The Authoritarian Test

ignis.intimus said:
How did you score a 10? The range of possible scores is 20 through 180.

Sorry, I intended "the lowest" which is 20, and 20 was in fact my score, but 10 was stuck in my head as "the lowest" for some reason.

name said:
Talking of salt, how much would I pour on top of your 10 points?

Don't know. I answered from a perspective I had for a long time. Probably included some "anti-authoritarian" programming as well. But like Megan's point, the test is a sort of set up, considering the author's subsequent comments.
 
Megan said:
ignis.intimus said:
...Incorrect. The test is an actual test, that has been retooled over decades to increase it's accuracy...
I did not say that it was not an actual test, or that it had not been retooled, so I am puzzled by your response. Did you read the paragraph in question?

I did and I disagree with your statement "The test will not really tell you much about yourself."

Megan said:
In general, research results of this nature cannot be applied directly to individuals, but may be able to describe something about groups if the studies are well enough designed. I would be suspicious of the author if he stated otherwise.

In general? I am talking about this test and this book specifically.

He talks about the alpha coefficient being .90 meaning that it has a rating of 90% internal consistency. This means it is a good test for what it tests specifically for. With that in mind, you would have to have a specific basis on which to criticize the value of the test itself to make the assertion "may be able to describe something". I do not understand what you mean, because to me he has demonstrated that the test does in fact describe something about a certain group of people. In fact, he argues strongly for the validity of his test, so he definitely wouldn't agree that his test fits your generalization.

From the paragraph in question:

[quote author=The Authoritarians]
Let me give you three compelling reasons why you should treat your personal
score with a grain of salt. First, psychological tests make mistakes about individuals ,
which is what you happen to be, I’ll bet. Even the best instruments, such as the best
IQ tests, get it wrong some times--as I think most people know. Thus the RWA scale
can’t give sure-thing diagnoses of individuals. (But it can reliably identify levels of
authoritarianism in groups, because too-high errors and too-low errors tend to even
out in big samples. So we’ll do the group grope in this book, and not go on the
individual counseling trip.[/quote]

He is basically saying the test is engineered to gauge the authoritarianism of groups, not individuals. In your statement I see that you take this too far, to basically mean the results are irrelevant for an individual. That they cannot be applied. Of course they can be applied to individuals, considering groups are constituted of them. The distinction is to what degree can it be applied, not that it "cannot be". Which is why the author states it's not a "sure-thing diagnosis of individuals". Key words, 'sure-thing'. That's a totally different idea than "cannot be applied" in my mind.

So your statement is incorrect, the test can (really) tell you something about yourself. For starters, it tells you the sort of people you are more likely to fit in with.
 
ignis.intimus, thanks for that explanation. It helps me better understand why I felt kind of out of place here for awhile due to a perceived and assumed classical group-think situation which is not the case in fact.

With respect to Megan's post, though, the above approach to a correction reads like Gurdjieffian "orange wrangling", or grammarians haggling over grammar. I got the sense that Megan is advising people not to take their personal scores to heart in the sense of identifying with them to the point of their edification or detriment. But I could be projecting here, so y'all can correct my errors if I am.
 
Took the test twice and scored a 65 the first time and a 40 the second time.

The mid-point of the scale is 100. I was looking through the posts of scores and noticed that the majority of them are below the national average of 90. I got curious and tallied up all the scores that have been posted on this thread and came up with an average of 55.(7532-total divided by 137-posted scores=54.978) IMHO This group would be in the “Low RWA's” which he talks about in the book in contrast to the High RWA's. I am on chapter three of the book but this is what he says about average scores in America on page 14.

“Mick McWilliams and Jeremy Keil administered the RWA scale to a reasonably representative sample of 1000 Americans in 2005 for the Libertarian Party and discovered an average score of 90.”

Canadian Introductory Psychology Students and Their Parents

“Introductory psychology students at my Canadian university average about 75. Their parents average about 90. Both scores are below the mid-point of the scale, which is 100, so most people in these groups are not authoritarian followers in absolute terms.”

This is what he says about having the reader take the test on page 15

“So I didn’t ask you to answer the RWA scale to see if you’d find true happiness and fulfillment as a stormtrooper in some dictator’s army. It’s not a vocational test. Instead, I wanted you to experience for yourself the instrument used to identify and study authoritarian followers. Most of what I have uncovered about authoritarianism, I have dug up with this tool, and now you know what it is and how it works.”
 
___ 3. Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy
the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us.

We certainly don't need anybody to destroy anybody.

___ 4. Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as anybody else.

___ 5. It is always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in government and
religion than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create
doubt in people’s minds


___ 6. Atheists and others who have rebelled against the established religions are no doubt every
bit as good and virtuous as those who attend church regularly.


The problem with this one is the as but it is clear that in the spirit of the Authoritarian it would be not as good and virtuous. So I think you can only estimate to give a +4 or let say a +8

___ 7. The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to get back to our traditional
values, put some
tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading bad ideas.

There is certainly not one only way to do anything, so the way you see what is traditional values is not important. Plus I have read the definition of the world tough, that don't realy sound good, but that is subjective.

Then there is this big point about troublemakers. Again we can see that the sentence is purly one who will have been said by an authoritarian so it seems clear that the troublemakers are us. But, I would say that even if you think that the troublemakers are the psychopathes, I would not say that I want to silence them because there is no good vs bad, the psychopathes are useful for our progress. They will not vanish if we try to silence them.

