"The Authoritarians" A free ebook worth a read

[Agathon]

I recommend this free ebook to anyone interested in contemporary politics. I think it sheds more light on current issues than most other books I have read.

The author is Rob Altemeyer, a professor from the University of Manitoba, and probably the world authority on the so-called "authoritarian personality". I came across it from reading one of John Dean's (yes, the Watergate Dean) books, which was heavily based on Altemeyer's research.

For the record, I think I got in the mid 20s for his authoritarian personality test, which is in line with my odd results for the political compass test (-10 left, -9.5 authoritarian).

You can get a complete PDF of the book here (it has been authorised for download by the author). It's less than an hour's read for most people.

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer...oritarians.pdf

[Kuciwalker]

For the record, I think I got in the mid 20s for his authoritarian personality test, which is in line with my odd results for the political compass test (-10 left, -9.5 authoritarian).

Oh come on, you know you've always wanted to throw a capitalist out of a helicopter.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

For the record, I think I got in the mid 20s for his authoritarian personality test, which is in line with my odd results for the political compass test (-10 left, -9.5 authoritarian).

Oh come on, you know you've always wanted to throw a capitalist out of a helicopter.

Everyone knows I was the throwee in that situation (I think I was the target of that particular bomb).

Anyway, you should read the book. All Libertarians should read it for a start, as it might make them understand themselves better (and no, they aren't authoritarians, but it will help them understand why they make such little headway in the conservative movement).

[Kuciwalker]

Everyone knows I was the throwee in that situation (I think I was the target of that particular bomb).

I know; my statement stands

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Everyone knows I was the throwee in that situation (I think I was the target of that particular bomb).

I know; my statement stands

No it doesn't. Everyone knows my preferred method of dealing with incorrigible capitalists is the gulag.

A helicopter embodies a significant amount of the people's labour. It is not to be wasted on punishing reactionaries.

[RGBVideo]

I had my doubts, but since I had half an hour to spare before going bicycling with a friend, I started reading. Three minutes on, I got slapped by this paragraph (emphasis mine) on page 11 of the pdf:

Author of "TheAuthoritarians.pdf":

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Communist Party, or any other political party. I do give money to various parties, trying to defeat whomever I am most disgustatated with at the time. (My political contributions have almost become automatic withdrawals from my bank account since one ofour sons became a Member of the Legislative Assembly in our province.) I did not flee to Canada in 1968 because of the war in Viet-Nam. I crossed the border with my draft board=s good wishes because the University of Manitoba offered me the best job I could find. And my research has not been funded by "some liberal think-tank" or foundation. Instead, I paid for almost all of it out of my own pocket. I have not had a research grant since 1972--not because I am opposed to people giving me money, but because I proved so lousy at getting grants that I gave up. (Whereas I, like my politician son, found I was a soft touch whenever I hit me up for some dough.)

Right. I think I'll pass and concentrate on reading OTF instead...

[Arrian]

I found this amusing:

Altemeyer, inventor of the RWA Scale, believes that there is no such thing as a Left Wing Authoritarian.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34935.html

Heh. Let's redefine all the authoritarian commies as "right wingers!"

-Arrian

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian
I found this amusing:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34935.html

Heh. Let's redefine all the authoritarian commies as "right wingers!"

-Arrian

Ugh what a retard that guy is. And you should be ashamed of yourself for not bothering to read the book before spouting off with a response from some half baked idiot site. You only have to read as far as page 9 in this case. Instead, you just pied yourself in the face.

"right" in Altemeyer's "right wing authoritarian" doesn't refer to the political right wing. If you read his book, you would know this. Obviously you didn't even try to read it before saying something plainly wrong (so what's new).

Page 9

Because the submission occurs to traditional authority, I call these followers right- wing authoritarians. I’m using the word “right” in one of its earliest meanings, for in Old English “riht”(pronounced “writ”) as an adjective meant lawful, proper, correct, doing what the authorities said.

He does not say that there is no such thing as a left wing authoritarian. Again, from the same page:

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

He goes on to say that the only left wing authoritarians he met were a few radicals in the 1970s, who slavishly followed their particular figurehead (the sort of commies I don't like).

He goes on:

I’m sure one can find left-wing authoritarians here and there, but they hardly exist in sufficient numbers now to threaten democracy in North America. However I have found bucketfuls of right-wing authoritarians in nearly every sample I have drawn in Canada and the United States for the past three decades.

It's just an established fact that authoritarian personalities in Canada and the US are predominantly conservatives. But it does not follow that because someone is a conservative, that they are most likely an authoritarian.

Whoever wrote that article you linked to hasn't read Altemeyer properly. He is not saying that conservatism is a mental disorder, or that right wing authoritarianism is a mental disorder. The latter is simply a personality type, whereas the former is a political orientation.

But then again, don't expect authoritarians to accept anything that is scientifically demonstrated. According to Altemeyer's research, they are pretty much immune to reason if it conflicts with established authority.

[Arrian]

Ugh what a retard that guy is. And you should be ashamed of yourself for not bothering to read the book before spouting off with a response from some half baked idiot site. You only have to read as far as page 9 in this case. Instead, you just pied yourself in the face

I found it while doing a google search on his "authoritarian test" hoping I'd find an online version so I could take it.

I didn't find that, but instead found the "reason magazine" thing. Then I had to go to a meeting. So I posted what I had found, which amused me. I noticed that the hyperlink in the article was broken, which might've been a hint

I may still read the book. I just had other things to do.

-Arrian

[Tuberski]

Because the submission occurs to traditional authority, I call these followers right- wing authoritarians. I’m using the word “right” in one of its earliest meanings, for in Old English “riht”(pronounced “writ”) as an adjective meant lawful, proper, correct, doing what the authorities said.

So, the current definition doesn't fit his perceptions, so he goes back centuries to find a correct usage.

This book is obviously not worth reading, unless you are a Communist Philosophy student. ;p

ACK!

[Kuciwalker]

Why reinvent "right wing"? Why not just call them lawful neutral?

[Arrian]

And, of course, the test is in the book.

27.

The questions were pretty silly, though. Then again, they usually are.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Why reinvent "right wing"? Why not just call them lawful neutral?

It allows the author to define all law abiding peoples as submissives and right wing hacks. Duh.

Thus defining Chaotic Evil types like Aggy as the good guys.

[Kontiki]

I got 51 on the test. Everyone needs to obey me.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Tuberski


So, the current definition doesn't fit his perceptions, so he goes back centuries to find a correct usage.

This book is obviously not worth reading, unless you are a Communist Philosophy student. ;p

ACK!

Not true. You could also be a communist philosophy professor.

[Ben Kenobi]

But someone who lived in a country long ruled by Communists and who ardently supported the Communist Party would also be one of my psychological right-wing authoritarians even though we would also say he was a political left-winger. So a right-wing authoritarian follower doesn’t necessarily have conservative political views. Instead he’s someone who readily submits to the established authorities in society, attacks others in their name, and is highly conventional

One of the reasons in which I always score roughly +5 econ and -2 authoritarian on the compass test.

Interesting point Agathon. There have been a considerable number of Conservatives, who are not happy with the current administration, and would rather see their ideals put into practice then conform to the normal order of things. I would say in many cases, it is radical to be a Christian especially in a Canadian university, where secularism and liberalism is the norm.

In this case, I would be less of a right wing authoritarian then you.

[Arrian]

It's actually a decent read, btw...

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

1. The established authorities generally turn out to be right about things, while the radicals
and protestors are usually just “loud mouths� showing off their ignorance.

Moderately disagree. Reform is necessary to improve the status quo. There are no perfect institutions.

2. Women should have to promise to obey their husbands when they get married.

Strongly agree. Husbands should have to promise to love their wives enough to die for them.

3. Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy
the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us.

Slightly Agree. A strong leader would be a good thing, but what happens when that leader is gone? I'd rather see a general shift away that is not the result of a charismatic leader a la Trudeau.

4. Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as anybody else.

Hmm. Strongly Agree. We are all fallen individuals who severely lack in morality. Somehow I don't think this is what the question was asking.

5. It is always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in government and
religion than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create
doubt in people’s minds

Strongly disagree. "From the mouths of babes. etc" Truth is not limited to the authorities.

