The Authoritarian Test

Laura said:
Yeah, what is UP with that post-modernist test vagueness BS???

Well, with this particular test, maybe the vagueness is part of the test. RWAs like their information in simple, crisp, black and white.
 
Thought I had already done the test - probably forgot to post the result.

Anyway, I scored 42.

I was kind of in two minds while solving the test, sometimes leaning towards the original meaning of the words (like "traditional"), sometimes anticipating the psychopathic agenda and answering against it.

But what strikes me is that most of the members of this forum score in the lower parts of the spectrum - which is to be expected, I think ...
 
I started skimming through the book and came across this which I thought was interesting.

You are a judge presiding at the trial of “The People vs. Robert Smith.” Evidence introduced in
court indicates that on the evening of May 23rd, a Mr. Matthew Burns (a 47-year-old, Caucasian
accountant) was walking to his car in a hotel parking lot when he was stopped by a man who produced
a pistol and demanded Mr. Burns’ wallet. Mr. Burns complied, but as the robber ran from the scene Mr.
Burns ducked into a doorway and began shouting “Stop that man!”

These cries were heard by a policeman cruising nearby in a patrol car who after a short chase
apprehended a Mr. Robert Smith, (a 28-year-old Caucasian of no fixed address or occupation). The
police officer saw Mr. Smith throw what proved to be Mr. Burns’ wallet down a sewer as he was being
pursued. Smith matched the general description Mr. Burns gave of his assailant, but Mr. Burns was
unable to identify Smith “with absolute certainty” because it was dark in the parking lot at the time of the
robbery.

Smith told the court he saw another man running from the parking lot, and then he found the
wallet. He began to run after picking up the wallet because he heard the police siren and realized how
incriminating the circumstances were. That was also, according to Smith, the reason he threw the wallet
down the sewer.

Smith has a record of two previous “mugging” arrests and one prior conviction. He was found
guilty of robbing Mr. Burns by the jury, and it is your duty now to declare sentence. A second conviction
of armed robbery of this sort is punishable by up to ten years imprisonment, with parole possible after
1/3 of the sentence has been served.

When asked if he had anything to say before being sentenced, Smith said again that he was
innocent. What sentence would you give?

Many factors would undoubtedly shape someone’s decision in this matter, even
if s/he were just filling out a booklet of surveys and was suddenly asked to imagine
being a judge. But such role-playing does create a situation in which someone can
imagine punishing someone else in the name of established authority. I’d give Smith
about four or five years of further experience with the penitentiary system, and
overall, subjects answering my survey would impose an average sentence of about
3.5 years. But right-wing authoritarians would send Robert Smith to the slammer for
a significantly longer time than most people would.

What I find interesting is that the author would give Smith a sentence based not upon guilt alone but also upon the lack of absolute proof. There is the wildest chance that Smith is innocent. In this case the probability of guilt is high but there is no absolute proof so the evidence is circumstantial. Because the proof is circumstantial, Smith is given a lighter sentence. I can't countenance that. Either someone is guilty or they're not. We can't go around pointing fingers and saying "Look there's a good chance he did the deed, but even though we're not sure we're going to lock him up anyways. Just in case he didn't do it we'll make the sentence lighter"

Thoughts?
 
Richard said:
What I find interesting is that the author would give Smith a sentence based not upon guilt alone but also upon the lack of absolute proof. There is the wildest chance that Smith is innocent. In this case the probability of guilt is high but there is no absolute proof so the evidence is circumstantial. Because the proof is circumstantial, Smith is given a lighter sentence. I can't countenance that. Either someone is guilty or they're not. We can't go around pointing fingers and saying "Look there's a good chance he did the deed, but even though we're not sure we're going to lock him up anyways. Just in case he didn't do it we'll make the sentence lighter"

Thoughts?

Requiring absolute proof vs circumstantial evidence is a thorny issue. The totally innocent person can be convicted with circumstantial evidence and the totally guilty can get off free.

