The Authoritarian Test

[cubbex]

As I see others posting more or less why they got that score I'll do the same.

Women should have to promise to obey their husbands when they get married.

Lol yeah sure.

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.

There's people just provoking chaos and destruction that may be considered free minds, but really, they are as equal as the authoritarian leaders, they are not helping they are only being capricious OSIT. But... if leaders are able to shut everyone who disagree with them, well there's obviously a problem.

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

Some answers like this one made me say "yeah whatever, don't care". There are perverts and moral people between homosexuals and lesbians. But a 0 scored 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

I think I wrote a 0. Mmm you should follow your own thinking, not because someone tells you this is "this" you should believe him or follow it. It has to be your decision to keep whatever concept you want.

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

Hell yeah.

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.

You don't have to admire no one, it's up to the person not for a law. A 0 again and a 5 because of it.

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

Well, evil is not alex jones or mahatma gandhi as I see it, evil is more like a psychopath, and why not? if it was me there should be, not a leader, but someone or some who would be in charge of getting these dudes three meters underground. No one should be in charge of leading us... but come on Laura has done a lot that would seem as taking us to our true path.

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.”

That's not true, there are people like that fun guy on the tv show two and a half men, Charlie Sheen. Or the new gurus from new age.

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

Haha LOL, why?

The only part where I get confused was this one

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.

It is talking about those who defend whales, create rebel groups, a guy with a piercing or a tatto, thos who do not accept god's word and will. Or is the book referring to psychopaths like Osama Bin Laden and terrorist?

 

[Rena]

I got a 9. This test hit a lot of nerves with me, guess I am to judgmental or something. I went with my gut reactions, did not read the book.

 

[EGVG]

I got 97!!!

 

[Buddy]

...there are some questions above wich imply following authorities like 5/16/17 and 19 osit, and if you strongly disagree you get a higher score

Shouldn't. Notice that on page 19 the instruction reads: Your answers to Items 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 22 are scored the same way (meaning the same way as you scored number 3). In the scoring portion, the instruction for number three says "If you wrote down a “-4” that’s scored as a 1."

Does that help?

 

[Woodsman]

49.

I was about to list all the questions I considered broken wrt knowledge about psychopaths, and then realized that Doctor Bob is a psychologist and probably does indeed know better, and thus was trying to design a test for Joe Matrix.

Just the use of the word, "Country" and the meta-assumptions which come part and parcel with such ideas I find problematic.

Still. . , I stubbornly answered the 'broken' questions the way I felt fit with my world view even though I knew I'd be adding large numbers to my score, even though I knew I was interpreting the questions differently from Bob's intent. However, to pretend to be Joe Matrix and to accept all of his definitions would be to in violation of the "React honestly" rule these nonsense quizzes come affixed with. If I'm going to have to pretend to be somebody I'm not, then what's the point?

That's why tests like this are of such limited use. Words carry too many definitions, interpretations and perspectives.

Regarding authority. . .

I don't mind authority it can be trusted. If there are wise people who I trust, I am willing to set aside my desire to do things MY way in the knowledge that I can learn from those who have gone before. But that's an optional kind of authority. It doesn't work if you can't walk away at any time. There are other kinds I don't mind, though; parents need to maintain authority over their children for the child's benefit. I also like the idea of being able to use the law to prevent psychopaths from destroying me or the people around me.

However. . , when psychopaths or ignorant 'system' people are in power, then authority is terrifying, and I'll do everything I can reasonably do to ignore, disobey, and oppose those rules. Somebody is putting Fluoride in the drinking water, and they are not wise enough to realize what they are doing is insane. Thank goodness there exists the option to drink real water.

The whole idea of the just and perfect society doesn't fit with the idea of souls and karmic learning. It's hard to learn without pain and disaster.

 

[Nawd]

I should have read this more closely. I'll add it up again with the second set of scoring.

 

[1984]

Mine is 60.

 

[1984]

BUT, on the question about "traditional values", I was thinking YEAH - like PALEOLITHIC! So, that got a strong yes from me!

Exactly what I was thinking when I read that. I gave it the same strong yes.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

BUT, on the question about "traditional values", I was thinking YEAH - like PALEOLITHIC! So, that got a strong yes from me!

Yes, that's understandable, but having read the book, it's clear he wasn't meaning Paleolithic when he used the phrase 'traditional values'. He meant right wing/fundie Christian values - unless I totally misread him, which is possible. For me, at least, having read the book, that's how I took it, thus my answer.

You're right. By 'traditional values', he's talking about fundie values. Pretty much all the questions are based on an authoritarian slogan, with half switched to their opposite to avoid bias in answering.

I wouldn't put TOO much stock in this test, as it's designed to do pretty much one thing, and that is to show how much a person resembles a prototypical right-wing fundie, i.e. I think it says more about those who score really high than those who score low or mid-range. For example, pretty much all fundies will say they strongly disagree with gays and lesbians being as healthy as anybody else. But for anyone else, this question is dubious at best, as people here have already pointed out. A low score on this question could mean you think that homosexuals are just like anyone else. While reading this, they might have in mind highly moral and 'good' homosexuals they know (or they might be one). But, it could also mean you're just a moral relativist who thinks "anything goes" and don't take into account the the pathology that can exist in all groups. A different test would be needed in order to tease that out.

I think the test doesn't take into account whether the slogan is based on a partial truth that has been ponerized into a pathological slogan, or is fundamentally pathological (e.g. the whole 'traditional values' thing). I also wonder if there are 'authoritarians' who don't resemble right-wing fundies, e.g. perhaps people who put a high degree of trust in their doctors, but are highly critical of religious and/or political leaders. There are probably a lot more variables involved, like IQ, education, dogmatism, conformity, suggestibility, etc.

