In his 2006 book aimed at the common man Professor of Psychology Robert Altemeyer has researched authoritarian followers and leaders, submission and aggression. His method consists of series of claims made which have to be agreed with by the subject on a scale of 1 to 5. The book contains Altemeyer's famous Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) survey and interpretation. Later in his book the connection to religion and effects in politics are explored. The Authoritarians is available for download. I found the book both interesting and insightful.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Book intro: Altemeyer's The Authoritarians
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 14 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by WillR on Tuesday September 02 2014, @05:52PM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by danmars on Tuesday September 02 2014, @06:11PM
Remember, neither major political party in the US is left-wing; both are right-wing authoritarian parties. A fun graphic: http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012 [politicalcompass.org]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by emg on Tuesday September 02 2014, @06:15PM
Remember, anything the left do that makes them look bad immediately becomes 'right wing'. Even Stalin is apparently now 'right wing' according to some Commies I know online.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02 2014, @06:42PM
Actually, among the people I know, many see Stalin like that. I don't know if right wing would be the right term though. There were those who opposed Stalin like Trotsky. I don't know the details though.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02 2014, @07:39PM
Totalitarian with the trappings of communism is a better term for what Stalin built. He and his counsel of 12 quickly realized that people are can be dicks and may not necessarily agree with them. His gov was of 'if you do not agree with it we will introduce you to lead poising or a life time trip to Siberia along with your family'. Pure communism works up until the point where someone figures out if they do less work they get the same reward at which point you have to motive them thru the use of a gov. Pure capitalism works up until the point where someone figures out you can use money to buy influence at which point you have to put controls in place thru the use of gov. Both depend on people being perfectly altruistic. In general people are mostly that way (but not at all times). It however only takes one jerk to ruin the party.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02 2014, @06:48PM
From the book (pages 3 and 4 - I didn't have to look far to find this stuff):
OK, so by his definition the mid-terms of 2006 were in line with the best values and traditions of the country, when it's far from clear that the main line Democrats have shown any real interest in rolling back the government - and in actual fact their chosen flagbearer as of the '08 elections has taken public positions defending and upholding the expansion of the security state. I find it hard to conclude that this is an unbiased book.
For more in the same vein, look at the first paragraph in his comment on the Tea Party:
This is only true if you ignore what had gone before in terms of the tea party movement - or if you assume that the religious right derailed it the same way they derailed the reform party. There's a whole history he's broadbrushing out of existence. Moreover, the Obama administration doubled down on the economic rescue so on that front, it's a bipartisan approach. The fact that people disagreed about the economic policy is hardly a surprise - I can't remember any time I have heard about an economic policy which didn't have some kind of opposition. Given the Big Government taste of TARP, it seems like a real stretch to consider the economic conservatives (assuming that the word "conservative" even applies here) the authoritarians.
This is straight out revisionism. Banking deregulation (actually, more accurately reregulation) happened under successive congresses which weren't all republican controlled, and it was a largely bipartisan business anyway. If you want to say that this is because the Evil Banksters controlled the minds of both major parties, I don't have direct counterevidence, but it sure as hell wasn't a right wing effort. Just ask Bill Clinton what he signed on the topic, and defended in public.
Sorry, this guy's fundamental research into authoritarianism as a mental pattern might be valid, but his knowledge of economics is highly suspect to say the least, and his depiction of recent history is out of touch with easily confirmed facts over the last couple of decades. As a serious source, these writings fall at the first gate.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Sir Garlon on Tuesday September 02 2014, @07:04PM
In the preface somewhere he admitted that a traditional publisher rejected his manuscript. I can see why. I want to agree with this guy, but when I look at his statements, I don't see much that would hold up to skeptical criticism. I was looking for affirmation of my preconceptions, but I am afraid I have to keep looking.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Groonch on Wednesday September 03 2014, @05:38AM
A good thing, then, that none of these things are really what the book is about. This is a preface that's intended to show the continuing relevance of the book's thesis. He doesn't pretend to be a political scientist or pundit. That's not that I agree with your points.
(Score: 3, Informative) by fritsd on Wednesday September 03 2014, @11:36AM
Chapter 3 How Authoritarian followers think
p. 82 bottom:
" Intrigued, I gave the inferences test that Mary Wegmann had used to two large
samples of students at my university. In both studies high RWAs went down in flames
more than others did. They particularly had trouble figuring out that an inference or
deduction was wrong. To illustrate, suppose they had gotten 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. If the conclusion is
right, they figure, then the reasoning must have been right. Or to put it another way,
they don't "get it" that the reasoning matters--especially on a reasoning test.
"
(Score: 4, Interesting) by RobotLove on Wednesday September 03 2014, @05:25PM
The internet is filled with people who think that if they can find a single error with any proposal, however insignificant or ephemeral, the entire proposal is invalid. Your response seems to be of this variety.
I encourage you in this and all things to approach new information with a mind set that, while critical, is not dismissive. I found this book to be an excellent and invigorating read. I trust you will be able to glean some small knowledge from it.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by gallondr00nk on Tuesday September 02 2014, @07:34PM
I'm about a third through, and so far the experiment about the high scoring Right Wing Authoritarian and low scoring RWA teams playing a global game where they had to manage their respective regions was pretty hilarious.
In essence, the low RWA groups set up a world forum for arbitrating and deciding issues, demilitarized, co-operated with other regions instead of declaring war, and dealt with things like the ozone layer dissipating by working together.
In the high RWA (more authoritarian) group, the USSR players invaded the USA, who retaliated with nukes, killing everyone in the world. When the game was restarted, the USSR invaded China instead, and a series of regional power blocs were established, population control was left unchecked, and so on.
(Score: 1) by captain_nifty on Wednesday September 03 2014, @04:54PM
I found the second trial he did with RWAs and no dominating leaders in the groups very interesting too, they formed small isolationist pockets and left everyone alone, leading to problems of a different kind: mass starvation/environmental disasters.
While introduction of a few of the high RWA dominators nearly led to a nuclear war (simulation ended on the brink)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 03 2014, @03:01AM
Maybe this guy has right wing authoritarians all figured out. Some folks don't seem to think so, but maybe he does.
But what about right wingers who aren't authoritarian? What about left wingers who are? What about centrists? What about hardcore neomarxists?
Does this help us tell the difference between conservatives and neocons (who are often kind of radical, not conservative), or between liberals and neolibs (who aren't liberal either)?
He mentions that not all the parts of the Republican Party seem to be on board with the same agenda (well, obviously) and he has a good hate on for the right wing authoritarians, but he doesn't seem to say how he feels about the rest of them? Deluded fools? Angels in danger of falling? Prophets of a new millenium?
More questions than answers.
(Score: 2, Informative) by captain_nifty on Wednesday September 03 2014, @04:49PM
Reading the actual book, he makes it clear that when he uses the term "right" in right wing authoritarians (RWAs), he is not referring to a political ideology, but the personality trait of tending to accept the given right answer from a perceived authority and the groups of these people who he studied as a sociologist.
Whenever he says RWA he is using it as a very specific piece of sociological jargon, referring to this trait he identified, which is often confusing with the political definition, especially when he later points out that the Republican Party has more authoritarian tendencies due to the involvement of the Christian evangelical movement’s entry into politics.
His discussion has very little to do with liberal or conservative, but more to do with the sociology of group dynamics, and the possible negative outcomes from a large group of RWAs with dominating leadership entering into politics.