The Authoritarian Test
- Thread starter Laura
- Start date
Foxx
The Living Force
I took the test and scored a 25.
My reading on most of the questions was that they used phrases that have strong emotional responses from psychopathological media programming--ie "traditional values", "old-fashion values", "radical", "sinfulness", "proper authorities", gauging issues around sexual preference, etc. These are, of course, often used as emotional program triggers for non-thinking in american media.
Colloquially, "traditional" in america is primarily associated with condemnational morality, an adherence to the ruling authority, and the pursuit of higher economic status, not paleolithic tribalism or esoteric schools. I could easily be wrong, but I suspect this definition in colloquial uses is likely to be fairly similar in other countries, at least ones that are more closely aligned with america. Further, most people also don't recognize that most current "authority" is psychopathic in nature, so I didn't read questions having to do with a strong leader (how about a wise and compassionate leader who doesn't tolerate pathologicals/pathological behavior?) as being one who would take action against psychopathy, but more one who would quash "those uppity poor people and anti-psychopathy advocates", especially in the context of the questions. Ghaddafi could have been described as a strong leader genuinely tackling real problems, but I find it unlikely that this test was referring to him as a model associated with the description.
For those who don't give consideration to the science underlying our reality, I think the test more demonstrates how effectively programmed one is to the american "mainstream" thinking and adherence to TPTB (so this excludes most members of this forum). From that aspect, I strongly disagree with the majority of the programmed messages as implicitly suggesting adherence to a ruling psychopathic elite and their programming. But considering his use of words and their typical definitions, it seemed unlikely to me that he intended something more in line with the studies of this forum.
I certainly submit in areas where someone is wiser or more knowledgeable than myself and to knowledge that seems to be true (rather, when a belief I have or have had is demonstrated to be false, submitting to revising my thinking) and recognize that it will take "strong" leaders--in a way--to defeat the pervasive psychopathic elite, but my reading is that this test was designed to elicit emotional responses from people to get their level of adherence to psychopathic programming. If it weren't doing that, then it would take into account the rest of the data available (ruling psychopathy, paleolithic lifestyle, and reasonable behavior limitations that make responsible those who would seek to take from others in the broad definition--ie, one isn't free to pollute a river as this effects others) and use phrasing that didn't seek emotional responses from the average individual.
But, of course, this all results from how I subjectively interpreted the questions. Personally, considering the nature of the questions and (especially when one has some knowledge beyond control system-based programming) their subjective and vague wording, I didn't find the test to be very informative. I take my result to mean that I don't adhere to a ruling psychopathic elite and that it misses out on the majority of my thinking and research otherwise.
My reading on most of the questions was that they used phrases that have strong emotional responses from psychopathological media programming--ie "traditional values", "old-fashion values", "radical", "sinfulness", "proper authorities", gauging issues around sexual preference, etc. These are, of course, often used as emotional program triggers for non-thinking in american media.
Colloquially, "traditional" in america is primarily associated with condemnational morality, an adherence to the ruling authority, and the pursuit of higher economic status, not paleolithic tribalism or esoteric schools. I could easily be wrong, but I suspect this definition in colloquial uses is likely to be fairly similar in other countries, at least ones that are more closely aligned with america. Further, most people also don't recognize that most current "authority" is psychopathic in nature, so I didn't read questions having to do with a strong leader (how about a wise and compassionate leader who doesn't tolerate pathologicals/pathological behavior?) as being one who would take action against psychopathy, but more one who would quash "those uppity poor people and anti-psychopathy advocates", especially in the context of the questions. Ghaddafi could have been described as a strong leader genuinely tackling real problems, but I find it unlikely that this test was referring to him as a model associated with the description.
For those who don't give consideration to the science underlying our reality, I think the test more demonstrates how effectively programmed one is to the american "mainstream" thinking and adherence to TPTB (so this excludes most members of this forum). From that aspect, I strongly disagree with the majority of the programmed messages as implicitly suggesting adherence to a ruling psychopathic elite and their programming. But considering his use of words and their typical definitions, it seemed unlikely to me that he intended something more in line with the studies of this forum.
I certainly submit in areas where someone is wiser or more knowledgeable than myself and to knowledge that seems to be true (rather, when a belief I have or have had is demonstrated to be false, submitting to revising my thinking) and recognize that it will take "strong" leaders--in a way--to defeat the pervasive psychopathic elite, but my reading is that this test was designed to elicit emotional responses from people to get their level of adherence to psychopathic programming. If it weren't doing that, then it would take into account the rest of the data available (ruling psychopathy, paleolithic lifestyle, and reasonable behavior limitations that make responsible those who would seek to take from others in the broad definition--ie, one isn't free to pollute a river as this effects others) and use phrasing that didn't seek emotional responses from the average individual.
But, of course, this all results from how I subjectively interpreted the questions. Personally, considering the nature of the questions and (especially when one has some knowledge beyond control system-based programming) their subjective and vague wording, I didn't find the test to be very informative. I take my result to mean that I don't adhere to a ruling psychopathic elite and that it misses out on the majority of my thinking and research otherwise.
Alcarohtare
Jedi
60?! Interesting...
It's funny and interesting that some of us who have been through really hard learning experiences with psychopaths, and have then gone on to research the matter deeply, have somewhat higher scores - a bit less willing to "live and let live" when you know what is out there I think. Not to mention a bit more aware that many of the "soft" attitudes that we are taught while growing up make us - and those we love - vulnerable.
deleven
Jedi
Laura said:
I agree Laura. I am sure I would have scored much lower in my younger, rebellious and wet-behind-the-ears days. I can't say that I've really become more "conservative" as I've become more knowledgeable and more savvy which tends to reflect, score wise, in one leaning toward rigidity on an authoritarian scale if the composer of such a test fails to fathom the immensity of psychopathological influences from all directions. His own naiveté in these matters could have certainly skewed a reliable metric for an authoritarian scale.
BTW, love your new icon! ;)
Interesting physiological perspective on the human mind; I scored a 68. I'm concerned that the Conservative thinking pattern is considered a little too authoritarian. I do not equate a right wing or a left wind ideology specifically towards authoritarianism. Thanks for the test.
engagedinattempting
Padawan Learner
Score: 37
SoCurious
Jedi Master
Scored a 61.
The questions are misleading though. For instance, I interpret "traditional" to mean "honest and caring" in some instances and "close minded" in others. Guess it depends on the individual interpretation of the question. I really cannot take stock in questions that are open to interpretation. I keep wanting to ask "what do you mean by that?"
The questions are misleading though. For instance, I interpret "traditional" to mean "honest and caring" in some instances and "close minded" in others. Guess it depends on the individual interpretation of the question. I really cannot take stock in questions that are open to interpretation. I keep wanting to ask "what do you mean by that?"