Then, what is "absolute proof"? Even some "smoking gun" evidence can be misleading. One guy shoots another, throws the gun down, runs away. Man two comes running, sees the gun and picks it up. Man three walks in, sees man two holding smoking gun, this is taken as "absolute evidence." (Lots of cases like that on Perry Mason!)

Also, studies have been done to show that witnesses can absolutely lie without knowing they are lying and thereby give false evidence against an innocent person. There's a psychologist in the NW US who wrote a book about this.

Considering the way the mind can be primed and maneuvered, as explained in a couple of the cognitive science threads here on the forum, certain witness testimony can be totally useless.

So, what to do in a case like the above? I would consider several factors:

1) the history of the accused.
2) the HARD evidence that he:
a) was seen running from the scene
b) was seen tossing the wallet
3) no other person was seen doing anything to support his claims of a third party involvement.

That means that the only HARD evidence incriminates him and his history raises the probability that he is guilty and lying.

NO evidence for his "explanation" exists at all, and ALL the circumstantial evidence convicts him.

So, yeah, I'd give him a few years too.

It's exactly cases like this, writ larger, that allow psychopaths to get away with destroying our world.
 
Had I been on the jury I would have saved the judge the trouble of having to decide this, as Burns' failure to get off his moral delemma-burdened butt and positively identify Smith would have earned Smith my not-guilty vote.

Had I been the judge I would probably not have been long in the judging business; probation would be the worst I would do and for the same reason. Burns should have no doubt as to identity or no jail for Smith.

But I've worked in prisons. This hardens many people and maybe hardened me too, to some degree. But the experience really made me a believer in the Blackstone quote, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer".

I know that this view of things doesn't help address the psychopath issue, but you would certainly appreciate it if you were wrongly accused and in danger of being carted off to one of our terrible institutions for "correction".
 
I haven't read the book yet. Scored 72. After reading through the thread, it looks like it is probably smart to read the book and get a feel for the author's terminology first, before taking the test. Phrases like "strong leader" are pretty ambiguous. Strong in character, like JFK... or strong in ruthlessness like Stalin?
 
Richard said:
What I find interesting is that the author would give Smith a sentence based not upon guilt alone but also upon the lack of absolute proof. There is the wildest chance that Smith is innocent. In this case the probability of guilt is high but there is no absolute proof so the evidence is circumstantial. Because the proof is circumstantial, Smith is given a lighter sentence. I can't countenance that. Either someone is guilty or they're not. We can't go around pointing fingers and saying "Look there's a good chance he did the deed, but even though we're not sure we're going to lock him up anyways. Just in case he didn't do it we'll make the sentence lighter"

Thoughts?

At first, I will study his history. What were the previous cases and what evidences proving that he was guilty. Maybe there also not enought evidences in the previous cases, maybe he was just in wrong places and wrong time.
But what is interesting to me, that here it says that Mr.Burns was robbed by the man with a pistol and says nothing about if Mr.Smith had a gun. And if so, it's very unprobable to have both with guns people in same place. And has he a right to cary a gun, according to the law, even after has been record of two previous “mugging” arrests and one prior conviction?
 
I'm glad I'm neither part of the jury nor the judge.

In this case my interest is not about the issue of guilt but about the determination of the sentence.

It seems the author is happy to lessen the sentence because of the lack of pure proof of guilt. I don't understand how this should enter consideration. If Smith is found guilty he should be sentenced to a term reflecting the deed itself and that he has a prior conviction (an arrest where found not guilty should not enter the equation), and not according to the "strength" of the case against him.

Talking about how psychopaths or criminals in general avoid prosecution, I'm always amazed by the question of admissible evidence. Surely evidence is evidence? Surely the judge and jury can decide how much of a factor all the evidence in a case applies? By denying evidence, for or against, surely the best decision is made less possible?
 
In this case, we could do with some help from Sherlock Holmes(with his pipe of course :cool2:)

By the way I scored 51.
 
Richard said:
I'm glad I'm neither part of the jury nor the judge.

In this case my interest is not about the issue of guilt but about the determination of the sentence.

