Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: FredHayekowski on February 24, 2014, 07:18:46 AM
-
“An explanation of Right Wing authoritarians (“RWA”) in general has been provided by Albert Bandura of Stanford University. Bandura says that aggression occurs after two switches are thrown. First some bad feeling like anger or envy stirs up hostility. But that by itself won’t lead to aggression. An angry individual who wants to attack someone may anticipate getting punched in return, or ending up in jail. Or he may have moral restraints against hurting others. So the second stage involves overcoming these restraints, setting aside these inhibitions, letting the aggression erupt and flow.”
“The Instigator. What sort of bad feelings are likely to be burning away inside high RWAs that would create an urge to attack?”... “Authoritarian followers score highly on the Dangerous World scale (personality scale test), and it’s not just because some of the items have a religious context. High RWAs are, in general, more afraid than most people are. They got a “2 for 1 Special Deal” on fear somehow. Maybe they’ve inherited genes that incline them to fret and tremble. Maybe not. But we do know that they were raised by their parents to be afraid of others, because both the parents and their children tell us so.” … “Thus it turns out in experiments that a person’s fear of a dangerous world predicts various kinds of authoritarian aggression better than any other unpleasant feeling…”
“The Releaser. What releases the aggressive impulse that comes from fear? What slides off the safety on the gun? This, it turns out, is a no-brainer.” How good, how moral are you, compared to other people?” ... ‘If you’re an average human being, you’ll think you’re a better than average human being. Almost everybody thinks she’s more moral than most. But high RWAs typically think they’re way, way better. They are the Holy Ones. They are the Chosen. They are the Righteous. They somehow got a three-for-one special on self-righteousness. And self-righteousness appears to release authoritarian aggression more than anything else.”
Conclusion. “Chronically frightened authoritarian followers, looking for someone to attack because fighting is one of the things people do when they are afraid, are particularly likely to do so when they can find a moral justification for their hostility. Despite all the things in scriptures about loving others, forgiving others, leaving punishment to God, and so on, authoritarian followers feel empowered to isolate and segregate, to humiliate, to persecute, to beat, and to kill in the middle of the night, because in their heads they can almost hear the loudspeakers announcing, “Now batting for God’s team, his designated hitter, (their name). Thus in the experiments done on this subject, if you know how highly people scored on the Dangerous World scale, and if you know how self-righteous they are, you can explain rather well the homophobia of authoritarian followers, their heavy- handedness in sentencing criminals, their prejudices against racial and ethnic minorities, why minorities, why they are so mean-spirited toward those who have erred and suffered, and their readiness to join posses to ride down Communists, radicals, or whomever.”
“[R]esearch reveals that authoritarian followers drive through life under the influence of impaired thinking a lot more than most people do, exhibiting sloppy reasoning, highly compartmentalized beliefs, double standards, hypocrisy, self-blindness, a profound ethnocentrism, and--to top it all off--a ferocious dogmatism that makes it unlikely anyone could ever change their minds with evidence or logic. These seven deadly shortfalls of authoritarian thinking eminently qualify them to follow a would-be dictator.”
Most of you RWAs will push the dialectic screaming about left wing authoritarianism. Some might actually take the constructive analysis and start questioning their values. There is hope.
http://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_803_22-inspiring-acts-kindness-that-no-one-ever-talks-about_p22/#22 (http://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_803_22-inspiring-acts-kindness-that-no-one-ever-talks-about_p22/#22)
https://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ (https://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/)
-
laughable considering you leftist communists pos are the ones pushing govt control over everyones' behavior
-
All of the examples you listed could easily apply to the left.
-
“An explanation of Right Wing authoritarians (“RWA”) in general has been provided by Albert Bandura of Stanford University. Bandura says that aggression occurs after two switches are thrown. First some bad feeling like anger or envy stirs up hostility. But that by itself won’t lead to aggression. An angry individual who wants to attack someone may anticipate getting punched in return, or ending up in jail. Or he may have moral restraints against hurting others. So the second stage involves overcoming these restraints, setting aside these inhibitions, letting the aggression erupt and flow.”
