Authoritarianism... by Niki2

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Corporations: ruled in a top-down hierarchy, guaranteed to make its minions feel like underserving pieces of shit (bc if you're poor it must be YOUR fault), and based on the fear of poverty. Anti-corporatism is attacked not only with harsh words but with guns and bombs. Think I've made my case, I believe that YOUR belief is... uncritical.

"Authos to the wall" : Well, maybe authos to a place where they can practice their autho behavior amongst each other? A conundrum that is best minimized as much as possible, but can never be eliminated. The choice is between a society that is less free, and one that is more free. Absolute freedom???? Don't think it will ever happen, so don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

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

Thursday, September 3, 2009 8:56 AM

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

Signy, good thoughts:

Quote:
Believing in a leaderless theology or movement does not contain the element of “leadership/ followership” that seems to be required for authoritarian systems

I concur. But again, it's HOW a person thinks, not the system/leader/whatever that they believe IN. And is there such a thing as a leaderless theology or movement? If there was, yes, it would be harder to ACT OUT one's authoritariansim unless one was close to others in same and could get support in what they believe, but autos can be anywhere and believe in anything...it's how they think about the thing that makes them authos.

Quote:
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.

Yes. Way back somewhere I mentioned that the author said in a CRISIS, some people will adopt an autho stance which they wouldn't otherwise. Ergo 9/11, perfect example. A lot of people bought into the entire Bush Doctrine and the things he put in motion in this country, initially, because of fear.

Quote:
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

Nope. Doing those things has nothing to do with authoritarianism; again, it's HOW one thinks/acts on their beliefs which makes one an autho follower, not the thing itself.

Quote:
THAT is a “tyranny of the majority”… there is no way around it.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, clarify, please?

I think we've gotten away from the concept of an autho follower and are dealing with what they might or might not follow. It's about HOW they think, how they believe, how they act--a psychological thing...it has nothing whatsoever to do with WHAT they believe, think about or follow. It's possible anywhere, and I think any society has some, because athos will always seek SOMETHING or someone to follow and believe in, inevitably someone/something which reinforces the beliefs they already have formed through their life and are dogmatic about.

Quote:
My point all along is that, given certain circumstances, pretty much any political, religious, ethnic, etc. persuasion can have autho followers

Ooops, yeah, that's what I just said. Yup. You got it. In fact, I'd change "can" to HAS.

Maybe it will help if I list again the aspects of an athos follower. This is a shortened version, but you can refer to the earlier post for a more full description:

1. Illogical Thinking:

High RWAs have trouble figuring out that an inference or deduction was wrong. Remember the following syllogism:

All fish live in the sea.
Sharks live in the sea..
Therefore, sharks are fish.

The conclusion does not follow, but high RWAs would be more likely to say the reasoning is correct than most people would. If you ask them why it seems right, they would likely tell you, “Because sharks are fish.” In other words, they thought the reasoning was sound because they agreed with the last statement.

2. Highly Compartmentalized Minds

As I said earlier, authoritarians’ ideas are poorly integrated with one another. It’s as if each idea is stored in a file that can be called up and used when the authoritarian wishes, even though another of his ideas--stored in a different file-- basically contradicts it. We all have some inconsistencies in our thinking, but authoritarians can stupify you with the inconsistency of their ideas. Thus they may say they are proud to live in a country that guarantees freedom of speech, but another file holds, “My country, love it or leave it.” The ideas were copied from trusted sources, often as sayings, but the authoritarian has never “merged files” to see how well they all fit together.

3. Double Standards

I have found many other instances in which authoritarian followers show a double standard in their judgments of people’s behavior or the rightness of various causes. For example they will punish a panhandler who starts a fight with an accountant more than an accountant who (in the same situation) starts a fight with a panhandler. They will punish a prisoner in jail who beats up another prisoner more than they will punish a police officer who beats up that second prisoner. (Remember when I said in chapter 1 that high RWAs will go easy on authorities, and on a person who attacks someone the authoritarian wants to attack?) On the other hand I have found it difficult to catch low RWAs using double standards. In all the cases above they seem to operate by principles which they apply in even-handed ways.

4. Hypocrisy

You can also, unfortunately, find a considerable amount of hypocrisy in high RWAs’ behavior. For example, the leaders of authoritarian movements sometimes accuse their opponents of being anti-democratic and anti-free speech when the latter protest against various books, movies, speakers, teachers and so on. They say leftists impose restrictions for “political correctness.”

Would low RWAs want to censor the things they thought dangerous as much as high RWAs would in their areas of concern? It turned out to be “no contest,” because in both studies authoritarian followers wanted to impose more censorship in all of these cases--save the one involving the sex education teacher who strongly believed all premarital sex was a sin.

5. Blindness To Themselves

If you ask people how much integrity they personally have, guess who pat themselves most on the back by claiming they have more than anyone else. This one is easy if you remember the findings on self-righteousness from the last chapter: high RWAs think they had lots more integrity than others do. Similarly when I asked students to write down, anonymously, their biggest faults, right-wing authoritarians wrote down fewer than others did, mainly because a lot of them said they had no big faults. When I asked students if there was anything they were reluctant to admit about themselves to themselves, high RWAs led everyone else in saying, no, they were completely honest with themselves.

6. A Profound Ethnocentrism
Ethnocentrism means dividing the world up into in-groups and out-groups, and it’s something people do quite automatically. You can see this by how easily we identify with the point of view of a storyteller.

As natural as this is, authoritarians see the world more sharply in terms of their in-groups and their out-groups than most people do. They are so ethnocentric that you find them making statements such as, “If you’re not with us, then you’re against us.” There’s no neutral in the highly ethnocentric mind. This dizzying “Us versus Everyone Else” outlook usually develops from traveling in those “tight circles” we talked about in the last chapter, and whirling round in those circles reinforces the ethnocentrism as the authoritarian follower uses his friends to validate his opinions.

Most of us associate with people who agree with us on many issues. But this is especially important to authoritarians, who have not usually thought things out, explored possibilities, considered alternate points of view, and so on, but acquired their beliefs from the authorities in their lives. They then maintain their beliefs against new threats by seeking out those authorities, and by rubbing elbows as much as possible with people who have the same beliefs.

7. Dogmatism: The Authoritarian’s Last Ditch Defense

Authoritarian followers are also quite dogmatic. By dogmatism I mean relatively unchangeable, unjustified certainty. And I’m certain that is right, beyond a doubt.

It’s easy to see why authoritarian followers would be dogmatic, isn’t it? When you haven’t figured out your beliefs, but instead absorbed them from other people, you’re really in no position to defend them from attack. Simply put, you don’t know why the things you believe are true. Somebody else decided they were, and you’re taking their word for it.

It is HOW they think, how they process the world, not what they believe in. See?

Now I STILL maintain that, in America for the most part and especially today, there are more atho followers on the right. For one thing, the right embodies "traditional" values on religion, marriage, all outside-the-norm "others". The left embodies independent thought.

Ergo, I believe that while you can have a society made up of virtually ALL atho followers, like some of those you mentioned, you can't have one made up of virtually all non-atho followers. Everyone thinking independently and always challenging traditional values dogmatically and agressively would be chaos, wouldn't it?

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Thursday, September 3, 2009 9:09 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I was losing track of all of the OTHER characteristics which make up authoritarianism. Thanks for that. Needs more thought.

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

Thursday, September 3, 2009 9:11 AM

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

Quote:
I have encountered people who reflect all the authos follower's traits listed farther up in the thread towards a movement, gun control for example, rather than towards a leader.

Okay, agreed. But I think they're in the minority by far, and they need to have ALL the criteria of an atho follower, and I don't think you'll find a lot who would fit.

