Authoritarianism... by Niki2

Keep the Shiny side up

The more I read of the book, the more I come back to the RWA Scale in Chapter 1.
http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/chapter1.pdf
As I re-read the survey questions, I have come to believe that there is a bias in them, probably unintentional, which tends to make political conservatives score higher than political liberals.

Here's my argument.

Almost all the statements reference negative hot-button issues for conservatives; loss of traditional marriage and values, radical changes in society, athiesm, homosexuality, perversion, etc.

Nowhere are there hot-button negative issues for Liberals; climate change, animal rights, gun control, corporations, government surveilance, etc.

So let's grab a few survey questions and see if we can give them a liberal bias.

3. Our country desperately needs a dynamic leader who will do what has to be done to eliminate the neo-con thinking and corporate greed that are ruining us.

4. Gun-owners and Hunters and are just as ethical and moral as anybody else.

5. It is always better to trust the judgment of the knowledgable authorities in government concerning health-care reform rather than listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create
doubt in people’s minds.

6. Religious conservatives are no doubt every bit as concerned about others as those who are more liberal minded.

7. The only way our country can get through the climate crisis ahead is to reject traditional conservative thinking, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading old-fashioned ideas.

8. There is absolutely nothing wrong with church camps.

10. Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the monied class that is eating away at the fabric of an egalitarian society.

I think you get the idea.

Now I'll get my earplugs.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 8:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I would say that Liberals don't have the blanket anti-government stance you paint them with.

Wrong. Liberals can be just as behind the government as conservatives. They can also be just as much authoritarian followers as conservatives. More on that in a bit.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

I... don't really see the disagreement here? Isn't "don't have the anti-government stance" the same thing as "behind" or supportive of the government?

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 9:07 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Don't keep fooling yourself. No matter who's in office, you're loosing your ass in terms of freedom everyday. Any way you look at it you lose.

I wish there was a :rollyeyes: emoticom here. Are you saying there was no difference between Hitler and Churchill? Between Hirohito and Taro Aso? These kinds of broad-brush statements are misleading... especially to the person who makes them. Wulf, you should start making critical distinctions.

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 9:14 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Interesting. I would have said "yes" to only #4, 6 & 8.

I didn't like #3 because of "who will do what has to be done"--I distrust that.

I'd have said yes to 5, but it says "trust the judgment of the knowledgable authorities in government"--government told me marijuana was the "assassin of youth". I don't trust them completely, I'd want to find other sources to help me make up my mind.

I'd have agreed with #7 except for the "put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading old-fashioned ideas".

I didn't like #10 AT ALL!

What does that make me? I'm curious enough to try it your way, tho', let's see if I can slant it. Bear in mind I'm no psychologist, so while I tried, I may not have worded things as sneakily as he did. How about

1. The established leaders of protests generally turn out to be right about things, while those who disagree are usually just “loud mouths” showing off their ignorance.
2. Women should have to promise to obey their own minds when they get married.
3. Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the traditional ways and religions that are ruining us.
4. Gays and lesbians are dangers to society.
5. It is always better to trust the judgment of the anti-religious leaders and radical authorities than the government and religion.
6. Those who attend church regularly are no doubt every bit as good and virtuous as atheists and others who have rebelled against established religion.
7. The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to listen to people who disagree with the government, put some tough leaders in power, and turn things around.
8. There is absolutely nothing wrong with church camps.
9. Our country needs those who follow tradition who have the courage to stand up to new ideas, even if this upsets many people.
10. Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the religious leaders, government authorities and those holding traditional beliefs.
11. Everyone should share the same lifestyle, religious beliefs, and sexual preferences, even if it makes them the same as everyone else.
12. New concepts and ideas show the best way to live.
13. You have to admire those who hold to the law and the majority’s view by protesting abortion, burning of the flag, or eliminating school prayer.
14. What our country really needs is a strong, determined leader who will crush tradition and help us find a new path.
15. Some of the best people in our country are those who always accept our government, never criticize religion, and hold to the “normal” way things are supposed to be done.
16. God’s laws about abortion, pornography and marriage must be challenged before it is too late, and those believe God’s laws are sacrosanct must be strongly punished.
17. There are many ultra-religious people in our country today, who are trying to ruin it for their own religious purposes, whom the authorities should put out of action.
18. A “woman’s place” should be submissive to their husbands. The days when women should challenge social conventions were wrong.
19. Our country will be great if we get rid of the ways of our forefathers, do what the leaders of the opposition tell us to do, and do away with the “religious ways” which are ruining everything.
20. There is only “ONE right way” to live life; nobody should challenge that.
21. Homosexuals and feminists should be castigated for defying “traditional” family values.
22. This country would work a lot better if certain groups of traditionalists would just shut up and accept their minority place in society.

Bear in mind, folks, that the way things are phrased represent BOTH points of view. It's about how much you would "follow" each idea, and how much you would follow it GIVEN THE AGGRESSIVE WAY it suggest. The deal is (and it's confusing):

First, you can skip your answers to the first two statements. They don’t count. I put those items on the test to give people some experience with the -4 to +4 response system. They’re just “warmups.”

Start therefore with No. 3.
If you wrote down a “-4” that’s scored as a 1.
If you wrote down a “-3" that’s scored as a 2.
If you wrote down a “-2" that’s scored as a 3.
If you wrote down a “-1" that’s scored as a 4.
If you wrote down a “0" or left the item unanswered, that’s scored as a 5.
If you wrote down a “+1" that’s scored as a 6.
If you wrote down a “+2" that’s scored as a 7.
If you wrote down a “+3" that’s scored as an 8.
If you wrote down a “+4" that’s scored as a 9.
Your answers to Items 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 22 are scored the same way.

Now we’ll do the rest of your answers, starting with No. 4.

If you wrote down a “-4" that’s scored as a 9.
If you wrote down a “-3" that’s scored as an 8.
If you wrote down a “-2" that’s scored as a 7.
If you wrote down a “-1" that’s scored as a 6.
If you wrote down a “0" or left the item unanswered, that’s scored as a 5.
If you wrote down a “+1" that’s scored as a 4.
If you wrote down a “+2" that’s scored as a 3.
If you wrote down a “+3" that’s scored as a 2.
If you wrote down a “+4" that’s scored as a 1.

Now simply add up your twenty scores. The lowest total possible would be 20, and the highest, 180, but real scores are almost never that extreme. Introductory psychology students at my Canadian university average about 75. Their parents
average about 90. Both scores are below the mid-point of the scale, which is 100, so most people in these groups are not authoritarian followers in absolute terms. Neither are most Americans, it seems. Mick McWilliams and Jeremy Keil dministered the RWA scale to a reasonably representative sample of 1000 Americans in 2005 for the Libertarian Party and discovered an average score of 90.3, 4 Thus the Manitoba parent
samples seem similar in overall authoritarianism to a representative American adult sample. My Manitoba students score about the same on the RWA scale as most American university students do too.
Let me give you three compelling reasons why you should treat your personal score with a grain of salt.

First, psychological tests make mistakes about individuals, which is what you happen to be, I’ll bet. Even the best instruments, such as the best
IQ tests, get it wrong sometimes--as I think most people know. Thus the RWA scale can’t give sure-thing diagnoses of individuals. (But it can reliably identify levels of authoritarianism in groups, because too-high errors and too-low errors tend to even out in big samples. So we’ll do the group grope in this book, and not go on the
individual counseling trip.6 )

Second, how you responded to the items depended a lot on how you interpreted them. You may have writhed in agony wondering, “What does he mean by _______?” as you answered. If I failed often to get the gist of what I was saying over to you,
your score will certainly be misleading.7
Third, you knew what the items were trying to measure, didn’t you, you rascal!

The RWA scale is a personality test disguised as an attitude survey, but I’ll bet you
saw right through it.8 In fact, you could probably take each statement apart and see
how I was trying to slyly tap the various components of the RWA personality trait.

Take that first-scored item, No. 3: “Our country desperately needs a mighty leader (authoritarian submission) who will do what has to be done to destroy (authoritarian aggression) the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us”(conventionalism). Well if you’re smart enough to do that, you’re smart enough to realize how easily you might have slanted your answers to look good.

And yeah, for purposes of brevity, I like "authos" too.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 9:31 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Almost all the statements reference negative hot-button issues for conservatives; loss of traditional marriage and values, radical changes in society, athiesm, homosexuality, perversion, etc.

Since tradition does appear to be an essential part of the definition of "authoritarianism" , what you're saying is... Altemeyer's defintion doesn't mean what it seems to me, as long as I CHANGE THE DEFINTION. So, yeah... if you insist on changing his defintion, you can make it fit whatever you want. Good on ya!

