Comments
[Sign Guestbook]
545 Entries
Comments: Dr. Altemeyer, Thank you for writing "The Authoritarians," and thank you many times more for making it freely available. I think it may be one of the most illuminating books I have read. (I consumed it in one gulp from 10PM to 4AM, so I'm definitely going to have to read it again.) Once I'd got over the heebie-jeebies (OMG! The Stepford Wives meet The Puppet Masters!),* I started to think that it couldn't be right -- just like the old Economics prof in the joke. You don't know the joke? It goes like this: Two economists, a gray-haired prof and a research assistant, are walking down the street when they spot, up ahead on the sidewalk, a banknote. The RA picks it up and says, "Wow! A hundred dollars!" The prof turns to him and says sternly, "Don't be silly. If it really was a hundred dollars, someone would have picked it up already." (Like most "economist" jokes, it's not very funny.) Your research seems like the academic equivalent of finding a hundred-dollar bill: something that should be incorporated into every course in politics, sociology, social anthropology, and probably other disciplines. Why hadn't I heard of it before? So I looked (briefly) for criticism.** In academia, I could find but two critics: one, uh, "outside the mainstream", and one who had minor quibbles. That was it! OK, that in itself is further cause for amazement. But what about citations? Perhaps your work was not well thought of. Compared to my expectations, Google Scholar showed few citations, but those spoke of the soundness of your work, and the citation rate seems to be picking up. I'm forced to conclude you really have, metaphorically, picked up a hundred-dollar bill.*** Congratulations!
* Don't worry, I have taken note of your repeated warnings that the book is about relative differences, not about different populations, and when I look inside myself, I can see some of the tendencies you describe. Finishing the book with Milgram's experiments is a powerful way of reminding us that we all have to guard against the tendency to go along with corrupt authority. The price of freedom is indeed eternal vigilance -- against our tendency to let others do our thinking for us, and against our own impulses. ** It isn't criticism, but your "Rate My Professors" web page has many glowing reviews. You are a loss to the profession. *** Of course, I know it was much, much more work than just spotting something in the street. But where is everybody in Psychology? Clustered around the MRI scanner? (Rhetorical question.) I guess people thought the topic had been fully explored by Milgram, and there was nothing new to say. Thank you for proving them wrong.
Comments: I just read the The Authoritarians and the two supplements. Think its 99% correct. It reminds me of Eric Hoffer's The True Believer: thoughts on the nature of mass movements. I'm curious on what your take on that book is. Thank you for taking the time to publish The Authoritarians. I think this is a really important subject. I find all social psychology and behavioral economics, etc. to be important. Ideas such as cognitive dissonance, cognitive rigidity, etc. need to disseminated.
Comments: Thank you very much for making this free! I've sent the link to all my friends and family. I now have some understanding of why lawful, peaceful Canadians protestors were abused during the G20 in Toronto. Next time I won't stay home. Looking back over my life, I can see clearly several specific events that made me a low *chuckles* very low RWA.
