ the 'peaceful' baboons: the most aggressive baboons cornered the local dump, from which they contracted TB from tainted meat, and died. The elimination of the most aggressive individuals was a transforming event for the group. After that, aggression against females and juveniles was no longer tolerated. That dynamic has held true for many decades, despite 'imports' of males raised in virulently aggressive troops, and despite the fact that males who are 'exported' go on to have aggressive lives.
I don't see how this is an economic cause.
Quote:
And then there are the chimps, normally social, who displayed consistent dominant\ aggressive behavior when faced with a wealth of luscious fruit all in one pile --- who then reverted back to their normal sociable behavior when the fruit was spread out and easily accessed by all.
Authoritarianism is not the same creature as greed. Though, for leaders at least, greed may be an incentive to promote authoritarianism.
Quote:
This argues to me that aggressive\ dominant\ 'authoritarian' behavior is not a personal trait or learned mindset so much as a response to the environment.
I can agree with this, although when the response is learned or reinforced into genuine authoritarianism, I'm not sure you can separate learned mindset from response.
I'll also say, that there is an archeological theory out there that there are large differences between so-called "jungle cultures" where resources are plentiful, and with "desert cultures" where they are not. Jungle cultures tend to be less jealous and possessive of females, children, and sex, and also more inclined to share resources because resources are more plentiful. They are therefore less violent than "desert cultures."
"Desert cultures" are not necessarily desert, but anywhere food may have initially been difficult to obtain before agriculture, or where resources might have been fought over (like livestock herds or arable land). The thinking is that these aggressive cultural mindsets can become picked up and enforced by belief systems and spread across the region.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kathy,
I doubt it. I think you would only get rid of economics. People will always vie for power.
I'm always skeptical of monkey myths. I spend a fair amount of time on primate research, and know some people involved in it on a much higher level. This sort of stuff is useful for understanding basic human nature, but not for drawing direct parallels.
It's important to remember that a primate is a human with a synaptic network of a dog. If humans are easily manipulated, as they are, it stands to reason that primates are even more easily manipulated. You could easily create a primate society to reflect any behavior you wanted, or search for random events creating radical behavior, but the general tendencies are towards power structures, conflicts, even wars, if there's enough organization.
As long as the primates in question don't eat their own children it's possible to select and push for something that could even be called an idyllic society, but more realistically, I think that they're best scanned for which sorts of behaviors do and don't appear in primate behavior, particularly those related to us.
I generally agree with your conclusion, except that I think there's another element: Authoritarian behavior evolves whenever sufficient organizational structure is present.
This is a very delicate balance for us. At a minimal level of primate social structure you do end up with parents eating children and similar behavior you wouldn't expect to see in a relatively advanced dog (Okay, most dogs are more advanced than most primates, but still...) But as organizational structure increases, there's an element of stability until eventually you end up with wars, even genocide and authoritarian dictatorships.
Intelligence of course is not a pre-requisite to civilization, though ants are far more intelligent than people generally think.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
To destroy authoritarianism, you can't do it systematically, you can't turn the same draconian measures on the followers to convince them, and can't force them to see things your way, you can't reeducate or exile or execute and expect the problem to go away. But face to face, person by person, conversation by conversation... You will see results. You will see generations of kids who increasingly grow away from the intolerant ideas of their parents.
This is what I've been thinking. Rather than looking for a "State" solution, it's something that individuals are going to have to commit time and effort to. Talk to people with Authoritarian ideas. Get them to know you as a person, not an enemy, and vice versa. Try to get them to see the inconsistancy in just one little corner of their worldview - gently, gently. Yelling at them that they and their leaders are wrong and evil is just gonna entrench them more. Once you get that little corner pulled up, and get them asking questions, change can ensue. Certainly not an easy or quick method, but the alternative is to become what you hate so you can kill it.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We call that setting the hook, Geeze.
And yes, that one little crack is all you need, if you've the knowledge and patience, and are willing to invest the time and effort, which unfortunately most people are not.
And just because this topic could use a little injection of humor...
Quote:
to understand that might makes right and that violence is a veritable Swiss army knife of psychological utility
Rule #6: If violence wasn't your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Damn. One negative about living on the West Cost is I come in too late in the morning and miss some of the best debates. Hence my loooong posts first thing I come in. Just the way it is I guess.