Quote:
"Right circumstances" doesn't have to mean a life or death situation. It might be, probably would be, where the particular leader, idea, etc. had a strong appeal to the preconceptions of the potential authos follower, causing them to follow uncritically.

Again, they'd have to display the symptoms, and it'd take something pretty hefty, I should think, to make a non-atho think completely like an atho. A leader who had a strong appeal to the preconceptions of an atho follower, but following him doesn't make him specifically an athoritarian, only the way he THINKS and ACTS in following/believing.

Quote:
one organization is inevitably so, and that is the modern corporation.

Certainly corporations would draw a lot of atho followers, and those who weren't who worked for them would have a harder time, but it doesn't make corporations inevitably full of atho followers. In the wider meaning of authoritarian, corporations certainly are, but we're talking about a mentality here, not the wider meaning.

Quote:
But wouldn't the folk willing to get rid of the authos, for the protection of society, be authos themselves?

Exactly. Any society where everyone excludes atho followers by agressive means, or actually get rid of them at ALL, dooms its citizens to being authoritarian followers.

Yes, it's a DAMNED shame we have so many of them, and they're so active (speaking of currently and the past eight years),AND that their means of pushing their agenda are so effective--remember, there is no "conscience" or "questioning" so lying, cheating, not holding your leaders accountable, makes it MUCH easier to be in power.

But they're as much a necessary part of society as non-athos, as I see it. Like I said above; first, a non-atho society would be chaos; second, you have to have traditional values for non-athos to question, and if you tossed 'em all out, you make your own traditional values; third, if you throw them out, you are acting in an authoritarian manner, making them the "others" and agressively excluding them. Just as you said:

Quote:
Absolute freedom???? Don't think it will ever happen, so don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

There you go.

It's tough, isn't it?? And it's so easy to get away from the mentality, the seven aspects, and into theological, political, etc. BELIEFS as part of making someone autho.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Thursday, September 3, 2009 10:25 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Corporations:

Not going there.

Quote:
"Authos to the wall" : Well, maybe authos to a place where they can practice their autho behavior amongst each other? A conundrum that is best minimized as much as possible, but can never be eliminated. The choice is between a society that is less free, and one that is more free. Absolute freedom???? Don't think it will ever happen, so don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Exile, then.

So who decides who are authos? For that matter, who decides who are the folks who disagree with the consensus about what "Freedom" is and need to be removed for things to run smoothly? You can't really test for it, since it'd be obvious you were doing so and those doggone disagreeable folk would cheat. Probably informers. Maybe a bit of surveillance. Would trials or due process be neccessary if the consensus said their removal was really needed?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Thursday, September 3, 2009 10:40 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Again, they'd have to display the symptoms, and it'd take something pretty hefty, I should think, to make a non-atho think completely like an atho.

Again, that's not my point. I agree that it would be difficult, and require unusal circumstances, to make a non-autho act like an autho. I'm saying that leaders, ideas, etc. of most all political stripes can appeal to those disposed to autho-type behavior. It might be difficult to find a Buddist Autho.

Quote:
Yes, it's a DAMNED shame we have so many of them, and they're so active (speaking of currently and the past eight years),AND that their means of pushing their agenda are so effective--remember, there is no "conscience" or "questioning" so lying, cheating, not holding your leaders accountable, makes it MUCH easier to be in power.

Okay, I'm gonna get in trouble again here, because I doubt that the autho followers, at least, consider themselves as having no conscience. They probably believe they are doing what is necessary to maintain the correct way of life. They don't go out in the morning thinking "I'm going to do evil things today {evil laugh}", even though you or I may think they are doing the wrong thing. Your enemy is not evil in his own eyes.

Quote:
It's tough, isn't it??

Sure is.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Thursday, September 3, 2009 11:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
But they're as much a necessary part of society as non-athos, as I see it. Like I said above; first, a non-atho society would be chaos; second, you have to have traditional values for non-athos to question, and if you tossed 'em all out, you make your own traditional values; third, if you throw them out, you are acting in an authoritarian manner, making them the "others" and agressively excluding them.

This is hopelessly dualistic. You've just clearly and concisely categorized all the impaired thinking of the authoritarian mindset and then conclude that society needs its impaired thinkers or it would devolve into chaos?

Impaired thinking is the problem. And the solution is not to forcibly remove all the impaired thinkers you can find, because, yes, of course, that would be impaired thinking as well. It would mean objectifying the impaired thinkers as an "other." It would be, in short: ignoring the psychological basis of the problem. That's what happens when people politicize psychological phenomena. That's what happens when people ignore the reality of psychological healing.

But there are other ways to get rid of impaired thinking. #1: education. #1a: psychological healing. And #2: DON'T IMPAIR IT IN THE FIRST PLACE! The kind of impaired thinking we're discussing here, your 7 characteristics of authoritarians, are not inborn--they are induced. Abusive systems create this kind of impaired thinking.

There are all manner of non-authoritarian traditions, just not so much in the deeply hierarchically minded western world. Traditions of shamanism and eastern martial arts are two examples I've studied and practice to this day. Such traditions can survive for centuries without turning authoritarian. Both traditions are grounded in reality and incorrect practice is determined by the practitioner through their failures, not through dogma. A dogmatic martial artist will only get so far before her skill is undermined by her delusions--at which point she may turn to politics.

I have studied in such traditions for years without encountering any of the 7 deadly abusive thought patterns. I have also encountered abuse in one martial arts school I attended, but it was far from necessary to the tradition, it was cancerous and many students were hurt by it and the school closed.

Impaired thinking, resulting from long term abuse, is NOT necessary to keep society in order. But, tellingly, thinking that it is necessary for society is crucial to the abusive system's survival. Realizing that a cycle of abuse can be ended is the first step toward healing.

I think you're mistaking what I would call "anti-authoritarianism" with non-authoritarianism. Most of us hereabouts are children of a patriarchal, intolerant, dogmatic, abusive system of some kind and to some degree. Some stay there and become authoritarians. Others get out, but only so far, and spend their lives shadow-boxing with the authoritarians, remaining thus bound to that world and never really being free. And some of us free ourselves even of that struggle (for the most part, most days ) and find our own meaning in life.

HKCavalier

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

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

Thursday, September 3, 2009 12:09 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

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

Thursday, September 3, 2009 12:13 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
But there are other ways to get rid of impaired thinking. #1: education. #1a: psychological healing. And #2: DON'T IMPAIR IT IN THE FIRST PLACE! The kind of impaired thinking we're discussing here, your 7 characteristics of authoritarians, are not inborn--they are induced. Abusive systems create this kind of impaired thinking.

Okay. Gently I speak, fearing wrath, but having to express concern.

How might you be able apply this education, psychological healing, and pre-emptive stoppage of inducement towards authoritarianism to a good percentage of the population without using massive amounts of coercion, invasion of privacy, and loss of personal freedoms? The term "re-education camp" comes to mind, and that's not a pleasant image. And once again, who decides who is in need of this treatment?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Thursday, September 3, 2009 1:18 PM

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

Interesting question. I just accepted "that's how it is".

The author wrote that people exposed to other than their own tight circle had their RWA scores lowered, but that it's a problem because authos tend to stick close to their "birds of a feather". Pretty obvious, from the symptoms, that they would.

So I guess the easiest answer is "expose them to other ideas, people, etc." How do you do that? To me, any kind of forced anything isn't acceptable; it creates its own authoritarianism, and is just plain wrong.

Dunno how you get ideas/people/etc. INTO their circle, or if it can even be done, but that's the only thing the author suggests--oh, wait, I forgot; the last chapter is entitled "What’s To Be Done?" I'll read it and let you know what HIS suggestion(s) is/are.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Thursday, September 3, 2009 1:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Okay. Gently I speak, fearing wrath, but having to express concern.

How might you be able apply this education, psychological healing, and pre-emptive stoppage of inducement towards authoritarianism to a good percentage of the population without using massive amounts of coercion, invasion of privacy, and loss of personal freedoms? The term "re-education camp" comes to mind, and that's not a pleasant image. And once again, who decides who is in need of this treatment?

Y'know, I'm sorry for getting so upset about all this--it's just at the core of The Problem as far as I'm concerned. That's me.

Geezer, I keep thinking I've answered this question half a hundred times before, in half a hundred threads and here it is again. I must just suck at explaining myself!

Here's the thing: the only way to apply this education is individually. The only person with the credentials to determine who needs this education is the individual him/herself. When the student is ready, the teacher will appear. When we recognize that we have a problem, that's when we seek help.

You want children to grow up free of this abusive shit, then don't perpetrate it on them.

Mental health really must never become politicized in terms of coercion, invasion and brainwashing--because these practices specifically undermine mental health--both for the ones doing the coercing and their victims. I treat this as a psychological fact. Children need to be respected above all else--experience will teach them what is real and what is not, if we simply respect them enough to let them learn.

I'm hoping for a purely cultural revolution here, a baseline of mental health being reached by enough people that it achieves a critical mass and society as a whole becomes a li'l bit healthier. I have to believe that, ultimately, once we understand our natures thoroughly enough, mental health is a naturally preferable state to mental illness and delusion. I see such healing happening every day. As a survivor of incest, I cannot imagine living as well or as happily--as consciously--as I do today at any other moment in our history. Incest has been so misunderstood for pretty much the entirety of human history until very, very recently in this century.

Gay rights initiatives, f'rinstance, get passed because enough people realize that gay people are entitled to the same rights and privileges as everyone else (not because of coercion, or invasion of privacy or "re-education camps"). This becomes known as a fact of human nature, not just one faction's fractious opinion.

Sure, there are activists agitating for this change I'm talking about. In my way, I am an activist (still writing that novel over here). In Frem's way, so is he. I believe activism is most effective as a means to educate--to raise awareness. 'Cause, once you're made aware of a reality, it's hard to go back to ignorance--you have to really work at it at that point and you can never quite get ignorance back again.

Lies will fade without constant reinforcement, while the truth eventually is all that's left.

So, in terms of the human race wising up, I gotta take the long view here. But I see individuals wising up every day. Recognizing authoritarianism when we see it--seeing what sorts of ideology are most consistent with authoritarianism and what sorts of ideology tend to interfere with authoritarianism--is an important step in loosening authoritarianism's grasp on humanity.

HKCavalier

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

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

Thursday, September 3, 2009 1:31 PM

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

Actually, I'll be lazy. I'll just give you the text. There may be references to earlier parts of the book; there will undoubtedly be little numbers that refer to notes. But here it is (geez, if I keep this up, I'll be copying the whole BOOK here, hee, hee, hee). He gives a lot of IMpractical solutions initially, then goes on with the following:

Long-term Reductions in Authoritarianism: More Practical Solutions

Like I said, it’s not going to be easy. And knowing you as well as I do, I think you’d probably be suspicious yourself of anyone who says he’s got a Magic Pill that will cure our spell of authoritarianism overnight. But some approaches have been blessed by data, and I can give you the “short list” here. (Uh, there is no long list, but future research should add justifiable means to our end.)

Wanting to be “normal.” By and large, these approaches are not based on what high RWAs might become, but rather on what they are. For example, we can catch a favoring breeze from the fact that high RWAs want to be normal. Studies show they will moderate their attitudes and beliefs just from finding out that they’re different from most people. They don’t usually realize how extreme they are because they stick so closely with their own kind. They need to get out more.

How can you possibly accomplish that since--like “Hugh”--they love staying in their tight circles? Through common cause, believe it or not. Low RWAs and high RWAs land on the opposite ends of a certain personality test, but they’re not really, totally, from head-to-toe opposites. They disagree about lots, but not about everything.

People tend to overemphasize their disagreements and underrate their commonalities. And keep in mind that high RWAs open the door to those who seem to believe what they believe. Find your common grounds, and meet on them.

Many fundamentalists, for example, are becoming concerned about the damage being done to the environment. God gave us dominion over the earth and all its creatures, they believe, and we are doing a pretty crummy job as God’s caretakers. So environmentalists should reach out to them, uniting on local projects that everyone can see need to be done. The “tree-huggers” will be glad they did; fundamentalists work hard for causes they believe in.

High RWAs will be most likely to come to meetings, do some picketing, or clean up a stream when they can come in pairs, threes, and so on--or especially have you join them. Don’t be surprised if they try to convert you while you’re pulling tires out of the creek. I don’t recommend you proselytize back, but it would be important for them to learn, in a non-confrontational way, that people who disagree with their religious views have reasons for their stand. Dropping the drag net in a can-filled stream and shouting at each other from the opposite shores will not get anybody anywhere. It’s not an argument you can win, especially if you win. (Couples who live together learn this about certain arguments.)

Instead, you’ll be amazed how bonding it is when four people wrestle an old washing machine out of the brown water that none of them could have managed alone. This is called a superordinate goal, and social psychologists can cite many studies that show it really does open doors between groups.

You’re not asking the fundamentalists to come through the door to your side. You’re not trying to change their religious beliefs. You’re just trying to augment their awareness of others, and increase their Christian charity, by simply giving them the chance to see through an open doorway. Meeting different people in a situation where all are joined in common cause, where all have to work together, can open such vistas. (Of course, if you’re a disgusting person that no one would enjoy meeting [ask around], take a pass on this.)

For another example, non-fundamentalists churches can extend their hand to fundamentalist faiths. People often think that low RWAs are all atheists and agnostics. They’re not. Most (62%) of the low RWAs in my big 2005 parent study said they were members of some religion--typically liberal Protestants or Catholics. A solid majority of moderates are religious too, and often church-goers as well.

Overall, people who believe in God and have religious inclinations are not high RWAs, and they are well-positioned to broaden those who are. Fundamentalist congregations in their suburban mega-churches can look like those high RWA students sitting on their islands in the Global Change Game: “We won’t bother you if you don’t bother us.”

So, go bother them. Reach out, looking especially for whatever moderates may be in their numbers. Their front rank will likely be filled with their highest RWAs, as was true on both sides in the USA-USSR study. Reach over them. Suggest joint services. Let the fundamentalists get to know you. Show them people can be different and still be decent human beings with whom they’ll agree about lots. They need to see that it’s not always cut-and-dried, Us versus Them. Lots of Thems are a lot like Us.

Visible minorities. Along this same line, high RWAs misperceive how diverse America is. It’s quite natural to think, when you are in the white, Christian, heterosexual, solvent majority that this is a huge majority. Minorities should speak out for their rights. If they don’t, they are (among other things) helping a lot of the majority remain steeped in ignorance. People can learn, but they won’t have a chance if the minorities remain invisible.

I know, I know, the high RWAs will howl whatever chorus their leaders dictate when minorities become “uppity.” But recall the evidence that nothing improves authoritarians’ attitudes toward homosexuals as much as getting to know a homosexual--or learning that they’ve known one for years.

Higher Education. Moving to a broader perspective in this broadening effort, evidence we encountered in chapter 2 shows that higher education can have a significant beneficial impact on authoritarian followers that lasts a lifetime. It doesn’t usually turn them into anti-matter versions of their former selves. But four years of undergraduate experience knocks their RWA scale scores down about 15- 20%. That’s a lot, especially when you’re talking about very dogmatic people.