If I answer the questions strictly based on the exact wording of the questions, and the definitions I know he's using, I score a 50. For example, I can't strongly agree with "Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as anybody else", because it doesn't factor in that some people in both camps are horrible people, and presumes a certain level of health and morality in heterosexuals. I would strongly agree if it were phrased "Gays and lesbians CAN be just as healthy and moral as anybody else." I would very strongly agree if it said, "Some heterosexuals can be just as unhealthy and immoral as some homosexuals (or vice versa)." I would also very strongly agree with "Homosexuals should not be discriminated against based on their homosexuality."

If I adjust the statements slightly (de-ponerize them?), I get a 79. I think it's a good test to learn something about yourself, but I'm skeptical of how objective it is. For example, I was pretty surprised the first time I took the test some years ago. I had assumed I would be very low (I probably would have been 10 years ago), like in the low 20s, but I found that I did believe in "traditional values", albeit not fundie ones. Without an understanding of psychopathy, I probably wouldn't have considered "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."

As for its objectivity, I think that in order to know something about why a person answered the way they did it would be helpful to have a written portion to explain their responses. For example, in response to the statement I just quoted, some people may write:

"Yes, there are homosexuals, communists, and liberals trying to make us all tree huggers who care about subhuman scum and the environment which it is our god-given right to defile. They should be rounded up and imprisoned or executed on the spot."

or:

"Yes, there is systemic corruption among politicians who are trying to institute a fascist regime that discriminates against homosexuals, people of different races. These people should be identified and tried in a court of people of conscience."

 

[Johnno]

39.

Whilst it is on a website in Canada, it seems to have a distinctly American flavour with the questions. Mainstream religion in Australia has been declining rapidly for decades and the fundy factor isn't as much of an issue here. However listening to some of the conservative shock jock stations of late, one gets a feeling that people are being conditioned to accept some "strong leadership" to sort out various made up problems..... that aren't the real big issues.

 

[Lilou]

I scored 67.

 

[Neil]

I got a 62.

There were a couple of questions I had to put 0 for, which raised my score, because I thought the assumptions were just so off-base that an answer was meaningless. The questions about atheists rebelling against religion and gays defying "traditional family values," in particular. Like Adaryn said, what's so virtuous about a bunch of churchgoers constantly begging Jehovah to accept them into servitude and spare them from his eternal wrath? And then, how are "traditional family values" defined and who determines that? Why can't homosexual couples provide such values? Why does it make a difference if these values are defied by homosexuals or heterosexuals? Why are we so obsessed with superficial labels? There were just so many different directions I could run off with on that one that I just refused to answer. Any time the words "traditional" or "old-fashioned" was mentioned I had difficulty ascertaining what exactly the author was asking. I first thought of ancient/mythological values and then I decided it had more to do with the Constitution and Revolutionary period. I decided to "moderately agree" with those since the values in the Constitution were still better than the ones we have now, even if they do subtly support elitism. Taking these grievances into account would have dropped my score about 15 points.

Hopefully you, and everyone else, are reading The Odyssey thread where we are trying to suss out what was really going on back then.

As far as the leadership thing goes, I did, "moderately agree" that we needed a good strong leader. It seems that back in the "Golden Age" a person became "King" because he was the most virtuous in the land. It seems more prescient in Arthurian legend, but you can see it in the Greek writings as well. A King had to go through various initiations and tests in order to "earn" his title. The purpose of these tests seemed to be to develop his essence and create something real in him.His survival was dependent on the purity of his will and ability to see reality as it was. After the King succeeded in these tests, he could be a just ruler because he had to make decisions and sacrifices no one else had any experience with. His purpose was to then use the wisdom that he had gained to provide an environment for his less experienced subjects to begin to climb the staircase towards greater levels of understanding.

These Kings did not seem to have absolute authority either, there always seems to be some sort of council or advisors of some sort he can network with to tackle difficult decisions. The King always seemed to have final say, because his sagacity was undisputed, but people were allowed to disagree and bring up certain points that the King overlooked. That seems to dovetail nicely with our concept of a network, and that there are no "Masters" as such; sometimes the teacher learns through his students. Another interesting point is that even though these societies had Kings and Lords, they seemed surprisingly non-hierarchical. A lowly sheepherder or even a complete stranger was treated with about the same hospitality as a King. As long as they made an effort, it was like everyone had the same value as a human being. So in terms of leaders, I think this is what we need. Not a strongman to bend everyone to some ideology, but someone strong in spirit who can provide an environment where increasing one's state of being is a relevant and tangible ideal, in my opinion. Maybe we can be our own leaders to a large extent, but I do believe some type of organizing principle is still necessary.

 

[mabar]

97 ... I think being from another country might be quite difference and jumping between the two countries was another variable ...

 

[brainwave]

Go here: http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

The test starts on page 11 of the book. Post your scores.

Mine is 63.

scored 70. Some of those questions really had me thinking. I guess I am more authoritarian than I thought though I score close to those university students. As he predicted, there were a few items in which part of the statement seemed reasonable to me but then the other part was plain objectionable.

 

[Psalehesost]

I got 36.

Tried to consider the questions from several perspectives - as Bob noted in the text, the overall impression makes the score.

So there's both "alternative" and more conventional interpretations in there.

I tended to see the questions within the context of our existing societies and cultures, since they were phrased that way (any reference to "country" for me removes all thought of paleolithic times, for instance). And these are built on pure lies.