AFA the way you reworked the statements... I think you have once again entirely missed the point of what authoritarianism means (at least, in Altemeyer's book.) It's not about the "conclusions", specific goals, whether or not they can act effectively, or whether or not they reach a consensus. It's the whole approach to decision-making:

Do this because I say so. Do this because it's always been done this way. Do this because that's what the bosses say they need. Screw anyone who disagrees

So I find the reworked questions less meaningful than the original ones. They simply don't make sense as stated. For example:

Quote:
Our country desperately needs a dynamic leader who will do what has to be done to eliminate the neo-con thinking and corporate greed that are ruining us.

I don't think our country needs a "leader", I think our country needs a "movement". Yes, a leader (or a Congress) not in the pocket of the wealthy WOULD be nice, but that would be more in line with removing a bias.

To make this short, most of the questions needs significant caveats in their answers. But I disagree with No 8: IMHO, religion of ANY sort is authoritarian by its very nature. And I agree with No 10, which I think has the weight of evidence behind it. However, I would not frame the goal as an "egalitarian" society. I would frame it as a "participative" one.

There is a concept which you slid past and I'm going to bring up again: Corporations, byt their very nature, are authoritarian. They are run by a strict top-down hierarchy, engaged in a fierce battle for territory (market share), set up for the benefit of a few, and guaranteed to make its minions feel like underserving pieces of shit. And if you even TOUCH the idea of revising corporations, you almost always get a very authoritarian response.

What I find interesting, geezer, is that you so often have excused the previous administration for some of its more egregious power-grabs, and only object when the government might "touch" the wealthy. I find your using the concept of non-authos to advance your own autho leanings to be disingenuous at best, and certainly not advancing the discussion in any meaningful way.

**************

So Altmeyer says he has a defintion of a certain type of person which is predictive of behavior. The defintion depends on a cluster of characteristics, and I'm wondering which of those characteristics are essential and how they play out in different situations. (And for purposes of discussion, these characteristics do not necessarily depend on whether one is politcally "right" or "left" leaning. The reason why the "right" tends to show up as being more authoritarian is simple because they have BEEN in power in recent past.)

For example, FEAR seems to play a big part in the formation of the autho personality. But yanno what? There are times when one should be afraid. For example, let's say that you have new evidence that shows we're heading towards climatic armageddon. Or that the world will be overtaken by radical jihadists in 50 years. Or that capitalism will be outcompeted by socialism. Being afraid... even being afraid of "the other"... does not make one an autho.

So let's say that, facing this climatic or cultural or economic crisis, significant coordinated action must be taken. According to the "rule the world" scenario, doing THAT doesn't necessarily make one an autho either.

So, for those who've read to book, help me out here. What IS the criticla distinction

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 9:57 AM

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

"Dogmatic belief in a system of values (doesn't have to be religious, does it? Folk can be as fervent about Socialism as Catholicism.)."
Or capitalism, as YOU are, Geezer.

"Blatant prejudice against non-conformers with the system of values (You know...the "other", like those gun-nuts/ gays/ meat eaters/ abortionists/etc.)."
I personally have no prejudice against the 'other' - I LIKE Kwicko though we stand directly opposite on gun issues. OTOH, when you have a jackass weighing in, it's pretty easy to despise on a purely personal, individual level.

"Defense of the system of values(God/ Marx/Science /History/ etc. says it must be true. It's so obvious.)."
What a crock. Seriously. Where DO you get all your manure ? What is at issue is the inability to revisit your ideas, to test them and to change your mind. It's about DOGMATIC BELIEF above all. Hmmm, where was that point made ? Oh yes, the first one above. This --- is just so much go se - propaganda aimed at misleading people into thinking having any values at all must be authoritarian.

"Blindly following and excusing their leaders unquestioningly (so - this one stays the same. Sure Stalin/ Lincoln/ Mao/ Bush/etc. got a lot of folks killed, but it was for the best.)."
And where have you EVER seen anyone BLINDLY defend Stalin ? Or Mao ? Or even Lincoln ? Bush OTOH ? I'll give you that one.

"Let's take another step and decide that the authoritarian leaders don't have to be politicians, but can be anyone with a bully pulpit; for example The Christian Coalition, or PETA, or National Right to Life, or Handgun Control."
Apparently you don't understand the difference between those who lead by reason, logic and persuasion and those who lead by appealing to 'authority'. I'm not surprised.

"I'd suspect that you could find authoritarian followers for all these organizations, and for most any other - right or left - that want to tell other people what to do, or how to live."
And yet - in the game scenario there were people who solved problems and kept the world from blowing up - in effect 'telling people how to live', and those who ran things THEIR way and blew the world up. It's all the same to you, isn't it Geezer ? No matter how they got to the end, as long as somebody did something, they must be authoritarian.

"Basically, authoritarian followers want to tell you how to live - because they have received the revealed truth from God or Marx or Jerry Fallwell or George Soros - and can't imagine you wouldn't agree with them 100%."
No, it's because YOU - the follower-authoritarian - have received the truth and are willing to follow any authoritarian-leader who claims to be speaking it.

"They will force you to follow their leader for your own good, even if you resist. If you resist too much, they will make you "the other" who isn't really a person, but an obstacle to be removed."
Only if they are in power, like, say Bush.

What Geezer fails to acknowledge is that societies ALWAYS - without exception - tell people how to live. Not just the societies he disagrees with - every single society.

IF societies do so by appeal to received truth, by appeal to unquestioning belief, they are authoritarian.

If they do so by logic, discussion and consensus, they are not.

It's that simple.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 10:05 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

And strangely, "the right" keeps accusing "the left" of Obama worship, but my observation is that leader-worship is generally not in the liberal's toolkit. The right is so blind to the fact that people might actually think differently that they constantly project their thought-processes on to others.

To their credit, liberals don't make that mistake. I have seldom heard a liberal "accuse" a right-winger of thinking.

[/snark]

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 10:10 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Right on, Signym. Changing the definition should show you're an atho IF you agree with it completely. I see his point, so tried to slant it so that athos on the LEFT would "follow"...whether I did or not remains to be seen.

It's actually THE WAY IT'S PHRASED that should show one's psychology, so I tried to put in values reversing those of the book, to see if it would "catch" left-wing athos.

And you got it. You'd disagree with the question about a "dynamic leader" because it said "leader"; bingo, you're not an AUTHORITARIAN follower.

Personally, I had no problem with it. Even the things that agreed with my beliefs were phrased in such a way that I would have had to blindly accept the entire concept, and I don't, so I didn't agree with even the things that, in theory, I SHOULD agree with.

Get it?

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 10:12 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

There are no leaders... only representatives. That (should) follow the will of the people.

How it was set up to be? Or am I wrong?

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 10:17 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Signym, you answered your own question. Whatever the outcome, you rejected the idea of a LEADER, and went for "movement". Authoritarian followers want a LEADER, someone who will tell them what to think and believe. Non-athos want a COMMUNITY, with differing opinions, to work things out. It's about HOW we think, not WHAT we think. It's about our mental PROCESSES, not our leanings left, right or whichever.

Those who think there should be an AGGRESSIVE LEADER to impose their beliefs on others are followers; those who accept that others different from them may be okay, too, and would rather work in cooperation with others, are non-athos. There CERTAINLY can be athos on both sides, but I'll betcha most liberals or liberal-thinkers end up being non-athos.

That's what's not being grasped by the right among us, that it's not about the issues themselves, it's about how those issues are implemented. Am I making sense? So, essentially, reversing the questions and hot-button topics makes no difference; if you don't want to force your opinions on others, if you don't want a LEADER to force those opinions on others, you're a non-atho.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 10:18 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Personally, I had no problem with it. Even the things that agreed with my beliefs were phrased in such a way that I would have had to blindly accept the entire concept, and I don't, so I didn't agree with even the things that, in theory, I SHOULD agree with. Get it?

Yep. I found the premises of most of the statements to be flawed.

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 10:20 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

There you go. Congratulations, you're a non-atho, hee, hee, hee!

Now let's see how everyone else thought of it, and if we have any athos on the LEFT, or non-athos on the RIGHT. Should be fascinating.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 10:30 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I've always wanted to try my hand at devil's advocacy. I wonder if I can wrap my brain around being a "left -wing atho"....?

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 10:33 AM

Quote:
"Dogmatic belief in a system of values (doesn't have to be religious, does it? Folk can be as fervent about Socialism as Catholicism.)."
Or capitalism, as you are, Geezer

I would agree that dogmatic belief in a system of values is an element of authoritarianism. I'm not sure why you singled this out. Are you in disagreement with this?

Quote:
"Defense of the system of values(God/ Marx/Science /History/ etc. says it must be true. It's so obvious.)." What a crock. Seriously. Where DO you get all your manure ? What is at issue is the inability to revisit your ideas, to test them and to change your mind. It's about DOGMATIC BELIEF above all. Hmmm, where was that point made ? Oh yes, the first one above. This --- is just so much go se.