“The Instigator. What sort of bad feelings are likely to be burning away inside high RWAs that would create an urge to attack?”... “Authoritarian followers score highly on the Dangerous World scale (personality scale test), and it’s not just because some of the items have a religious context. High RWAs are, in general, more afraid than most people are. They got a “2 for 1 Special Deal” on fear somehow. Maybe they’ve inherited genes that incline them to fret and tremble. Maybe not. But we do know that they were raised by their parents to be afraid of others, because both the parents and their children tell us so.” … “Thus it turns out in experiments that a person’s fear of a dangerous world predicts various kinds of authoritarian aggression better than any other unpleasant feeling…”
“The Releaser. What releases the aggressive impulse that comes from fear? What slides off the safety on the gun? This, it turns out, is a no-brainer.” How good, how moral are you, compared to other people?” ... ‘If you’re an average human being, you’ll think you’re a better than average human being. Almost everybody thinks she’s more moral than most. But high RWAs typically think they’re way, way better. They are the Holy Ones. They are the Chosen. They are the Righteous. They somehow got a three-for-one special on self-righteousness. And self-righteousness appears to release authoritarian aggression more than anything else.”
Conclusion. “Chronically frightened authoritarian followers, looking for someone to attack because fighting is one of the things people do when they are afraid, are particularly likely to do so when they can find a moral justification for their hostility. Despite all the things in scriptures about loving others, forgiving others, leaving punishment to God, and so on, authoritarian followers feel empowered to isolate and segregate, to humiliate, to persecute, to beat, and to kill in the middle of the night, because in their heads they can almost hear the loudspeakers announcing, “Now batting for God’s team, his designated hitter, (their name). Thus in the experiments done on this subject, if you know how highly people scored on the Dangerous World scale, and if you know how self-righteous they are, you can explain rather well the homophobia of authoritarian followers, their heavy- handedness in sentencing criminals, their prejudices against racial and ethnic minorities, why minorities, why they are so mean-spirited toward those who have erred and suffered, and their readiness to join posses to ride down Communists, radicals, or whomever.”
“[R]esearch reveals that authoritarian followers drive through life under the influence of impaired thinking a lot more than most people do, exhibiting sloppy reasoning, highly compartmentalized beliefs, double standards, hypocrisy, self-blindness, a profound ethnocentrism, and--to top it all off--a ferocious dogmatism that makes it unlikely anyone could ever change their minds with evidence or logic. These seven deadly shortfalls of authoritarian thinking eminently qualify them to follow a would-be dictator.”
Most of you RWAs will push the dialectic screaming about left wing authoritarianism. Some might actually take the constructive analysis and start questioning their values. There is hope.
http://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_803_22-inspiring-acts-kindness-that-no-one-ever-talks-about_p22/#22 (http://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_803_22-inspiring-acts-kindness-that-no-one-ever-talks-about_p22/#22)
https://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ (https://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/)
um yeah. hey pot did you meet kettle? don't be that guy dude. it makes you sound stupid.
-
laughable considering you leftist communists pos are the ones pushing govt control over everyones' behavior
I want no gov influence on anything a rationale adult can decide for themselves, including abortion, gay rights, right to hate speech, guns, drugs etc..rationale people are rarely good because of the law, in fact the law is made to control idiots. You want to control woman's bodies, what religions are in school, christmas etc... This is projection moron, read about it, you are what you hate most. You are the failure that trys so hard in every other area to garner some self worth from your manchild frame and piss poor face which looks like it got stuck in the birth canal and has permenant forcep marks like a dented car.
We want your money, I want it all, I want the poor to have everything and do nothing, I will work for them, I want jesus back in the schools and the money to read in jesus we trust. Did you know that the ten commandments are on display in DC? I find the first few really helpful for our legal system. What would we have done without this divine inspiration?
Just lie down.
-
I want no gov influence on anything a rationale adult can decide for themselves, including abortion, gay rights, right to hate speech, guns, drugs etc..rationale people are rarely good because of the law, in fact the law is made to control idiots. You want to control woman's bodies, what religions are in school, christmas etc... This is projection moron, read about it, you are what you hate most. You are the failure that trys so hard in every other area to garner some self worth from your manchild frame and piss poor face which looks like it got stuck in the birth canal and has permenant forcep marks like a dented car.
We want your money, I want it all, I want the poor to have everything and do nothing, I will work for them, I want jesus back in the schools and the money to read in jesus we trust. Did you know that the ten commandments are on display in DC? I find the first few really helpful for our legal system. What would we have done without this divine inspiration?
Just lie down.
Are you okay? You seem to have issues.
-
I want no gov influence on anything a rationale adult can decide for themselves, including abortion, gay rights, right to hate speech, guns, drugs etc..rationale people are rarely good because of the law, in fact the law is made to control idiots. You want to control woman's bodies, what religions are in school, christmas etc... This is projection moron, read about it, you are what you hate most. You are the failure that trys so hard in every other area to garner some self worth from your manchild frame and piss poor face which looks like it got stuck in the birth canal and has permenant forcep marks like a dented car.
We want your money, I want it all, I want the poor to have everything and do nothing, I will work for them, I want jesus back in the schools and the money to read in jesus we trust. Did you know that the ten commandments are on display in DC? I find the first few really helpful for our legal system. What would we have done without this divine inspiration?
Just lie down.
whoa.
-
Don't stir up "doc".....
-
laughable considering you leftist communists pos are the ones pushing govt control over everyones' behavior
Do you see how that first sentence of the last paragraph in the OP predicted with an absolute certainty what the RAW response would be?
And how did you respond again?
-
um yeah. hey pot did you meet kettle? don't be that guy dude. it makes you sound stupid.
Do you see how that first sentence of the last paragraph in the OP predicted with an absolute certainty what the RAW response would be?
And how did you respond again?
-
All of the examples you listed could easily apply to the left.
Do you see how that first sentence of the last paragraph in the OP predicted with an absolute certainty what the RAW response would be?
And how did you respond again?
-
Do you see how that first sentence of the last paragraph in the OP predicted with an absolute certainty what the RAW response would be?
And how did you respond again?
Who gives a fuck? This thing is a complete joke
-
Do you see how that first sentence of the last paragraph in the OP predicted with an absolute certainty what the RAW response would be?
And how did you respond again?
I responded by stating a fact. The left is just as bad as the right when it comes to wanting control and silencing people who question their ideological point of view.
-
The personality scale test (The Dangerous World Test, aka scientific inquiry) shows that the extreme authoritarians are right wingers. Look at the threads on this board. That is not a stretch.
Everyone has authoritarian aspects to their personalities or else traffic lights and laws in general wouldn't work. We all obey to a certain degree. Right Wingers do it to the extreme because they are demonstrably more afraid of life in general. Couple that with their complete and utter self-righteousness which results in the acceptance of any dogmatic assertion the 'supports their side' and you have Soul Crusher and his type. Got the Libtard...Boom its obvious. In other words, they compensate for their fear with a "my shit doesn't stink' attitude.' I don't want to get too scientific here.
Now will 240 wonder why Fox has such a devoted audience that busts the ratings? Lockstep observance.
Now does it seem clear why the right wingers don't like guns, they love them? Extreme fear of everything.
Now is it starting to become apparent why every statement from the right has 'libtard', 'commie', 'pos,' in it? And what are we liberals to do? Soak up the punishment just b/c we know better? Not likely. We call names back and then that's the erroneous basis for the "they are authoritarians too" line the right spews. Like I said, we all have that aspect to our character. It's just super extreme in right wingers.
