The Authoritarian Test

[mcb]

I could see different ways to interpret the questions, but I drew mainly from personal experience that a lot of the attitudes depicted really stink, with regard to their impact on other people. When you have been a direct target of authoritarian behavior for a long time you don't really want to sit down and quibble over the subtle points unless, perhaps, you are yourself an authoritarian LGBT or member of another targeted population.

My feelings were less strong about some of the non-authoritarian attitudes, which is why my score was as high as it was (36). There were also some authoritarian views that I didn't entirely disagree with, in spite of the danger I saw in them. Some of that may be because I grew up in a conservative/religious/authoritarian family and I have seen more than one side of the issues.

 

[mcb]

I just noticed that an audiobook version of "The Authoritarians," read by the author, is available from audible.com for $6 (if you are a member).

 

[mcb]

35 - but I doubt this crowd reads this test the way he thought people would read this test.

I am still catching up on the topic (and reading the book) but no, this crowd seems to have little idea of how the people the questions are aimed at would read the questions. :)

I grew up among "God-fearing" folk that knew exactly what they mean (even if they didn't). Those are the high scorers. The people who suffered at their hands (unwillingly) are the low scorers (generally). People who don't have direct experience of what the words mean would, I suppose, score in between but would not strongly agree with RWA. (Added: unless they hadn't yet found their calling.)

 

[cubbex]

Yes. I had an intense physiological reaction during my posting after reading the reply. I was shaking and actually quite scared. My question to bud was a sincere one, I have no reason to have ulterior motives towards bud but I had the distinct impression that no matter how I reply, I would end up in trouble with the usual accusations.

Luke I've been reading you since I get here, and I see in you sometimes kind of an irrational fear, or giving so much importance to things that are not relevant really, why do you need to shake?

I push myself to really use my mind to try and understand the stuff I feel is too important to leave to chance. I don't want to "believe", I want to know. And of course, I'm still learning.

Just trying to add something, I did push myself to understand "important" stuff, and I've found and realized that I won´t understand it until my heart does, and that means that sometimes that can happen 10 years after.

 

[luke wilson]

Yes. I had an intense physiological reaction during my posting after reading the reply. I was shaking and actually quite scared. My question to bud was a sincere one, I have no reason to have ulterior motives towards bud but I had the distinct impression that no matter how I reply, I would end up in trouble with the usual accusations.

Luke I've been reading you since I get here, and I see in you sometimes kind of an irrational fear, or giving so much importance to things that are not relevant really, why do you need to shake?

Hey prometeo, I have also been reading you for quite awhile and my impression of you from your writing is confident/sure atleast to the extent of not worrying to much.

I shook because I was afraid and didn't know how to deal with my fear. Why was I afraid over words? Because words for whatever weird reasons mean alot to me. And also if am to be further honest, I take disagreement as disapproval as I have to surrender my position ENTIRELY and move over to the other persons position COMPLETELY inorder for the perceived disagreement to stop since if I attempt to argue my point and atleast get to somewhere in the middle - since who is right anyways in such matters where right/wrong don't exist - depending on who is on the other side, things might not end to well for me - so it becomes a matter of, what exactly am I prepared to lose..

So in this case I was being accused of being disingenuous, but to my mind I was being genuine. So I have someone who is telling me I am not, what to do? I can say no I am, at which point I will be accused more of god knows what, then if I decide to change it to the other person, then I will all of a sudden validate all the arguments being made against me.. How to get out of such a conundrum? So I shook at anticipation of the sight of the deadly road that lay ahead of me.. I am working on it though. So far I think it comes down to a misunderstanding of the implied values and how they actually work in practise.

In a free market, any market that is just, prices are not relative. They are established by agreement of seller and buyer. The negotiation between them, or settlement of trade, establishes "fair value," legally defined as the price at which a willing seller will offer and a willing buyer will accept when neither of the parties is forced to trade. This is the reality of the free marketplace: although different people have different opinions about it, value exists only in the agreement of minds.