6. Atheists and others who have rebelled against the established religions are no doubt every
bit as good and virtuous as those who attend church regularly.

You go to Hospitals when you are sick and it's sinners who need a saviour. Strongly agree.

7. The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to get back to our traditional
values, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading bad ideas.

Slightly agree. Again, we need to return to our original ideas, not because we need a strong leader, but because of the one who has already came.

8. There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps.

Strongly disagree.

9. Our country needs free thinkers who have the courage to defy traditional ways, even if this
upsets many people.

Slightly agree. We need free thinkers who are willing to accept traditional ways in the face of general liberal consensus. 'Free thinking' is not confined to either adherance to the norms, or to rebellion from the norms. Rebellion can be just as bad as conformity.

10. Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the perversions eating away at
our moral fiber and traditional beliefs.

Smash? No. But our country is being eaten away at the seams by blind rebellion. Slightly Agree.

11. Everyone should have their own lifestyle, religious beliefs, and sexual preferences, even if
it makes them different from everyone else.

Everyone should believe in God, but they are free to reject him if they choose to do so and accept the consequences. Slightly disagree.

12. The “old-fashioned ways� and the “old-fashioned values� still show the best way to live.

Strongly agree.

13. You have to admire those who challenged the law and the majority’s view by protesting
for women’s abortion rights, for animal rights, or to abolish school prayer.

Strongly disagree. Rebellion for the sake of rebelliion is not a virtue. I would admire those who challenged the law like Dr. King, who believed that all men should be created equal and that they should be no race to divide us in our beliefs.

14. What our country really needs is a strong, determined leader who will crush evil, and take
us back to our true path.

Slightly agree. Again, we need to turn from our path but not because of a charismatic leader.

15. Some of the best people in our country are those who are challenging our government,
criticizing religion, and ignoring the “normal way things are supposed to be done.�

Slightly agree. I disagree that those who challenge religion just because it is religion are any more moral then those who go to church, just because their friends go. If they challenge religion because they see how it may be improved, in accordance to fundamental values and traditions, then it is far different from someone who follows with the crowd.

16. God’s laws about abortion, pornography and marriage must be strictly followed before it is
too late, and those who break them must be strongly punished.

Strongly agree. Who is doing the punishing though? He doesn't say.

17. There are many radical, immoral people in our country today, who are trying to ruin it for
their own godless purposes, whom the authorities should put out of action.

Slightly disagree. We should not 'put out of action' the speech of those to whom we disagree, especially if we disagree with them.

18. A “woman’s place� should be wherever she wants to be. The days when women are
submissive to their husbands and social conventions belong strictly in the past.

I believe that husbands should love their wives enough to die for them, and that this belief seems to be increasing antiquated. The two are connected. Strongly disagree. If a woman wants the freedom to live her life as she chooses, without interruption of a husband or children, she should be free to do so, just as a man can choose do to so by not getting married.

19. Our country will be great if we honor the ways of our forefathers, do what the authorities
tell us to do, and get rid of the “rotten apples� who are ruining everything.

"But who could cut out a piece of their own heart." Strongly disagree.

20. There is no “ONE right way� to live life; everybody has to create their own way.

"I am the way the truth and the life."

Strongly disagree, although everyone must be free to accept or reject the truth as they see fit.

21. Homosexuals and feminists should be praised for being brave enough to defy “traditional
family values.

Strongly disagree. What are the values of the 'status quo'. How can we praise those who go along with the flow?

22. This country would work a lot better if certain groups of troublemakers would just shut up
and accept their group’s traditional place in society.

Strongly disagree. We need troublemakers, especially if they are wrong.

[Arrian]

Congratulations, you're not a fascist.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

I score an 88. Puts me right in the middle. Same as on the compass, on the libertarian side.

[Kontiki]

You're still pretty f'd up, though, Ben. Some of your answers are just plain scary.

[Ben Kenobi]

Which ones?

[Kontiki]

Pretty much anything dealing with marriage for starters. Strongly disagreeing with nudist camps for another. Not to mention the overall theme that you seem to think we're on an immoral downward spiral.

[Ben Kenobi]

I used to live at UBC.