So for this, and many other reasons, it makes sense to keep our universities alive, vibrant and accessible.13 For all their faults, they can be the bastions of democracy they were meant to be. And if you buy my interpretation that it’s the experience of interacting with so many different kinds of people that mainly produces the drop in authoritarianism, then we should especially support the institutions of higher learning that create such an environment.

Children? I know what you’re thinking. We also saw in chapter 2 that becoming parents raises RWA scale scores. Should we therefore stop reproducing? No. That might prove counterproductive. And it would bollix up all those theories that say human beings are just a way for our DNA to keep itself going.

Laws. We can catch another prevailing wind from the fact that, of all the people in a society, high RWAs are probably the most likely to obey laws they don’t like.

For example, I once asked a group of students to imagine they were members of a school board and a law had just been passed prohibiting the hiring of homosexual teachers. Virtually all of the low RWAs said they would find such a law repugnant, and only a small minority (19%) of those said they would obey it. (Their modal response was to disobey the law through passive resistance.)

Another group of students was presented with the mirror-image situation of a law that ordered school boards not to discriminate against homosexuals when hiring teachers. The great majority of high RWAs in that situation said they would disagree with such a law. But most (53%) of them said they would obey it, usually because “the law is the law and must be obeyed.”

You often hear that one cannot legislate brotherhood, but I think you sometimes can. Anti-discrimination laws, designed to make sure everyone has the rights she is entitled to, can lead many prejudiced people to equal-footing contact with minorities. It’s vital that the authoritarians believe the law will be enforced, but if they think it will be, that contact can help break down stereotypes. Beyond that, such laws give high RWAs an excuse within their in-group for doing the right thing: “OK, I’ll break the law if you’ll pay my fine.”

Modeling and Leadership. Milgram’s finding that defiant (confederate) teachers inspired defiance in real subjects fits in nicely with other studies in social psychology that reveal the “power of one.” An early demonstration of this took place in a famous conformity experiment run at Harvard in the late 1940s. Subjects were surrounded by confederates who deliberately gave obviously wrong answers to questions. Usually the subjects went along with the wrong majority at least some of the time. But if, in another condition of the experiment, one other person gave the right answer, real subjects were much more likely to “do the right thing”--even though it meant joining a definite minority rather than the majority.

Many times people know that something wrong is happening, but they don’t do anything because they know other people are also aware of the situation. As a result, all can trap themselves into inactivity. A vivid example of this occurred in an experiment in which subjects were answering surveys in a New York City office building, and the room began to fill up with smoke. If a subject was alone, he usually left the room. But if three real subjects were seated together, they usually stayed in their chairs even though the smoke eventually got so thick they couldn’t see the surveys anymore. When asked why they hadn’t gotten up, their usual answer was, “The other guys didn’t get up.”

I don’t want to overgeneralize this point. At Jozefow one man stepped forward and about ten others followed when they saw it was safe to do so. But hundreds of others stayed where they stood. “Courageous leaders” can become isolates in a flash. But when things are obviously going wrong and everyone is frozen by everyone else’s inactivity, all can perish for exactly the same reason that racing lemmings do. Often one person can steel another, and another and another, until many are working together. You don’t have to form a majority to have an effect. Two or three people speaking out can sometimes get a school board, a church board, a board of aldermen to reconsider authoritarian actions. Lack of any opposition teaches bullies simply to go for more. But it takes one person, an individual, to start the opposition.

Non-violent protest. Here’s a “Don’t.” Don’t use violence as a tool to advance your cause. Besides the dubious morality of such acts, they play straight into the hands of the people whose influence you’re trying to reduce. As I mentioned in chapter 2, studies show most people are spring-loaded to become more authoritarian when violence increases in society. (Besides, when a reform movement turns to violence, it paves the way for any social dominators within the movement to come to the fore, and “The Revolution” seeds the next dictatorship.)
________________________

The author was worried about the rise of high RWAs in our society (I think he was writing it when Bush was at the height of his power), so he also has a section on "what to do right now". But I don't think that's your question, so I didn't bother with it.

You'll just have to read the book yourself to decide how you feel about it, which is what should be done anyway, as, even tho' I'm quoting psssages from it, they don't give the whole picture and I might have unconsciously subjectively left something important out. It's a short-ish book, and I highly recommend it, as well as a big "thank you" to Cavalier for suggesting it; the debate it has sparked has helped me learn a LOT and I think been interesting for those participating in it. I think.
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Thursday, September 3, 2009 3:41 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Geezer, I keep thinking I've answered this question half a hundred times before, in half a hundred threads and here it is again. I must just suck at explaining myself!

Here's the thing: the only way to apply this education is individually. The only person with the credentials to determine who needs this education is the individual him/herself. When the student is ready, the teacher will appear. When we recognize that we have a problem, that's when we seek help.

I pretty much agree with this, but as somebody said, "Aye, there's the rub".

How do you get people who honestly believe that their worldview is the correct one to voluntarily decide to completely re-make themselves? Some, through encountering reasonable and patient people of other world-views will open their eyes to alternate views. I've seen this happen. Howecer, it's not all that common.

I think that the answer lies with the children. Conside that, from my observation, racism has decreased quite a bit in the last 50 or so years. Oh, it's still out there, but I'd guess with a lot less adherents. I suspect the reason is the end of "Separate but Equal" and integration. As Kids started going to school with kids of other races and ethnicities, they found that those other kids weren't all that different.

Madame Geezer suggests that all schools should have mandatory courses in Critical Thinking, starting as young as possible, as an innoculation against both illogical ideology and illogical advertising. Seems like a good idea to me.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Thursday, September 3, 2009 3:48 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
without using massive amounts of coercion, invasion of privacy, and loss of personal freedoms?

SNORT! Like it's not happening already???? How do you supposed people grow up being authoritatian in the first place???

Quote:
How do you get people who honestly believe that their worldview is the correct one to voluntarily decide to completely re-make themselves?

If they're adults... When they've hit bottom. And some... never bottom out.

Quote:
Madame Geezer suggests that all schools should have mandatory courses in Critical Thinking

GREAT IDEA! It'll be just as easy as getting comparative religion in the curriculum.

Unfortunately, there are a LOT of people in this society who have a vital interest in keeping people from thinking.

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

Thursday, September 3, 2009 3:57 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I think those who associate authoritarianism with dogmatic or strong beliefs in things are missing the boat a bit. Everyone feels strongly about something, yeah? Religion, Capitalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Anarchy, Order, Free Love, Celibacy, whatever.

I might be the uneducated wanker here, but it seems to me that Authoritarianism isn't about having a strong, nearly unshakable belief in something. Nor is it about following leaders who have those same strong beliefs. (Almost all people follow leaders, whether we want to admit it or not.)

To me, Authoritarianism becomes Authoritarianism only when you are prepared to force other people to live by your strongly held beliefs. You can hate or love a thing from here till doomsday, but until you're prepared to force other people to adopt those beliefs, you're not an authoritarian figure or follower.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

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

Thursday, September 3, 2009 5:11 PM

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

Quote:

You didn't outlaw murder....

One of the 10 commandments.

Keep digging. It's not a "christian" thing, or even a "jewish" thing. Keep going back. Those alleged "commandments" didn't really have anything new to say that hadn't already been said and written down before.

Mike

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

Thursday, September 3, 2009 5:37 PM

Quote:

Madame Geezer suggests that all schools should have mandatory courses in Critical Thinking, starting as young as possible, as an innoculation against both illogical ideology and illogical advertising. Seems like a good idea to me.

Doesn't it just...

Teach critical thinking and problem-solving skills. "Why do I think that?" "What part of this complex system is broken? Where's the fault?" Boil things down, and you'll often be surprised both at the answers, and at how simple they were to find if you knew where to look and how to ask...

Mike

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

Thursday, September 3, 2009 8:58 PM

Re: #2: DON'T IMPAIR IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!