Why is this not an element of authoritarianism?

Is this specific in regards to the book in question, in that we are discussing in particular the views of the author of the book, and this wasn't included? (If it wasn't, I find that a startling omission)

Most of us, as it has been noted, have not read this book, and are just discussing authoritarianism as we see it.

Quote:
"Blindly following and excusing their leaders unquestioningly (so - this one stays the same. Sure Stalin/ Lincoln/ Mao/ Bush/etc. got a lot of folks killed, but it was for the best.)."
And where have you EVER seen anyone BLINDLY defend Stalin ? Or Mao ? Or even Lincoln ? Bush OTOH ? I'll give you that one.

Um, followers of Stalin, Bush, Mao, and Lincoln? Heck, even Hitler had followers. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with here.

Quote:
"Let's take another step and decide that the authoritarian leaders don't have to be politicians, but can be anyone with a bully pulpit; for example The Christian Coalition, or PETA, or National Right to Life, or Handgun Control."
Apparently you don't understand the difference between those who lead by reason, logic and persuasion and those who lead by appealing to 'authority'. I'm not surprised.

I think I have some kind of disconnect in my brain, because I don't see where Geezer talked about leading by authority versus leading by reason, logic, and persuasion. Why did you make this particular point in regards to what Geezer posted?

Quote:
"I'd suspect that you could find authoritarian followers for all these organizations, and for most any other - right or left - that want to tell other people what to do, or how to live."
And yet - in the game scenario there were people who solved problems and kept the world from blowing up - in effect 'telling people how to live', and those who ran things THEIR way and blew the world up. It's all the same to you, isn't it Geezer ? No matter how they got to the end, as long as somebody did something, they must be authoritarian.

Okay. How is telling people how to live not authoritarian? Didn't the point get made above that authoritarianism is about a dogmatic belief in something? Isn't "the world is going to be destroyed unless we do THIS, so do it" authoritarian?

I also question, just who were the authoritarians in this scenario and who were the non-authoritarians? Could likely political ideology have had any bearing on the outcome here?

Quote:
IF societies do so by appeal to received truth, by appeal to unquestioning belief, they are authoritarian.

I agree that's a major part of an authoritarian society, but I think the definition of authoritarian may be broader and encompass more than this. I see not just unquestioned belief, but also a call to action involved in authoritarian societies. The way a policy is implemented can itself be authoritarian.

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 10:38 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Okay. How is telling people how to live not authoritarian?

If you have reached a consenus, if there are reasons behind the rules.

Quote:
Didn't the point get made above that authoritarianism is about a dogmatic belief in something?

yes, but having rules is not the same as a "dogmatic belief" if the rules are subject to validation* and revision.

Quote:
Isn't "the world is going to be destroyed unless we do THIS, so do it" authoritarian?

Is "If you touch the red-hot stove you will get burned" authoritarian? No, because it happens to be a fact.

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 10:44 AM

Quote:
If you have reached a consenus.

What about the people who aren't part of that consensus or who are deliberately excluded?

Quote:
yes, but having rules is not the same as a "dogmatic belief" if the rules are subject to validation* and revision.

Where did I talk about rules?

Quote:
Is "If you touch the red-hot stove you will get burned" authoritarian? No, because it happens to be a fact.

In the context of the question I asked, "the world is going to be destroyed unless we do THIS, so do it" is technically an order, not a fact. It's also a false dilemma, there could be other options. The "so do it" part could be removed and it would still be an order, because the "necessary" action is implied.

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 10:52 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Interesting. I would have said "yes" to only #4, 6 & 8.

I didn't like #3 because of "who will do what has to be done"--I distrust that.

I'd have said yes to 5, but it says "trust the judgment of the knowledgable authorities in government"--government told me marijuana was the "assassin of youth". I don't trust them completely, I'd want to find other sources to help me make up my mind.

I'd have agreed with #7 except for the "put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading old-fashioned ideas".

I didn't like #10 AT ALL!

What does that make me?

I'd say a person not likely to be sold a bill of goods by the powers that be of any stripe.

I do note the "defend the standard, no matter what" folks in this thread, who instantly leap to personal insult when their boat is rocked, seem to be of the liberal bent (Hi, Rue. Hi, Signym). Could they be Authos?

BTW, I scored 63 on the original RWA survey. I'll try yours when I get a chance.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 11:03 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
What about the people who aren't part of that consensus or who are deliberately excluded?

There will seldom be unanimous agreement. The person who get off on serial rape will never agree to laws against it. All you can do is state the goals, open it up for discussion, and hope to synthesize a collectrive agreement.

Quote:
Okay. How is telling people how to live not authoritarian? Didn't the point get made above that authoritarianism is about a dogmatic belief in something?... Where did I talk about rules?

You seemed to conflate "telling people how to live" (rules) with "dogmatic belief in something", at least insofar as you implied they were both authoritarian and one sentence immediately folllowed the other. I was simply trying to say that one is not the other. If that was not what you meant, then it was my misdunerstanding.

Quote:
I asked, "the world is going to be destroyed unless we do THIS, so do it" is technically an order, not a fact. It's also a false dilemma, there could be other options. The "so do it" part could be removed and it would still be an order, because the "necessary" action is implied.

I'm assuimg the statement came about after discussion, and that its validity had been tested and that other options had been eliminated. So IF the statement met all the above conditions, would it still be considered authoritarian?

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 11:07 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I do note the "defend the standard, no matter what" folks in this thread

What "standard" am I defending? BTW- if you can't state it in one or two sentences, it's not a standard.

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 11:29 AM

Good points. I'll try to address what you've written, but my questions feel pretty much satisfied for now.

Quote:
There will seldom be unanimous agreement. The person who get off on serial rape will never agree to laws against it. All you can do is state the goals, open it up for discussion, and hope to synthesize a collectrive agreement.

If I'm going to argue about people who are excluded, I'm going to have to factor in people who may be excluded for valid reasons. There are some rules, such as those against killing, theft, and abuse, which are certainly necessary to any functioning society. And those are rules I'm not sure have any exceptions, not and for the people breaking those rules to be as human as they were.

Quote:
You seemed to conflate "telling people how to live" (rules) with "dogmatic belief in something", at least insofar as you implied they were both authoritarian and one sentence immediately folllowed the other. I was simply trying to say that one is not the other. If that was not what you meant, then it was my misdunerstanding.

No, I suppose you did understand, and I didn't realize the full implications of what I was saying.

I think that there can be a dogmatic belief in rules, and that some rules are bad or unnecessary. I also think that a society that tells people how to live may go too far. There may be too many rules, or maybe the nature of the rules may be crippling because the people who made the rules may be malevolent.

Quote:
I'm assuimg the statement came about after discussion, and that its validity had been tested and that other options had been eliminated. So IF the statement met all the above conditions, would it still be considered authoritarian?

Hmm. There's rarely ever situations where there are no other options or no negotiation or no room for individual measures in a positive direction. But... Hmm. If I say yes outright, that could be a product of my own bias. But I don't think it's no. I think my main problem is that I see this as a small group making decisions for a larger group, and that in order for this game to play out, those directives can not be refused or questioned by the larger population.

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 11:40 AM

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

Geezer
Dogmatic belief in a system of values (doesn't have to be religious, does it? Folk can be as fervent about Socialism as Catholicism.).
Rue
Or capitalism, as you are, Geezer.
Byte
I would agree that dogmatic belief in a system of values is an element of authoritarianism. I'm not sure why you singled this out. Are you in disagreement with this?
I'm just pointing out that Geezer, who claims to be a non-dogmatic libertarian, is precisely an authoritarian about capitalism.

Geezer
Defense of the system of values( God/ Marx/ Science /History / etc. says it must be true. It's so obvious.).
Rue
What a crock. Seriously. Where DO you get all your manure ? What is at issue is the inability to revisit your ideas, to test them and to change your mind. It's about DOGMATIC BELIEF above all. Hmmm, where was that point made ? Oh yes, the first one above. This --- is just so much go se.
Byte
Why is this not an element of authoritarianism?
Is this specific in regards to the book in question, in that we are discussing in particular the views of the author of the book, and this wasn't included? (If it wasn't, I find that a startling omission.)
I'm pointing out that it's not just ANY system of values that is authoritarian - it is a very specific set of values that holds 'authority' above all. Science isn't authoritarian. A study of history (and I do mean study) isn't authoritarian. Geezer's post was propagandist go se, designed to confuse people into thinking holding ANY values at all MUST be authoritarian. That is simply a lie.

Geezer
Blindly following and excusing their leaders unquestioningly (so - this one stays the same. Sure Stalin/ Lincoln/ Mao/ Bush/etc. got a lot of folks killed, but it was for the best.).
Rue
And where have you EVER seen anyone BLINDLY defend Stalin ? Or Mao ? Or even Lincoln ? Bush OTOH ? I'll give you that one.
Byte
Um, followers of Stalin, Bush, Mao, and Lincoln? Heck, even Hitler had followers. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with here.
Despite his attempts over many paragraphs to erase the real differences between liberals and authoritarians like himself, no 'liberal' here on the board meets this criteria.

Geezer
Let's take another step and decide that the authoritarian leaders don't have to be politicians, but can be anyone with a bully pulpit; for example The Christian Coalition, or PETA, or National Right to Life, or Handgun Control.
Rue
Apparently you don't understand the difference between those who lead by reason, logic and persuasion and those who lead by appealing to 'authority'. I'm not surprised.
Byte
I think I have some kind of disconnect in my brain, because I don't see where Geezer talked about leading by authority versus leading by reason, logic, and persuasion. Why did you make this particular point in regards to what Geezer posted?
By mixing authoritarian with non-authoritarian organizations as examples he is implying that ALL organizations are authoritarian, just by virtue of having a POV. That is not the case.

Geezer
I'd suspect that you could find authoritarian followers for all these organizations, and for most any other - right or left - that want to tell other people what to do, or how to live.
Rue
And yet - in the game scenario there were people who solved problems and kept the world from blowing up - in effect 'telling people how to live', and those who ran things THEIR way and blew the world up. It's all the same to you, isn't it Geezer ? No matter how they got to the end, as long as somebody did something, they must be authoritarian.
Byte
Okay. How is telling people how to live not authoritarian? Didn't the point get made above that authoritarianism is about a dogmatic belief in something? Isn't "the world is going to be destroyed unless we do THIS, so do it" authoritarian?
ALL societies tell their members how to live. It's how you make the rules that counts.

Byte
I also question, just who were the authoritarians in this scenario and who were the non-authoritarians? Could likely political ideology have had any bearing on the outcome here?
There were three 'let's run the world' game sessions. In one session, leader-authoritarians mixed with follower-authoritarians blew up the world in record time. In another, purely leader-authoritarians did not blow up the world but created a highly unstable situation that was trending that way, with major world problems worse than at the start. In the third session, non-authoritarians managed to start solving the world's pressing problems.

Rue
IF societies do so by appeal to received truth, by appeal to unquestioning belief, they are authoritarian.
Byte
I agree that's a major part of an authoritarian society, but I think the definition of authoritarian may be broader and encompass more than this. I see not just unquestioned belief, but also a call to action involved in authoritarian societies. The way a policy is implemented can itself be authoritarian.
I'm not sure you can draw that distinction. Please keep this in mind - ALL societies tell their members how to live. This is without exception. The difference between authoritarian ones and non-authoritarian ones is how those rules are drawn up.

Perhaps you could consider Caral: a peaceful and apparently non-hierarchical (so presumably non-authoritarian) society that appears to have been focused on commerce and pleasure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caral

Surely there was somebody in all those people, in all that time, who had a 'will to power'. And yet, archeologists could find no evidence of a ruler or ruling class after sifting through the debris of a 1,000 year existence. Obviously that uniformity of behavior over so long didn’t 'just happen'. I think, just as obviously, that it was under social control. And, while there were many things about Caral that might have been nice, it seems no one (and no group) was so FREE as to be (a) raving dictator(s). Even that non-authoritarian society - as ALL societies do - steered the behavior of its members.

Anyway, I have to go.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 12:13 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

It seems that Geezer is having a hard time identifying my "standard".
But, I have to go too.

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 12:19 PM

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

"I do note the "defend the standard, no matter what" folks in this thread, who instantly leap to personal insult when their boat is rocked ..."

A liar by any other name ... is just as bad. And, well, that's very obviously you Geezer.

Now, if I hadn't pointed out in great detail WHAT your lies were, you might have a point. You could rightly claim that ALL I did was 'leap to personal insult' ... and fail to address the topic. But I did point out each and every one, and you can't seem to refute anything I say.

And I note for the record that ALL you did - rather than refute my logic - was to sling personal insults.

Your bad.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 12:37 PM

Okay, I understand better. Thanks, both to you and Signy for discussing and explaining. :)

Mostly just two points I want to talk about more.

Quote:
I'm pointing out that it's not just ANY system of values that is authoritarian - it is a very specific set of values that holds 'authority' above all. Science isn't authoritarian. A study of history (and I do mean study) isn't authoritarian. Geezer's post was propagandist go se, designed to confuse people into thinking holding ANY values at all MUST be authoritarian. That is simply a lie.

Science is a very useful tool that does it's best to police itself of bad ideas or falsehoods. An idea MUST be testable. If the idea is wrong, it is discarded, or at least a different route of investigation occurs, all as a part of trying to piece together little pictures into a bigger picture. If an experiment has a positive outcome, then the idea is tested again, many times, different aspects of it, different applications, different predictions.

The Scientific Method is not at all authoritarian, because it demands that we discard belief and bias depending on hard data.

However, there are some ideas in Science that are unquestionable, and schools that greatly decry any questioning of those ideas.

Although I do wish that religion would not meddle with science. I do actually see the two systems as completely incompatible, however, I don't think one should be discarded in favour of the other. Some things work better for some people than others. I do not believe in Genesis, I believe in Evolution because I think it explains a great deal of what I know and observe. However, a person who believes in Genesis thinks it explains a great deal of what THEY know and observe, and also finds comfort in it. I do not think this is necessarily BAD, just different. Since progress seems to be happening in the scientific sector, I have no problem keeping science to the science sector and to people who like and believe science, and anyone who doesn't like science may still reap the benefits while they believe what they want.

History... It's worth studying history, but I do see a lot of bias and misleading information, depending on the source.

Both history and science must always be questioned. That's how both fields remain academically honest. Perhaps some questions aren't even worth entertaining, but it's best I think to take those on a case by case basis.

Quote:
I agree that's a major part of an authoritarian society, but I think the definition of authoritarian may be broader and encompass more than this. I see not just unquestioned belief, but also a call to action involved in authoritarian societies. The way a policy is implemented can itself be authoritarian.
I'm not sure you can draw that distinction. Please keep this in mind - ALL societies tell their members how to live. This is without exception. The difference between authoritarian ones and non-authoritarian ones is how those rules are drawn up.

Hmm, I still feel compelled to add "and what is/ how they are implemented."

A society might agree on something, for example, like health care NEEDS to be reformed, and that new rules might need to be made. But even something well meaning could be authoritarian, or implemented in a way that is authoritarian, and this must be carefully guarded against. Most of the fears about health care reform are fears about being FORCED/ordered to do something. I think many people would see forcing compliance to a system as an authoritarian action, stemming from a belief in authoritarian ideas.

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 12:45 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What "standard" am I defending? BTW- if you can't state it in one or two sentences, it's not a standard.

Well, in this particular thread, it seems to be the standard that liberals or leftists can't possibly be authoritarians or authoritarian followers.

Hmm. One sentence.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 12:55 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

No, that's not what I said, and I tried very hard to make it clear. The Magic Eightball says: TRY AGAIN.

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 1:04 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I'm curious enough to try it your way, tho', let's see if I can slant it. Bear in mind I'm no psychologist, so while I tried, I may not have worded things as sneakily as he did.

Now we’ll do the rest of your answers, starting with No. 4.

Niki2. Please check your scoring for the second set of answers: 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18, 20, and 21. The values don't seem correct to me.

For example, disagreeing strongly with question 4 - Gays and lesbians are dangers to society - gets a 9, while agreeing with it strongly gets a 1. This wouldn't seem to properly reflect authoritarian thinking, regardless of who you listed as "dangers to society".

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 1:05 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
a small group making decisions for a larger group, and that in order for this game to play out, those directives can not be refused or questioned by the larger population

Valid. We forgot to mention that a group of "elites" were chosen who made the decisions and handled the money. Since some of the discussions turned to this game, here it is:

The setting involved a rather sophisticated simulation of the earth’s future called the Global Change Game, which is played on a big map of the world by 50-70 participants who have been split into various regions such as North America, Africa, India and China. The players are divided up according to current populations, so a lot more students hunker down in India than in North America. The game was designed to raise environmental awareness, 24 and before the exercise begins players study up on their region’s resources, prospects, and environmental issues.

Then the facilitators who service the simulation call for some member, any member of each region, to assume the role of team leader by simply standing up. Once the “Elites”in the world have risen to the task they are taken aside and given control of their region’s bank account. They can use this to buy factories, hospitals, armies, and so on from the game bank, and they can travel the world making deals with other Elites. They also discover they can discreetly put some of their region’s wealth into their own pockets, to vie for a prize to be given out at the end of the simulation to the World’s Richest Person. Then the game begins, and the world goes wherever the players take it for the next forty years which, because time flies in a simulation, takes about two and a half hours.

The Low RWA Game By carefully organizing sign-up booklets, I was able to get 67 low RWA students to play the game together on October 18th . (They had no idea they had been funneled into this run of the experiment according to their RWA scale scores; indeed they had probably never heard of right-wing authoritarianism.) Seven men and three women made themselves Elites. As soon as the simulation began, the Pacific Rim Elite called for a summit on the “Island Paradise of Tasmania.” All the Elites attended and agreed to meet there again whenever big issues arose. A world-wide organization was thus immediately created by mutual consent. Regions set to work on their individual problems. Swords were converted to ploughshares as the number of armies in the world dropped. No wars or threats of wars occurred during the simulation. [At one point the North American Elite suggested starting a war to his fellow region-aires (two women and one guy), but they told him to go fly a kite--or words to that effect.] An hour into the game the facilitators announced a (scheduled) crisis in the earth’s ozone layer. All the Elites met in Tasmania and contributed enough money to buy new technology to replenish the ozone layer. Other examples of international cooperation occurred, but the problems of the Third World mounted in Africa and India. Europe gave some aid but North America refused to help. Africa eventually lost 300 million people to starvation and disease, and India 100 million.

Populations had grown and by the time forty years had passed the earth held 8.7 billion people, but the players were able to provide food, health facilities, and jobs for almost all of them. They did so by demilitarizing, by making a lot of trades that benefited both parties, by developing sustainable economic programs, and because the Elites diverted only small amounts of the treasury into their own pockets. (The North American Elite hoarded the most.) One cannot blow off four hundred million deaths, but this was actually a highly successful run of the game, compared to most. No doubt the homogeneity of the players, in terms of their RWA scores and related attitudes, played a role. Low RWAs do not typically see the world as “Us versus Them.” They are more interested in cooperation than most people are, and they are often genuinely concerned about the environment. Within their regional groups, and in the interactions of the Elites, these first-year students would have usually found themselves “on the same page”--and writ large on that page was, “Let’s Work Together and Clean Up This Mess.” The game’s facilitators said they had never seen as much international cooperation in previous runs of the simulation. With the exception of the richest region, North America, the lows saw themselves as interdependent and all riding on the same merry-go-round.

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 (known as the Confederation of Independent States in 1994) 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. The Middle East Elite then called for a “United Nations” meeting to discuss handling future crises, but no agreements were reached.

At this point the ozone-layer crisis occurred but--perhaps because of the recent failure of the United Nations meeting--no one called for a summit. Only Europe took steps to reduce its harmful gas emissions, so the crisis got worse. Poverty was spreading unchecked in the underdeveloped regions, which could not control their population growth. Instead of dealing with the social and economic problems “back home,” Elites began jockeying among themselves for power and protection, forming military alliances to confront other budding alliances. Threats raced around the room and the Confederation of Independent States warned it was ready to start another nuclear war. Partly because their Elites had used their meager resources to buy into alliances, Africa and Asia were on the point of collapse. An Elite called for a United Nations meeting to deal with the crises--take your pick--and nobody came. By the time forty years had passed the world was divided into armed camps threatening each other with another nuclear destruction. One billion, seven hundred thousand people had died of starvation and disease. Throw in the 400 million who died in the Soviet-China war and casualties reached 2.1 billion. Throw in the 7.4 billion who died in the nuclear holocaust, and the high RWAs managed to kill 9.5 billion people in their world--although we, like some battlefield news releases, are counting some of the corpses twice.

The authoritarian world ended in disaster for many reasons. One was likely the character of their Elites, who put more than twice as much money in their own pockets as the low RWA Elites had. (The Middle East Elite ended up the World’s Richest Man; part of his wealth came from money he had conned from Third World Elites as payment for joining his alliance.) But more importantly, the high RWAs proved incredibly ethnocentric. There they were, in a big room full of people just like themselves, and they all turned their backs on each other and paid attention only to their own group. They too were all reading from the same page, but writ large on their page was, “Care About Your Own; We Are NOT All In This Together.”

The high RWAs also suffered because, while they say on surveys that they care about the environment, when push comes to shove they usually push and shove for the bucks. That is, they didn’t care much about the long-term environmental consequences of their economic acts. For example a facilitator told Latin America that converting much of the region’s forests to a single species of tree would make the ecosystem vulnerable. But the players decided to do it anyway because the tree’s lumber was very profitable just then. And the highs proved quite inflexible when it came to birth control. Advised that “just letting things go” would cause the populations in underdeveloped areas to explode, the authoritarians just let things go.

Now the Global Change Game is not the world stage, university students are not world leaders, and starting a nuclear holocaust in a gymnasium is not the same thing as launching real missiles from Siberia and North Dakota. So the students’ behavior on those two successive nights in 1994 provides little basis for drawing conclusions about the future of the planet. But some of what happened in this experiment rang true to me. I especially thought, “I’ve seen this show before” as I sat on the sidelines and watched the high RWAs create their very own October crisis.

Judge for yourself.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 1:10 PM

HKCAVALIER

If authoritarianism were a simple matter of ideology, then sure, most ideologies can be arrived at through relatively rational means, just as any ideology can be arrived at irrationally. Ideologically, most points of view are on an even footing.

But the book is not about ideology, it's about psychology. The questionnaire was developed over decades of research--at first, you can be sure, all sorts of questions were asked, but the ones that didn't indicate for an authoritarian range of behaviors and ideation were dropped. What remains are the strongest indicators for or against RWA. From these data one can draw conclusions about why right wing ideology would be particularly attractive to the authoritarian psychology, both the authoritarian follower who accepts abuse from their leader as right and just, and the leader who sees such people as easily controllable. You don't like it, take it up with human psychology--do your own study and get back to us in 20 years.

As the conversation continues, the problem boils down to this: do you see the leaders defining the social order, or do you see the followers defining the social order? So-called "left-wing authoritarianism" can only refer to the leaders of such movements, the Moas and the Stalins who dupe their lefty underlings into freedom crushing policies in the name of left-wing ideals. Such fascist strongmen dress themselves in "left-wing" ideology, but they are not left-wing people. They are nationalists, xenophobes, constitutionally violent men who hate the things they pretend to promote. They get called "communists" when they emphatically have nothing to do with communism, and stamp out the actual practice of communism where they find it.

Look at Great Britain. They're a disarmed people. According to some, this should indicate that the British government is an oppressive regime on the order of Stalinist Russia. But observation shows that it is not.

Right-wing authoritarians, on the other hand, may be cynical, but they don't have to be, and that's a big difference. Right-wing authoritarians that are open about it are rightly distrusted by everyone but their right-wing authoritarian followers. Right-wing authoritarianism is psychologically coherent from the top of the hierarchy to the bottom, while "left-wing authoritarianism" requires active deceit between the leader and people he dupes into following him.

The kind of even-handed, "fair" discussion of authoritarianism that some here demand, can only be found in terms of ideology, not psychology. Take everyone's favorite political diagram, the so-called political compass.

First of all, the political compass is a purely ideological creation, created to map political leanings in such a way as to highlight libertarian concerns. It is certainly psychologically relevant, but it doesn't tell the whole story.

If we take it as an adequate reflection of human psychology, then we would expect each of the four ideological quadrants to be more or less equally represented by humanity, but that is not remotely the case. Unless you game the questionnaires, no one is gonna end up in the extreme lower right hand corner. It is not psychologically tenable. Some economic theorists may imagine life viewed from the lower right, but human beings haven't spent any real time in that area of the map and aren't likely to for a number of reasons based in human developmental psychology (Sorry, Ms. Rand).

Right-leaning libertarians will tend to dip just south of the line and no further. The further south, the further libertarian, people go, the more they skew left. There are important reasons why this is so, folks. The likes of Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, MLK and Nelson Mandela will all be found firmly entrenched in the lower left quadrant. There are no such men on the right, and there are no such men to speak for authority. Altmeyer's book goes some distance to explain why that is.

Right-wing authoritarianism is not a problem simply because it is currently in vogue. RWA is a problem because its most ardent adherents prove themselves to be the least rational, most violent folks in the room. There are nuts on all sides, to be sure, but the nuts really do tend to congregate up there.

And for the record, no one on this board would qualify as a high RWA. When Altmeyer talks about RWA's, he's talking about a psychologically crippled demographic that is easily manipulated through fear and a romanticization of violence and tends to gravitate toward traditional, patriarchal, nationalist and sex-negative ideology. He is not talking about Geezer.

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 | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 1:17 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Almost all the statements reference negative hot-button issues for conservatives; loss of traditional marriage and values, radical changes in society, athiesm, homosexuality, perversion, etc.
Since tradition does appear to be an essential part of the definition of "authoritarianism" , what you're saying is... Altemeyer's defintion doesn't mean what it seems to me, as long as I CHANGE THE DEFINTION.

No. actually I'm not. All I'm saying is that messing with traditional marriage - one man and one woman - is a hot button issue for conservatives. I would suspect that messing with traditional Socialsit doctrine is a hot-button issue for Socialists.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 1:19 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, that's not what I said, and I tried very hard to make it clear. The Magic Eightball says: TRY AGAIN.

Please enlighten me, then.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 2:00 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Sorry, Geezer, I tried to alter the questions...obviously I didn't do it right, from what you said. Like I said, I'm not a psychologist. It would be too much trouble to go back and try to figure out how to work the scoring, word the text, etc. I get points for trying, maybe, and you're welcome to try YOUR hand at it to see if we can find any RWA liberals....

No, Rue: "It's about DOGMATIC BELIEF above all". It's not. It's about a mentality, a way of thinking, of which dogmatic belief is one symptom, and one symptom only. Byte has it right, it's ONE ELEMENT of authoritarianism.

And yes, Byte:

Quote:
I see not just unquestioned belief, but also a call to action involved in authoritarian societies. The way a policy is implemented can itself be authoritarian.

That's what I got, too.

As far as

Quote:
"the world is going to be destroyed unless we do THIS, so do it"

, I believe it was more like "let's decide how to deal with X crisis", and those in charge in the game got together and decided collectively how to deal with it. Certainly that made it necessary for them to tell their people what to do, but I think it was more about how the POWERS dealt with things than how the people did, and there was no doubt some grumbling within the people at what was decided...dunno. He doesn't go into that much detail. I can see how telling the people "do this" is authoritarian, so that leaves the question unanswered--except insofar as SOMEONE always tells "the people" what to do, and it's a simple game, without governments, etc., so...?

Quote:
Well, in this particular thread, it seems to be the standard that liberals or leftists can't possibly be authoritarians or authoritarian followers.

Nope. Geezer, I reread and didn't see Sig as defending a standard; more like debating points. Certainly I saw some personal stuff in there, a lot from Rue, and I disagree with some of her conclusions, but I think

Quote:
IF societies do so by appeal to received truth, by appeal to unquestioning belief, they are authoritarian. If they do so by logic, discussion and consensus, they are not.

is pretty on-point. Doesn't cover the whole topic, but I'd agree with it.

I think maybe? some of the personal stuff might have slanted your view somewhat. You made some very good points, but so did others. I guess my own responses would be:

Quote:
Dogmatic belief in a system of values (doesn't have to be religious, does it? Folk can be as fervent about Socialism as Catholicism.
Blatant prejudice against non-conformers with the system of values (You know...the "other", like those gun-nuts/gays/meateaters/abortionists/etc.)

Defense of the system of values(God/Marx/Science/History/etc. says it must be true. It's so obvious.)

Blindly following and excusing their leaders unquestioningly (so - this one stays the same. Sure Stalin/Lincoln/Mao/Bush/etc. got a lot of folks killed, but it was for the best.)

Let's take another step and decide that the authoritarian leaders don't have to be politicians, but can be anyone with a bully pulpit; for example The Christian Coalition, or PETA, or National Right to Life, or Handgun Control.

Basically, authoritarian followers want to tell you how to live - because they have received the revealed truth from God or Marx or Jerry Fallwell or George Soros - and can't imagine you wouldn't agree with them 100%. They will force you to follow their leader for your own good, even if you resist. If you resist too much, they will make you "the other" who isn't really a person, but an obstacle to be removed.

I think you nailed a good portion of it exactly. There's a lot more to it than that, but what you got, I believe you nailed, and it can be ANY issue, what's important is how dogmatic the followers are, how closed they are to any other option/suggestion/facts AND how aggressively they act.

Rue, I disagree with

Quote:
By mixing authoritarian with non-authoritarian organizations as examples he is implying that ALL organizations are authoritarian, just by virtue of having a POV. That is not the case.

No, I think he was saying that any organization COULD be authoritarian, not that all were. If the organization is agressively followed by high-athos (i.e., the "others), not questioned, not changed by finding facts that refute its validity, etc., the followers are high-athos. And there ARE people like that in virtually every organization known to man; it's a human faiing.

Quote:
ALL societies tell their members how to live. It's how you make the rules that counts

Bingo...and add to it it's HOW the people FOLLOW the rules, how agressively, how close-mindedly, how doggedly.

Quote:
A liar by any other name

I don't see that. I see him trying to understand the concept, testing it, questioning it...ooops, sign of a non-athos! And hon, much as I often agree with you, I didn't see many personal insults slung by him, but I saw an awful lot slung by you. No offense intended.

Byte, science DOES come into it, in the book he uses science as a good comparison against authoritarianism, in that it DOESN'T accept things as hard and fast, and also in that high-athos followers deny science when it contradicts their beliefs. History, however, I believe the statement was "STUDY of history", so that could include studying it from several angles; bought whole cloth, I would call it again as high athos.

Quote:
But even something well meaning could be authoritarian, or implemented in a way that is authoritarian, and this must be carefully guarded against

Ahh, but you see, if it is blindly and dogmatically follwed, it's authoritarian; if it's questioned and tested, and only accepted after that, those people are low-athos. Implementation can show signs of authoritarian LEADERS, but acceptance or not determines low or high athos FOLLOWERS.

This has been a FASCINATING debate, I want to thank you all, I'm really impressed and sooo glad I came HERE! We took the dogs and went for a swim at the beach (terrible waste of gas, going all the way in to Crissy Field in the City, but it's hotter than hell and the Bay felt sooo fantastic!) and came back to read the rest of the debate. I'm gonna go make dinner now, so I'm outta here too, but man, I'm impressed by you all!

Yeah, we've all got our prejudices, but "damn, Sam", THINKING PEOPLE...what a joy!!!

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 2:42 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Whatever the outcome, you rejected the idea of a LEADER, and went for "movement". Authoritarian followers want a LEADER, someone who will tell them what to think and believe.

I'm not sure if there's that much of a distinction here. Can you think of many successful movements that did not have either one or a very few charismatic leaders, teachers, gurus, philosophers, etc. who provided the "truth"? For that matter, folk can rally around an idea or ideal in a similar way.

"1) a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in their society;
2) high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and
3) a high level of conventionalism."

With a few changes:

"1) a high degree of submission to the established ideas/ideals of their society;
2) high levels of aggression in the name of their ideas/ideals; and
3) a high level of conventionalism."

"Conventionalism" is an interesting term, since it could apply equally well to the bible-thumping religious conservative or the doctrinaire Marxist.

Of course, folk can also rally around a leader, guru, idea, etc. while still retaining a properly skeptical view of what they're being told.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 2:50 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Uhhh, I think personal insults aren't exactly new in RWE, are they? And they can be caused by a number of emotions, like frustration, personal animosity; they don't indicate authoritave-follower mentality.

High levels of aggression in support or opposition aren't by themselves indications, either, or even the two put together.

Nice try, tho'.

I do agree that a "movement" can be as authoritarian as a "leader", and movements have leaders. Except that spotting the word "leader" and disagreeing with it indicates a desire for more than one person make decisions, and in no way indicates that the person is an authoritarian follower. An athos follower would buy the "leader" thing without thinking twice, so I stand by my response with regard to that.

I find myself wondering if you are trying to say something or prove a point? Just the impression I'm getting...have gotten all through, actually. It's as tho' it's terribly important to you that the concept of authoritarianism NOT be most often exemplified by the right, but that you'd like to prove it's equally valid to the left. I may be wrong, that's just kind of what I'm getting.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 3:02 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
No. actually I'm not. All I'm saying is that messing with traditional marriage - one man and one woman - is a hot button issue for conservatives.

Actually, you included "radical changes in society, athiesm, homosexuality, perversion" in addition to changes in traditional marriage. From YOUR statement I gleaned that the problem is that the questions challenged MANY aspects of tradition, and the problem was challenging tradition itself not any particular aspect (religion, marriage, the military etc)

Quote:
I would suspect that messing with traditional Socialsit doctrine is a hot-button issue for Socialists.

I haven't met any, but I don't think that's the point. The point is that I haven't met any progressives/ liberals/ left-wingers who are willing to lie, cheat, and steal their way into power.

Quote:
Please enlighten me, then.

Since you made the point, isn't it up to you to back it up???

But (sigh).. okay, once more into the breach... Somewhere up there, I said that I thought it possible for there to be athos lefties, but that it was less likely because lefties have not BEEN "the authority" and therefore do not have a cadre of loyal unthinking followers who are following a socialist doctrine simply because it represents "the authority".

I did spend a lot of time trying to point out that simply having a viewpoint, a plan of action, or a government, did NOT make one authoritarian.

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 3:11 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
it was less likely because lefties have not BEEN "the authority" and therefore do not have a cadre of loyal unthinking followers

I would add that, even when IN power, it's less true; it's less likely because lefties are generally more independent thinkers, less dogmatic, religious, prejudiced against "others" and any number of other things which comprise authoritarian thinking.

One of the points he made in the book was that those with high RWA, when exposed to different opinions and different people, tend to get lower RWA scores over time. He mentioned that a high RWA who comes to know a homosexual would be less inclined to hate homosexuals. But that high RWAs tend to stick to their own circles, thereby validating their beliefs.

I used to wonder why the two Coasts were almost invariably more liberal than the center of the country. Had it explained to me that we're exposed to more different cultures because of being on the Coast...which doesn't explain Texas or any of the Gulf, by the way. But if you make the correlation between what's postulated in The Authoritarians and that explanation, yes, exposure to "differents" would tend to lower our RWA score, so it fits.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 5:44 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Couldn't resist.

-F

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 6:09 PM

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

Niki2 and HKCavalier

Geezer is not a religious authoritarian - he is an ideological pro-capitalism one. He himself states that people could be authoritarian about anything - though conveniently he left capitalism off his list (of course).

If you were to remove the words: god, morals, ten commandments etc from the questionnaire and substitute: capitalism, profit, free market etc you would find that Geezer is, indeed, highly authoritarian. BTW - this is not the first time I have put this idea up, and it is not the first time Geezer has essentially claimed credentials with a 'low' score. Consider, though, if, as a non-religious person, he were to take a revised version that highlighted his particular BRAND of religion you would see that indeed, he his extremely authoritarian. But don't take my word for it - stick around and watch him weasel and propagandize his way through an economic discussion of the problems of capitalism. (No such thing ! besides which, it's all explicable ! And anything that WAS done was well intentioned - or at least, better than the alternative - or, OK, it was expedient ... and besides the US NEVER intervened in supporting dictators or juntas ANYwhere --- I have the security clearance to prove it ...)

And BTW, when you have read enough of Geezer supporting torture, political assasination, spying on Americans, tasering for minor non-compliance, US military domination across the globe etc etc you will realize that what he SAYS about himself and what he actually is - don't match up. Just a thing to notice as you continue with your reading. For the record, that makes him, in my book, a liar.

As for authoritarians in the general population - with an average score of 90, US adults are only slightly less authoritarian than not, on average. I think the book points out how entirely common it is (though not the majority), not how rare, or how extreme. Though some authoritarians are extreme, of course.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 6:50 PM

HKCAVALIER

Rue, what do you want me to do? I know what Geezer is. He's not a high RWA. He's not nearly as irrational as you paint him. He's just kind of a jerk who likes to eff with people from his astonishingly complacent POV. Over the years during which you have taken him on at every opportunity, you have made exactly zero headway, right?

He's not the enemy. He's a distraction. And he has been distracting you more than most for over 5 years now. Let it go.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 6:55 PM

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

Look at everything he supports - torture, spying, military and economic dominance, support of dictators, police authority to do anything they want etc - and tell me WHY he's not a high RWA.

He may put a genteel southern gloss over it, but it comes down to the same thing.

And BTW - I have been too right about too many people to think I am wrong here.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 7:22 PM

HKCAVALIER

Rue, Rue. You're just the dueling dualist aren'tcha? Step back a minute. I like you. I admire you. I just think you're wasting your time tilting at the windmill that is our mutual friend Geezer.

Y'know, I don't know what Geezer believes in other than gay rights. Everything else he will finesse and qualify and reframe as long as he can string you along. He's not too worried about a damn thing as far as I can see. I get it that such people can be dangerous, but here in cyberspace, he's only a cathode tiger. His chat is worse than his bite.

But look what he's done to this thread. It's all about him and his half-baked ideas about a book he won't even bother to read. He's had years to read that book now if he were really the least bit interested. But he's not, you see? And yet, y'all just keep on arguing with him and he keeps on slipping away and out of your grasp.

I do know one thing about him: he's having fun. Are you?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

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

Thursday, September 3, 2009 3:07 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
From YOUR statement I gleaned that the problem is that the questions challenged MANY aspects of tradition, and the problem was challenging tradition itself not any particular aspect (religion, marriage, the military etc)

I used the word "tradition" to indicate the traditional belief system conservatives support. Probably should have included - and emphasized - the "belief system" bit, because a belief system - not whether it's traditional, progressive, New Age, or whatever - seems to me the key to the issue. If folks believe in a leader, or a movement, or a theology, or an idea unthinkingly, they're prime candidates to be Authoritarian followers.

Quote:
The point is that I haven't met any progressives/ liberals/ left-wingers who are willing to lie, cheat, and steal their way into power.

Quite possible. You may be in the wrong place and the wrong time. Consider the first few years of the Russian Revolution, or Mao's Long March in China. Even back when the ideology was pure, there was plenty of badness and internecine bloodshed going on. In a less bloody mode, there's the old stories about the dead in Chicago and Texas rising up to vote for Kennedy and Johnson.

Quote:
Somewhere up there, I said that I thought it possible for there to be athos lefties, but that it was less likely because lefties have not BEEN "the authority" and therefore do not have a cadre of loyal unthinking followers who are following a socialist doctrine simply because it represents "the authority".

And I don't disagree with that, with the caveat "At the present time". There have been leftists who were authos in the past - in the Soviet Union and China for example - and there could be in the future.

Quote:
I did spend a lot of time trying to point out that simply having a viewpoint, a plan of action, or a government, did NOT make one authoritarian.

And I don't disagree with that either.

My point all along is that, given certain circumstances, pretty much anyone from any political, religious, ehtnic, etc. persuasion can be an autho. This doesn't mean that they will, or that they're even likely to. However, the skeptical person's gotta keep alert to the signs in both others and themselves.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Thursday, September 3, 2009 5:18 AM

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

HKCavalier

I am not here to convince Geezer of anything.

I am here to point out to others that he is not who he portrays himself as being. That he has a years-long history of exclusively supporting\ excusing\ minimizing\ denying heinous things done by 'authorities' in the name of US economic and military power. That his debate tactics are those of a professional disinformationalist (which I would lay good money on that he is).

And while it is not fun, I think it's a necessary thing to do. The reason I do this is because:

Silence is consent.

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

Thursday, September 3, 2009 5:41 AM

DREAMTROVE

Frem

At some point we replaced the lawful/chaotic/good/evil with friendly/obnoxious/easy going/aggressive personality models similar to the one above...

Still, I thought there was opportunity here for a large number of roadrunner cartoons, or their anime equivalent.

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

Thursday, September 3, 2009 6:16 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Geezer, I think we've agreed that ANY idology can be a form of authoritarianism to those who are high athos, athos followers. I got it at least, and I don't have any argument.

But I do with

Quote:
My point all along is that, given certain circumstances, pretty much anyone from any political, religious, ehtnic, etc. persuasion can be an autho.

No, "anyone" can't; it's a psychology, a mentality, which the author agrees may have genetic components but is mostly formed by experience, from childhood forward. Whether it's Communism or religious right, the same concept applies...someone who does not have authoritarian mentality won't BECOME a high-athos just because of what they believe in. That seems to be a point you haven't quite grasped yet, and I think I'm through repeating it. It's not about left or right or up or down or any particular philosophy/group/cult/religion/politics. It's about HOW the person thinks, and how AGRESSIVELY the defend/act out on their beliefs.

I don't happen to believe that in America, authoritarian mentality can exist much beyond what we experienced with Bush--there are far too many non-athos here who eventually change things. Other countries, I can see it can happen and has, but as far as I'm concerned, this is the only country that interests me in that regard, and here authoritarianism applies most cogently to the right wing, one reason it's so difficult to elect a liberal President. I recognize your opinion differs from mine, so I'll agree to disagree and let it go at that.

Rue, as far as Geezer's concerned, it does no good to tell me what he "is". And trying to bring "the truth" to light is a waste of time. Those who are high-athos may well believe whatever you say and make him an "other". My way of being is to take everyone as I see them, as they interact with me, and make my judgments from there. I have my own opinions about everyone I'm meeting here more than once, and will continue to do so. I can see that you have strong feelings about him and his attitudes, but as Cavalier has said, he's a "paper tiger" here, he can't do anyone any harm unless they let him.

I would ask that, if you would, you'd let me make up my own mind about those here. I came from another Firefly website. When I first came there, I was appalled by the nastiness, right-wing rants and raves, personal attacks and the way most anything I posted in disagreement with the coterie that pretty much "ran" their equivalent of the RWE forum was responded to; I also expressed my shock at what I found.

I was told "it's been this way for years, like it or leave it", and by others privately and on the forum that they'd encountered the same thing as I and learned to stay away from the RWE. I like debates, as I've said, so I tried numerous ways of dealing with the problem. I bowed out of "debates" that got circular and where the other people wouldn't or couldn't hear what I was actually saying; I got called a coward for doing so. Occasionally I remarked on the nastiness; I got called a controller who was trying to "make" people do what I wanted.

When I first arrived, having come from mostly friendly, moderated boards, I shared my life and things about it. Every single one was used against me in particularly ugly fashion, and I was told that anyone who shared about themselves was fair game. It was, of course, too late by then to take back what I said, so I had no choice but to accept the abuse.

I tried putting the worst offenders on "ignore"; they came into conversations I was having with others, and by the others' responses it was obvious what they were saying about me.

I tried giving as good as I got. I was chastized by milder members of the forum for fanning the flames and being as bad as the others, tho' I was NEVER as awful to them as they were to me.

I even tried, with the worst person, merely reversing what they threw at me back at them by changing a few words. They didn't even notice it, and went right on attacking.

At one point one of the really awful people there posted a long diatribe at me calling me names which others admitted was the worst thing they'd ever seen posted there. In response, out of frustration, I posted "Bite me, asshole", and the roof REALLY came down on me. I asked that the thread in question be removed, which of course brought further anger from both my detractors and others.

From then on it got worse and worse. One of them posted an article about bipolars not being mentally ill, just jerks--with the title "Interesting Article" and no explanation. It was obviously aimed at me, but my complaint that it was caused them to start calling me an "attention whore" and the person denied his intentions, the title of attention whore continued unabated.

I began to see that if these few people said the same things about me over and over, it caused some of the others to see me as such, despite anything I said or did.

I got a shock one day to find one of them had gone to the mental-health website I run and copied a thread, my remarks and the replies, where I talked about what I was experiencing there, and posted it on the website. I asked to have that removed, as well; they reposted it and each time, the thread got removed. That caused everyone who was willing to post to align further against me.

Then a "new" member came in claimng to have known me years ago from another website and to have been lurking on our mental-health website, and confirming all the horrible things said about me, saying I'd been that way all along.

I checked it out--they had used the name of one of the people who ran the website they claimed to have known me from, registered under it THAT DAY, so it was obviously a fraud. I posted a screen shot of the person's profile showing they had registered and only made one post (obviously to "validate" their existence); it was called a fraud and nobody questioned it or the "new" member.

I continued to pursue it, and received an e-mail from the person whose name they had used saying they'd never been to any other website and knew nothing about anyone having used their name. I didn't bother to post that, I'd learned my lesson.

So finally I gave up and came here. Several of them are members here and cautioned me, some of those who had been after me on that website came here and bad-mouthed me.

They continued to do so on the other site for some time after I left. I'm pretty much accepted as "crazy" over there and it's bandied about by most of them. Given it's a Firefly community, I don't want people who might be influenced to pre-judge me, so every time they bad-mouthed me, I asked for the post to be removed, and it was.

This of course only made things worse, but I no longer care; I had my account deleted (tho' they maintained I was "banned") and only returned to request deletion of the worst said of me. They have since referred to me as "she who must not be named", or SWMNBN, but as long as they don't use my name, I have no interest in what goes on there.

This post may bring them down on me again, but I'm not fighting it anymore and I have no loyalty to that site or most of those on it. Some have stayed in touch via e-mail; I consider those friends.

I needed to make a point, long as this is. The people here were kind and fair enough to ask them to leave, tell them their harrassment gave more weight to what I had said than what they were saying, and asked them to let the people here make up their OWN minds about me.

So this is all by way of saying, please let me do the same. I'm NOT saying you're lying, at all, just that trying to convince others of your opinions of Geezer or anyone else isn't something I will accept, and I guess I'm asking that YOU let people make up their own minds, as well. It's the civil thing to do.

There is one caveat, well, two. What I wrote on the mental-health website and here were and are MY take on things, they're subjective and from my point of view. I never lied, but I realize that to others, what I wrote would be seen from THEIR subjective viewpoint and seen as lies.

Our mental-health site is where we go to get support for things happening in our lives and help figuring out how to deal with them, which is what I had done, so to copy it and post it AND THE REPLIES OF OTHERS was in my opinion a terrible thing to do. As were many of the other things they did, and they had googled others and posted about their lives, too, but it's in the past.

That's my story; I have found this place to be wonderful in comparison; over there they continue as always, sniping and arguing for hundreds of posts, and anyone there learns as I did that the only way to deal with it is stay out of RWE and not communicate with any from the clique who run it. Unfortunately, all the other forums are very quiet, their statement being that Firefly is so long dead that the only thing keeping the site alive IS the RWE.

Like here, one or another of them even brought their ugliness into the General forum, but for the most part that's left alone. Anyone venturing into RWE who tries to fight the tide learns, no doubt sooner than I, to either stay away, keep their mouths shut, or become a target.

Here, yes, there is nastiness, but nothing like there. Perhaps it's because there are more on both left and right, so it's not "ruled" the way it is there, but I see far less personal attacks and ganging up on one person, and I can handle what I see here easily. It helps to have learned from my experience, and now helps even more to understand the workings of authoritarian followers AND leaders, and not to engage them when it becomes circular or unfeasible.

I'm happy here; but if the people here hadn't been willing to make up their own minds about me, I couldn't have stayed, everyone would have been too poisoned against me. So, tho' it is my belief and always has been anyway, I make an extra effort to know others as I find them, post by post, and not prejudge anyone. That's the reason for this long ramble and I hope you can accept it.
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Thursday, September 3, 2009 6:41 AM

DREAMTROVE

Okay, I think Nik wins the typing contest.

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

Thursday, September 3, 2009 6:46 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

But

I just "talk" too much.

p.s. Thanx for calling me "Nik"...only one other person has ever done that, and it feels nice.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Thursday, September 3, 2009 7:07 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Gorammit, the inet ate my reply.

Quote:
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.

Mmm… not sure that’s true. I think the author may have a specific interaction in mind between leaders and followers in an authoritarian system. Believing in a leaderless theology or movement does not contain the element of “leadership/ followership” that seems to be required for authoritarian systems. And if one’s belief is anti-authoritarian… say, SargeX’s belief in a system of rebels… it would not attract people with the need to follow.

Quote:
My point all along is that, given certain circumstances, pretty much anyone from any political, religious, ehtnic, etc. persuasion can be an autho. This doesn't mean that they will, or that they're even likely to. However, the skeptical person's gotta keep alert to the signs in both others and themselves.

The key here, I think is… given the right circumstances. Given the right circumstances, any particular person is capable of doing a lot of things they might not otherwise. This is a truism but doesn’t say much.

I will repeat a statement I made previously, simply bc you haven’ responded to it the first two times: A government “could” become authoritarian, but one organization is inevitably so, and that is the modern corporation. That’s prolly why I prefer cooperatives rather than corporations.

*********************
I’m still doing what drove Finn nuts… testing the boundaries of a definition. For example, its clear that having a plan of action, an organization, or a statement of fact, or a fear, does not make one authoritarian. If that were the case, then anyone who ever made a discovery, was frightened, solved a problem, or acted in cooperation with others would be authoritarian… clearly not the case!

But if authoritarianism is a system of leadership/ followership (more pointedly, a system of followership based on fear) and non-authoritarianism is based on consensus… how many people have to be included and agree on something before it’s considered a consensus? What do you do with the people who disagree? What if they disagree violently, or are intent on subverting the consensus? What if they’re intent on supplanting the system of consensus itself, and replacing it with their own authoritarian system?

Couple of thoughts on this: If there is ONE rule that a non-autho system must have, it is the rule not to allow authos. (Thanks to Rue for expressing what I have been trying to say for years: You do not get rid of authoritarianism simply by removing authorities. You must change the system.)

The other thought is that, despite SargeX’s rejection of any “imperfect” systems (A perfect system is one in which people are allowed to act in total freedom) such as system will never exist.

There are as many possible societies as there are stars in the sky, including societies which have run headlong off figurative cliffs while clutching their belief systems. One group subject to dislocation and starvation develops a culture of thievery and cruelty. Another develops a culture of sharing. One culture worships children, another sacrifices them to the gods. One culture believes women are the ultimate leaders, another treats them as less than cattle. One island society, on the verge of ecological disaster and starvation, start implementing population control, another chops down the last tree and devolves into a nightmare of starvation, cannibalism, and extinction. “Thou shall not kill” is not a statement to which we “all” agree. There is nothing instinctive or god-given about our societies… no perfect consensus on any topic… nothing that that has not been violated or revered at one time or another. What it ultimately boils down to is a CHOICE, on even the most fundamental issues. And where there is a choice, an option, there will always be people who disagree. THAT is a “tyranny of the majority”… there is no way around it.

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

Thursday, September 3, 2009 7:25 AM