I got a 20. Authoritarians can suck bowling balls through bendy straws. Traditionalists got their Perfect Pasts through beating up on people like me and my relatives. (I’m an atheist, my uncle’s gay, and I have Irish and German roots on both sides. One or more of those facts put me and some of my relatives on the wrong side of things.) Silencing the “rabble-rousers” only means silencing the people too ignorant to play or evade the system. (Nothing goes away: It is only passed around endlessly in the parts of the Internet the censors don’t know how to watch or can’t figure out how to block. Their locks are laughable.)
Well, to me, phrases like “crush evil” and “true path” are loaded words, and also rather subjective. When I read that question, I imagined a leader using those phrases in their speeches and such, and I didn’t like it. What if the leader believes that homosexuality is evil and our true path is to return to the way things were two centuries ago? If someone had said the above to me, the first thing I would have responded with would be, “Define ‘evil’ and ‘true path’.” But it’s a test, so I couldn’t ask it anything, obviously. My initial reaction was more negative than positive, so that’s what I went with.
I got a 58. I think anyone scoring below a 30 is lying to themselves. Do you really “VERY strongly disagree” or “VERY strongly agree” with every question? Is the world that black and white that you can’t even “moderately” agree or disagree?
I posit that the people who score exceptionally low are either lying in some misguided attempt to look good, or have such a rigid mind set that they are just as scary as dyed in the wool authoritarians.
I got a 35, but some of the questions weren’t well formed. For instance:
Well, yeah, they usually are. Usually. There’s a reason people live in houses and wear clothes and eat food instead of living in swimming pools and wearing old newspapers and eating gravel. And the old fashioned values of the Enlightenment are a damn sight better than newfangled ideas like socialism and fascism and scientology. Anti-Authoritarianism IS an old fashioned value.
No, I don’t have to admire them. Lots of people who challenge the law and the majority’s view are assholes who do so because they like causing trouble. That doesn’t mean they’re wrong (or right, either), just that I don’t have to admire them. Just because you’re right doesn’t mean you can’t be an asshole also.
Yeah, it would. If the troublemakers would just stop whining and get with the program this country would work a lot better. Of course, many of the troublemakers are the religious right, the creationists, the big government types, the nanny staters. There are a lot of assholes in this country, and it would be a better country if the assholes would shut the fuck up. That doesn’t mean I want to force them to shut up, what I want is to convince them to shut the fuck up.
Of course, I knew what answers the tester wanted me to give…but I’m such an anti-authoritarian, I deliberately gave answers that I knew would be misinterpreted by the test, JUST TO STICK IT TO THE MAN. Only sniveling suck-ups and sycophants and fascist toadies would be conventional and conformist and group-thinking and authority-pleasing enough to get a score in the 20s. You knew the daddy figure sociologist wanted you to be good little anti-authoritarians, and so you dutifully obeyed, didn’t you?
Well, the author did posit the existence of “Left-wing authoritarians”, although I don’t think that if you’re that far to the left on the libertarian spectrum that you shouldn’t be called an authoritarian – more like an Anarchist.
I personally think the author discounts the possibility of subcultures: if you are too willing to rigidly impose your cultural views on others through the methods described in the chapter (reverence for authorities, propensity of unthinking coercion, etc.) then you are an authoritarian – from your subculture.
Well, the statements were black and white, and I, for one, did not take the time to ponder the nuances of the wording. I admit I skimmed through and answered instinctively. Re-reading some of the statements posted to this thread, I suppose that if I re-took the test and read everything more carefully I might get a higher score. :: shrug :: But life is short, and I must cook dinner.
I am so anti-authoritarian, I deliberately didn’t hack the website to give me a score of negative 5,218, precisely because the test expected me to do that. Nor did I score my test using my own arbitrary scoring method to arrive at a score of (2pi^4)/x, because every free-thinker and his mother are already doing that.
Instead I answered truthfully and got a score of 127.
Gotta go now, my 7 minute break is almost over.
I scored an 81, mostly by answering in the “disagree” side of virtually every statement. I’m not sure what that means, other than that I didn’t like how extreme or loaded all the statements were.
- When people talk about The Man, I guess they’re talking about me.
My answers were mixed on a lot of them.
Honoring the ways of our forefathers - ok with that, to some extent.
Get rid of the rotten apples - Fine with that.
Do everything the authorities tell me - The authorities are the rotten apples that need to be gotten rid of.
And while things would most likely “work better” if everyone thought and believed the same thing, they wouldn’t necessarily be better. But that’s not what was asked.
- boggles
37
The first question doesn’t count.
You got a 0 man.
I refuse to keep score and you can’t make me!
**HazelNutCoffee **expressed a lot of what was behind my -4 here. But also, on reflection, I think what our country really needs is an intelligent, thoughtful leader who will try to protect our people from harm and maximize freedom and prosperity. While you could theoretically interpret the test statement to mean that, to me it smacks of the opposite - someone with fascistic tendencies who will define a scapegoat out-group to manipulate the populace into supporting the abrogation of basic human rights.
Oh, and actually, I do want a somewhat weak leader, in the sense that I support the idea of balance of powers and don’t want the chief executive to have unfettered supremacy.
I agree with other posters who’ve said that many of the statements don’t hold up to scrutiny. A lot of the statements that people would seem to consider to be slam dunks one way or the other, have a bit of wiggle room, when one starts to consider applying real world scenarios. Just for example: Question #5, the one about whether authorities are more often right than the so-called rabble rousers. I can think of a whole piss-pot full of examples where the rabble rousers simplify situations, or ignore real world issues to fight for their own pet causes. Forex, does anyone not think that the anti-vaccination crowd aren’t rabble rousers?
Similarly, I’ve heard too many instances of pedophilia hiding in family nudist enclosures for me to be fully behind the idea that there’s nothing wrong with nudist camps. For adults that is certainly true. But when dealing with children I have some reservations. So, that affected how I answered that question.
Even so, I still came out as being more anti-RWA than an average Canadian student: I got a 47. I suspect it’s still a bit low, but I’m not going to worry about retaking the test to try to be more accurate.
55
At the time I was thinking man I’m very antiauthoritarian, then I read some of the other scores.
My biggest problem was that I think a benevolent dictator is the best way to run a country but that I will submit to no dictator other then myself. Since I don’t see the people rising up to carry me into power I have different ideas on what another leader should do. I also believe that people naturally try to fit in even if fitting in means being different so I don’t necessarily think good thoughts about some one who was different. I do automatically think bad about whatever someone tells me is the best. In general ¾ of my answers were in-between the extremes but I had no 0s.
Current events teach us that sometimes the rabble-rousers are the authorities.