While not a viable longterm measure or solution - smashing the machinery and infrastructures of the systems which do the imparing is a damned useful immediate and interm one.

Quote:
You want children to grow up free of this abusive shit, then don't perpetrate it on them.

Bingo, s'what it boils down to - and those who DO such things, knowing full and well what they're about, and doing so for reasons of power and politics ?

I can assure you that in less than three generations from now, they'll be reaping the bitterest harvest of the crop they planted, in ways they could never possibly have expected.

-F

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

Friday, September 4, 2009 2:14 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
without using massive amounts of coercion, invasion of privacy, and loss of personal freedoms?
SNORT! Like it's not happening already???? How do you supposed people grow up being authoritatian in the first place???
Quote:
How do you get people who honestly believe that their worldview is the correct one to voluntarily decide to completely re-make themselves?
If they're adults... When they've hit bottom. And some... never bottom out.
Quote:
Madame Geezer suggests that all schools should have mandatory courses in Critical Thinking
GREAT IDEA! It'll be just as easy as getting comparative religion in the curriculum.

Unfortunately, there are a LOT of people in this society who have a vital interest in keeping people from thinking.

You know, SignyM, sometimes it seems like you're trying really hard to work yourself into believing that the only way for your consensus-based society to deal with those you consider authoritarians is execution or exile.

BTW, How do you identify those Authos and contrarians again?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Friday, September 4, 2009 2:21 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Bingo, s'what it boils down to - and those who DO such things, knowing full and well what they're about, and doing so for reasons of power and politics ?

I gotta reiterate. I doubt most of the authoritarian followers who are the ones handing down what we'd consider racism, sexism, religious bigotry, etc. think of themselves as doing it for power or politics. They mostly truly believe that they are protecting their way of life, and that it's the correct way of life. They're not wrong in their own eyes.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Friday, September 4, 2009 4:13 AM

Well as to the followers...

All I really need is one good crack in the foundations of their worldview, and time to exploit it - at which point they wind up drinking MY koolaid.

Although from that point, rather than being the dick about it I could be, they get weaned offa the koolaid entire - I'd rather they make up their own minds about stuff.

"Me, I'm no leader, I do what I have to, sometimes people come with me."
-Edgar Friendly.

-F

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

Friday, September 4, 2009 5:33 AM

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

Quote:
It'll be just as easy as getting comparative religion in the curriculum

Unfortunately, all too true.

Quote:
To me, Authoritarianism becomes Authoritarianism only when you are prepared to force other people to live by your strongly held beliefs. You can hate or love a thing from here till doomsday, but until you're prepared to force other people to adopt those beliefs, you're not an authoritarian figure or follower.

ou nailed it, Anthony; the author states that the three personality characteristics of an atho follower are:

Quote:
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.

Gotta go walk the dogs before it gets hot; dying to read the rest of this...

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Friday, September 4, 2009 7:19 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You know, SignyM, sometimes it seems like you're trying really hard to work yourself into believing that the only way for your consensus-based society to deal with those you consider authoritarians is execution or exile.

Or as YOU put it:

Quote:
massive amounts of coercion, invasion of privacy, and loss of personal freedoms? The term "re-education camp" comes to mind, and that's not a pleasant image. And once again, who decides who is in need of this treatment

Please stop projecting your thoughts onto mine, and putting your words into my mouth.

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

Friday, September 4, 2009 7:26 AM

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

Okay, lessee:

Quote:
Teach critical thinking and problem-solving skills

I think that's an excellent idea; for all children. Problem is, autho followers, again, "flock together", there's stuff in the book about how atho-follower parents try hardest to send their kids to parochial schoosl, religious universities, church groups and the natural tendency is to be with "their own", which the parents foster. How do you get them to teach critical thinking and problem-solving skills, which it pretty much goes against their belief, which is to follow/perpetuate their own belief system? Like was said: it's like trying to get prayer OUT of schools...good luck!

Frem, your idea of

Quote:
smashing the machinery and infrastructures of the systems

is, unfortunately, forcing beliefs on others in the end, since I assume what you'd put in place would be a "system" which would be the opposite, which would try and "force" them away from their beliefs. I don't think that's viable: seems to me it would only push those beliefs underground and strengthen them, and make something DIFFERENT become 'tradition', so both be authoritarian in its own way and CREAT atho-follwers of its own.

Given your background, I accept that you see things this way, but I think your background and experiences have molded you into a bit of an autho-follower in your own right, in that you see violent overthrow as the solution to most problems. I don't see it that way.

Quote:
massive amounts of coercion, invasion of privacy, and loss of personal freedoms?

From what I read, I don't get the conclusion those things are what CREATE authoritarianism, they're the end result, and certainly perpetuate it.

He wrote, by the way, that a large percentage of those raised by RELIGIOUS atho-followers end up rejecting the religion; they see/experience too many contradictions, hypocrisy, etc. that doesn't jive with what they were taught. He IS speaking of university students, of course, who are exposed to more different things in their lives in the first place. But it's interesting...He cites it as one of the main reasons for such persistent prosletyzing, that without new converts, religion would slowly be eroded.

Of course, those are in the minority, and prosletyzing is part of authoritarianism, but it's important to note--especially that in recent times, despite the religious right's power and attempts to force their beliefs on others, people have been rejecting organized religion in increasing numbers.

I'm not sure what you mean by

Quote:
When they've hit bottom

How does an authoritarian follower hit bottom? If they continue to be an authoritarian follower, it's just reinforced and they continue to believe the way they do and be aggressive about it.

Quote:
I gotta reiterate. I doubt most of the authoritarian followers who are the ones handing down what we'd consider racism, sexism, religious bigotry, etc. think of themselves as doing it for power or politics. They mostly truly believe that they are protecting their way of life, and that it's the correct way of life. They're not wrong in their own eyes.

I agree. I think it's the authoritarian LEADERS who see it as a way to gain power, and use the weaknesses of the atho followers to do so.

Ah, Frem:

Quote:
All I really need is one good crack in the foundations of their worldview

I think you're forgetting one of the major aspects: Dogmatism. Without hunting around or all the specific pssages, here's a couple that point to the fallacy of your theory:

Quote:
You might as well talk to a brick wall. Thus authoritarian followers may really mean it when they say no discoveries or facts could change their beliefs about the important things in life.

Thus I have asked people who believe in the traditional God, “What would be required, what would have to happen, for you to not believe in the traditional Judeo-Christian God? That is, are there conceivable events, or evidence, that would lead you to not believe? Virtually all right-wing authoritarians say there simply is nothing that could change their minds.

"One good crack" at anything they believe, from what I gather, wont do diddly. MANY cracks wouldn't even phase them. When your mind is closed as much as it indicates theirs are, I think it'd be pretty tough to change it. Especially when you add in the other aspects of authoritarian thinking, like double standards, illogical thinking, etc.

That's just how I see it; obviously I could be wrong about any or all of it.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Friday, September 4, 2009 8:10 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Coincidentally, I just heard Max Blumenthal, the author of Republican Gommorrah www.buzzflash.com/store/items/1789
this morning, and without once referencing Altemeyer the author traced out the EXACT pathology behind the right-wing's extreme authoritarianism, and the people behind it.

