Acme

Still reading away and nothing to quote from The Authoritarians study just now, however a news story caught my eye that bears on Ten oz' Southern Strategy piece. It seems that this time rather than the questionably sane conservatives trying to court the Black vote via religion, it's now Hispanics. This quote seems apropos. Koch brothers reach out to Hispanics

I'll be reading on-and-off throughout the day and save any further quoting posts until this evening. The Authoritarians

Chapter Four opens with a questionnaire used to ascertain a person's religious fundamentalism. I'll give a few of the 12 questions and some commentary on the scale. To clarify again, these scales are not directly measuring conservatism, rather they are measuring RWA [Right-Wing Authoritarianism], fundamentalism, prejudice, etc. and a statistically significant number of people who rank as high-RWA, high-fundamentalist, or high-prejudice have a strong correlation with self-identification as politically conservative. The Authoritarians

Roger. That is the meta-study that I have been referring to. It summarizes some 80 different studies and Bob Altemeyer's The Authoritarians that I have been quoting from most recently is just the first of those 80+ studies that I have begun reading in depth. Take your time and a big g'donya for taking up the challenge of reading more than the snappy headline article that prompted this thread. Given the responses here I suspect many have not even bothered to go beyond the headline to the article, let alone the meta-study itself that you have now read and which I found referenced in that snappy article . The devil is in the details and the details are in the actual research. Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; read, and ye shall know.

There's a whole chapter on it and I haven't quoted from it or commented as I haven't completed reading it yet. On the face of it that is true. To revisit other shared qualities from study results we have: 1. Illogical Thinking 2. Highly Compartmentalized Minds 3. Double Standards 4. Hypocrisy 5. Blindness To Themselves 6. A Profound Ethnocentrism 7. Dogmatism: The Authoritarians Last Ditch Defense Arguably these play into religious belief, but I'll wait 'til I finish the religion chapter before drawing unwarranted conclusions. Again this seems true on the face of it but the study I'm working through indicates there is more complexity to it and illumes some of the whys-and-wherefores of peoples' conception of 'best personal interest'. Again turning to the study on RWA -and with understanding it is just one of 80+ studies evaluated in the meta-study- it is not so much that conservatives dislike reason as they don't know what it is or per se understand it and so they use reason/logic poorly. While I didn't quote much from the study about how high RWA come to their condition (another reason I encourage everyone to read it themselves), the indications are that it has much to do with living a sheltered childhood and continuing in later life to seek the company of like-minded folk. With that in mind, education exposes people to ideas and folk outside their otherwise narrow scope which can and does in some cases lessen some of the extremes of thought and action by high RWAs. Will try and finish Chapter Four, Authoritarian Followers and Religious Fundamentalism by tomorrow and then post accordingly. Here's the PDF link again for those interested in doing their own reading. >> The Authoritarians

I have finished reading the article and thanks again for throwing it into the psycho-politico mix. While I have yet to read all of Chapter Four on RWA and religion in Bob's work I found this bit interesting from your Sothern Strategy piece. As we all know, the attempt has failed. Perhaps because 'reasoning' that suggests religion will trump racial prejudice is flawed to the point of mild insanity.

+1 Kudos for taking on the topic in a straightforward and rational approach. This topic/thread is by nature polarizing and I don't doubt that fact is behind many of the 'I don't like labels' protestations. But science is not a matter of like or not, it's a matter of facts, or per se qualifications. I have not yet looked at Social Dominance in depth and until I do I can only give a cursory address to a few of the issues you bring up below. I can only say that I lived through the Civil Rights era and I think Johnson's 'we' referred to we-the-people-of-the-United-States, i.e. the Union. I have my doubts that 'we' ever had the South in that vein and Johnson may have better said 'lost for another generation'. In any case I have bookmarked your link and will read it. I am familiar with those statistical analyses in general even if not from those specific sources. Duly noted. I think you(all) will find those are also the areas with the greatest occurrences of gerrymandering and photo-ID legislation which have at their heart the aim to restrict the participation of poor [mostly] minority voters. It's not clear which analysis you refer to here so I'll wait for clarification before commenting. Is it Social Dominance or Right-Wing Authoritarianism? While I did not directly quote many-if-any passages from The Authoritarians that approach racism, they are there. I think Bob refers to it as 'ethnocentrism' and we can debate whether or not that terminology is a dodge or not. However, a rose by any other name and Bob does take and analyze data on this psychological aspect of not only conservatives but all respondents to the questionnaires. In regard to 'mild' insanity, Bob's analysis finds that folks who rate as high RWAs do so in part because of their ethnocentric bias -say racism- and that a high RWA rating is strongly correlated to those who describe themselves as conservatives. Kudos again Ten oz; I very much appreciate your comments and the time & effort it took to prepare them. I have yet to finish my own preparatory work, vis a vis finishing the reading of The Authoritarians, so I will get back to that before moving on to looking at Social Dominance. I'll also do a bit of review and see if there something on the racism issue that I can quote in response to the issues you bring up. While I have not yet read it, Bob Altemeyer has a recent piece (2010 IIRC) on the Tea Party as it relates to RWA. Here is a link to the full PDF. >> Comment on the Tea Party Movement ------------------------- Addendum: Here's something on prejudice/racism from Chapter 1. The section heading on A Profound Ethnocentrism is in Chapter Three beginning on PDF page 93, but there is no mention of racism. (Don't let that stop you from reading it anyway. ) I'll keep my eye out for any other mentions. The Authoritarians Having now read about half of the article on the Southern Strategy I retract my doubtification. As we didn't have the interweb in the 60's, let alone the 80's, such in-depth analysis was the purview of political magazine articles and to a lesser extent newspapers. While I'm old enough to have lived through those times I am not so old as to have been focusing on these issues. The article I will have to finish tomorrow, but I have already found the references to conservative Democrats pre-70's not at all in discord with the right-wing authoritarian assessments of personality 'disorder'. The names have been changed to protect the guilty? PS My apparent wall-o-text is in reality 3 separate posts which were jammed together by our beloved forum software. Curses on its progenitors.

But Walter, that does not address the psychology in-and-of itself. You are just giving an example of an economic approach without any reference to the whys and wherefores of the reasoning or motivation behind it. You seem to have missed the evidence I cited. Here it is again. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68375-has-the-republican-party-lost-its-collective-mind/?hl=batshit#entry697415 I followed your link when you posted it John but it is just to a thread rife with ranting and examples of 'bat-shit crazy' Rebublican behavior. (Yes, I joined in a bit of that myself. Shame on me. ) However, as with Walter's example above, your reference John does not address the psychology behind such behaviors nor is that thread as broad as the topic of this thread which is looking at the science that analyses 'whacky' conservative behaviors beyond just Republicans or just within the US. Have either of you yet read the initial meta-study from the OP here? Anyone? I can only presume not.

As I earlier pointed out, it's not my thread by choice. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you read the whole thread even if it's not apparent. Be that as it may I have yet to see a response from anyone on the topic of the studies put forward in the (or per se my) Opening Post nor any indication any respondents have actually read the meta-study or the first study I have been exploring in depth. I welcome your comments Ten oz -and any-or-every ones' comments- if they are on topic. Here we have an opportunity to gain a scientific perspective on a most vexing phenomena and yet no one seems able or willing to seize it and instead all seem determined to do exactly the opposite to imatfaal's early admonition. To whit: If this trend continues I entreat staff to close the thread. Color me frowning.

I suppose I'm beating a dead horse here, but any chance you could couch your comments in terms of the topic? While I have not seen much-if-any mention of British 'mild' political insanity in the study that I am currently covering, there is mention of Canada and Australia. I assure you y'all aren't missing out on a share of high right-wing authoritarians and I suspect your years-long dust-up between the Catholics and Protestants would not be lacking for such individuals whether followers or leaders. You seem to have at least hinted at the psychology of right-wing/conservative politics, but as for reference or -dare I say evidence- ...nada. On that note, the next up is Chapter 4. Note that this is just the first of 80+ plus studies covered in the meta study of the OP so we have ample time for on topic commentary of the scientific kind. (Not that I'm holding my breath for that party.) The Authoritarians

With all due respect none of that is the subject of this thread. Please revisit the OP and stay on topic.

The topic of this thread is [political] psychology and if you can't stay on topic stay out of it. Introducing your personal opinions/preferences/actions as evidence is baiting other respondents to direct personal replies to/at you which is against our rules and already warned against by staff in this thread. ------------------------ Returning to the topic at hand, a summary of topic headings from Chapter Three of The Authoritarians which are indicative of 'mild' insanity and a quote from that chapter's footnotes. Chapter Three How Authoritarian Followers Think 1. Illogical Thinking 2. Highly Compartmentalized Minds 3. Double Standards 4. Hypocrisy 5. Blindness To Themselves 6. A Profound Ethnocentrism 7. Dogmatism: The Authoritarians Last Ditch Defense [bolding mine]

Yet again you avoid addressing the specifics of what you want cut. I'm not surprised. And never mind that raising the debt ceiling has historically been a no-big-deal regular occurrence even in Republican/conservative run Congress' of the US. Oh, and pay no attention to the surplus that Bush inherited and what he did to it. Conservative insanity is no different in Canada as you would know from the Canadian author of the scientific psychological work I have been citing if you were to bother and read it.

As I quoted from The Authoritarians in the Is Political Conservatism a mild form of Insanity? thread, Bob Altemeyer mentions the Weathermen as such an example. He goes on to mention that they quickly blew away. (formed in 1969 the Weather Underground was defunct by 1975). So no; compared to today's Republican Party there are no Democrat/Left-Wing collective-lost-minds analogs. post #37 On the idea of comparing Republicans of different eras, the original Republican President Abe Lincoln came to mind. Pointedly I was thinking of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and the now-whacked Republicans suing President Obama for overstepping his authority with Executive Orders. Shall we talk about getting back to the tradional roots of the GOP? (The prejudicial aspects of RWA (Right-Wing Authoritarians) are covered in the other thread.)

The cat's out of the bag. You responded from the heart and that is exactly the issue I am getting at here; the psychology of conservatism. (Presuming here that you are 'conservative', though if you're not I can't imagine what is driving your impassioned defense of that group.) Only that they seem driven by fear. I think you want to severely punish people that you see as deserving of punishment. I had to re-read several times to understand what you were referring to. It would be helpful if you would use the quote function when quoting from someone directly. Otherwise it appears that we are reading your words. So yes, I have a comment. Heaven forbid a government should do anything to help individuals. We need not only links but specific quotes from those sources that directly address points you are trying to make. ---------------------------- Continuing with some quotes from Bob. (Note that the page numbers I am using are PDF page numbers and not the page numbers printed in the PDF.) The Authoritarians

That statement is not only silly, it flies in the face of the obvious facts. Does anyone honestly think/claim that Ted Cruz, or Bobby Jindal, or John Boehner don't [proudly] label themselves as Republicans or as conservatives? I have seen this protestation over labels at least a half a dozen times here in the past weeks in the numerous threads we have on conservative politics, and it is a lame now as the first time it was uttered.

Same policies as apply to your household. Live within your means ! Don't live large and saddle your kids with debt. That doesn't answer my question, as I'm sure you well know. My household doesn't have to maintain an army, inspect food, build roads, or umpteen other functions that government does for all of us. Yet another strawman dodge from you I must say. I suspect from what I've seen so far in this thread that the answer is yes; any rebuttal is Too Long To Read. Why read something you know you'll disagree with and/or not understand the reasoning for? Yes; it would serve the purpose of the forum rules which ask that we all support our assertions with references. Who exactly is the 'we' that is asking that? Could it be, oh I don't know.... conservatives? I note how similar in structure the question is to questions used in the RWA questionnaire. Note the terms 'smothering', 'dissolving', 'tyranny', 'omnipotent', 'engulfs', and 'ceaseless'. Of course no right-wing authoritarian conservative will have any truck with such scientific too-long-to-read nonsense as I have been referencing this past week that puts the spotlight on just why these terms have so much importance to them and why these terms are so meaningless.

On the one hand you say you don't know what political conservatism is, and on the other you declare yourself a [presumably politically] fiscal conservative. What political fiscal conservative policies do you espouse? Please be specific inasmuch as your general wash informs us of nothing.

My increasy sense is telling me that we should define "mild" as "extreme". Strongly Agree on keeping them [that are high RWAs] away from matches and shoe polish.

Anyone reading the study along with me, or is everyone relying on my most excellent assessment of what is key here? . Note this is a 'new' post and if it's appended to my last we have only the software to blame. Anyway, I'm still reading along and have some musings along the lines of how to use all this information. There is a chapter I think on 'What do we do?' and maybe when I get there it will shed some light on my thinking here. To start, a personal anecdote. A long long time ago and far far away I was living with a policeman who was training to become a detective. (Talk about an authority! ) So he'd come home every night and tell us all about what he was learning and one of the courses was on how to conduct interrogations. He really enjoyed the learning as well as doing the interrogating and I learned a fair amount myself. Some months after I had moved away I was in the outback cutting wood and after finishing the work went up a hill overlooking my truck for a smoke. Up pulls a car and out get 2 cops, one a uniformed ranger and the other a plain-clothes federal game agent. When it became apparent they were waiting for me I went down and walked up behind them (maybe not smart) and said "Hi!". Well, a long story a little longer they began to interrogate me as they were out there looking for poachers. After some of that I told them 'hey; I recognize your interrogation techniques. Next your going to ask me ABC'. Well, they did a full stop and pulled themselves back for a palaver. They then tried some hemming and hawing but I told them either arrest me or let me go 'cause it's getting dark. They let me go but followed me all the way to town. So, segue to the authoritarian conservatives and I was thinking that it might be useful/workable -if not entertaining- for a politician publically debating a conservative to tell his opponent 'Hey; I recognize your RWA tendencies and next your going to say ABC because of your XYZ as laid out by BOB.' Well...just a musing as I said.

While the free 2006 book The Authoritarians is aimed at the general reader, Bob has a for-sale book, The Authoritarian Specter from 1997 that covers more specifics of his studies. Here's a link to Amazon for the book and a short review. The Authoritarian Specter @ Amazon Given that we are rolling up on both mid-term and presidential elections in the US, as well as given the numerous threads going on here concerning conservatism in specific and politics in general, this reading is both fascinating and chilling. Chores may keep me from covering a whole chapter today, but don't let that stop you dear tender readers from moving ahead. Below a short quote from a footnote to Chapter 1 on the science of correlation (the footnote goes beyond what I quote) and then a quote from the start of Chapter 2. Happy reading. The Authoritarians

. No doubt some will say/believe this is about conservative bashing but this is hardly the case from the RWA study perspective. The simple fact is that the chips just fall as they do and that high RWA scores rarely correlate with liberals or moderates.

It was not my direct choice to be put center stage with this topic but now that I'm here I have every intention of keeping the show on topic and on sound scientific grounds. Arguments over terms are non sequitars and have no place here other than as such terms are directly qualified by authors of bona fide sources presented. Those who bother to actually read these sources would find that such qualifications are given and any quibbles with terms should reference the specific qualifications these authors give. I did some reading in several chapters of Bob Altemeyer's The Authoritarians before deciding to download the book and begin reading it completely. He does address the issue of terminology and when I run across that again I will cite it. Meantime I will quote items germane to the thread topic as I encounter them. Keep in mind that Altemeyer's work is only one aspect of the meta-study on the psychology of conservative politics and politicians that opens this thread and so it does not answer all the questions regarding the apparent 'mild insanity' of this group and its adherents. Whether in continuation of this thread or for my own edification I will be looking into all of the studies referenced in the meta-study in more depth and I invite you all with a genuine interest to do the same. In respect for forum rules and authors' rights I can-and-will only quote small portions of works. As with any quoting, these quotes reflect my bias for what is important and I expect readers to do due diligence and read the source material before commenting. Context is everything. The following quote from the introduction of The Authoritarians expresses rather well my own interest in the topic and what I hope to gain in exploring it. The Authoritarians Edit: Fix copy/paste errors. Apostrophes and quote marks do not reproduce across PDF and this format.

No; I think I understand. You have your suspicions and no need of scientific studies whether you can understand their means and methodologies or not. 'They' have a label for you too. Since the subject of the thread is scientific studies there's nothing else for you here. Edit: For whoever is doing the moving about of my topic, it may more properly belong in psychology rather than politics. Your call obviously. . We can swing politico with no sweat if that's the will of the people. Given the frequent mention of RWA [Right-Wing Authoritarianism] in the meta-study, it follows to understand that term from the source. This read will take more time than the meta-study, but it's free to download in PDF format. If facts and/or science are not your forte, don't bother. To borrow from Hofstadter borrowing from Huneker, folk of small souls should not attempt it. (The RWA questionnaire is in Chapter 1 for self-administration.) Enjoy. The Authoritarians

I take it then you also refuse to actually read the study. Your loss as you then have nothing to contribute here other than opinion. I have finished reading the study and though 37 pages may seem daunting there are 6 pages of references and several pages of tables. Inasmuch as this study forms the basis of this thread I look forward to -and expect- on-topic responses from others who do the reading as well. (Science forum; remember?) Here is the link to the pdf again: >>Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition