Authoritarian LEADERS/Social Dominants/Both (Now with Colors and Fonts!)
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Sunday, April 6, 2025 22:29
VIEWED: 4611
PAGE 1 of 7
This is a continuation of the original "Authoritarians" thread I posted, and references same in places--so if you weren't in that thread, it might confuse you. The book is at http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ , this part pertains to the two chapters on the mentality of leaders, rather than followers. Again, since copied from the book, I may have made mistakes and there are probably numbers from "notes" I missed deleting.
I got to this part of the book and found it also most interesting, and wanted to see what others here thought. Authoritarian LEADERS, according to the author, are usually a combination of RWA and "Social Dominants". Apparently scales for RWA don't necessarily expose RWA LEADERS, but do when combined with Social Dominance scales. Here's some of it:
Social Dominants v. Authoritarians Remember those “group cohesiveness” items in chapter 3, such as, “For any group to succeed, all its members have to give it their complete loyalty.” We saw that authoritarian followers endorse such sentiments. But social dominators do not. Oh sure, they want their followers to be super loyal to the group they lead. But they themselves are not really in it so much for the group or its cause, but more for themselves. It’s all about them, not about a higher purpose. If trouble arises, don’t be surprised if they start playing “Every man for himself,” and even sell out the group to save their own skin.
Empathy. Here’s an easy one. How empathetic, how compassionate do you think dominators are? Not very, right? You got it, for they agree with statements such as “I don’t spend a lot of time feeling sorry for people less fortunate than me,” and “I have a ‘tough’ attitude toward people having difficulty: ‘That’s their problem, not mine.’” And they disagree with, “I feel very sorry for people who are treated unfairly” and “I have a lot of compassion for people who have gotten the bad breaks in life.”
Religion. High RWAs, we know, strongly tend to be religious fundamentalists. Social dominators do not. In fact, like most people in my samples, most dominators only go to church for marrying and burying. This would be “Three strikes and ye’re out” as far as the religiously ethnocentric high RWAs are concerned except for one thing. Dominators can easily pretend to be religious, saying the right words and claiming a deep personal belief and, as we saw in chapter 3, gullible right-wing authoritarians will go out on almost any limb, walk almost any plank to believe them.
Some non-religious dominators, as part of the act, do go to church regularly, for manipulative reasons. This amounts to lying, but I hope you don’t think social dominators would never, ever, ever, tell a lie.
Social dominators admit, anonymously, to striving to manipulate others, and to being dishonest, two-faced, treacherous, and amoral. It’s as if someone took the Scout Law (“A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, ...”) and turned it completely upside down: “A ‘winner’ is deceitful, manipulative, unfair, base, conniving, ...” Furthermore, while the 168 followers may feel admiration bordering on adoration of their leaders, we should not be surprised if the leaders feel a certain contempt for their followers. They are the suckers, the “marks,” the fools social dominators find it so easy to manipulate.
Roots of hostility. Another difference between authoritarian leaders and followers comes into view when you untangle the roots of their hostility. Social dominators show greater prejudice against minorities and women than high RWAs do, but the followers are much more hostile toward homosexuals. Why should this be the case? As we saw in chapter 2, high RWAs are especially likely to aggress when they feel established authority approves of the aggression, when they are afraid, and because they are self-righteous. Since the Bible condemns homosexuality in several places, and “giving” rights to homosexuals seems to right-wing authoritarians yet another nail in the coffin of moral society, aggression against h
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nobody wants to dive into this one, eh? Chickens...
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't think anyone's read it. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
If I might comment without having read the book...
"Global Change Game"
Sounds like a lot of fun. I played with a game on the computer called Geo Political Simulator a while back. Not a perfect program, but fun.
What were the parameters and rules of this game, and can we simulate it here on RWED? That would be a hoot.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
He didn't go into great detail about the parameters of the game. I could give you the basics--will try to, but gotta go walk the dogs right now...sigh...
I agree it would be fun, but I don't think it would translate to a forum; private deals were made, and if all could read all, what any one "area" was doing would be available to all, like internal discussions, debates, decisions. Don't think it would work, but I wish we COULD play it, would be fascinating!