One of the people that he traces this to is Dobson, who wrote Dare to Discipline and The Defiant Child, textbooks for violent authoritarianism (not my assessment, but the assessment of a book reviewer). In these books, Dobson writes

Quote:
"Pain is a marvelous purifier... the spanking should be of sufficient magnitude to cause the child to cry genuinely." "

and

Quote:
"By learning to yield to the loving authority...of his parents, a child learns to submit to other forms of authority which will confront him later in his life -- his teachers, school principal, police, neighbors and employers

www.stoptherod.net/dobson.html
Blumenthal says that the whole right-wing is infused with a kind of sick sado-masochism. While it's too early to get online quotes from Republican Gommorrah, I found this sarcastic review of Dobson which echoes Blumenthal's views

Quote:
James Dobson "lovingly" guides parents to assume the dominant position over one's children so they are taught submission and obedience. Something he says they desperately need later in life. Paddling your children over the knee (OTK) prepares them for future "healthy" relationships as adults mixing pain with pleasure. Dobson says it's not enough to just beat your child, you have to immediately comfort and tell them you love them. This imprints on the child's brain a connection that love has to hurt and making love can only be satisfying if pain is involved. Essentially "reliving" the humiliation they experienced as children.

"The reason I suggest a switch or paddle is because the hand should be seen as an object of love - to hold, hug, pat, and caress. However, if you're used to suddenly disciplining with the hand, your child may not know when she's about to be swatted and can develop a pattern of flinching when you make an unexpected move. This is not a problem if you take the time to use a neutral object."

Thank goodness! Because making your child's bottom red really can sting your hands! Better to use something that doesn't cause pain to the giver, only the receiver should experience pain. That would insure the dominant/submissive relationship stays "pure." {Also, it wouldn't DO for a child to flinch in public, as it might expose the parent as an abuser!-Signy} To any parent that doesn't think that paddling your child isn't sexual abuse I ask this: If an adult not related to you says that he would like to take your child over his knee and give them a spanking, wouldn't you assume that he has some sick perversion? But it's not perverted when you do it to your own kid???

www.nospank.net/dobson2.htm

According to Blumenthal, the whole right-wing is infused with dominance and submission, which makes a point of taking advantage of... and in the case of children, creating... personal crises to "break" a person, then bringing them "lovingly" into the fold. So when Geezer said

Quote:
massive amounts of coercion, invasion of privacy, and loss of personal freedoms? The term "re-education camp" comes to mind, and that's not a pleasant image. And once again, who decides who is in need of this treatment

And I responded wtih

Quote:
As if this isn't happening already?

I refer you to these books, which describe exactly HOW this is happening already, creating little authoritarians out of children and people in crisis.

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

Friday, September 4, 2009 8:23 AM

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

So when you made your remark about (what?). Curiosity killed the cat, and it never did me no good either

As to the rest, it made me shudder. Very interesting, aside from disgusting and disheartening.

I'm not surprised that anyone who studied authoritarianism would come up with the same things; it's not too hard to spot the similiarities in all their thinking.

And yes, as far as I'm concerned, in today's world, in America, "RWA" is the precisely correct label...it IS right-wingers who exemplify this to the extreme and obvious. And scary. Tho' hopefully now Dumbya's out of power, IF Obama survives, IF another Dumbya doesn't get in power any time soon, their power will be diminished to a good degree. Hopefully!!!

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Friday, September 4, 2009 8:30 AM

Re: Schools.

There's also a lot of distortion and propaganda in civics/history classes, which was one of the things that also set me off when the official line was that the Federalist papers were a mere explaination of events to the masses from our betters, with not even a hint or mention of the Antifederalists or their arguments - and having recently got my hands on a full used set of encylopedia britannica, I took issue with the disparity.

Still goin on too, as evidenced here.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6581189.html

I used to collect old history and social studies textbooks, you can pick em up real cheap at yard sales and whatnot, and comparing them, you can clearly see the political distortions and how they changed over the years - there's some SERIOUSLY racist shit in textbooks from the 50's and 60's that while obvious now, was likely not quite as noticeable back then cause it was so deeply etched in the culture of the time.

Re: Smashing the machinery.

Nah, given the machinery getting smashed (the hellcamps) it shouldn't be replaced at all, with *anything* - they're an aberration, and one whos time is all but over, accellerating the decline saves more folk the horror and it really is best that they are mercifully forgotten.

The longterm best solution is at it's root, the simplest one - convince folk to stop listening to authoritarian types, shatter the illusions and myths by allowing folk enough information to make their own judgements.

I might hedge the line a bit here and there, but outright coercion is something I flat will not save in the gravest extreme, and even so I hold no illusions about it being wrong.

Re: One good crack.

You'd be surprised, while there are folk that dogmatic, they're not as common as one might expect, and over time I can be very, VERY persuasive to someone who's listening, even when they're desperately pretending not to.

On the other hand, the utterly dogmatic ones are useful too, cause I take it the other way, get in their little pin heads and start breakin shit, yank all the levers, push all the buttons and send them into a total full bore meltdown right in front of their little collective, a high speed variation on an idea I swiped from an afterschool special, in fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wave_(TV_special) <-Add manually

There's a dark side to stuff like Milgram, Stanford, and all the other evidence of how low a person can sink when they don't question, and that is that someone who DOES have the knowledge can turn it on you, exploit and manipulate you, or even cause a full on breakdown simply by pulling all the triggers in there at once.

And knowing where and what those triggers are is the simplest thing, since just watching the dynamic for a while will tell you this.

In the end, for me it really DOES boil down to folk simply asking...
"And I am takin orders from you, exactly why ?"

Mankinds greatest gift is the ability and willingness to commit heresy, and in the end that simple, single thing will be our salvation.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

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

Friday, September 4, 2009 8:39 AM

Oh don't even get me STARTED on Dobson and Ezzo, the forefathers of the social dynamic that created those never to be sufficiently damned hellcamps.

That was the evil root which spawned the malignant growth of bastards like Sembler, Lichfield, Kay and all the rest of em.

The Wellsprings of Horror in the Cradle
http://www.alice-miller.com/articles_en.php?lang=en&nid=46&grp=11

The Neurodevelopmental Costs of Adverse Childhood Events
http://www.childtrauma.org/ctamaterials/Neuroarcheology.asp

It's not just an affliction, it's a process, and you break that chain in between the ends, you CAN snap it, even if you are powerless to directly intervene.

The Essential Role of an Enlightened Witness in Society
http://www.alice-miller.com/articles_en.php?lang=en&nid=41&grp=11

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

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

Friday, September 4, 2009 9:10 AM

Good find, Signy. Those quotes from Dobson's book are simply, and I don't use the word lightly, evil.

I hope you can see why Frem and I keep going on about early childhood experience. Because all the impaired thinking we associate with the authoritarian personality is simply the child's attempts to square the circle, as it were, of the abusive parent; the consequent atrophy of critical thinking brought on by years of enforced neglect.

And Mr. Dobson is quite correct, it does set the stage for submission later in life.

Scratch a torture advocate and you'll find an advocate of "disciplining" children. And again, the "R" in RWA is there for a reason. Because even if the abusive parent is himself so compartmentalized as to give lip service to politically liberal causes, the abuse is conditioning his child to submit to right-wing authoritarian power; conditioning the child to understand that might makes right and that violence is a veritable Swiss army knife of psychological utility--to control, sure; to punish, of course; to relieve stress, naturally; spice up the bedroom, don't knock it til you've tried it!--but most of all, to educate, educate, educate!

Thing is, though the authentic self can be beaten and burried under a mountain of fear and lies, she cannot be extinguished. And once removed from her confines, will naturally rejuvenate if given a fighting chance.

HKCavalier

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

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

Friday, September 4, 2009 9:12 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

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

Friday, September 4, 2009 9:36 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
You know, SignyM, sometimes it seems like you're trying really hard to work yourself into believing that the only way for your consensus-based society to deal with those you consider authoritarians is execution or exile.
Or as YOU put it:
Quote:
massive amounts of coercion, invasion of privacy, and loss of personal freedoms? The term "re-education camp" comes to mind, and that's not a pleasant image. And once again, who decides who is in need of this treatment
Please stop projecting your thoughts onto mine, and putting your words into my mouth.