It seems the author is happy to lessen the sentence because of the lack of pure proof of guilt. I don't understand how this should enter consideration. If Smith is found guilty he should be sentenced to a term reflecting the deed itself and that he has a prior conviction (an arrest where found not guilty should not enter the equation), and not according to the "strength" of the case against him.

Talking about how psychopaths or criminals in general avoid prosecution, I'm always amazed by the question of admissible evidence. Surely evidence is evidence? Surely the judge and jury can decide how much of a factor all the evidence in a case applies? By denying evidence, for or against, surely the best decision is made less possible?


Richard,


I have found my self in the position that you are in with this issue many many times, on many different issues. Heck, I can remember as a child, my assumption of the understanding of jail was that the people who did bad things were taught why it was bad and how to behave better. When I found out that wasn't the case I was dumbfounded, as it was not logical to me at all. I mean really, what changed to better society other than that they were in a cage?


I also found that oftentimes in situations like this, often I can see a better way, in a holisitic , everything is connected to everything else kind of way, and that is held up side by side with what actually IS in my mind and the latter is found terribly lacking. I have spent much wasted time in the past being angry about what is as opposed to what could be.


But, unless everyone involved has an understanding of the world, psychology, cognitive science, psychopathy, and disorders of all kinds, along with much other data and unless the world were ordered in such a way where psychopaths are NOT in charge, then one can not expect less. For the most part, everything is decided by machines or psychopaths or authoritarian followers.No need to expect logic and reason there, lol. :D


As is, it is not black and white- nothing is really. So, the outcome was an average and application of the data applied based on the rules of the game. Remember, the good guys don't play chess, to quote the C's. Admissible evidence is a loophole that can be played in this "game". Think of a "get out of jail free " card in monopoly that psychopaths stack the deck in their favor to use.
 
engagedinattempting said:
...But I've worked in prisons. This hardens many people and maybe hardened me too, to some degree. But the experience really made me a believer in the Blackstone quote, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer"...

I grew up in an RWA family environment and would earlier have followed that line of thinking. But now I tend to ask, what is the real purpose of the "justice" system? It easy to become confused by considering what the stated purpose is. But one semester in college (~1970), I started to take an introductory criminal justice class, and while I dropped out for logistical reasons (they moved the class meetings off-campus), the reading that I did was a major eye opener.

I don't think there is any one solution to the question of how to decide a case like this. In each situation you have to ask "what is really happening here" and strive to get to the bottom of it.
 
I've been reading more about 'Authoritarians' and the certain personality traits etc. I stumbled upon this thread and test. I scored a 51. There are so many ways in which to interpret the questions (as has been mentioned), that I'm not sure what to think.
I do however, feel that I'd always 'hoped' or 'had faith' that 'something' or 'someone' would take control over this Earthly Mess and straighten it out. That was years ago. It's been awhile since I even remotely thought of such. Even then I knew logically or even deep down, that NOTHING outside could correct what was going on in the world. I had yet to find and immerse myself in The Work. Since I have, I understand to the point of no return, that it's up to me. I understand even better why I so enjoy the John Mellencamp song, 'The Authority Song'. ;D
 
i scored a 56. meh. but i could only respond with very strongly agree or very strongly disagree except for on question that i diddnt care about either way. interesting. i liked test better when the teacher did the grading though.
 
Just done the test and scored a 50 - but only after having come out with an original 96, :cry: only to realize of course I had not taken onboard the instructions correctly on how to mark the results! :lol: My Achilles heel! Technical commands. More signs of the age old dyslexia/neural developmental problems.

I have found the analysis on authoritarians most revealing; a step down from pure bred psychopaths perhaps but still a vital fool-tool thereof. As a child of one - a narcissistic authoritarian to boot - I still have much to process on this subject, but it has been immensely useful in framing childhood experiences and my learnt reactions. Despite being at war with my Cambridge don of a father for most of my life, I would still on occasion ‘proudly’ joke with my friends how he would chime that the worst day in all western civilization came when the Romans finally closed the coliseum. Perversely I would quietly enjoy the shocked laughter this invariably produced. Now I understand what that reaction in me was about, and both it and his thinking now make me shudder.
 
Back
Top Bottom