-
Who gives a fuck? This thing is a complete joke
No, it is science. And you don't like it. Otherwise, by all means, point out the joke part of the post and the source
You're a smart guy, so this should be no problem.
-
You challenge any of the lefts dogma and you're bound to get the same reaction. The left have their own scriptures they adhere to on faith alone.
-
I responded by stating a fact. The left is just as bad as the right when it comes to wanting control and silencing people who question their ideological point of view.
What fact? You merely applied the conclusions asserted to the left. Look at the supporting evidence in the second link. Extreme authoritarianism is what defines the right wing. Not all. But enough.
-
You challenge any of the lefts dogma and you're bound to get the same reaction. The left have their own scriptures they adhere to on faith alone.
By all means, start a thread to show that. Otherwise, I'll stick to the conclusions drawn from the testing in this thread. Extreme fear of a lot of things coupled with a bloated sense of self-importance results in the RAW. They are highly dogmatic and compartmentalized in their thinking, hypocritical, abusive, and ethnocentrically on steroids (that's not what you think it is).
-
What fact? You merely applied the conclusions asserted to the left. Look at the supporting evidence in the second link. Extreme authoritarianism is what defines the right wing. Not all. But enough.
I won't deny that the right fits nicely into the authoritarian model. My point is the left engage in the same type of oppressive behavior as the right. While asserting they are champions of the underclass and personal freedom they enact or attempt to enact all kinds of laws that limit what they consider to be unacceptable. This oppressive push for conformity is most obvious in academia.
-
I won't deny that the right fits nicely into the authoritarian model. My point is the left engage in the same type of oppressive behavior as the right. While asserting they are champions of the underclass and personal freedom they enact or attempt to enact all kinds of laws that limit what they consider to be unacceptable. This oppressive push for conformity is most obvious in academia.
Education is a mixture of conformity and rebellion. To learn, you have to conform to what is being taught. But you also question everything.
If you don't acknowledge that as somewhat true, then you are left with a conspiracy theory where educators are "in on it" trying to brainwash kids instead of teaching them.
We are a society of laws and regulations that define what is acceptable. That's how law works.
That's not to say there is not bad law or bad education. But we have the luxury of thinking and deciding what is bullshit and what isn't.. RAWs cut off that sort of reflective, critical thinking almost automatically unless it supports their values OR if they live through the experience: participating in class instead of holding a grudge silently in the back of the room b/c of fear of direct confrontation, or actually knowing a homosexual and not wanting that person to be treated like a second class citizen.
-
Education is a mixture of conformity and rebellion. To learn, you have to conform to what is being taught. But you also question everything.
If you don't acknowledge that as somewhat true, then you are left with a conspiracy theory where educators are "in on it" trying to brainwash kids instead of teaching them.
We are a society of laws and regulations that define what is acceptable. That's how law works.
That's not to say there is not bad law or bad education. But we have the luxury of thinking and deciding what is bullshit and what isn't.. RAWs cut off that sort of reflective, critical thinking almost automatically unless it supports their values OR if they live through the experience: participating in class instead of holding a grudge silently in the back of the room b/c of fear of direct confrontation, or actually knowing a homosexual and not wanting that person to be treated like a second class citizen.
your verbose rambling may impress some who don't seek content, only argument. not me.
-
Education is a mixture of conformity and rebellion. To learn, you have to conform to what is being taught. But you also question everything.
If you don't acknowledge that as somewhat true, then you are left with a conspiracy theory where educators are "in on it" trying to brainwash kids instead of teaching them.
We are a society of laws and regulations that define what is acceptable. That's how law works.
That's not to say there is not bad law or bad education. But we have the luxury of thinking and deciding what is bullshit and what isn't.. RAWs cut off that sort of reflective, critical thinking almost automatically unless it supports their values OR if they live through the experience: participating in class instead of holding a grudge silently in the back of the room b/c of fear of direct confrontation, or actually knowing a homosexual and not wanting that person to be treated like a second class citizen.