Socrates is trying to achieve a meeting of minds in searching for truth through dialogue with others. When Socrates says in various dialogues that there is a higher value than any individual conceives, an "Idea" with a capital "I" that is true for everybody, but that nobody really knows, he is groping toward the concept of socially-defined value. Individuals thinking or acting privately do not establish values. Doing your own thing does not express values, even in a democratic or so-called "free" society, because values are inter-personal. They are components of culture.

In the Crito, shortly before his death, Socrates finally understands that morals are what people agree that they are. How is it that they agree? People don't sign any agreement or express their consent, do they? Socrates sees that all Athenians have, if not an actual meeting of minds, an implied contract among themselves about their rights and obligations to one another.

An implied contract is a contract that arises solely from the actions of the parties, although no written or oral promises have been expressed. Example: I sit down to eat a meal at a restaurant. What's implied? I have agreed to pay for my food. [...]

Law is a market place for conduct or behavior, not unlike the economic market places for goods and services. It establishes the values of certain kinds of desirable and undesirable behavior. If you win the Olympics, the value of the act is that you get lunch at public expense for the rest of your life. (And, heroically enough, your descendants get it, too! In the golden age, a lot of free lunches were being eaten at Athens!) But you get whatever punishment the jury decides that you should get, if you make up new gods that are not acknowledged by the Athenians.

The behavioral values determined by laws are no more fixed or God-given than prices in the market-place. Your duty as an Athenian is to obey the law, but you also have the right to persuade your fellow Athenians to change the laws. Amendment through the political process doesn't make the law relative; on the contrary, it permits the law to continue to serve as the contract of the Athenians. As the legislature changes, its meeting of minds also changes, so that laws are variable over time--again without being purely personal or subjective. What you never have the right to do (according to The Laws) is to break the law, even if you personally think that the law is unjust, unfair, wrong or evil.

 

[cubbex]

Hey prometeo, I have also been reading you for quite awhile and my impression of you from your writing is confident/sure atleast to the extent of not worrying to much.

Haha we should work back to back to learn from each other.

:) I asked because I was at the beginning a lot afraid like you, trying to impress, fit, and to not commit a mistake, and I did when I tried to not. Several reasons I would find of why I did write those things, so yeah, I've found that there's no need to feel fear for something that's not relevant, no one is gonna die by a simple mistake, or misunderstanding about others' post.

This is not related to the case, but I think that if I'm an ignorant about something I would like to be aware of it instead of not.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I refer to you about the emotion felt not about the reasons of it, of course.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

And also if am to be further honest, I take disagreement as disapproval as I have to surrender my position ENTIRELY and move over to the other persons position COMPLETELY inorder for the perceived disagreement to stop since if I attempt to argue my point and atleast get to somewhere in the middle - since who is right anyways in such matters where right/wrong don't exist - depending on who is on the other side, things might not end to well for me - so it becomes a matter of, what exactly am I prepared to lose..

Indeed, I did it too, but I won't surrender my opinion, one think I've learn from the folks of this forum is to not surrender my opinion. If I see a disagreement I tell myself "Ok, we'll se", so I think about and so if I'm wrong I am wrong, sometimes it's obvious, and sometimes even if a hundred of people disagree but I can't see the contrary I won't feel that I'm wrong. One good lesson I had is that this forum is not to see who's right or wrong, or who wins or "loses", like this pathological world has programmed us, but to make to each other aware of everything we can, like the eye of RA.

Hey prometeo, I have also been reading you for quite awhile and my impression of you from your writing is confident/sure atleast to the extent of not worrying to much.

Haha we should work back to back to learn from each other.

:) I asked because I was at the beginning a lot afraid like you, trying to impress, fit, and to not commit a mistake, and I did when I tried to not. Several reasons I would find of why I did write those things, so yeah, I've found that there's no need to feel fear for something that's not relevant, no one is gonna die by a simple mistake, or misunderstanding about others' post.