___ 8. There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps.

___ 9. Our country needs free thinkers who have the courage to defy traditional ways, even if this
upsets many people.


Even : not a big deal.

___ 10. Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the perversions eating away at
our moral fiber and traditional beliefs.


Again if you see the perversions eating... as a way of the psychopathes you will not solve the problem by smashing it. OSIT

___ 11. Everyone should have their own lifestyle, religious beliefs, and sexual preferences, even if
it makes them different from everyone else.


The only problem with this one is the world even. I would give it a +8 again. That's maybe why some of us have a total score below 20 ;-)

___ 12. The “old-fashioned ways” and the “old-fashioned values” still show the best way to live.

There I undertand what have been pointed here about our paleo ancestors. However, I think that the world « still » indicate that we are talking about something not so far, but that is not clear.

___ 13. You have to admire those who challenged the law and the majority’s view by protesting
for women’s
abortion rights, for animal rights, or to abolish school prayer.

Here the term admire is too strong. No question about animal rights and school prayer but you can be against abortion, but are we to make the choise in the place of the mother ? I'm not sure.

___ 14. What our country really needs is a strong, determined leader who will crush evil, and take
us back to our true path.


I don't see a « strong, determined leader » as a good thing, but I assume we could. But who will crush evil !? Certainly not.

___ 15. Some of the best people in our country are those who are challenging our government,
criticizing religion, and ignoring the “normal way things are supposed to be done.”


There is a couple of strong words that can puzzled me a bit : criticizing and ignoring. That's probably puzzle only me though (I can see a programme of mine arround here). Well I don't think anybody here has make big point on this one.

___ 16. God’s laws about abortion, pornography and marriage must be strictly followed before it is
too late, and those who break them must be strongly punished.


___ 17. There are many radical, immoral people in our country today, who are trying to ruin it for
their own godless purposes, whom the authorities should put out of action.


Another typical sentence from an authoritatian. However, you could see the many radical, immoral people as the psychopathes, but then who are the authorities ?

___ 18. A “woman’s place” should be wherever she wants to be. The days when women are
submissive to their husbands and social conventions belong strictly in the past.


___ 19. Our country will be great if we honor the ways of our forefathers, do what the authorities
tell us to do, and get rid of the “rotten apples” who are ruining everything.

This one is more tricky if you see the forefathers (in my dictionnary : patriarch, ancestor) and the rotten apples as the psychopathes.

___ 20. There is no “ONE right way” to live life; everybody has to create their own way.

___ 21. Homosexuals and feminists should be praised for being brave enough to defy “traditional
family values.


Here the world praised could be seen a bit to strong. And for the feminists my dictionnary says « supporter of women's right ». If we stick to that definition we would agree.

___ 22. This country would work a lot better if certain groups of troublemakers would just shut up
and accept their group’s traditional place in society.


Here you can't take the traditional place for the paleo ancestor or you will then you will not say certain groups you will say everyone (or almost everyone). Now remains the world troublemakers that looks a bit strong to let us do nothing about it.

Result : So we have sentences 7, 9, 13, and 21 that would up a little bit the score and sentences 12 and 19 that could add 8 points each. That would not be a total score above 50.

My 2 cents

Good day, forgiveness, thank you
 
The test is now a HelloQuizzy one: _http://www.helloquizzy.com/tests/the-rwa-test . (/near-same score as last time.)
 
Another link to Bob Altemeyer - The Authoritarians - RWA Test

_http://www.panojohnson.com/automatons/rwa-scale.xhtml
 
I did this for fun, not because I was interested in the results. Got a 73, I'm pretty black and white about my thoughts on things, mostly scored +4 and a few -4, I either do or I don't, not much goes on in between.. I guess I'm not a very deep thinker.. :huh:
 
24% RWA... The way the questions are worded are frustrating - I agree with a lot of the points Goemon made after taking the test. But it is interesting to see how I reacted to some of the questions.
 
I haven't seen this topic before so glad to see it pop up. I took this test a week or so ago while reading the e-book and thought of posting my results somewhere but forgot about it. I got 51, right at the average for the group that participated here.

Very good book, enlightening and thought provoking, but haven't finished it yet. There are SO MANY things to read...
 
I did twice the test, first score was 81 and later when I was at the middle of the book, I did it again having much context and, the score was 32. I think in my particular case, what I had been seeing/living in the environment, how things had "worked" here, my desire came in between, that things ought to be different, with more order, social acceptable anarchy, hypocrisy, racism, status quo is what I see every day, an I also recall a book I read years ago, which tittle says it much "Mexicanidad y Esquizofrenia" (Mexicanity and Schizophrenia by Agustin Basave) ... in which our authorities create laws that are almost impossible to comply, and they do not put the example either... so then we as society do not comply neither but presume to do so ... being lay or religious ...
 
I got a 45. I think it's a little bit healthy to have a small bit of authoritarian following traits. I can't see how it would be good to have everyone running around all willy-nilly doing whatever they want. Technically I follow authority all the time. I obey speed limits (sometimes I would like to drive faster). I could write down a ton of examples but that would be pointless.
Unfortunantly we live in a world where just about anyone with authority has pathological traits, and so following them becomes a terrible idea. If we had free thinking ethical authorities I would find myself to be an authoritarian follower to a higher degree. And if we lived in this hypothetical utopia the people not following authority would likely be the pathological self serving types. (Maybe, just guessing).
This is a good test but the results are going to vary from person to person not so much by what type of person someone is, but rather how much they know about the world.
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom