You’re killing me with this statement. Are you suggesting that we shouldn’t comment on your outlandish claims if we haven’t read the book? Are you suggesting that we know nothing about what goes on in the mind of conservative if we haven’t read the book?
If they did refer to “Right Wing Authoritarians,” then why didn’t you? You referred to “the bulk of conservatives.” Were you misrepresenting the contents of your book? What personality trait allows you to do that?
Cite? I’d love to read a scientific paper providing conclusions on where self-righteousness comes from. Although I have a feeling that this particular statement comes not from science, but from your ass.
I’m going to need a cite for the “social science” please.
Yeah, I’m going to need a cite for this, too. Because I strongly believe it’s your opinion on what other people were thinking and feeling. But if you’ve got something that proves it’s a fact, I’m all ears.
Then I hope it’s in no way a slur that you don’t understand what the hell you’re talking about.
“Hello, chicken.” “Hello, egg.”
You don’t have to be much of a sociologist to recognize a little “post hoc ergo proctor hoc” action. Even if Dean’s studies actually show that most religious people are conservative (a stat many Dems would deny, especially since most Catholics are Dems), that doesn’t mean that their personality traits are formed or reinforced by their religious beliefs. If Dean said this, then he’s not reporting social science, he’s making it up … and poorly.
Nice selective quoting. But it doesn’t help your case.
As I explained, the book is mostly about Wight Wing Authoritarians and the social science that has identified and measured them. It is a fact that they are but a segment of the conservative spectrum. However, it is also a fact that they represent a majority of conservatives (i.e., the bulk of them). So I never said, nor does the book, that conservative = RWA, which is what you keep bogusly trying to imply I said.
What I think is funny is how some massively underinformed people will attack a book they’ve obviously never read! You were obviously a poor psychology student if you think the only thing social scientists can do is conduct polls.
You’re right, that’s at worst that he might have done. But if you had read the book you’d know he didn’t do that. Why, oh, why, don’t you read books before attacking them? I mean, how ignorant an activity is that??
First, they were my words. Read the book to see if Dean or his sources used anything like them also.
Second, not even I used any of those or similar words to describe ALL conservatives! READ THE OP AGAIN! I used them to describe RWAs and SDOs, which are a subset (if the largest subset) of conservatives! When will you decide to read the book and read the OP?
Science, yes. The organized study through development of hypotheses, operationalization of terms, development of measures, data collection, inferential statistical analyses… Haw Haw Haw! Science are real funny!
Polling data? Where do you get the idea that that is the source for this data? I’m fairly certain that that is incorrect. If this is one of those “social sciences aren’t like physics” arguments, I think we can hie to another thread to hash that out. (By the way, I was a psychology major once, as well. What the hell were you doing in sociology classes? Your advisor was fucking with you.)
This research is not exactly my forte. Dammit, I’m a clinical psychologist, not a sociologist or social psychologist. However, I did do a very brief review of some of this literature for a post in another thread here back in February.
Now, as you can see, that post went completely unnoticed, which led me to the conclusion that there is an inverse relationship between the time one spends in constructing a post and the impact that it has on a thread. Please, however, take a look at it, as it is directly relevant to our discussion, despite that thread topic including racism. You’ll see that there is quite a bit more to that research than “polling data.”
I’m assuming that for his book, Dean did a fair bit more thorough review of that literature than I did in 30 minutes or so.
I see. You’re essentially saying: “Nyah, hyah, I don’t have to read a book to attack it!” How nice for you to be omniscient. What’s worse is that, unlike Dean’s and my qualified statements, you, in your most authoritarian voice, deny science and evidence and blindly assert: “Liberals are self-righteous”! Nice logic, there, dear. Nice non-authoritarianism. :smack:
In other words, ignore the science folks, and just take my word for it! :smack: More non-authoritarianism, I presume?