Byte:
Quote:I agree it's self-destructive, in some ways, and as the author pointed out, when exposed to "different" things, people and ideas, college students' RWA score went down.
But by escalating, by becoming stricter and more harsh, which is a result of the human innate resistance to the abuse that authoritarianism represents, it creates further resistance, stronger resistance, until those who can resist break out, rebel.
But I don't think it necessarily becomes stricter and more harsh, or even escalates, unless it gains power. I could be wrong...but by our example, the religious right didn't escalate and begin imposing its values on the nation until it had a sympathetic person in power...yes?
Quote:Yeah, I agree; we just did, didn't we?
the proletariat WILL revolt from underneath an oppressive system.
I agree with your three suggestions...tho' I'm not sure about "support"...you mean support those who break away? I think you have to respect BOTH, so as not to alienate either while you encourage those you can away from it, and support them...which may be what you're advocating.
Quote:Bingo, in my opinion.
we can hurry the process along, but only if we are careful how we do it, because otherwise, we only breed a different kind of authoritarianism
Dream, nah, I'm not arguing with Wulf. He made a false statement; I refuted it. Otherwise, we agree on some things, disagree on others; that's debate, and fun.
Rue, I found your primate experiments interesting, and I think they have some validity. However, as pointed out, I don't think they extrapolate completely to humans, so I'd be skeptical that the solution you came up with is completely the answer.
Quote:I don't know about that--essentially in America many of us have the same environment who end up being both low RWAs and high RWAs, so that doesn't hold true. I'd go more for learned mindset (tho' the author says there may be some genetic components) AND environment, in that an environment of those like themslevs fosters the mentality.
This argues to me that aggressive\ dominant\ 'authoritarian' behavior is not a personal trait or learned mindset so much as a response to the environment
Quote:I think that may be impossible to maintain. Bear in mind the RWA LEADERS tend to be social dominants too, and if you read about the "double highs", I'm not sure how you eliminate them from the equation...? I tend to agree more with Dream in that
To get rid of authoritarianism, I think all you need is an economic structure that makes the gaining of economic advantage impossible.
Quote:
I doubt it. I think you would only get rid of economics. People will always vie for power.
Authoritarian behavior evolves whenever sufficient organizational structure is present
Geezer,
Quote:I agree with every word, and I think that's part of what the author is suggesting...as a long-term solution. I'm not sure what the short-term might be, nor was he.
Rather than looking for a "State" solution, it's something that individuals are going to have to commit time and effort to. Talk to people with Authoritarian ideas. Get them to know you as a person, not an enemy, and vice versa. Try to get them to see the inconsistancy in just one little corner of their worldview - gently, gently. Yelling at them that they and their leaders are wrong and evil is just gonna entrench them more. Once you get that little corner pulled up, and get them asking questions, change can ensue. Certainly not an easy or quick method, but the alternative is to become what you hate so you can kill it.
Ah, Frem, if that's the "crack" you were talking about, then I take back what I said; I agree wholeheartedly. Also with the statement that not many have the patience (and determination) to do it.
________________________
Together we are greater than the s
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
But I don't think it necessarily becomes stricter and more harsh, or even escalates, unless it gains power. I could be wrong...but by our example, the religious right didn't escalate and begin imposing its values on the nation until it had a sympathetic person in power...yes?
Every cult tries to spread, because there is also power and comfort in numbers. As they spread, and bring new blood into into their fold, the new blood will need to be tested, to ensure that they really are loyal. As time goes on, and the group becomes more paranoid about the outside, the tests become harsher.
It's usually in the second generation you start to see the first hints of dissent, one or two kids will become the black sheep, maybe even the scapegoat. They'll run away or try to escape, or the punishment will prove fatal. In that failure of the group, the first seeds of doubt are planted. Sometimes, as with organized religion, that is sufficient for the believers to fear and be even less likely to question, which does prolong the existence of the group, but attrition will exact it's cost.
The goal of the authoritarian leader tends to be power and control, to promote an agenda (like the perfect society) or to remove a perceived danger to society. Power and control I think can be considered a goal of authoritarianism.
Quote:
I agree with your three suggestions...tho' I'm not sure about "support"...you mean support those who break away? I think you have to respect BOTH, so as not to alienate either while you encourage those you can away from it, and support them...which may be what you're advocating.