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.
-
Education is a mixture of conformity and rebellion. To learn, you have to conform to what is being taught. But you also question everything.
If you don't acknowledge that as somewhat true, then you are left with a conspiracy theory where educators are "in on it" trying to brainwash kids instead of teaching them.
We are a society of laws and regulations that define what is acceptable. That's how law works.
That's not to say there is not bad law or bad education. But we have the luxury of thinking and deciding what is bullshit and what isn't.. RAWs cut off that sort of reflective, critical thinking almost automatically unless it supports their values OR if they live through the experience: participating in class instead of holding a grudge silently in the back of the room b/c of fear of direct confrontation, or actually knowing a homosexual and not wanting that person to be treated like a second class citizen.
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.
-
your verbose rambling may impress some who don't seek content, only argument. not me.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
This was written by a Canadian? I'm pretty sure I don't care what he thinks.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
All of the examples you listed could easily apply to the left.
x2
-
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.
I know several smart, unassuming, friendly Canadians. They don't post on this board.
I come here for entertainment too. I agree the board does not disappoint. :)
-
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.
How does his observation change the conclusions drawn from the data? Every person has authoritarian aspects to her personality. A cross section of test subjects does not change that fact. Nor is the fact changed that the responses to the personality scale tests (and others) indicate extreme authoritarian streaks in the right wing subjects. The left wingers just don't have the same responses made by the right wingers.
You don't have to 'translate' the Bob's words. They are pretty plain. Based on the political orientation and responses / actions in the experiments, the vast bulk of right wing respondents have extreme authoritarian personalities and impulses and, as such, they are primed as tools for any sort of dictatorial type political leader. Where you see prejudice, I see an elaboration.
Does this sound like a man with prejudicial motives for the paper:
"Liberals have stereotypes about conservatives, and conservatives have stereotypes about liberals. Moderates have stereotypes about both. Anyone who has watched, or been a liberal arguing with a conservative (or vice versa) knows that personal opinion and rhetoric can be had a penny a pound. But arguing never seems to get anywhere. Whereas if you set up a fair and square experiment in which people can act nobly, fairly, and with integrity, and you find that most of one group does, and most of another group does not, that’s a fact, not an opinion. And if you keep finding the same thing experiment after experiment, and other people do too, then that’s a body of facts that demands attention.3 Some people, we have seen to our dismay, don’t care a hoot what scientific investigation reveals; but most people do. If the data were fairly gathered and we let them do the talking, we should be on a higher plane than the current, “Sez you""
The answer is most certainly, "no."
Of course Bob anticipates your objection in the footnotes:
" I have found that some people make assumptions about why I study authoritarianism that get in the way of what the data have to say. The stereotype about professors is that they are tall, thin, and liberals. I=m more liberal than I am tall and thin, that=s for sure. But I don=t think anyone who knows me well would say I am a left-winger. My wife is a liberal, and she and all her liberal friends will tell you I am definitely not one of them. Sometimes they make me leave the room. I have quite mixed feelings about abortion, labor unions, welfare and warfare. I supported the war in Afghanistan from the beginning; I disapproved of the war in Iraq from its start in March 2003.
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Communist Party, or any other political party. ...
"I hope you=ll agree that the studies were fair and square. It=s your call, of course, and everybody else=s. That=s the beauty of the scientific method. If another researcher--and there are hundreds of them--thinks I only got the results I did because of the particular way I set things up, phrased things, and so on, she can repeat my experiment her way, find out, and let everybody know what happened. It=s the wonderful way science polices and corrects itself."
That hardly sounds like a clinician with an ulterior motive to butter liberalism's bread.
-
You're narcissistic. It's not brilliance it's a mental illness.
No I am not narcissistic in the slightest, I admit my faults and my gifts like everyone. I am gifted whether you like it or not fruit, I am not wearing it as a badge of honor, it comes with many shitty issues. Particularly when I was young.