This is not related to the case, but I think that if I'm an ignorant about something I would like to be aware of it instead of not.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I refer to you about the emotion felt not about the reasons of it, of course.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

And also if am to be further honest, I take disagreement as disapproval as I have to surrender my position ENTIRELY and move over to the other persons position COMPLETELY inorder for the perceived disagreement to stop since if I attempt to argue my point and atleast get to somewhere in the middle - since who is right anyways in such matters where right/wrong don't exist - depending on who is on the other side, things might not end to well for me - so it becomes a matter of, what exactly am I prepared to lose..

Indeed, I did it too, but I won't surrender my opinion, one think I've learn from the folks of this forum is to not surrender my opinion. If I see a disagreement I tell myself "Ok, we'll se", so I think about and so if I'm wrong I am wrong, sometimes it's obvious, and sometimes even if a hundred of people disagree but I can't see the contrary I won't feel that I'm wrong. One good lesson I had is that this forum is not to see who's right or wrong, or who wins or "loses", like this pathological world has programmed us, but to make to each other aware of everything we can, like the eye of RA.

So in this case I was being accused of being disingenuous, but to my mind I was being genuine. So I have someone who is telling me I am not, what to do? I can say no I am, at which point I will be accused more of god knows what, then if I decide to change it to the other person, then I will all of a sudden validate all the arguments being made against me.. How to get out of such a conundrum? So I shook at anticipation of the sight of the deadly road that lay ahead of me.. I am working on it though. So far I think it comes down to a misunderstanding of the implied values and how they actually work in practise.

Well I think the facts talk by themselves, maybe you are but because of you hooked subjective perception you can't see it, so the best way to get our of such conundrum is to let the ego go away with it's assumptions, so in the case you were right you would have enough tolerance to say "ok you were right" and have patience, wait for whatever person to find his/her that he/she was wrong it that's the case, if not, you need patience to acknowledge your mistake. Take for example the FOTCM and SOTT, that are aware of this problem about medicine and the french laws, lot of people can say SOTT is wrong and blablabla, but that won't change the truth SOTT is presenting.

So maybe yes, all it comes down to a misunderstanding,you know that understanding means an equal capacity of perception on the mental and emotional center? (I know Ouspensky wrote it different), it's hard for the heart indeed, as it is hard for a scientist to go for days to discover something and left his wife a sad and angry, but he need's her as his support as a lot of people need his discoveries, so the wife is a big part of all this. The same with the mental center when see "things" that are unpleasant like fire to the heart center.

 

[Buddy]

Prometeo is spot on, OSIT. FWIW, I still have an occasional reflex reaction to something I read. The first thing I do is allow the effect and note my feelings or the state of consciousness it puts me in (which includes the meaning that's coming from somewhere). Then I look at their post. I try to notice which of two main classifications each statement falls in: either what I interpret as them making a statement about reality (subjective perception of objective phenomena) or a statement about what's going on in their mind-space (subjective perception of subjective phenomena) and then take my time to respond.

Most of the time I find that, unless I'm speaking in a field where I have spent a lot of time, I pretty much suck at ordinary written communication (100% of communication is said to be about 10% verbal and 90% non-verbal). But that perspective is reversed here because I'm not usually speaking to people who are talking about the stuff in the subject fields that I have been spending so much time in. And even if I were, I still need to make it much simpler here because of our non-specialized readership.

[quote author=luke]
Why was I afraid over words? Because words for whatever weird reasons mean alot to me.[/quote]

Me too, and others also and for different reasons I suppose. I have the notion that imagination acts like a direct link between our consciousness and the limbic system. I can think of no reason why we shouldn't be able to have consciousness and no automatic reactions to the written or spoken word. But I can think of (read: remember) many reasons why we do. Most of the reasons relate to the "stories" that put a 'before' and an 'after' around a 'now' in order to explain the abuse we've all been subjected to in our pasts. This creates a self-contained memory or an 'event' that can be restimulated in the moment merely by simple associations. The remaining reasons involve our use of imagination to create fantasy which we can mistake for reality.

I think all the PTB "authorities" explicitly or implicitly know all this and use it to their advantage.

 

[mcb]

This is a very interesting and relevant book. If you read it, it doesn't really matter what your personal "score" is. That is hopelessly biased by the fact that you already know the context for asking the questions. The questions are an instrument for scientifically studying "right-wing authoritarianism" and the questions are being provided now to the public to help readers better understand the research. To have done so earlier could have affected the results of the research.

Other instruments are described as well, especially the "social domination" scale. People that score high on both RWA and social domination can be very scary people, and there are lots of them in public office. Part of the research was to ask the RWA questions of people in office. That's what makes this work so interesting. Somebody took the trouble to actually measure what was going on. There are some issues with the data, but it provides some pretty good insight.

For me (after reading some of Laura's comments) this clarifies what is going on with the masses. I've noticed over the years that a lot of people don't seem to think for themselves. Like "Hugh" (in the book), I was raised by two of them, and it took me a very long time to develop my own critical thinking as a result. Eventually I started to see through the lies that shape that world, but most others I knew did not. They remain "faithful" to the lies they were raised with, for life. I kept questioning things while trying to do what I was told; it was in my nature to do so. It was very uncomfortable. People with no such inclination to question didn't seem to have that problem.

I suppose now that there could be a correspondence between authoritarians (right-wing, left-wing, or otherwise) and OPs. It would make quite a bit of sense, given the lack of direction or center of so many "followers." You still couldn't play "spot the OP" with individuals, even using tests like the ones in the book. I think there are too many individual variations -- the tests show what is going on in groups of people, not necessarily individuals. You need to aggregate the scores to see it.

 

[cubbex]

Prometeo is spot on, OSIT.
[...]
Most of the reasons relate to the "stories" that put a 'before' and an 'after' around a 'now' in order to explain the abuse we've all been subjected to in our pasts. This creates a self-contained memory or an 'event' that can be restimulated in the moment merely by simple associations. The remaining reasons involve our use of imagination to create fantasy which we can mistake for reality.

Well, better to be under the radar, but spotted because of... ?

Whatever, on the lines I quoted, are you talking about the process of a trauma?

 

[Buddy]

Well, better to be under the radar, but spotted because of... ?

I was just agreeing with your overall post, especially this part:

So maybe yes, all it comes down to a misunderstanding,you know that understanding means an equal capacity of perception on the mental and emotional center?

Whatever, on the lines I quoted, are you talking about the process of a trauma?

Yep, more or less. Mostly more. :D

 

[cubbex]

:) Thanks Bud, I think I've lived a little fear I thought I did something wrong. I confused when someone says to those who came to make their way here that are spotted in other words, near the ban.

Who said the writer is condemned to live his writings? I think that person was right.

 

[loreta]

Mine is 37, is that good or bad? I don't understand. If the average is around 70 points, I am very far. But very far of what?

Loreta

 

[loreta]

I got a 67. Some of the questions were confusing. Such as the one that said aethiests were probably just as moral/virtuous as churchgoers. Who assumes churchgoers OR aethiests are moral/virtuous?

I agree. Many questions are confuse, like this one. I don't think that churchgoers have a better moral then anyone else. So how do you ansewer this question? This test reminded me some school tests, that have confusing questions to make you feel insecure. I really don't know. And I am not an English speaker. Also with the word Tradition. For me tradition is good, nothing in relation with authority, but with Nature. So I think I have to read the book. ;)

Loreta.

 

[williamsj]

Well - Engineers approach:


1 * 11 1 21 5
2 * 12 3 22 1
3 2 13 3 Total 30
4 1 14 1
5 1 15 1
6 1 16 1
7 1 17 1
8 2 18 1
9 1 19 1
10 1 20 1

Now I suppose I should read the book

 

[mcb]

Mine is 37, is that good or bad?

Yes, it is good or bad. The score doesn't matter. Read the book!