I mean both. As for the leaders, I'm not sure there's any treatment for megalomania. If their ideas are based on psychological delusions, perhaps they can be treated like others with a psychological disorder.
I don't understand the mechanism of the leader as well. I can only assume that the same abuse that shapes the followers also shapes the leader, they develop the same extreme ideas, but also an ability to believe so much that they can pass on those beliefs. Is it a response to the abuse, rather than submitting to it, a determination to prove they are great, better than the other followers?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"People will always vie for power."
This is exactly the 'human nature' argument many use to support any number of pathologies. It would argue that war is inevitable. And yet - we know it isn't.
Here are some things I learned:
Bonobo chimps all hunt - females hunt individually, males hunt individually, females hunt in groups, males hunt in groups, females and males hunt in groups together. All prey is shared evenly.
Males do not vie for status in a male hierarchy - their status is conferred by their mother's status, which tends to correspond with the time the mother's been in the group. Female status is achieved and maintained non-violently.
'Regular chimps' have mostly adult males hunting. Females sometimes 'successfully' hunt alone, but the few times it's been observed the prey was stolen by a male. Some of the more successfully hunting males have a higher status in the hierarchy, but some of the lower-status males are also among the most successful hunters. However, high status males always get a large share of the prey to eat, low status males must beg, adolescent males eat whatever scraps fall to the ground, and females always beg for food, getting roughly 1/10 of the average male.
Male baboons are a nasty lot. Males immigrate into groups, with constant vicious fights (and deaths) ensuing to achieve and maintain dominance. After a male become dominant, he often kills the existing young, much to the stress of females with young. Since baboons don't hunt - and rarely share food - the social aspects of this behavior can't be described.
"Jerkiness or worse certainly seems to be a job description for ordinary male baboons. The average young male, after wheedling his way into a new troop at around age 7, spends his prime years seeking to fang his way up the hierarchy; and once he's gained some status, he devotes many a leisure hour to whimsical displays of power at scant personal cost. He harasses and attacks females, which weigh half his hundred pounds and lack his thumb-thick canines, or he terrorizes the low-ranking males he knows cannot retaliate".
But then there is the (relatively) pacifist baboon troop. http://www.primates.co.uk/baboons/culture.html
So, are 'people' bonobos, or chimps, or baboons ?
I'd say it doesn't matter - because under the right set of conditions, even baboons can be bonobos.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There's a lot of agenda driven reports on Bonobos, I've read a lot of stuff. There are interesting conclusions that you can come to from the actual data, but they don't support that human nature is egalitarian or peaceful, or that they have any stable family life. Bonobos are very promiscuous and carry a lot of STDs, they do occasionally get into wars and fall into typical patriarchal societies, but not very stable ones. They aren't violent as we are, or others, they don't engage in rape, and they're pretty much all vegetarians.
I think that like all theories, this one can be carried about 1/10th of a mile, and then you burn out. I'm willing to accept that non-bonobo human behavior is a result of social conditioning, but only the widely demonstrater behaviors here.
Ergo, rape and other individual interpersonal violence are largely creations of society, as are nuclear families, stable societies.
Oh, and bonobo do exhibit leadership, a central authority figure establishes himself, and it's always a male. female homosexuality is more common than male but both exist, and men get into macho man-offs that are kinda gay, but are done for display, rather than pleasure.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, just one more thought on Authoritarians being the Authoritarians, rather than the political Right or Left being the Authoritarians.
Consider Russia in the past 20 or so years. They went from a nominally Soviet/Communist Authoritarian Oligarchy to a nominally Democratic/Capitalist Authoritarian Oligarchy with minimal disruption to the Authoritarian Oligarchs in power. Wanna bet they couldn't go back to the Soviet/Communist model with about the same ease - for the Oligarchs, anyway.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
He mentioned this. As well as
Every cult tries to spread, because there is also power and comfort in numbers. Quote:
According to what he postulates, their numbers drop as the kids see hypocrisy, and the tactics used, and their eyes get opened and they defect. He believes that's one of the reasons they try to recruit people so energetically; that it is a way of keeping their numbers up to counteract the second generations' defections. The defections won't prove fatal, at least not in non-cult groups, and might even work, as you suggested, to take others along with them. That's what he posits--particularly when it comes to social dominant authoritarians. Their willingness to use any tactic speaks to people like Jim Jones and others who indoctrinate their followers so thoroughly that nobody pays much attention to their obvious hypocrisy.