They would build the dorms to preserve Wreck beach, in limiting the height of the buildings so that no one could see the beach from the university. So rather then having adequate student housing or an improvement in the university facilities, it was more important to make sure no one could look and see the nude beach.

As for marriage, well I do agree with you that it is rare to hear anyone say that men ought to love their wives so much that they would die for them. I haven't been married, and that is how I feel things ought to be between my wife and me.

Well I'm not sure I can see anything that has been an improvement if you are looking at a moral example, in say the last 50 years. I would be interested to see in what ways people have gotten more safe in that time. Drug use is up, more people are getting divorced, more kids grow up without a mom or a dad, more crime is around then in previous. How would you say things are improving?

[Ramo]

As for marriage, well I do agree with you that it is rare to hear anyone say that men ought to love their wives so much that they would die for them. I haven't been married, and that is how I feel things ought to be between my wife and me.

And you strongly agree that your theoretical wife should "obey" you? Seriously, WTF

[Ben Kenobi]

And you strongly agree that your theoretical wife should "obey" you? Seriously, WTF

I'll get to that. Do you believe that husbands ought to love their wife enough to die for them?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I used to live at UBC.

Good for you. I went to UBC as well.

They would build the dorms to preserve Wreck beach, in limiting the height of the buildings so that no one could see the beach from the university. So rather then having adequate student housing or an improvement in the university facilities, it was more important to make sure no one could look and see the nude beach.

Wrong way around - there were petitions to keep the building heights down so that you couldn't see them from the beach. Preservation of natural views and all that. The nudity is a total non-issue.

As for marriage, well I do agree with you that it is rare to hear anyone say that men ought to love their wives so much that they would die for them. I haven't been married, and that is how I feel things ought to be between my wife and me.

That's not rare at all. And frankly, what you know about marriage could probably be written on a postage stamp. What's scary about your views is that you think there are prescribed roles for men and women in a marriage, and that a woman should have to promise to obey her husband - or that that is in any way connected to how men feel about their wives.

Well I'm not sure I can see anything that has been an improvement if you are looking at a moral example, in say the last 50 years. I would be interested to see in what ways people have gotten more safe in that time. Drug use is up, more people are getting divorced, more kids grow up without a mom or a dad, more crime is around then in previous. How would you say things are improving?

I think treating more people as full human beings counts for something.

[Whaleboy]

I'm trying to decide whether I'm disturbed or amused by the fact that how, despite the most convoluted, spurious and nonsensical "we're all fallen sinners" logic, Ben Kenobi is capable of arriving at the same conclusions as I am.

Except for the bullsh*t

[Ramo]

I'll get to that. Do you believe that husbands ought to love their wife enough to die for them?

I don't think I have any particular business telling people how to manage their marriages, as long as they're not hurting anyone.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wrong way around - there were petitions to keep the building heights down so that you couldn't see them from the beach. Preservation of natural views and all that. The nudity is a total non-issue.

Which is why I suppose the kerfluffle only applied to Totem Park which is just across from Wreck Beach. I was there, the plan had the full support of the university and the students until one of the folks from Wreck beach piped up and the plan was kiboshed.

Instead they tore down my old dorm, which just happened not to face Wreck Beach. They don't really care about the building heights, so long as it doesn't impinge on Wreck Beach.

That's not rare at all. And frankly, what you know about marriage could probably be written on a postage stamp. What's scary about your views is that you think there are prescribed roles for men and women in a marriage, and that a woman should have to promise to obey her husband - or that that is in any way connected to how men feel about their wives.

I have admitted to not being married, nor have I claimed any special revelation. However, I do not see how we can lay a burden on men in terms of their role, while at the same time not have similar expectations for wives. To say that men ought to die for their wives, is biblical, so why not accept the teaching in whole, not just the parts that you like, or seem to 'fit in' with the teachings today. I don't believe we can pick and choose, and that we are going to see it less and less that men will love their wives to that extent.

You are welcome to disagree with me, but I don't think your views are 'scary', they are all to common today.

I think treating more people as full human beings counts for something.

Ok. But you see my point? I take it you don't disagree that all these other things have gotten worse in 50 years?