Comments: I just read an article here, by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity and Dr. Justin Frank (author of "Bush On The Couch"), that gives a psychological assessment of GWBush. Although usually somewhat wary of articles presuming to look into someone else's motives, this one here seems to deviate little from what I think might be given by Dr. Bob, were he asked to present such an analysis (in a non-Freudian sense of the word  ). A few excerpts: "George W. Bush is without conscience, and it would require a lengthy series of clinical sessions to find out what happened to it. By identifying himself as all good and on the side of right, he has been able to vanquish any guilt, any sense of doing wrong." "Bush seems also to be without shame. He expresses no regret or embarrassment about his failure to help Katrina victims, or to tell the truth. He says whatever he thinks people want to hear, whether it be “stay the course” or “I’ve never been about ‘stay the course.’ " He lies—not just to us, but to himself as well. What makes lying so easy for Bush is his contempt—for language, for law, and for anybody who dares question him." (which helps to explain his over-the-top reaction to Kanye West while ignoring so much else). For me at least, one of the hallmark traits of the RWA-SDO seems to be their disdain for truth or facts. While most others - at least intellectually - give higher points to facts when rating which version of events to believe, RWAs seem to give much higher marks for the version that confirms their own preconceptions or validates their "in-group's" beliefs. It's almost as if they never realized that it's perfectly alright to change one's POV if the old belief system has been shown to be faulty. The inevitable result then is to have some beliefs that can't be defended using just the facts. All that's left to them then is to make up lies when called upon to defend it. In that sense at least they are "forced" to lie, even to themselves. And it's this....the sheer magnitude of all the lies and self-deceit they must engage in when constructing the "conservative" world-view, that leaves me perplexed over how it's possible to do that yet not be considered insane -- at least at some level. Anyhow. Dr. A, I was wondering if you are at all familiar with Dr. Frank's work? And if so, whether you might have some comments or critique of his assessment of Bush? And do you have Dubya pegged as a double-high, or perhaps a h-RWA who found himself in a leadership role, with Cheney being the SDO "behind the curtains"(as I do) ? From Frank's assessment, I'd think he would go with GWB as an SDO himself (or maybe a double-high).
Comments: To all... here is an interesting little discussion of the division between the Civil Libertarians and the Christian Conservatives with in the Tea Party. I like how the Conservatives boycotted a conference because gay people were allowed to attend.
Comments: To Gary W. Why do High RWAs fear uncertainty? I think most people do, and Highs just fear it more than most, as they fear strangers more than most, etc. As to why they are so fearful in general, I think it's probably the interaction of A) genetic factors that give them a low threshold for autonomic firing and B) learning (as from their parents about "dangerous people as has been discovered). This is all very interesting to me, because they will say things like "I know God will protect me" and "If I die now, it is God's plan and I will receive an eternity of happiness." But a goodly part of them does not believe it. For starters, we know they had doubts about God's existence when they were young, and they never really came to grips with them, but ran away and papered them over. And many of them confess, through their "Hidden Observer," that they still have doubts about God's very existence that they have never revealed to anyone. So as you point out, it's "an act" to a certain extent, but one performed ferociously for public consumption. These hidden doubts, which I think fuel their fear of uncertainty, also help explain some other things about High RWAs. For one thing, if they really believed that Almighty God will punish wrong-doers with an eternity of pain so intense we cannot imagine it, why are they so punitive themselves? I know the rationales given, but since the bottom line is God will get 'em, and get 'em good, what can you really add to that if it's true? And if "the Righteous" really believe they are doing God's work when punishing others, why do they so commonly disguise themselves and deny doing what they did and try every thing they can to escape punishment themselves? And if I really believed that a set of writings came from the Almighty God that created the universe, wouldn't I spend every possible moment studying those writings? Yet most Christian High RWAs apparently haven't even read the whole Bible once. (They are typically amazed when told some things that are in it.) On the other hand, the "other authoritarians," High SDOs, probably fear uncertainty less than most people do. For them, it spells Opportunity. To Miguel: My first question about the sociological approach to the "just world" hypothesis is, how does one test it to see if that's what's really behind these beliefs? To Scott: Well, if you won't criticize me, I shall. I should have acted sooner. I shall if the situation occurs again. As to the troll, I am not going to comment on him. It would be unfair, as he cannot answer back.
Comments: Dr. Bob, My comment was not meant as a criticism at all. I understand why it happened. By the way, I would think it is obvious that the person identified as a "troll" who was dominating this site is a perfect example of the subject of this site itself.
Comments: This seems to be an interesting tangent. The “just world” hypothesis is theorized within sociology as threats to ontological security. This concept, developed by Anthony Giddens, refers to the “Confidence or trust that the natural and social worlds are as they appear to be, including the basic existential parameters of self and social identity.”
Comments: Any thoughts on why high-RWAs fear uncertainty so much? Why would they see threats where others see only a source of curiosity....of a mystery to be solved? And then to lie to oneself as a way of maintaining certainty seems like a self-defeating strategy since that leaves them wide open to the possibility of an actual threat remaining unnoticed or deliberately ignored because they had instead opted to believe some lie (eg. God will protect you at all times, so pay no attention to the gathering sharks) told them by a leader or fabricated by themself.
Comments: To DAJ: No, I wasn't planning on writing a piece on 2010. Many, many others have said what I observed: the Independents, who decide most evenly-contested elections, voted against the party in power. They are worried and fed up with the federal government. So the sentiment that carried the Democrats to office carried many Republicans this time. As for the Tea Party, I thought Tea Party candidates would have a tough time winning any seats for the Republicans. And they cost the GOP some very winnable elections. Who would have thought Harry Reid had a chance to be returned to the Senate? But some very radical Tea Partiers, such as Rand Paul in Kentucky, won big. Overall the protest movement cost the Republicans, but in some parts of the country their message thrilled the voters. Now of course the Republicans in Congress have to deal with the Tea Partiers. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.
Comments: Bob, are you planning to publish an analysis of the 2010 US elections?
Comments: To Ricardo: First, your English is much better than my Italian. I would agree that fascism is usually based on authoritarianism, but so also can Communism be. As I understand it, authoritarianism is a system whereby lots of people submit too much, too quickly, too easily to the authorities in their lives. People who follow dictatorial fascist leaders, or who follow dictatorial Communist leaders, would likely be authoritarian followers and have that kind of personality in common, even though they might disagree about everything. We found something like this when we studied American and Soviet university students. The authoritarian followers on each side hated the "other side," and its supporters were their enemies. But the people they hated were the same sort of people they were, and if they had grown up in the other country, they would have loved the government they now hated and hated the government they now loved. Please tell me if I have not answered your question. To Miguel: If I understand you correctly, you're saying that my university student samples will have a lower percentage of "high" RWA Scale scores than the general public would. You'll find confirmation of that on P. 14 of The Authoritarians. (But I'm not sure the University of Manitoba qualifies as "liberal educational institution." Our student body is probably similar to that of the University of North Dakota. It's rather ordinary in a North American context, and was therefore a much better place to do this research than Haaaarvard.) It's because university student samples are rather atypical that I always tried to replicate my studies in other populations. The one I studied the most was students' parents, who comprise about a third of my studies. Also, for example, I asked American and Canadian lawmakers the same questions I'd asked my Manitoba samples, and got the same results--only stronger.
Comments: Dr. Bob... Considering that much of your data comes from "liberal educational institutions" I expect that in the general population you will end up with higher percentages.
Comments: Dr Roberto Altemeyer. On authoritatiems, you write. Understanding my not so good. Give me, please, your minds. To how the fascist equal authoritan. Little few Italians can think this. I make many same ideas. Verily we are all human men. Every bodies must hear this. Sorry for my Englishs.
Comments: To Miguel: I'm not sure what a "flat bell" is. RWA scale scores are distributed much the way IQ scores are, with one "central" area where scores land more than any other place, and then diminishing frequencies the farther you get from that central area. You need very large samples to get anything that looks like the smooth "normal curves" shown in statistic texts. Even my samples of 500+ are inevitably choppy at places. And the skewedness of the distribution depends on sampling "luck" and the population sampled. IQ scores would be skewed toward the high end if you combined results from 100 Intro Psych students and 10 MENSA members. So if you're testing a group that has a lot of high RWAs you'll get a distribution somewhat skewed to the right. But I've been impressed, even when studying particular groups, how steadily the distribution of RWA scores approximates a normal distribution. As you probably know, many statistical tests assume the distribution of scores is normal. But it turns out this is a "robust" assumption. Appreciable deviations from normality don't have that big an impact on the results. |
| < Previous 15 | Next 15 > |
Back to The Authoritarians