Furthermore, what you unscientifically believe in a way confirms the scientific findings; i.e., that RWAs feel an unjustifiably, irrationally strong sense of self-righteousness because it is in their psychological nature to do so (and is abetted by their religious beliefs) is co-reinforced by the fact that they are in the majority. I submit that you unscientifically believe what you see in regard to the fact that these people are in the majority merely because the people in the majority are Right Wing Authoritarians. In other words, you’ve fooled yourself; mistaking causes and effects.
And I never said they did!!! :smack: Why do you keep asserting that which is obviously false? Why do you keep asserting that I’ve said things I haven’t? What the hell is wrong with you people who think you can damn a book you’ve never read?? To damn science you’re unaware of? AAAS-awarded social science you’re unaware of? Where do you people get the balls to vilify a book you’ve never read?
Oh, I have a feeling I know a little bit about social sciences. Shall we compare?
Me: B.S. in psychology; B.A. in Political Science; JD in the law. I’m licensed to practice law in more than one jurisdiction in the US. I’ve had papers published in psychology, poltical science, and the law. I’ve participated in and conducted sociological and psychological tests, research, and analysis. And I’ve designed and participated in practical counseling courses in psychology.
You: read one book by the guy the FBI called the “master manipulator” behind the Watergate cover-up. And you lied about its contents. (How fitting.)
Did Barry Goldwater co-author on this book? Let’s go to Publisher’s Weekly, shall we?
So I guess in addition to being the “master manipulator” behind the Watergate cover-up, Dean can also communicate with the dead?
No, I’m sure that must have just been an honest mistake. After all, it’s conservatives who are the dishonest ones, right? And that’s SCIENCE, baby!
Let’s see what else Publisher’s Weekly has to say about the book:
No matter. I’m sure you’ve learned some acronym to explain away Publisher’s Weekly’s dismissal of your new idol. Only a conservative would turn away from SCIENCE.
So let me get this straight – You think nearly everyone in your life is “narrow-minded,” “intolerant,” “dogmatic,” “aggressive,” and lacking in “self-awareness,” but Ann Coulter is the one with mental issues? Have you ever heard of a Narcissistic Personality Disorder? Or perhaps a Paranoid Ideation?
… What am I talking about? You’ve read one book that used the phrase “social science.” Of course you’ve heard of these things. :smack:
Well, you’ve certainly proven that you know more about social science than I do (NPD creeping up on you again?). And I probably should go read Dean’s actual words, because obviously I can’t rely on you to relate them honestly.
And nice ignoring of what I actually said. Because I didn’t say that it applied to all conservatives. I said it applied to “most” conservatives.
But I’m sure that was just an honest mistake. Because conservatives are the dishonest ones, right? And that’s not an opinion, that’s SCIENCE.
I’m still waiting on cites to back up your statements from before. [holding breath in anticipation]
No, that’s not the argument. I was extrapolating based on the conclusions that Dean drew from the work. I haven’t read the studies, but I have a gut feeling that if they say conservatism is the result of a combination of aberrant personality disorders, then they’re probably not particularly good science.
I can neither confirm nor deny this.
My intro to psych prof (and first advisor) was a sociologist, first and foremost. She studied racism and its effects. I liked her class, so I took a couple more by her. Plus, my school was small enough that it had a core curriculum, so I got credit for the classes.
Then I won’t presume to tell you about the studies. Like I said, I haven’t read them. But I’ll be sure and print off your post and read it this weekend. I’m very interested to see what you think.
Will do. And for now, I’ll take your word for it that there’s more to this than polling data. But if it’s all right, I’ll reserve judgment on its conclusions until I’ve read the studies (or at least your post).
Actually, if you can access the studies, you’d be better informed than simply from my post, as brilliant as it was. :dubious:
My review was brief and did skew towards studies that had something to do with prejudice as well. It does make me comfortable in assuming for the moment that there is a larger literature that Dean drew upon, as he claims to have done.
However, I’d be honestly interested if you were able to find anything with contrary conclusions (empirically based, that is). To me it makes sense that personality features would shape decisions and thinking about political issues and political affiliation. It seems to be the case that authoritarianism would be one feature associated with conservatives.
Actually, I’m not sure why this would be controversial - usually the Republicans, or conservatives more generally, have no problem portraying themselves as the law and order types, for example.
I only hope that the association is moderate at best - we’re going to need everyone we can to dislodge the current folks who are pushing for an all-powerful executive, and of whom underlings say things like “the president is always right.”
You know what? I have no problem with either of these assertions. Your personality should reflect your core belief structure about the world and the best ways to relate to it. And the same thing would seem to be true of political ideology. And I agree that most (contemporary) conservatives – especially Bush conservatives (in my opinion, he’s combined both the “law and order” aspects, as well as the “we’re the government, and we’re here to help” aspects)-- are probably more likely to be authoritarian.
And for what it’s worth, I’m not a social conservative. I’m actually quite socially liberal (i.e., marijuana, abortion, gay rights, etc.). I’m also economically conservative (less regulation, lower taxes, etc.), and I’m in favor of a strong and projected national defense. I don’t know, that may make me a classical liberal.
The hair on my neck doesn’t stand up until we start (a) defining the personality traits that make up conservative beliefs with words like “amoral” and “dangerous;” and (b) making overly broad statements as to what conservatives believe.
In my political science classes and studies, we had trouble figuring out what the inhabitants of our city believed in general, let alone deciphering what made most people of a political ideology vote the way they did. If Dean really has tapped into what makes “most conservatives” tick, then he should run for office. Apparently, he’d be able to run on a conservative platform of amorality and being “quick to fear.”
DtC: Liberals are a subcategory of leftists: Stalinists are authoritarian leftists. Liberals are non-authoritarian.
On the right, can you think of an authoritarian libertarian?
Last week, there was an interesting example of this.
The right wing blogosphere was in a froth regarding the New York Time’s decision to publish a picture of Ashcroft’s residence in a Sunday puff piece (Travel section). Never mind that nearly identical photos had already been published in the Washington Post last January and that Newsmax, Fox and others had already published this information. And never mind that the New York Times’ photographer had received permission from Ashcroft himself.
Again, I suspect that the authoritarian personality might have been attracted to certain far-left POVs before the eclipse of Marxism. It isn’t surprising that both LaRouche and Horowitz started out as Trotskists or SDSers, and ended in the non-empirical right wing.
Wait, … what? LaRouche is a right-winger? When did this start? Because I believe he’s only run for the Democratic nomination for President. From Wikipedia (always a bit sketchy, but it was the first cite to come up):
Not to make excuses for the consheepatives, but the New York Times is the Enemy. Fox and Newsmax are their friends, and the WaPo is, at worst, the loyal opposition. Presumably, more disloyal, unAmerican types read the NYT, and will now know what Ashcroft’s house looks like. Shoulda thought of that before giving that permission, John. :smack:
As to discipline, the authoritarian type usually abandons all thought of it when in mob mode. Then it’s for those other people.
Finally. I just looooOOOOve the way every political thread (not just on the Dope, but on bboards in general) quickly reverts to strenuous arguing of ever-more-finely-chopped hypotheticals and definitions that strenuously avoid any real issues. Is this, perhaps, a net.weenie version of the proven neocon tactic called “framing the debate”?
This is an issue. Debates here need responses within a day - at most two days, or they’re dead. I understand your frustration with people criticizing a book they haven’t read, but honestly, did you reasonably expect many people would have already read it, or that they’d read it and respond within hours, as though you had linked an article?
I have not read the book yet. I will, as I said in my first post, based on the OP. But by the time I have, this thread will be gone, gone, gone.
So I responded to what was in the OP - your outline of his argument. Would anybody be willing to agree to read political books, then, say, two weeks after that, start a debate on it?
ambushed, if you start this thread again in two weeks, you’ll have at least one other person who’s read the book.
First of all, I am not attacking the book. I have not read it, as you have pointed out several times. I am disputing some of the things you said about it in your OP. I am basing my opinion on my own experience with social science, and with the liberals and conservatives I know. And, incidentally, I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of “authoritarianism.” It does not mean that one has a strong opinion, and is expressing it. That is a far cry from the actual definition, which can be a philosophy of government or simply a personality trait characterized by blind obedience to authority. To call me authoritarian because I have experience with liberals who are self-righteous shows a basic misunderstanding about what authoritarian means. I certainly never said that ALL liberals are self-righteous. What I said was that IMO they are JUST AS PRONE TO IT as conservatives. I am specifically NOT stating what science shows or doesn’t show, because I haven’t read the book. I think it is perfectly valid (and non-authoritarian) to say “this is what I, personally, have observed.”
Again, not “authoritarian.”
Then READ the BOOK!
Then READ the BOOK! :smack:Look, you posted YOUR opinion of this book. You posted it in Great Debates. You gave an outline of what the book said, and people are debating the issues outlined. Granted, it would be a better discussion if people had read the book, and if you give me a week or so, I could do it. But, since I haven’t, I can only go by what YOU said about it, which is what I am discussing.
YOU say that you never said that the sociologists never condemned conservatives. Fine. But, somehow, Dean took the studies and worked up a whole book based on those studies that DOES condemn them. So, either you are injecting YOUR opinion into this debate, in which case, does it really matter if I have read the book…after all, outside of the book, your opinion is based on the same things my opinion is based on…your personal observations of the world (and boy oh boy, your opinion of conservatives is a lot, shall we say, stronger than my opinions of liberals). Or, Dean is doing some pretty fancy interpretation of the data. In which case, as I said, I would love to read the source material (not the book, the actual studies), in addition to the book, and form my own opinion.
When it comes to SOCIAL liberals, pretty much all of them.
I think maybe I haven’t been clear enough about my own distinction between social philosophies and economic philosophies. I’m throwing out economic philosophies for both sides. People can be fiscal conservatives but social libertarians. I would not consider thiose people to be authoritarian. I think that social libertarians (whether they be fiscally liberal or conservative) are pretty much the polar opposite of authoritarians. I guess I’d even say that fiscal conservatism combined with social libertarianism is the LEAST authoritarian political philosophy.
Social conservatives, though, especially when fueled by the high dudgeon of self-righteous religiosity (which is a distinct TYPE of religious personality, I don’t mean that all religious people are self-righteous. “Religiosity” is a term I use to designate an attitude where religion becomes a political banner or a club to bludgeon dissent) definitely fit the profile for both authoritarian leaders and followers, and that particular subsect of American conservatives seem to have become a majority in the last decade or so. They ARE uncritical of their chosen authorities, they ARE aggressive on behalf of that authority, they ARE prejudiced and provincial. They ARE self-righteous and intolerant. Look at their major mouthpieces – Ann Coulter (don’t tell me she’s not representative. Her books routinely go to #1 on the bestseller lists. My inlaws, who I think are extremely representative social conservative, Bush loyalists buy every one of her books as soon as they come out), Bill O’Reilly, Fox News in general.
I don’t see how this correlation can be denied and I DON’T see any kind of parallel on the social left.
Okay, so you agree that the state can force education on kids. Given that, should the standards be set by experts in the field, or by religious leaders? I could argue that evolution is more important than algebra - few people ever have to set up an equation, but a knowledge of evolution might help people not buy germicides that they don’t need, and thus encourage the development of super bugs.
In this case it is not a matter of what kids get taught at home, since I don’t think this stuff is in the state standards. The case involves them suing the state to change textbooks to read what they want them to read, not what the consensus of historians agree on. The point is, once you agree that the state can mandate that kids learn certain things, who sets those things? The only reasonable answer is that what gets taught reflects the consensus of a field. If there is no consensus, and offhand I can’t think of high school level subjects without one, either the “controversy” should get taught or nothing.
Kids need to learn this stuff, but they don’t have to believe it.
Still looking for the liberal authoritarians. I don’t buy classifying those fighting for more rights for people as authoritarians. How about those who forced integration of southern schools - would they count for you? Someone pushing for SSM is not requiring anyone to participate who doesn’t want to, or even for those opposed to go to a wedding. Those forcing integration as a side effect forced white kids to sit in classes with black kids
