Although Altemeyer has continually updated the scale, researchers in different domains have tended to lock-in on particular versions. For example in the social psychology of religion, the 1992 version of the scale is still commonly used. In addition, the length of the earlier versions (30 items) led many researchers to develop shorter versions of the scale. Some of those are published but many researchers simply select a subset of items to use in their research; a practice that Altemeyer strongly criticizes. (...)
According to research by Altemeyer, right-wing authoritarians tend to exhibit cognitive errors and symptoms of faulty reasoning. Specifically, they are more likely to make incorrect inferences from evidence and to hold contradictory ideas that result from compartmentalized thinking. They are also more likely to uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs, and they are less likely to acknowledge their own limitations.
Nope. I got it right.
Altemeyer is not cited in the original article. My reading comprehension is pretty good.
my poll asked a set of four simple survey questions that political scientists have employed since 1992 tomeasure inclination toward authoritarianism. These questions pertain to child-rearing: whether it is more important for the voter to have a child who is respectful or independent; obedient or self-reliant; well-behaved or considerate; and well-mannered or curious. Respondents who pick the first option in each of these questions are strongly authoritarian.
and from that we get this ? (...)
Nope, I got it right. The goal of the questions are ... to measure inclination toward authoritarianism.
Pardon me for forgetting to highlite the first bolded. My reading comprehension is pretty good.
Also in this case, what I get out of it is more important than what you get out of it cuz I have a vote in the matter. You're just a voyeur in this.
Although Altemeyer has continually updated the scale, researchers in different domains have tended to lock-in on particular versions. For example in the social psychology of religion, the 1992 version of the scale is still commonly used. In addition, the length of the earlier versions (30 items) led many researchers to develop shorter versions of the scale. Some of those are published but many researchers simply select a subset of items to use in their research; a practice that Altemeyer strongly criticizes. (...)
According to research by Altemeyer, right-wing authoritarians tend to exhibit cognitive errors and symptoms of faulty reasoning. Specifically, they are more likely to make incorrect inferences from evidence and to hold contradictory ideas that result from compartmentalized thinking. They are also more likely to uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs, and they are less likely to acknowledge their own limitations.
Your quoted bit says: "Respondents who pick the first option in each of these questions are strongly authoritarian."
We're talking respondents, i.e. people, not regimes. It's not my problem if you can't read properly.
kurtster wrote:
Really ?
my poll asked a set of four simple survey questions that political scientists have employed since 1992 tomeasure inclination toward authoritarianism. These questions pertain to child-rearing: whether it is more important for the voter to have a child who is respectful or independent; obedient or self-reliant; well-behaved or considerate; and well-mannered or curious. Respondents who pick the first option in each of these questions are strongly authoritarian.
and from that we get this ? (...)
Nope, I got it right. The goal of the questions are ... to measure inclination toward authoritarianism.
Pardon me for forgetting to highlite the first bolded. My reading comprehension is pretty good.
Also in this case, what I get out of it is more important than what you get out of it cuz I have a vote in the matter. You're just a voyeur in this.
my poll asked a set of four simple survey questions that political scientists have employed since 1992 to measure inclination toward authoritarianism. These questions pertain to child-rearing: whether it is more important for the voter to have a child who is respectful or independent; obedient or self-reliant; well-behaved or considerate; and well-mannered or curious. Respondents who pick the first option in each of these questions are strongly authoritarian.
my poll asked a set of four simple survey questions that political scientists have employed since 1992 to measure inclination toward authoritarianism. These questions pertain to child-rearing: whether it is more important for the voter to have a child who is respectful or independent; obedient or self-reliant; well-behaved or considerate; and well-mannered or curious. Respondents who pick the first option in each of these questions are strongly authoritarian.
and from that we get this ?
Authoritarianism is marked by "indefinite political tenure" of the ruler or ruling party ...
and ...
Authoritarian regimes are also sometimes subcategorized by whether they are personalistic or populist. Personalistic authoritarian regimes are characterized by arbitrary rule and authority exercised "mainly through patronage networks and coercion rather than through institutitions and formal rules." Personalistic authoritarian regimes have been seen in post-colonial Africa. By contrast, populist authoritarian regimes "are mobilizational regimes in which a strong, charismatic, manipulative leader rules through a coalition involving key lower-class groups." Examples include Argentina under Perón and Nasser in Egypt. Authoritarianism is characterized by highly concentrated and centralized power maintained by political repression and the exclusion of potential challengers. It uses political parties and mass organizations to mobilize people around the goals of the regime. Adam Przeworski has theorized that "authoritarian equilibrium rests mainly on lies, fear and economic prosperity". Authoritarianism also tends to embrace the informal and unregulated exercise of political power, a leadership that is "self-appointed and even if elected cannot be displaced by citizens' free choice among competitors," the arbitrary deprivation of civil liberties, and little tolerance for meaningful opposition. A range of social controls also attempt to stifle civil society, while political stability is maintained by control over and support of the armed forces, a bureaucracy staffed by the regime, and creation of allegiance through various means of socialization and indoctrination. Authoritarian political systems may be weakened through "inadequate performance to demands of the people." Vestal writes that the tendency to respond to challenges to authoritarianism through tighter control instead of adaptation is a significant weakness, and that this overly rigid approach fails to "adapt to changes or to accommodate growing demands on the part of the populace or even groups within the system." Because the legitimacy of the state is dependent on performance, authoritarian states that fail to adapt may collapse. Authoritarianism is marked by "indefinite political tenure" of the ruler or ruling party (often in a one-party state) or other authority.
Hardly what I believe in at any level. I see the bolded above as an example of what the USA is presently experiencing under our present regime led by Obama. The questions used to determine the predisposition to authoritarianism are a joke, a dishonest choice of alternatives.
The only people who understand what Trump is about are those who support him or recognized from the time he declared that he was a serious candidate. All else are clueless. Only one other regular poster here recognized Trump as being serious from the beginning which was sird. I never name names in these cases but in this one I will. He doesn't support him, but get's what is really going on and what is important here.
Trump isn't about authoritarianism, he's about solving problems as he sees them. He is not afraid to identify the problems as he sees them in no uncertain terms. He is the only candidate running who can say don't bullshit the bullshitter. He has bought and sold the establishment and knows where the bodies are buried, yet not compromised because he has not been bought and paid for himself.
His priorities are clear as a bell.
When I said all else are clueless, its just not pertaining to those here, but the whole of the media and the establishment political class on both sides of the aisle. You here are in good company and probably still feel he will fold like a cheap suit before the South Carolina primary after his impending defeats in Iowa and New Hampshire and will be the first to say I told you he wasn't a serious candidate.
We'll soon see. We're just a couple of weeks to real voting and real answers. Iffen I was fooled and wrong to take him seriously, I will be the first to admit it. How about those of you who said he isn't ?
. Edit: all the discourse from Trump's detractors seem to be based in the idea / assumption that there is a perfect candidate out there, somewhere. Well there isn't and never will be. Whose priorities are are your's and who checks off more of your boxes than anyone else, versus the crap you don't like that comes with them ? That's as good as it gets.
Freedom of speech is in mortal danger across the globe. You only have to look at universities and 'safe space' culture to realize how our youth have become disturbingly indoctrinated. Even Obama has spoken out against the madness.
I endlessly pimp Ben Garrison cartoons, but with good reason.
The irony is that we Americans extol diversity and freedom of speech and religion as being central to our culture, yet we seem not only to fear the same, but view those attributes as actual threats to that culture.
Freedom of speech is in mortal danger across the globe. You only have to look at universities and 'safe space' culture to realize how our youth have become disturbingly indoctrinated. Even Obama has spoken out against the madness.
I endlessly pimp Ben Garrison cartoons, but with good reason.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jan 18, 2016 - 11:12am
black321 wrote:
It's all very primal, isn't it? Unconsciously demonizing our neighbor because they're different...we still think we live in small tribes that can be invaded by the enemy at any moment.
The irony is that we Americans extol diversity and freedom of speech and religion as being central to our culture, yet we seem not only to fear the same, but view those attributes as actual threats to that culture.
The problem for all of us — left, right, center — is our inability to discuss issues without becoming offended by opposing viewpoints. That leads to demonizing those holding those viewpoints. The more we seek to justify that as a necessary means to defend our "culture," the further down the rabbit hole we fall.
It's all very primal, isn't it? Unconsciously demonizing our neighbor because they're different...we still think we live in small tribes that can be invaded by the enemy at any moment.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jan 18, 2016 - 10:54am
The problem for all of us — left, right, center — is our inability to discuss issues without becoming offended by opposing viewpoints. That leads to demonizing those holding those viewpoints. The more we seek to justify that as a necessary means to defend our "culture," the further down the rabbit hole we fall.