What you are having a hard time understanding is that I have a heightened sense of self, which can present as arrogance, I am self depreciating as well.
I am just stating facts guy. I did not say I was brilliant, I am not a genius, that is one step above and very few truly exist. They are the giants of the world, the trendsetters, idea creators, problem solvers, they are the best humanity has.
Intelligence is our crowning achievement, it should be held up as such and recognized as the only avenue passable if we are to avoid desolation. If we fail to progress we will slip into oblivion with creationism being the handbook.
-
How does his observation change the conclusions drawn from the data? Every person has authoritarian aspects to her personality. A cross section of test subjects does not change that fact. Nor is the fact changed that the responses to the personality scale tests (and others) indicate extreme authoritarian streaks in the right wing subjects. The left wingers just don't have the same responses made by the right wingers.
You don't have to 'translate' the Bob's words. They are pretty plain. Based on the political orientation and responses / actions in the experiments, the vast bulk of right wing respondents have extreme authoritarian personalities and impulses and, as such, they are primed as tools for any sort of dictatorial type political leader. Where you see prejudice, I see an elaboration.
Does this sound like a man with prejudicial motives for the paper:
"Liberals have stereotypes about conservatives, and conservatives have stereotypes about liberals. Moderates have stereotypes about both. Anyone who has watched, or been a liberal arguing with a conservative (or vice versa) knows that personal opinion and rhetoric can be had a penny a pound. But arguing never seems to get anywhere. Whereas if you set up a fair and square experiment in which people can act nobly, fairly, and with integrity, and you find that most of one group does, and most of another group does not, that’s a fact, not an opinion. And if you keep finding the same thing experiment after experiment, and other people do too, then that’s a body of facts that demands attention.3 Some people, we have seen to our dismay, don’t care a hoot what scientific investigation reveals; but most people do. If the data were fairly gathered and we let them do the talking, we should be on a higher plane than the current, “Sez you""
The answer is most certainly, "no."
Of course Bob anticipates your objection in the footnotes:
" I have found that some people make assumptions about why I study authoritarianism that get in the way of what the data have to say. The stereotype about professors is that they are tall, thin, and liberals. I=m more liberal than I am tall and thin, that=s for sure. But I don=t think anyone who knows me well would say I am a left-winger. My wife is a liberal, and she and all her liberal friends will tell you I am definitely not one of them. Sometimes they make me leave the room. I have quite mixed feelings about abortion, labor unions, welfare and warfare. I supported the war in Afghanistan from the beginning; I disapproved of the war in Iraq from its start in March 2003.
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Communist Party, or any other political party. ...
"I hope you=ll agree that the studies were fair and square. It=s your call, of course, and everybody else=s. That=s the beauty of the scientific method. If another researcher--and there are hundreds of them--thinks I only got the results I did because of the particular way I set things up, phrased things, and so on, she can repeat my experiment her way, find out, and let everybody know what happened. It=s the wonderful way science polices and corrects itself."
That hardly sounds like a clinician with an ulterior motive to butter liberalism's bread.
so does the author consider himself right wing or left wing? if he's for sure not left wing does that make the author himself a right winger? I can relate in that when I argue politics with my friends they accuse me of being a far right loon and when I discuss politics at Thanksgiving with my family I'm the fucking male version of Rachel Maddow.
if he can't classify himself how can he classify his test subjects? doesn't everyone lie somewhere in a range? I honestly don't think that there are too many right wingers and left wingers. the author seems to place himself above the common man in that he cans the test subjects into right wing, left wing, but the author himself is far too layered and open minded to be placed in one can or another. hmm. he's exempt from a label but everyone else is not? is he above labels?
-
so does the author consider himself right wing or left wing? if he's for sure not left wing does that make the author himself a right winger? I can relate in that when I argue politics with my friends they accuse me of being a far right loon and when I discuss politics at Thanksgiving with my family I'm the fucking male version of Rachel Maddow.
if he can't classify himself how can he classify his test subjects? doesn't everyone lie somewhere in a range? I honestly don't think that there are too many right wingers and left wingers. the author seems to place himself above the common man in that he cans the test subjects into right wing, left wing, but the author himself is far too layered and open minded to be placed in one can or another. hmm. he's exempt from a label but everyone else is not? is he above labels?
If any study is shitty enough to use the above methodology it can be casted aside without reason. If they did not define left and right and instead are based on the whim of the author then it is N=1 and inherently biased.
I didn't even read anything, but I know you are a tard so I simply will argue against you in hopes I am right in the rare event anyone is less lazy then me and actually reads everything.
-
If any study is shitty enough to use the above methodology it can be casted aside without reason. If they did not define left and right and instead are based on the whim of the author then it is N=1 and inherently biased.
I didn't even read anything, but I know you are a tard so I simply will argue against you in hopes I am right in the rare event anyone is less lazy then me and actually reads everything.
if that's not RWA I don't know what is. why are you so aggressive?
-
and Fred, don't mind Necrosis he's just an angry person. i'm honestly not trying to be a complete smartass when I asked what the author considers himself to be. its about 50% smartass and 50% I actually want to know. from what I read I don't see where he puts himself. is there a sliding scale of RWA and LWA? does he consider himself to be a RWA? I think that would actually be quite interesting from a psychological perspective.
-
If any study is shitty enough to use the above methodology it can be casted aside without reason. If they did not define left and right and instead are based on the whim of the author then it is N=1 and inherently biased.
I didn't even read anything, but I know you are a tard so I simply will argue against you in hopes I am right in the rare event anyone is less lazy then me and actually reads everything.
and you should be working on why GE and Facebook paid no taxes one year a while back. I asked you to tell me in what part of the IRC they found the unfair tax loophole. aren't you an authority on US tax now?
-
if that's not RWA I don't know what is. why are you so aggressive?
lol, I am fucking around dude.
-
and you should be working on why GE and Facebook paid no taxes one year a while back. I asked you to tell me in what part of the IRC they found the unfair tax loophole. aren't you an authority on US tax now?
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
Calm down you nancy
-
lol, I am fucking around dude.
I knew you were going to say that. all you RWA guys are all the same.
-
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
Calm down you nancy
again with the aggression. and calling someone a "nancy" is offensive to the LGBT community. stop it. I know you and all your right wing friends may find it funny. but there are real people who don't find it humorous at all.
again displaying RWA behavior. you're like the poster child.
-
again with the aggression. and calling someone a "nancy" is offensive to the LGBT community. stop it. I know you and all your right wing friends may find it funny. but there are real people who don't find it humorous at all.
again displaying RWA behavior. you're like the poster child.
I am sorry but this is such a samantha thing to say. I intend offense, offensiveness has it's purpose.
Also,
You are doing a bad job of playing this bleeding heart liberal role, the last line indicates that you don't consider the RWA's people, aka you may find it funny when I creampie you.
-
I responded by stating a fact. The left is just as bad as the right when it comes to wanting control and silencing people who question their ideological point of view.
Not accurate. Not if "just as bad" equals "exactly as bad".
-
Not accurate. Not if "just as bad" equals "exactly as bad".
What are the rates of violence among those who identify as the left versus those on the right? I honestly don't know.
-
This was written by a Canadian? I'm pretty sure I don't care what he thinks.
You are joking, right?
(Because you do know that Americans didn't write that one book that you seem to care an awful lot about, don't ya?)
-
What are the rates of violence among those who identify as the left versus those on the right? I honestly don't know.
Me neither. For all I know, it could be worse on the left, but that'd still mean that "just as" is inaccurate.
In other words, I'd not have said anything about your claim if you'd said "similar to" instead of "just as".
-
Me neither. For all I know, it could be worse on the left, but that'd still mean that "just as" is inaccurate.
In other words, I'd not have said anything about your claim if you'd said "similar to" instead of "just as".
I stand corrected. Similar to is a much better description.
-
I stand corrected. Similar to is a much better description.
Dude, I'm not sure how to deal with this new reasonable SS4U.
You feeling OK? :)
-
Dude, I'm not sure how to deal with this new reasonable SS4U.
You feeling OK? :)
I can't hide my natural inclinations. I'm a terrible troll.
-
You are joking, right?
(Because you do know that Americans didn't write that one book that you seem to care an awful lot about, don't ya?)
No I'm not joking. A disproportionate number of you Canadians are out to lunch.
Don't know what book you're talking about.
-
Dumb thread, shame on everyone who even replied (myself included)... ;D
-
No I'm not joking. A disproportionate number of you Canadians are out to lunch.
Don't know what book you're talking about.
Canadians? Whatchoo' talkin' about, Willis?
Ninja, please. I was born and raised in CA.
Hmmmm. Maybe calling me a "Canadian" is some new slang?
(Wait, it comes from BB so there's very little chance that it's new anything.)
-
Canadians? Whatchoo' talkin' about, Willis?
Ninja, please. I was born and raised in CA.
Hmmmm. Maybe calling me a "Canadian" is some new slang?
(Wait, it comes from BB so there's very little chance that it's new anything.)
Whatever you say.
-
Whatever you say.
Oh, yeah?
Nyaah nyaah, nuh nyaah nyaah right back at ya. lol
-
No I'm not joking. A disproportionate number of you Canadians are out to lunch.
Don't know what book you're talking about.
The bible?
-
laughable considering you leftist communists pos are the ones pushing govt control over everyones' behavior
You just made the thread starters point.
Your response is exactly as the article predicts. Scary, huh?
-
Do you see how that first sentence of the last paragraph in the OP predicted with an absolute certainty what the RAW response would be?
And how did you respond again?
Probably because it is a logical valid response.
-
Probably because it is a logical valid response.
How does anyone react when you challenge their value system and make sweeping generalizations about their character? They take a defensive posture.
-
How does anyone react when you challenge their value system and make sweeping generalizations about their character? They take a defensive posture.
Only if they at some point know there are serious holes in their thinking and comprehension.
Otherwise they would just brush it off.
The defensive posture is taken so they wont have to deal with the inconsistensies in the way they see the World.
-
Only if they at some point know there are serious holes in their thinking and comprehension.
Otherwise they would just brush it off.
The defensive posture is taken so they wont have to deal with the inconsistensies in the way they see the World.
It's as simple as someone feeling they are being attacked.
-
It's as simple as someone feeling they are being attacked.
And only scared people will feel they are under attack to an extent they feel its an attack on their person/character.
This study really hits home.
-
And only scared people will feel they are under attack to an extent they feel its an attack on their person/character.
This study really hits home.
This isn't true in the least. A quick anecdotal observance of human beings will tell you this. People of conviction whether right or wrong will defend themselves and their principles.
-
This isn't true in the least. A quick anecdotal observance of human beings will tell you this. People of conviction whether right or wrong will defend themselves and their principles.
Some what true but only unsecure/people with holes in their thinking will consider it an attack on their person/character.
-
Some what true but only unsecure/people with holes in their thinking will consider it an attack on their person/character.
People are emotionally connected to their ideology. They are essentially one and the same. Attack the ideology and by extension you attack the person.
-
People are emotionally connected to their ideology. They are essentially one and the same. Attack the ideology and by extension you attack the person.
Yes and that is why most people should stay out of politics.
No ideology is without its faults and in a ever-changing society, holding on to an ideology really promotes backwards thinking and is poison to solving problems.
When people consider their ideology a part of themselves its makes the task of seing things in clear perspective even harder.
In short most people should stay away from having an ideology because it makes it very difficult to see things in a clear light.