Okay, you win the "Taking Out of Context" award once again. Guess I should retire the trophy.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Friday, September 4, 2009 9:50 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Quote:
massive amounts of coercion, invasion of privacy, and loss of personal freedoms?
From what I read, I don't get the conclusion those things are what CREATE authoritarianism, they're the end result, and certainly perpetuate it.

Wow! Has that sentence fragment been taken out of context.

I was responding to HKCavalier's post about turning authoritarians around psychologically.

He said:

"But there are other ways to get rid of impaired thinking. #1: education. #1a: psychological healing. And #2: DON'T IMPAIR IT IN THE FIRST PLACE! The kind of impaired thinking we're discussing here, your 7 characteristics of authoritarians, are not inborn--they are induced. Abusive systems create this kind of impaired thinking."

My response was,

"How might you be able apply this education, psychological healing, and pre-emptive stoppage of inducement towards authoritarianism to a good percentage of the population without using massive amounts of coercion, invasion of privacy, and loss of personal freedoms? The term "re-education camp" comes to mind, and that's not a pleasant image. And once again, who decides who is in need of this treatment?"

I was looking for suggestions as to how one could educate, heal, and break the educational cycle of authoritarians without having to resort to coercive means.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Friday, September 4, 2009 9:53 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Geezer, the words "execution", "exile" "coercion", "invasion of privacy", "loss of personal freedoms", and "re-education camp" are your words, not mine. Your choice of words is YOUR choice of words. Your frame of reference, your concerns, your bent, your bias, is YOURS not mine.

Several possibilities have already been posted, from being a "helping witness" to "finding common ground". But you keep returning to authoriarian mechanisms like a compass keeps pointing north.

I choose not to participate in that discussion, so why don't we look at the possibilites which have ALREADY been posted?

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

Friday, September 4, 2009 10:16 AM

Signy, maybe he keeps returning to it because you won't let the thread move on until Geezer admits to being a loathsome hypocritical bastard. News flash: that ain't gonna happen.

Seriously. Signy, as I tried to tell Rue before, whether or not Geezer is a bad man, is really, REALLY off topic and irrelevant. You don't like him. We get it. You don't trust him. So what?

He brought up coercion and invasion of privacy and such in the context of how I might go about re-educating authoritarians. Is that not a valid question, Signy? You add NOTHING to this discussion that I can see by trying to arm wrestle him into admitting that he himself is an evil authoritarian. NOTHING.

And heck, if he is an authoritarian, is this YOUR way of re-educating him??? Good luck with that.

I don't understand it. Disagree with him, call him on his b.s. when it shows itself--but why make it your life's mission to constantly hector and malign someone in an Internet forum?

I loved it back when you and Rue were the fact checkers around here--you guys were my freakin' heroes!--bringing the sources and the documents and letting them speak for themselves. You guys kicked ass without even trying.

Who are you benefiting with these endless attacks now? The noobies? Don't you think they can make up their own minds? Isn't letting folk make up their own minds part of what you're fighting for?

(Sorry everyone for focusing so much on these meta-thread matters, but I guess I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore or something. Forgive me. I need a vacation. And presto! I'll be on the road for Labor Day weekend. Heading down to John Day Fossil Beds to commune with the Ancients. If you've never been, and you live in the Northwest, I highly recommend it. Take care all.)

HKCavalier

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

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

Friday, September 4, 2009 10:37 AM

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

My apologies, Geezer. You quoted yourself as saying how could we ELIMINATE authoritarian thinking "without using massive amounts of coercion, invasion of privacy, and loss of personal freedoms?"I saw the quote of just the words, not the "WITHOUT" and misunderstood. I, too, would like to know how else it could be achieved, tho' I think the author's suggestions are probably the only viable ones.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Friday, September 4, 2009 10:38 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Mmm. You're right. This isn't doing anyone any good. But I have to say in my defense, I USUALLY try to stick to the topic, facts, logic despite provocation. Sometimes I have to grit my teeth and take a deep breath (hard to do at the same time!) so I feel a little stung that my heroic efforts haven't been recognized.

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

Friday, September 4, 2009 10:42 AM

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

I find debating/discussing with you wonderful, Signy, so if you go or Rue go off sometimes into personal missions or something, it doesn't bother me. Gives me insight to the community on the board, actually, and doesn't make me like or dislike anyone any more or less. Just FYI.

Hey, I put up another thread (after many hours of distilling and cleaning up!) on authoritarian LEADERS...dying to know what you guys think of that.

Also couldn't resist his remarks on a perfect example of an authoritarian leader/social dominant (he postulates that you need both to be an effective authoritarian leader), namely, Bush. That should be interesting to see what people have to say about THAT, too.

I admire all you guys and your ability to debate--I know, I'm a broken record, but speaking as someone who loves to debate, question, theorize, etc., I have trouble pulling myself away...

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Friday, September 4, 2009 11:50 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Its easy to debate with people you agree with.

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

Friday, September 4, 2009 11:57 AM

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

I haven't agreed with many things throughout this thread...how is that "debating" with people who agree with me? Have YOU agreed with me all along?

It's not debate when everyone agrees, and we haven't, by a long shot. I guess you haven't read the thread or something...?

Everyone here has questioned, dissected the meaning of different things, postulated that authorianism doesn't have to be one side or the other, expanded/expounded on the theories, argued, gotten personal, etc., etc. I've agreed with you and disagreed with others with whom I agree on other things, and you've done the same.

I don't think that was a reasonable statement, I think that was a crack. An innacurate one. And an unnecessary one. So I'll say

and

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Friday, September 4, 2009 1:10 PM

Quote:

"Authos to the wall" : Well, maybe authos to a place where they can practice their autho behavior amongst each other? A conundrum that is best minimized as much as possible, but can never be eliminated.

I'm reminded of a painting done by a friend of mine, titled "Foreign Policy". It was a busload of Napoleons, seventeen of them in all, with one Napoleon driving, another navigating, and the rest arguing amongst themselves as to where they were going and how to get there...

Can you imagine trying to live in that segregated place where all the authoritarian leaders and followers have been corralled? Talk about too many chiefs and not enough Indians...

Mike

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

Friday, September 4, 2009 1:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Its easy to debate with people you agree with.

And so very, very difficult for you to debate at all...

Mike

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

Friday, September 4, 2009 1:53 PM

BYTEMITE

Geezer: Authoritarian programming and authoritarianism itself are self-destructive life-styles. By nature, authoritarianism tries to spread and escalate. But by escalating, by becoming stricter and more harsh, which is a result of the human innate resistance to the abuse that authoritarianism represents, it creates further resistance, stronger resistance, until those who can resist break out, rebel.

There was one thing which I think that Marx got right, and that is his idea of class warfare, the dialectic, that eventually, the proletariat WILL revolt from underneath an oppressive system.

There's three tools that help erode authoritarianism. The first is diversity, which others have mentioned on this thread. The second is teaching people not what and how to think, but encourage them to QUESTION, as with your recommendation for required critical thinking classes (which, BTW, I agree with). And the third and very most important is support and respect, because the authority will be very, VERY angry at you for leading away any stray sheep.

To destroy authoritarianism, you can't do it systematically, you can't turn the same draconian measures on the followers to convince them, and can't force them to see things your way, you can't reeducate or exile or execute and expect the problem to go away. But face to face, person by person, conversation by conversation... You will see results. You will see generations of kids who increasingly grow away from the intolerant ideas of their parents.

This can be done, because this is inevitable. And we can hurry the process along, but only if we are careful how we do it, because otherwise, we only breed a different kind of authoritarianism.

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

Friday, September 4, 2009 2:38 PM

DREAMTROVE

Nik,

You're arguing with Wulf. This is never good.

Wulf,

Sorry man, you need to chill. If it seems like I've been beating up on you, I have, but not intentionally. I view each new post as a new entity, infinite chances at redemption.

By that I don't mean "agree with me." Lots of people don't agree with me. I get along fairly well with some people who never agree with me, politically speaking.

I just posted two posts in agreement with Whozit. You're probably politically closer to me than him, outside of the race issue. Which, if I were you, I'd drop.

Just accept that some things are unacceptable. One is, on a show that has two principle black characters, some of the audience is black, they're not going to be a good audience for the argument that blacks are stupid and violent. Actually, you might not find a good audience for that argument. But you are very sure not to find it here.

I would say the same to Pirate News on "jews" and have, but at this point, no offense John, it would be wasting my breath, err., fingers. He's sabotaging every argument he makes by his continual assault on jews.

Pirate,

Just because. Here's a little of Henry Ford, a man often accused of anti-semitism, but one who also had a lot of very valuable things to say:

"I am not opposed to Jews, the people I oppose happen to be Jewish, there's a big difference."

And there was. Henry Ford predicted the holocaust, and that Israel would be a disaster, and thought that the Jewish leadership would be responsible for both. Sure, Ford also funded the Nazi party, at least early on, so some people could say Ford was to blame, or make some sort of argument... But I don't really care. My point is, the people you oppose happen to be jewish. So are a lot of other people. You'll find that a lot of the people you oppose aren't jewish, once you take off this blinder.

And, you'll be more credible.

Oh, and work on your definition of Jew. There is no Jewish race. Some jews are semites, most are the descendents of converts. I know you know this. But then you must also agree that ergo, Judaism is not inherited. Kyrias Joel is a jewish disaster. FOX NEWS is not. I think that this sort of conspiracy theory is rubbish. FOX caters to Israel because they have money and power, and Rupert loves money and power. (And to people who write shows with characters named Rupert, and Fox) Yes, people are that simple.

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

Friday, September 4, 2009 3:32 PM

RUE

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

I have been thinking about 'authoritarianism', three non-hierarchical and peaceful societies, the 'peaceful' baboons and the 'nasty' chimpanzees.

Starting w/ the 'peaceful' baboons: the most aggressive baboons cornered the local dump, from which they contracted TB from tainted meat, and died. The elimination of the most aggressive individuals was a transforming event for the group. After that, aggression against females and juveniles was no longer tolerated. That dynamic has held true for many decades, despite 'imports' of males raised in virulently aggressive troops, and despite the fact that males who are 'exported' go on to have aggressive lives.

And then there are the chimps, normally social, who displayed consistent dominant\ aggressive behavior when faced with a wealth of luscious fruit all in one pile --- who then reverted back to their normal sociable behavior when the fruit was spread out and easily accessed by all.

This argues to me that aggressive\ dominant\ 'authoritarian' behavior is not a personal trait or learned mindset so much as a response to the environment.

And then we have three non-hierarchical societies with no evident palaces, or slums --- and no signs of war.

I think this is related. Somehow, they achieved a distribution of resources that did not evoke economic predation\ social aggression. I think their economies resulted in those particular societies, not the other way around.

To get rid of authoritarianism, I think all you need is an economic structure that makes the gaining of economic advantage impossible.

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

Silence is consent.

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

Friday, September 4, 2009 5:31 PM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
Starting w/ the 'peaceful' baboons: the most aggressive baboons cornered the local dump, from which they contracted TB from tainted meat, and died. The elimination of the most aggressive individuals was a transforming event for the group. After that, aggression against females and juveniles was no longer tolerated. That dynamic has held true for many decades, despite 'imports' of males raised in virulently aggressive troops, and despite the fact that males who are 'exported' go on to have aggressive lives.

I don't see how this is an economic cause.

Quote:
And then there are the chimps, normally social, who displayed consistent dominant\ aggressive behavior when faced with a wealth of luscious fruit all in one pile --- who then reverted back to their normal sociable behavior when the fruit was spread out and easily accessed by all.

Authoritarianism is not the same creature as greed. Though, for leaders at least, greed may be an incentive to promote authoritarianism.

Quote:
This argues to me that aggressive\ dominant\ 'authoritarian' behavior is not a personal trait or learned mindset so much as a response to the environment.

I can agree with this, although when the response is learned or reinforced into genuine authoritarianism, I'm not sure you can separate learned mindset from response.

I'll also say, that there is an archeological theory out there that there are large differences between so-called "jungle cultures" where resources are plentiful, and with "desert cultures" where they are not. Jungle cultures tend to be less jealous and possessive of females, children, and sex, and also more inclined to share resources because resources are more plentiful. They are therefore less violent than "desert cultures."

"Desert cultures" are not necessarily desert, but anywhere food may have initially been difficult to obtain before agriculture, or where resources might have been fought over (like livestock herds or arable land). The thinking is that these aggressive cultural mindsets can become picked up and enforced by belief systems and spread across the region.

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

Friday, September 4, 2009 6:05 PM

DREAMTROVE

Kathy,

I doubt it. I think you would only get rid of economics. People will always vie for power.

I'm always skeptical of monkey myths. I spend a fair amount of time on primate research, and know some people involved in it on a much higher level. This sort of stuff is useful for understanding basic human nature, but not for drawing direct parallels.

It's important to remember that a primate is a human with a synaptic network of a dog. If humans are easily manipulated, as they are, it stands to reason that primates are even more easily manipulated. You could easily create a primate society to reflect any behavior you wanted, or search for random events creating radical behavior, but the general tendencies are towards power structures, conflicts, even wars, if there's enough organization.

As long as the primates in question don't eat their own children it's possible to select and push for something that could even be called an idyllic society, but more realistically, I think that they're best scanned for which sorts of behaviors do and don't appear in primate behavior, particularly those related to us.

I generally agree with your conclusion, except that I think there's another element: Authoritarian behavior evolves whenever sufficient organizational structure is present.

This is a very delicate balance for us. At a minimal level of primate social structure you do end up with parents eating children and similar behavior you wouldn't expect to see in a relatively advanced dog (Okay, most dogs are more advanced than most primates, but still...) But as organizational structure increases, there's an element of stability until eventually you end up with wars, even genocide and authoritarian dictatorships.

Intelligence of course is not a pre-requisite to civilization, though ants are far more intelligent than people generally think.

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

Saturday, September 5, 2009 2:08 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
To destroy authoritarianism, you can't do it systematically, you can't turn the same draconian measures on the followers to convince them, and can't force them to see things your way, you can't reeducate or exile or execute and expect the problem to go away. But face to face, person by person, conversation by conversation... You will see results. You will see generations of kids who increasingly grow away from the intolerant ideas of their parents.

This is what I've been thinking. Rather than looking for a "State" solution, it's something that individuals are going to have to commit time and effort to. Talk to people with Authoritarian ideas. Get them to know you as a person, not an enemy, and vice versa. Try to get them to see the inconsistancy in just one little corner of their worldview - gently, gently. Yelling at them that they and their leaders are wrong and evil is just gonna entrench them more. Once you get that little corner pulled up, and get them asking questions, change can ensue. Certainly not an easy or quick method, but the alternative is to become what you hate so you can kill it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Saturday, September 5, 2009 5:17 AM

We call that setting the hook, Geeze.

And yes, that one little crack is all you need, if you've the knowledge and patience, and are willing to invest the time and effort, which unfortunately most people are not.

And just because this topic could use a little injection of humor...

Quote:
to understand that might makes right and that violence is a veritable Swiss army knife of psychological utility

Rule #6: If violence wasn't your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

-F

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

Saturday, September 5, 2009 5:57 AM