It's usually in the second generation you start to see the first hints of dissentQuote:
I agree. There's nothing to be done about the leaders; as long as they have ultra-loyal followers, you can't touch them, just try to respectfully help open their followers' minds, IMO.
As for the leaders, I'm not sure there's any treatment for megalomaniaQuote:
I think you had it right the first time; pure desire for power and authority. What CREATES the leaders, we can only guess, or so I believe. Obviously an authoritarian bent and myopic belief in "anything to make what I think is for the good", but it gets corrupted far beyond that, and that doesn't really speak to mere authoritarian leaders, but to social dominant authoritarian (couble highs, as he calls them).
Is it a response to the abuse, rather than submitting to it, a determination to prove they are great, better than the other followers?
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
I hope nobody minds my using color for my posts...I'm not just enjoying it, I'm finding it very useful in locating where I left off in long posts!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki
Quote:
According to what he postulates, their numbers drop as the kids see hypocrisy, and the tactics used, and their eyes get opened and they defect. He believes that's one of the reasons they try to recruit people so energetically; that it is a way of keeping their numbers up to counteract the second generations' defections. The defections won't prove fatal, at least not in non-cult groups, and might even work, as you suggested, to take others along with them.
Yes, it's a social ponzi scheme.
Which is why my primary attack is always aimed at cutting off their intake of supporters, at which point they choke, wheeze, and DIE.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Social ponzi scheme...I LOVE it!
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"There are interesting conclusions that you can come to from the actual data, but they don't support that human nature ..."
Are you discussing bonobos, or humans ?
"... is egalitarian or peaceful, or that they have any stable family life."
Again, are you talking about humans or bonobos ? Bonobos don't have 'families' as we know them. OTOH many human cultures don't have 'families' as we know them either. In both cases, young get raised until they are old enough to have young of their own - no 'family life' is required.
"Bonobos are very promiscuous and carry a lot of STDs ..."
I will have to ask for some kind of reference on that. Common chimps carry a lot of STDs without being nearly as promiscuous as bonobos (this is known as a result of looking for AIDS models and sources in primates), but there is no data that anyone has published on bonobos. I think the point you are trying to make - that bonobos are 'dirty' and promiscuous, while common chimps are clean and faithful - is not sustainable.
"... they do occasionally get into wars ..."
Again, I will need to see references. Common chimps do have occasional 'wars' - though they are wars of attrition fought on the borders of territories against unwary chimps that show up alone - but bonobos don't.
"... and fall into typical patriarchal societies..."
References ? Not from ANY of the reading I have done.
"... and they're pretty much all vegetarians."
No, they hunt, and not just bugs and rodents but monkeys and other primates. This has been well observed at many sites by many different people.
"Oh, and bonobo do exhibit leadership, a central authority figure establishes himself, and it's always a male."
Again, you are just claiming so much --- nonsense is the kindest word I can find for it.
"I studied dominance relations in a wild group of bonobos at Wamba, Democratic Republic of Congo. Although agonistic interactions between males occurred frequently, most of them consisted only of display, and physical attacks were infrequent. Dominance rank order seemed to exist among males, but its linearity is unclear. Dominant males rarely disturbed copulatory behavior by subordinate males. However, high-ranking males usually stayed in the central position of the mixed party and, so, would have more chance of access to estrous females. Among females, older individuals tended to be dominant over younger individuals. However, agonistic interactions between females occurred rather infrequently, and most consisted of displacement without any overt aggressive behavior. Dominance between males and females is unclear, but females tended to have priority of access to food. The close social status between males and females may be related to the prolonged estrus of females (sounds pretty human to me) and their close aggregation during ranging. Existence of a male's mother in the group and her dominance status among females seemed to influence his dominance rank among males. Young adult males whose mothers were alive in the group tended to have high status. In some cases, change in dominance between high-ranking males was preceded by a corresponding change in dominance between their mothers. As the dominance status of females is similar to that of males, mothers may be able to support their sons to achieve high status, stay in the center of the mixed party, and so have greater access to females, which may maximize the number of descendants of the mothers."
And then you have failed to address the (relatively) peaceful baboons.
But if you want more, there are also common dolphins that gently court females, and other examples from the animal kingdom that don't behave according to their 'nature'.
Do you intend to claim this never happens ?
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
where does it go?
super trolls?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME