Bob Altemeyer's - The Authoritarians by HKCavalier

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Starts kinda slow. But I found the Global Change Game (beginning p 22) to be really, REALLY interesting.

Quote:
THE LOW RWA GAME
By carefully organizing sign-up booklets, I was able to get 67 low RWA students to play the game together on October 18th . (They had no idea they had been funneled into this run of the experiment according to their RWA scale scores; indeed they had probably never heard of right-wing authoritarianism.) Seven men and three women made themselves Elites. As soon as the simulation began, the Pacific Rim Elite called for a summit on the “Island Paradise of Tasmania.” All the Elites attended and agreed to meet there again whenever big issues arose. A world-wide organization was thus immediately created by mutual consent. ...

THE HIGH RWA GAME
The next night 68 high RWAs showed up for their ride, just as ignorant of how they had been funneled into this run of the experiment as the low RWA students had been the night before. The game proceeded as usual. Background material was read, Elites (all males) nominated themselves, and the Elites were briefed. Then the “wedgies” started. As soon as the game began, the Elite from the Middle East announced the price of oil had just doubled. A little later the former Soviet Union bought a lot of armies
and invaded North America. The latter had insufficient conventional forces to defend itself, and so retaliated with nuclear weapons. A nuclear holocaust ensued which killed everyone on earth--7.4 billion people--and almost all other forms of life which had the misfortune of co-habitating the same planet as a species with nukes.

When this happens in the Global Change Game, the facilitators turn out all the lights and explain what a nuclear war would produce. Then the players are given a second chance to determine the future, turning back the clock to two years before the hounds of war were loosed. The former Soviet Union however rebuilt its armies and
invaded China this time, killing 400 million people.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 10:17 AM

I believe Rue posted a link to this almost a year ago when we were discussing (among other things) the girl victimised by her McDonalds manager on the word of a "cop" who had phoned him and told him she was stealing. (IIRC the original thread was Abu Graib related.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 11:22 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Kwicko puts on AwwwCrapper mask and best Bill Orally voice...

"Well, first off, he's a Canadian, so we know from that that he's a liberal, and since he's a professor at university, we can guarantee he's a liberal because universities don't allow conservatives, and conservatives don't need university because they already know everything anyway, and since he's not American we know for a fact that he hates America, and that he's a terrorist... Hey, wait - what's the plural form of "terrorist"? It's... terrorist, right? Yeah, he's a terrorist hanging out with a bunch of other terrorist. Or at least he's part of a muslim, and we all know how THEY are. Hell, I can't even tell 'em apart - they all look alike to me...

Well, anyway, all I know is that he's a leftie-liberal wing-nut dingbat, so none of his research should even be looked at, much less taken seriously!"

Takes off AwwwCrapper mask...

That about sum it up?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 11:35 AM

You forgot the vague assertion that you are misrepresenting his viewpoint.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 11:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The books really points out a couple of things I've been slowly realizing from discussions here about what causes such a high degree of authoritarianism:

Quote:
What sort of bad feelings are likely to be burning away inside
high RWAs that would create an urge to attack? I looked at a lot of possibilities.... guilt... envy... unsure God will punish the sinners?...

Well, maybe. But .... Authoritarian followers score highly on the Dangerous World scale, and it’s not just because some of the items have a religious context. High RWAs are, in general, more afraid than most people are. ... they were raised by their parents to be afraid of others, because both the parents and their children tell us so. ... Thus it turns out in experiments that a person’s fear predicts authoritarian aggression better than any other unpleasant feeling

The Releaser.
So what releases the aggressive impulse that comes from fear? What slides off the safety on the gun? This, it turns out, is a no-brainer... Almost everybody thinks she’s more moral than most. But high RWAs typically think they’re way, way better. They are the Holy Ones. They are the Chosen. They are the Righteous. They
somehow got a three-for-one special on self-righteousness. And self-righteousness
appears to release authoritarian aggression more than anything else.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 11:58 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Rap would find a way of twisting Altmeyer's name into something resembling "osama' and then running around screaming "THE END IS NEAR!", Hero would harrumph about respecting the law while protecting crooked cops, and Finn would wax eloquent about the Fall of the Roman Empire being caused by lack of respect for the homeland.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 12:25 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Rap would find a way of twisting Altmeyer's name into something resembling "osama' and then rubbing around screaming "THE END IS NEAR!", Hero would harrumph about respecting the law while protecting crooked cops, and Finn would wax eloquent about the Fall of the Roman Empire being caused by lack of respect for the homeland.

How did this thread devolve so fast into trolling?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 12:26 PM

KIRKULES

The questions he asks to determine the RWA level are obviously designed to identify right wing religious extremists. This is where his fear of the RWAs taking over America loses its credibility. The number of those in the Americas that would be considered religious extremists by his scale would be a very small percentage. I know it fits better with the "liberals" stereotype of "conservatives" to think of us all as religious extremists, but they are a very small minority of all conservatives. This site is a good example of that, most of the conservatives here are either religious moderates or atheists.

He also points out that not all RWAs are politically conservative.

"In North America people who submit to the established authorities to
extraordinary degrees often turn out to be political conservatives, 2 so you can call
them “right-wingers” both in my new-fangled psychological sense and in the usual
political sense as well. But someone who lived in a country long ruled by Communists
and who ardently supported the Communist Party would also be one of my
psychological right-wing authoritarians even though we would also say he was a
political left-winger. So a right-wing authoritarian follower doesn’t necessarily have
conservative political views."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 12:28 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Interesting excerpt, Sig.

Anarchists, in my experience, are very non-fearful, non-self-righteous folk. So it is consistent with his hypothesis.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 12:50 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"This is where his fear of the RWAs taking over America loses its credibility. The number of those in the Americas that would be considered religious extremists by his scale would be a very small percentage."

But you don't have to be religious to support the idea that authorities are the holders of a righteous code. So you get opinions like this:

it's OK to tase people when they're merely uncooperative rather than threatening
it's OK to trace 10% of all calls - only bad people have something to worry about
it's OK to torture people, and besides, it's not torture when we do it
it's OK for a president to lie the country into war, and besides Bush never lied ...

Recognize any of these ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 1:42 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
How did this thread devolve so fast into trolling?

Just emulating.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 2:03 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The questions he asks to determine the RWA level are obviously designed to identify right wing religious extremists. This is where his fear of the RWAs taking over America loses its credibility. The number of those in the Americas that would be considered religious extremists by his scale would be a very small percentage.

I disagree. Although the number of religious extemists on this board is low, there is a consistent 25% or so who self-identify with Xtain fundamentalism.

Quote:
I know it fits better with the "liberals" stereotype of "conservatives" to think of us all as religious extremists, but they are a very small minority of all conservatives. This site is a good example of that, most of the conservatives here are either religious moderates or atheists.

I think this is where this board is atypical of the general population. Nonetheless, I find his characterization of authoritarianism to be bang-on, even without the baggage of religion. I don't think it's coincidence that MOST people here have identified our local authoritarians' driving motivation as terror of the collapse as life as they know it, that their responses have been characterized by many people here very specifically as righteous and violent. Their whole approach to uncertainty is to circle the wagons and kill the enemy. It's at times almsot impossible to engage them in dialogue because of the endless banner-waving that they substitute for thoughtful discussion.

You can find authoritarians on both ends of the political spectrum; if someone is afraid enough of something they may revert to authoritarianism for that issue. OTOH some people are just authoritarian all the time, about everything.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 2:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Takes off AwwwCrapper mask...

That about sum it up?

LOL! That was funny....

BWAHAHAHAHChrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 2:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

You can find authoritarians on both ends of the political spectrum; if someone is afraid enough of something they may revert to authoritarianism for that issue. OTOH some people are just authoritarian all the time, about everything.

Careful Signy, a bit in-the-middle sounding there, don't wanna tarnish your Evil Lefty image...

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 4:35 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

bump

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 7:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think this is where this board is atypical of the general population. Nonetheless, I find his characterization of authoritarianism to be bang-on, even without the baggage of religion. I don't think it's coincidence that MOST people here have identified our local authoritarians' driving motivation as terror of the collapse as life as they know it, that their responses have been characterized by many people here very specifically as righteous and violent.

There is a problem here and that's "investment" not necessarily of the financial kind but also of the emotional/intellectual kind. As I think I've mentioned I've lived in many countries each of which have their own way of doing things. Now establishing yourself in a new country is not easy, it costs money it costs time, you have to jump in the direction they want, when they want and do things THEIR way.

When I was younger I viewed it as an adventure, I was happy to sit in the "Ministry of X" and chat with folks there. I didn't mind (much) that they didnt tell me I needed to have document Y until I'd been queuing for 3 hours or that getting document Y meant 2 more hours waiting in a different queue. However, as I got older it became harder and harder to do all of that, the need to learn a new system every few years, put up with the ridiculous and arbitrary rules just wasn't for me any more. I didn't want to have to pack up house and move any more.

So here's a theory. When you are young, "right on" and radical you are not especially invested in society, not emotionally, intellectually or financially. If someone messes with it and changes the rules -- no big deal you were never keen on the old ones in any case. However, as people get older their capacity to deal with arbitrary change becomes less, they have spent time learning the systems, they have property, a job, a place in the world defined by the system of the day. They are far less likely to want to throw that over and start again. If you have spent 5 hours in queues to finally deliver document Y the last thing you want it to discover the next time that you now need document Z.

Over time people become resistant to change. That is by the way a good thing, because it means that the kind of forces that are needed to force radical changes have to have a lot of public support -- like the changes needed for a constitutional amendment.

So in general I don't think people are scared of change as much as tired by it. If you have spent time learning the current system and it works for you, you have some investment in keeping it as it is.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 8:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Rap would find a way of twisting Altmeyer's name into something resembling "osama' and then running around screaming "THE END IS NEAR!", Hero would harrumph about respecting the law while protecting crooked cops, and Finn would wax eloquent about the Fall of the Roman Empire being caused by lack of respect for the homeland.

Well I think that proves the theory is bullshit, because I’ve never been in the camp of the Internal Decay theory of the Fall of Rome. Truth be told, that would be more your story then mine, if you knew what you were talking about.

If I thought anyone cared I would be happy to wax eloquent on the Fall of Rome. I think I could provide plenty of reason why it had nothing to do with lack of respect for the homeland, and a lot more to do with external influences, which of course makes a lot more sense because it’s difficult to understand how an Empire that lasted for 800 years just dissolves one day for no obvious internal reason.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 2:31 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Over time people become resistant to change. ... So in general I don't think people are scared of change as much as tired by it.

You haven't even opened the book, have you?

There is more to authoritarianism than response to change. I'm not a hugely adventurous person and- as you say- even less so as I get older. (I'm also not a big rule-breaker.)

But I don't rate high on the authoritarian scale because being authoritarian by HIS definition means that you not only believe in the accepted way of doing things (what you perceive as being accepted by "the authorities"), you also believe very strongly that everyone should follow all those same rules AND you will become violent in order to impose them on others. IMHO the violent part is what sets authoritarians apart from people who simply prefer to live placid, uneventful lives. His point is that authoritarians aren't simply tired folk, they're simmering with fear and anger.

So read the book before you start interpreting what he said, because you don't even KNOW what he said yet!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 2:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Well I think that proves the theory is bullshit

So, you take my rather lame joke and use it as a reason to dismiss the whole book? Okay, if it makes you feel better I withdraw my joke.

But really- you'd reject a theory before you even know what it is? I'd say "Typical authoritarian!" to that! Just try reading the book. It's a quick read and it's based on studies, not just opinion. The interesting part is not so much in how he developed the scale and why people act that way but what else correlates with it.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 3:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'd say "Typical authoritarian!" to that!

Or to anything else I say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 3:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

So read the book before you start interpreting what he said, because you don't even KNOW what he said yet!

Actually, I read it all when Rue first posted it.

I wasn't talking about his book at all. i was talking about your interpretation of it, or more accurately, the points from a very long thesis that you felt the need to emphasize.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 4:02 AM

Quote:
...it’s difficult to understand how an Empire that lasted for 800 years just dissolves one day for no obvious internal reason.

Difficult to understand, because it didn't happen overnight. It took 500 years to build the Roman Empire up, and another 500 for it to crummble and fall. It wasn't like the Romans just woke up one day, looked around, and went, "Dude, where's my empire?"

You can witness the same thing happening to the British Empire over the last 250 years or so. They hit a peak, they lose some ground, and it starts a slide toward something... if not LESSER, at least SMALLER.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 4:15 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
AND you will become violent in order to impose them on others. IMHO the violent part is what sets authoritarians apart from people who simply prefer to live placid, uneventful lives.

From the anarchist and libertarian points of view, substitute "force" for "violence," and you see where we're coming from.

What are the objections to an anarchistic society? FEAR that society is going to collapse. SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS that society has to have to have the rule of law to be moral. VIOLENCE that everyone must be forced to live under law.

On a smaller scale, forced vaccination fits into this model of authoritarianism. Fear, that diseases will run rampant and kill our kids. Self-righteousness that mass vaccination is the only moral thing to do to prevent mass deaths. Violence to force everyone to vaccinate because it is the only moral thing to do in context of fear.

Everyone seems authoritarian to us.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 4:18 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
So in general I don't think people are scared of change as much as tired by it. If you have spent time learning the current system and it works for you, you have some investment in keeping it as it is.

Fletch, this is an eloquent argument--but it seems to have nothing to do with what we're talking about. I don't see anywhere where Signy or the author says authoritarianism is afraid of change.

Confused.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 4:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Difficult to understand, because it didn't happen overnight. It took 500 years to build the Roman Empire up, and another 500 for it to crummble and fall. It wasn't like the Romans just woke up one day, looked around, and went, "Dude, where's my empire?"

Well, you’re first characterization of building the Roman Empire depends a lot on what you mean by “Empire.” I would argue that Rome was an “Empire” long before it is usually called that in the world Civ books, and certainly before 14 AD. Even at the time of the first Punic War, Rome had over a million potential soldiers at its disposal - that’s pretty remarkable for a culture that was still classical. The second characterization I don’t agree with at all. Rome did not take 500 years to crumble. It took less then a hundred. In the fourth century Rome was not in a state of decay, but rather at the height of it’s economic prosperity and military power. By the fifth century the East Roman Empire had vanished, replaced by Gothic successor states. The crumbling of the Eastern Roman Empire may have been witnessed from beginning to end by individuals.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 5:00 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Or to anything else I say.

It's just quite possible that's authoritarianism is an accurate characterization, Finn. For instance, in that very long discussion you and I had about "patriotism" it turned out I meant republicanism, more or less. You OTOH meant what seemed (to me) a rather large ball of things: adherence to a way of life, protection of place, and obedience to authority even if the authority is mistaken. In other discussions (about morality for example) you consistently bring very rigid rules to the discussion. And your posts about American intervention everywhere are quite righteous- you excuse killing and destruction on a vast scale by the ideals and motivations behind it. So, according to how I understand you, you're quite authoritarian: willing to kill for your beliefs (which include, confoundingly, freedom and the sanctity of human life).

But if you disagree with my assessment, maybe you should read the book and tell me how I'm wrong.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 5:05 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So read the book before you start interpreting what he said, because you don't even KNOW what he said yet!- Signy

Actually, I read it all when Rue first posted it.-Fletch2

The you're three steps ahead of me and Rue is ahead of all of us!

Quote:
I wasn't talking about his book at all. I was talking about your interpretation of it, or more accurately, the points from a very long thesis that you felt the need to emphasize.

Did my excerpts focus on fear of change? I didn't think so, but if that's the way it came across that's not what I intended, nor the author either.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 5:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
So read the book before you start interpreting what he said, because you don't even KNOW what he said yet!- Signy

Actually, I read it all when Rue first posted it.-Fletch2
The you're three steps ahead of me and Rue is ahead of all of us!
Quote:
I wasn't talking about his book at all. I was talking about your interpretation of it, or more accurately, the points from a very long thesis that you felt the need to emphasize.
Did my excerpts focus on fear of change? I didn't think so, but if that's the way it came across that's not what I intended, nor the author either.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

You are absolutely correct. I seem to have misinterpreted the point you were trying to make. Apologies.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 8:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
"Dude, where's my empire?"

LOL. I'll never be able to watch Gladiator again with an entirely straight face thanks to that one, Kwicko....

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 8:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Or to anything else I say.
It's just quite possible that's authoritarianism is an accurate characterization, Finn.

And how could you possibly know that?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 8:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
"Dude, where's my empire?"

LOL. I'll never be able to watch Gladiator again with an entirely straight face thanks to that one, Kwicko....

isall

Hey, just be glad I didn't Romanize "Dude"...

"Dudimus, where's my empire?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 9:02 AM

Quote:
The crumbling of the Eastern Roman Empire may have been witnessed from beginning to end by individuals.

So the American Empire COULD actually be crumbling from its height at the end of WWII, then. As with any empire's crumbling, it's a bit hard to see while it's going on - history gives a longer lens and a sharper view of critical events that, in the moment they were happening, just seemed like, well... EVENTS.

I'm not saying the US *IS* a crumbling, failing empire; I'm saying we COULD be, and how would we know if we were?

Capiche, paisanno?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 9:05 AM

And, of course, you have schools of thought on when the Roman Empire started and when it officially ended. Constantine was a Holy Roman Emporer, as was Napoleon, and I believe Carolus Magnus was in there as well (better known as Charlemagne).

We can't agree on how long it lasted, or when the end began - was it the beginning of the end, or the end of the beginning? - but we can agree that the Empire didn't just skulk off into the night and disappear in a sudden "poof" and flash of light. It took a long time for the Roman Empire to fall - in fact, it took it the rest of its life!

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 9:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
"Dude, where's my empire?"

LOL. I'll never be able to watch Gladiator again with an entirely straight face thanks to that one, Kwicko....

isall

Okay, and this is just a joke, remember, but what occurred to me when I read that was, "Anyone who's watching Gladiator *again* isn't entirely straight to begin with..."

Sorry, man - I just couldn't resist is all. :)

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 9:11 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

My RWA score was 54. Hmm.

I'd be interested in seeing a LWA score system with questions like:

"The government should use any means necessary to reduce carbon emmisions and repair the damage to nature caused by man-made global warming."

"To protect society, the government should be required to sieze all private firearmes, and be allowed to conduct warrantless searches to find them."

"Economically successful people and businesses gain their wealth only by exploiting individuals and society, so thay should be required to pay a majority of their income to the government for use in programs to help the less fortunate."

"Government officials who do not perform to our standards should be immediately fired and imprisoned, without the requirements of inditement, trial, or conviction."

"In our multi-cultural nation, freedom of speech does not apply to racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, or religiously intolerant speech, and people who use it should be jailed."

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 9:38 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
And how could you possibly know that?

Because I gave you several examples that you posted which seem characteristic, which you seem intent on avoiding?

Hey, anyone who's trying that hard to avoid being characertized as "authoritarian" prolly already suspects they are!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 9:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And, of course, you have schools of thought on when the Roman Empire started and when it officially ended. Constantine was a Holy Roman Emporer, as was Napoleon, and I believe Carolus Magnus was in there as well (better known as Charlemagne).

I don’t agree with this either. We can draw a distinction between the Roman state and its successor states. Certainly both the Goths and the Eastern Roman Empire drew that distinction. But you’re right that basically much of Europe is a successor state to the Roman Empire. Time tends to flow in continuity even though historians may wish to compartmentalize it. Even today the borders of Western European countries are those drawn by Rome. This doesn’t mean, however, that states exist continually because the region is continuously occupied, even if by successor states.

And ultimately the fall of the Western Roman Empire was not the fall of the Roman Empire. Rome, as an empire, would continue to exist with its capital in Constantinople for many, many more years.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
We can't agree on how long it lasted, or when the end began - was it the beginning of the end, or the end of the beginning? - but we can agree that the Empire didn't just skulk off into the night and disappear in a sudden "poof" and flash of light. It took a long time for the Roman Empire to fall - in fact, it took it the rest of its life!

Once again I disagree with this assertion. The Western Roman Empire went from a major power in the fourth century to successor states by the 5th century. Archeology has added a great deal that is in stark contrast to the previously accepted narrative of a declining Roman Empire constantly at war with Barbarians. We now know that in the fourth century, the Western Roman Empire was not a state in decline or in internal rot, but was at is peak of wealth, civilization and power. Archeology has revealed the foundations of huge stone and brick buildings dating to the fourth century in parts of the Western Roman Empire previously thought to be backwoods. In fact, contemporary text often describes these regions as such, which suggest that these regions developed during the fourth or third century. Archeology has reveal massive agriculture on a scale never thought practiced during the Roman period. We are only now beginning to realize that by the second and third century Rome had developed a degree of sophistication in many ways tantamount to the 19th century - factories, clockwork, running water with off and on faucets, flushable toilets. We know from archeology that by the third century Rome was not the only major city, but rather almost every province had a huge city built of stone and brick most of which came close to rivaling Rome or Constantinople. It’s just not possible for Rome to have exhibited this kind of development and yet be in decline, but in 497, the Western Roman Empire was Gothic state and within fifty years all that technology and social development would be gone and the city of Rome, except for the Vatican Hill would be a ghost town.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 9:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
"Anyone who's watching Gladiator *again* isn't entirely straight to begin with..."

Oh Harve...!*

Chrisisall with the *vague Last Boyscout ref

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 9:41 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

geezer

I see you didn't read the book. In fact those questions and questions a lot like that were asked - for example about pornography, Nazis, the environmnet - and oddly enough, more low-authoritarians than high authoritarians said - well, I don't like it but ...

***************************************************************
My score was 34, and no, I wasn't gaming the test. Whether you were or not is open to question.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 9:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
And how could you possibly know that?
Because I gave you several examples that you posted which seem characteristic?

You gave me examples of your pompous drivel. You’ve never read anything I’ve ever said without manipulating it to fit me into one your little boxes. The patriotism discussion is perfect example of that. And this whole authoritarian bullshit is just your excuse to accuse people you don’t agree with of being fascists.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 9:46 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

"The government should use any means necessary to reduce carbon emmisions and repair the damage to nature caused by man-made global warming."
Yanno, I have to say one thing about the Global Change Game: authoritarians would certainly solve the (human) overpopulation problem!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 9:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
My RWA score was 54. Hmm.

Mine was 62.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 9:55 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"The government should use any means necessary to reduce carbon emmisions and repair the damage to nature caused by man-made global warming."

Just out of curiosity, what would be your responses to this and the other three questions in my "LWA Score" test?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 9:59 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Mine was 38. I think.

Quote:
Just out of curiosity, what would be your responses to this and the other three questions in my "LWA Score" test?

Well, first of all you had four additional quesitons, not three.

Secondly, coming up with valid questions isn't that easy. I once helped create a job skills test with professional test-developer, and there was a lot of after-the fact evaluation of the test itself. For example, one of the evaluations involved testing the concurrence of each question with the overall score. Two of the questions were exactly inverted: the higher the overall score, the lower the score on those questions. It turned out that one question was seriously ambiguous, and the key was mismarked for the other. The scores were checked to see of they evenly distributed (they were) or modal (not). Since this was a timed test, he also checked to see if almost everyone was able to finish the test within the alloted time (they were). So developing a meanginful test requires more than just a quirky sense of humor, a point that the author really kinda drills on! (You haven't read the book either?)

For example, one of your questions prolly would be eliminated because it doesn't reflect ALL of the characteristics of an authoritarian. Economically successful people and businesses gain their wealth only by exploiting individuals and society, so thay should be required to pay a majority of their income to the government for use in programs to help the less fortunate. probably doesn't reflect the level of aggression in a true authoritarian.

But to answer your questions (minus the one that I don't think is quite right) I would say:
Any means necessary? Of course not!
Absolutley not. NO. And no!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 10:07 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Yanno, I have to say one thing about the Global Change Game: authoritarians would certainly solve the (human) overpopulation problem!"

Actually - they didn't !

In several iterations of a global change game the only people who managed to solve the problems, including soaring populations and starvation, were the low-authoritarians.

The high-authoritarians divide up into two groups - followers and manipulators (my words, but essentially accurate).

When just followers played the game no one cooperated to do anything - b/c in a roomful of people that were all alike, they divided themselves up into 'us's' and 'them's'. And never got beyond that. The result - massive starvation and overpopulation.

In a group with mixed followers and manipulators the problems didn't get fixed b/c the manipulators were spending all their resources trying to grab power away from the other manipulators, while the followers - followed them. As in the previous example, the result was overpopulation and massive starvation - an addition, the planet was on the brink of global nuclear war. (A previous trial where there was no distinction between followers and manipulators lead to global nuclear war and planet destruction in 12 minutes - the fastest fatal scenario ever.)

In fact, the only non-fatal scenario was with low-authoritarians.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 10:18 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I see you didn't read the book.

Not all of it yet.

Quote:
In fact those questions and questions a lot like that were asked - for example about pornography, Nazis, the environmnet

Maybe questions about this stuff - although a wordsearch of the pdf. file doesn't show any questions about Nazis, just mentions - but not couched in the same way, requiring government intervention in the isues.

Quote:
My score was 34, and no, I wasn't gaming the test. Whether you were or not is open to question.

I wouldn't think of accusing you of gaming the test. I do wonder though; if there actually was a LWA test, would folks who scored particularly low on the RWA score higher on the LWA?

Note: Altemeyer apparently did create a LWA test, but I haven't been able to find it online yet.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 10:20 AM