And yeah, I know, it's a lot to wade through--should have made it two posts; one on "leaders", one on the game. Still might not have worked, tho'. Ah, well...
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Private deals could be handled through emails or other forms of private messages, copied to the referee or moderator.
The game itself is very important, because the rules will affect behavior to an extraordinary extent.
Man, now I'm all psyched for an RWED forum political simulation.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
More on topic with what you wanted to discuss, probably...
"He’s quite willing to let the children of the rich get rich merely through inheritance. It doesn’t bother the social dominator that masses of people are poor."
Where would I fall, if I were quite willing to let the children of the rich get rich merely through inheritance, but it did bother me that masses of people are poor?
For instance, I believe that one of the goals of a parent is to create a superior starting point for their children. An advantage that they lacked. I also like the idea that any wealth I produce will not die with me, but be passed on to my inheritors. It will benefit my children and grandchildren long after I am gone, hopefully. Even if all I leave behind is a house in decent repair and an old reliable automobile, it will be quite a boon to my children, who can utilize those assets to get a head start that I didn't get. Not having to purchase a 200k dollar house or a 10k dollar car is quite a leg up, in my opinion.
Meanwhile, I am bothered by masses of impoverished people who struggle to provide the basic essentials. But how bothered am I? I'm not bothered enough to rob my neighbor's bank accounts in order to give his money to the poor. I figure it's his decision what to do with his money, and mine what to do with mine. When the situation bothers either of us, we are free to donate whatever we wish to spare. So how does that class me?
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Meanwhile, I am bothered by masses of impoverished people who struggle to provide the basic essentials. But how bothered am I? I'm not bothered enough to rob my neighbor's bank accounts in order to give his money to the poor.
Exactly. I'm bothered, but not enough to give up MY home, MY car, MY groceries. I'll take the homeless some food, but I won't take them ALL my food.
In that, I suppose I'm no better than most "christians" who drive their shiny new cars to their shiny new megachurch, then drive home to their shiny new house afterwards. Christ never had any of these things, and I doubt any of these "christians" are willing to give them up to share the wealth with the poor. So I'm no better than they are; but I'm no worse, either. :)
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There's a middle ground to what both of you wrote. I contribute to numerous causes, but I have enough to care for myself as well.
For instance, I believe that one of the goals of a parent is to create a superior starting point for their children.
If I had kids I'd like to give them a leg up, too--and Jim is doing so in his will for his son, whereas his daughter married a guy with money, so she doesn't need from us. But if I had a LOT, I wouldn't want to leave it all to my kids; it's a fine point between leaving kids a leg up and leaving them so much they don't have to do anything; that doesn't make for good humans, a lot of the time.
Since I can't know when I'm going to die, I wouldn't want to deprive myself too much to give to others; but after I'm gone, I'd have no problem with it going to help others. And I BELIEVE, from what little I know, that inheritance tax is incremental? That the more you leave, the more they take out...yes? That works for me.
So I'm all in favor of a middle ground. What I give to causes, I would probably waste on things I don't need but "want" at the moment. It leaves me enough to buy some of the things I want, and it helps others at the same time.
Different points of view is all. I believe I'm part of a global village and have responsibility to the earth itself; that's big for me. Owning things isn't, nor is luxury; we live pretty simple but don't mind it much (tho' living in Marin gets harder every year, admittedly, but we've managed to pay off our house so it makes it easier).
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"And I BELIEVE, from what little I know, that inheritance tax is incremental? That the more you leave, the more they take out...yes? That works for me."
Hello,
I'm not at all opposed to you giving away your money to your kids, your favorite charity, or giving it to the government when you die. I think that is a very personal decision.
However, just as I wouldn't want to make that decision on your behalf, I wouldn't want anyone else to make it for me. All the money I have has already been taxed. Taxing it again when I die seems like so much thievery and grave robbing.
No... it disturbs me when people enact a policy that robs from other people. I'm not really concerned about the fine intentions behind it. Someone can ask me for a buck to get a cheeseburger, and it's my choice to surrender that buck or not...
...but I don't want them taking it by force. That seems immoral.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME