Inside the Right Wing Mind

[StreetSoldier4U]

What's the difference between proselytizing and education?  One has peer review of the work product and educational standards and the other expects wholesale acceptance of testament as unvarnished truth from God.

There is no reasonable comparison btn the two as similar.  They are entirely dissimilar and there's a whole lot of caselaw out there that makes that assertion pretty evident.

Peer review is useful and wonderful in the hard sciences where experiments can be conducted to validate or disprove a hypothesis.  In the social sciences not so much.  Much of what is produced in those fields is pure interpretation that is  heavily influenced by deeply ingrained ideology.

[FredHayekowski]

also your idiotic belief that right wingers have a monopoly on aggression only proves my point as to how your hypothesis (that you stole from someone else and are simply plagiarizing by the way) is silly at best, bigoted at worst.  take your shit and leave.

The personality scale tests provide all the data we need to conclude that, although everyone has authoritarian components to their psychology, RWAs have that to the extreme. 

The data don't lie.

You've restated my conclusion that you'd respond to this thread with a "the left does it too" objection which is not supported by the data.  It's merely you having an emotional response to the facts.  No biggie.

I didn't plagiarize.  I quoted all the material that I took from the source cited at the bottom of the OP. 

Now are you going to have the character to admit that you were wrong?  At the very least, wrong about your libelous plagiarizing allegation?  If not, you are playing the RWA profile to the hilt.

[bears]

Thanks for coming into this thread to let me know that you're not impressed.  Do you do that with every thread that doesn't meet the Bear stamp of approval? 

Frankly I'm not impressed either b/c this cliff notes OP doesn't do justice to the richness of the explanation of what drives right wingers.

yawn.  good luck on your war with "right wingers".  i'm sure you "left wingers" will prevail and fix everything because you're all so open minded. 

god damn I can't even be sarcastic about this.  is this seriously what you believe? 

[bears]

The personality scale tests provide all the data we need to conclude that, although everyone has authoritarian components to their psychology, RWAs have that to the extreme. 

The data don't lie.

You've restated my conclusion that you'd respond to this thread with a "the left does it too" objection which is not supported by the data.  It's merely you having an emotional response to the facts.  No biggie.

I didn't plagiarize.  I quoted all the material that I took from the source cited at the bottom of the OP. 

Now are you going to have the character to admit that you were wrong?  At the very least, wrong about your libelous plagiarizing allegation?  If not, you are playing the RWA profile to the hilt.

and if I told you that a Harvard University study showed that liberals have a lower IQ than conservatives would you believe that data?  wait but another University study showed that liberals are smarter than conservatives.......  Hmm.  you're bush league dude.  but you're silly and i'm starting to enjoy your posts.  keep going.

[FredHayekowski]

Peer review is useful and wonderful in the hard sciences where experiments can be conducted to validate or disprove a hypothesis.  In the social sciences not so much.  Much of what is produced in those fields is pure interpretation that is  heavily influenced by deeply ingrained ideology.

Social psychology, economics and the like still have professional standards for education and work product.  Maybe you're right, but I would not denigrate the rational pursuit of knowledge by the Western mind as merely 'ingrained ideology' or prejudice.

That's where peer review or hell, even student review, can call BS.  I know I've done it many times in my school career.  I disagree with authors and scholars to pursue the truest understanding of the subject matter as if it were an all-you-can-eat China Buffet.

If I'm barking up the wrong tree, then others with a better understanding of the matter let me know I'm full of it.  That's the dynamic of education.  It's always reevaluating itself and its subject matter.  It's not Church b/c it's not rote lecturing and recital of revealed truth.  Our truths.....we work for.  We engage in thinking.  That's precisely where the idea of teaching to a test does the greatest disservice to the American mind.

[FredHayekowski]

yawn.  good luck on your war with "right wingers".  i'm sure you "left wingers" will prevail and fix everything because you're all so open minded. 

god damn I can't even be sarcastic about this.  is this seriously what you believe? 

You're taking this personally. 

As you pointed out, I 'plagiarized ' the entire OP by quoting it and supporting the citation.  So it's not my war.  It's a psychology brief that you seem to have problems with. 

I think the findings are dead on.

[FredHayekowski]

and if I told you that a Harvard University study showed that liberals have a lower IQ than conservatives would you believe that data?  wait but another University study showed that liberals are smarter than conservatives.......  Hmm.  you're bush league dude.  but you're silly and i'm starting to enjoy your posts.  keep going.

No apology?  You're a textbook RWA.  Let's see, you pose some fantasy Harvard study and then insult me after you've knocked down your phantasmagorical straw argument.  RWA to a T.

The RWA also manifests his extreme fear and egocentrism in his evaluative comments.  Anything you oppose is the worst of all time that will doom us all.  Anyone that doesn't agree with your ad hoc theories is naïve, a libtard, bush league, silly.

[bears]

You're taking this personally. 

As you pointed out, I 'plagiarized ' the entire OP by quoting it and supporting the citation.  So it's not my war.  It's a psychology brief that you seem to have problems with. 

I think the findings are dead on.

well of course you do because it fits in with your prejudice against conservative Republicans.  you're the one who took the initiative and started this thread.  you're obviously emotionally invested.  just because you pretend not to be doesn't mean a halfway intelligent person can't tell you're full of shit.

just stop.  you're being silly.

[bears]

No apology?  You're a textbook RWA.  Let's see, you pose some fantasy Harvard study and then insult me after you've knocked down your phantasmagorical straw argument.  RWA to a T.

The RWA also manifests his extreme fear and egocentrism in his evaluative comments.  Anything you oppose is the worst of all time that will doom us all.  Anyone that doesn't agree with your ad hoc theories is naïve, a libtard, bush league, silly.

sorry but anyone reading this will agree that you are what you accuse me of being.  your original post was meant to insult as well.  you seem extremely convinced of yourself and downright arrogant.  I bet i'm right.  I may be wrong but I would bet a reasonable amount of money that i'm right about you.  I know.  I know.  that's so RWA.

[FredHayekowski]

sorry but anyone reading this will agree that you are what you accuse me of being.  your original post was meant to insult as well.  you seem extremely convinced of yourself and downright arrogant.  I bet i'm right.  I may be wrong but I would bet a reasonable amount of money that i'm right about you.  I know.  I know.  that's so RWA.

Accuse me of plagiarizing....didn't do it, and you don't have the character to admit you're wrong.

"Downright arrogant???"  I added two or three sentences to the OP which was an compilation of a psychologist's work.  And you read insults and arrogance into that?

You are special.

And there you go again.  The science that's the basis of this entire thread is really just an insult that is obliterated by your 'bet' that I'm 'downright arrogant' and I surmise, incorrect in everything I do.

You aren't just special, you are incredible.

[Dos Equis]

This was written by a Canadian?  I'm pretty sure I don't care what he thinks. 

[bears]

Accuse me of plagiarizing....didn't do it, and you don't have the character to admit you're wrong.

"Downright arrogant???"  I added two or three sentences to the OP which was an compilation of a psychologist's work.  And you read insults and arrogance into that?

You are special.

And there you go again.  The science that's the basis of this entire thread is really just an insult that is obliterated by your 'bet' that I'm 'downright arrogant' and I surmise, incorrect in everything I do.

You aren't just special, you are incredible.

as a matter of fact i'm the only one out of the two of us that admitted that I may be wrong about this.  you on the other hand, have made no similar concession.  which is because of your obvious arrogance.

[bears]

Accuse me of plagiarizing....didn't do it, and you don't have the character to admit you're wrong.

"Downright arrogant???"  I added two or three sentences to the OP which was an compilation of a psychologist's work.  And you read insults and arrogance into that?

You are special.

And there you go again.  The science that's the basis of this entire thread is really just an insult that is obliterated by your 'bet' that I'm 'downright arrogant' and I surmise, incorrect in everything I do.
You aren't just special, you are incredible.

I never said that you're incorrect about everything. you're projecting again.

[FredHayekowski]

well of course you do because it fits in with your prejudice against conservative Republicans.  you're the one who took the initiative and started this thread.  you're obviously emotionally invested.  just because you pretend not to be doesn't mean a halfway intelligent person can't tell you're full of shit.

just stop.  you're being silly.

Where does my prejudice play a role in the personality scales used to supply the raw data to the psychologist authoring the paper?  I quoted the paper and not myself.  My contribution was the last several sentences where I predicted how most RWAs would respond to the topic and you did exactly that.

Where's my prejudice affecting the conclusion following from the data?  Merely starting a thread based on a psychology study is not prejudicial.

Phantom criticisms and name calling borne from a flailing defense mechanism working over time.  RWAs look at your posts as conclusive evidence of your total victory and my decisive loss.  To everyone else in the universe, you are playing the role of RWA to veritable perfection.

[FredHayekowski]

This was written by a Canadian?  I'm pretty sure I don't care what he thinks. 

Of course you don't care, you "think" you’re "way, way better" than some mere Canadian. Whatever he has to say must be bollocks b/c he certainly doesn't agree with you about your values and psychology.

[FredHayekowski]

as a matter of fact i'm the only one out of the two of us that admitted that I may be wrong about this.  you on the other hand, have made no similar concession.  which is because of your obvious arrogance.

You're not making any sense.  I obviously did not plagiarize the article.  It's quoted and cited. 

You really should apologize for your patently erroneous statement.

What should I apologize for?  You keep calling me arrogant.  Arrogant about what?  If you don't like the conclusions drawn from the data, then let's see your competing explanation and study.  Merely saying "the left does it too" is not supported by the data.  That's a predictable defense mechanism.  Your side always does it no matter how attenuated the tortured equivalency may be.

The choices made by RWAs on the personality tests (among other sources) indicate extreme authoritative traits amongst right wing respondents.  Not left wing respondents.

[Necrosis]

Are you okay?  You seem to have issues.

I am gifted, see below. this will help clarify the issues between us.



http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/GiftedProblems.pdf

I will check back to answer follow up questions.

[StreetSoldier4U]

I am gifted, see below. this will help clarify the issues between us.



http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/GiftedProblems.pdf

I will check back to answer follow up questions.

You're narcissistic.  It's not brilliance it's a mental illness.

[FredHayekowski]

I never said that you're incorrect about everything. you're projecting again.

Projection?  I'm sure I do that.  However RWAs are the experts in that pursuit.  I was just guessing. 
See:

sur·mise
  [v. ser-mahyz; n. ser-mahyz, sur-mahyz]  Show IPA 

verb (used with object), sur·mised, sur·mis·ing. 
1.
to think or infer without certain or strong evidence; conjecture; guess.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/surmise

I mean you went out of your way to bold mark my words:  "...I surmise, incorrect in everything I do.
You aren't just special, you are incredible."

That's not projection.  But you're not really addressing the matter.  You're spending all your efforts calling me arrogant (I'm not), full of shit (I'm not) and projecting (I'm not).  You do everything but discuss the OP subject matter.

[Necrosis]

Yes, educators do intend to indoctrinate their students into their way of thinking.  You go into a baptist church and they are going to want you to believe what they say is the truth.  You attend UC Berkley and you will get the same experience.  

Hi StreetSoldier4U. What you have done nhere is false equivalence. What is that you say? well it's basically when you compare or even contrast two opposing arguments when they are not logically equal. That is to say StreetSoldier4U that you aren't comparing apples to apples here. Let's walk through this example. You cite a baptist chruch and a univeristy as places of informational gathering, indicated by the "believe what they say is the truth". However, that's not true is it buddy, the chruch uses something called faith as evidence, the reason for belief (unless you are the type of idiot that just believes because others say so). In a University, I will assume you know nothing, just for clarity, I am in no way insinuating that you are retarded, but I digress. In a University, the want you to believe the what they say because it's true and they have evidence to prove it. If you are not convinced or moved by the evidence, only a cogent complaint will do, no appeals for emotion.

If you learn via analogies, then in this case it's like comparing the performance of two cars but not citing that one is electric. Or using vinyl flooring that is painted like wood and calling it hardwood. It's like saying you aren't gay then spend all day thinking and talking about a particular kenyan.

[Dos Equis]

Of course you don't care, you "think" you’re "way, way better" than some mere Canadian. Whatever he has to say must be bollocks b/c he certainly doesn't agree with you about your values and psychology.

O Rly?  And how did you conclude all of this? 

[FredHayekowski]

O Rly?  And how did you conclude all of this? 

Just a few things.  You made an effort to come into this thread.  Maybe it's because you're a moderator or maybe it's b/c you wanted to read about the subject matter of the thread.

You obviously read the OP and even went to the link I provided b/c you knew that the author of the study was Canadian...a fact I did not include in the OP.

And finally, you went out of your way to insult all Canadians b/c you must disagree with the subject matter of the OP.  Never mind that the analysis is predicated on the work of Albert Bandura (an American), you went for the gusto insulting all Canadians.

No Sir, you are very interested in what I had to say and anyone insulting an entire country full of people definitely has superiority issues.

[Dos Equis]

Just a few things.  You made an effort to come into this thread.  Maybe it's because you're a moderator or maybe it's b/c you wanted to read about the subject matter of the thread.

You obviously read the OP and even went to the link I provided b/c you knew that the author of the study was Canadian...a fact I did not include in the OP.

And finally, you went out of your way to insult all Canadians b/c you must disagree with the subject matter of the OP.  Never mind that the analysis is predicated on the work of Albert Bandura (an American), you went for the gusto insulting all Canadians.

No Sir, you are very interested in what I had to say and anyone insulting an entire country full of people definitely has superiority issues.

lol.  Funny guy.   

I will say I clicked on the link because I thought this "study" came from some kind of liberal blog, etc.  Had no idea it was written by a Canadian.  Or that you're Canadian.  If you are, that would explain a lot.  Pretty much every Canadian posting on this board is pretty arrogant. 

But no, I don't believe I'm better than Canadians (or any one else for that matter). 

I do believe, as El Profeta says, that Canada is America's mentally retarded little brother.   

[bears]

Just a few things.  You made an effort to come into this thread.  Maybe it's because you're a moderator or maybe it's b/c you wanted to read about the subject matter of the thread.

You obviously read the OP and even went to the link I provided b/c you knew that the author of the study was Canadian...a fact I did not include in the OP.

And finally, you went out of your way to insult all Canadians b/c you must disagree with the subject matter of the OP.  Never mind that the analysis is predicated on the work of Albert Bandura (an American), you went for the gusto insulting all Canadians.

No Sir, you are very interested in what I had to say and anyone insulting an entire country full of people definitely has superiority issues.

i'm starting to read it actually.  I won't lie its well written and pretty interesting.  here's one problem that I have off the get go though.  He is obviously pandering to left wing readers as he quickly asserts the fact that there are FWA's and LWA's,.........

"But the left-wing authoritarians on my campus disappeared long ago. Similarly in America “the Weathermen” blew away in the wind. I’m sure one can find left-wing authoritarians here and there, but they hardly exist in sufficient numbers now to threaten democracy in North America. However I have found bucketfuls of right-wing authoritarians in nearly every sample I have drawn in Canada and the United States for the past three decades."

Translation: I have the opportunity to be fair and seek an honest assessment of why people view the political arena in the way that they do, but I'm not here to seek truth.  I'm here to pander to my liberal lemmings so for the sake of this essay i'm going to assume that liberals who "readily submit to the established authorities in society, attacks others in their name, and is highly conventional" just simply do not exist anymore.  Not a one.  None.  Zero zip zilch nada. 

His behavior assessment is impressive and I do admit that right wingers are guilty of pretty much all of what he says but if you can't see through his obvious attempt to completely absolve his left wing audience (those are the only people who have given this man the time of day.  right wingers have jobs and shit.  he knows where his bread is buttered) of any of these behaviors which he so eloquently likes to attach solely to people who vote republican I just feel sorry for you.  come on man.  I'll see you guys tomorrow.  I have a shit ton of work to do.

[FredHayekowski]

lol.  Funny guy.   

I will say I clicked on the link because I thought this "study" came from some kind of liberal blog, etc.  Had no idea it was written by a Canadian.  Or that you're Canadian.  If you are, that would explain a lot.  Pretty much every Canadian posting on this board is pretty arrogant. 

But no, I don't believe I'm better than Canadians (or any one else for that matter). 

I do believe, as El Profeta says, that Canada is America's mentally retarded little brother.   

Well I take that all back.  You certainly have a healthy respect for Canadians.  Your words drip with respect.

Now that's called 'sarcasm.'

All Canadian's are arrogant and retarded in your words and what exactly are you?  Humble? 

Classic RWA behavior.  I came here looking for some fodder and man, you guys do not disappoint.