Talk:Right-wing authoritarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Explicity referring to a group as "homophobic" and "racist" with "profound character flaws" and "prejudiced beliefs" is a clear violation of the NPOV policy. DanBishop 03:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This material seems to be taken directly from behavioral psychologist Bob Altemeyer's book "The Authoritarian Specter," which is a compendium of 30 years of research into this behavior. It does not appear biased.

I think that as a general subject area, the study of prejudice is biased against right-wing people because the majority of the research is done by left-wing individuals, often radical left wing (eg Jim Sidanius is a former Black Panther). I think it it wouldn't be impossible to make the article NPOV, but too much work for me right now; I should finish my Masters thesis (on SDO and RWA) first. Ppe42 22:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've provided a cite which can be used to bring some neutrality (or refutation) into this article. Intangible 19:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The citation can be misleading, as it refers to Adorno's model, which Altemeyer rejected on empirical grounds before developing his own model, based on a subset of the factors identified by Adorno, which were the only parts of Adorno's model he could empirically confirm. I believe it's a good idea to provide it, but as novice wikipedia editor--this is my first talk entry--I am unsure about how best to clarify this. Paul Rosenberg 03 August

This argument is an example of the genetic fallacy. It is commonplace across many areas for people to study something--a disease, a type of natural disaster, a social or psychological condition, etc.--that has affected them personally, or which they see as threatening. Work must be judged by scholarly disciplinary standards, not by biography. In point of fact, Altemeyer's own work--which he explains in detail in his three books--lead to rejection of both "left-leaning" and "right-leaning" theories, if one wants to go down that path of characterization. He empirically rejected both Adorno's original model, and later hypotheses that authoritarianism was equally present on the left. However, this is not an ideological finding. Altemeyer includes information about high-RWA Communists in the old Soviet Union supporting the Communist government. Thus, it is not an ideological measure, but a social psychological one. (The same would presumably have been true of SDO, despite the Communists' egalitarian lip-service.) I have added text to this effect to the main entry. Paul Rosenberg 03 August

I have added some edits intended to make this more neutral. Your response is appreciated. I have tried to make it clear that the page is explaining what the authors of RWA theory hold to be true, rather than defining Wikipedians take on the world (which would be, of course, undefined). Opposing theories are appropriately discussed in a topic, but should not overwhelm the primary topic. Larger discussions of opposing theories would be covered on pages dedicated to them, and those pages should be linked to from this topic. Reportica

This article looks really POV to me as it lables anyone who is right of centre or conservative as racist, homophobe or conflict causing agressors (which is not the case). I think this article should be deleted or completely rewritten. The bias present in this article doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. If I hear the word Right-wing authoritarianism I think about I right-wing dictatorship, and not about a social or psychological theory. The title of this article is therefore highly misleading. --84.26.109.69 21:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the wording is a bit too much, but the ideas are spot on. Besides, as Reportica stated, these are clearly stated to be ideas from a book, not necessarily "fact." Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

RWA has been subject to nearly 40 years of empirical testing. You don't get much more "fact" than that. If string theory had this sort of confirmation behind it, there'd be some Nobel Prizes in order.

OTOH, efforts to bring "balance" into this article have introduced a lot of editorializing. That is why I have deleted the following two paragraphs from the section "Connection with Social Dominance Orientation":

The congruence between the SDO and RWA scale is however hardly surprising. Both scales are primarily catalogues of old-fashioned conservative attitudes that very few conservatives today would assent to, though many continue to display (e.g. George Allen, David Duke, Tramm Hudson, Trent Lott's Council of Conservative Citizens, support for racial profiling, etc.).

A catalogue of what Leftists believed in the 1930s (eugenics etc.) would sound equally peculiar today, however during the American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968) President Lyndon Baines Johnson purged the high-RWA components from the Democratic Party creating the RWA disparity still discernable today.

The first paragraph is simply false. Those who score high on these scales DO assent to the attitudes the scales measure. (Also, it's not "Trent Lott's Council of Conservative Citizens." THAT is careless and inaccurate wording that DOES constitute bias.)

The second paragraph is partly false, partly misleading, and partly historically confused. Eugenics was embraced by a wide range of people in the early 1900s, but I've never seen any evidence that leftists were particularly prone to support it. Johnson didn't purge anyone from the Democratic Party. Racists DID leave the party in large numbers, but that was voluntary on their part, and happened gradually over time.

I also removed the following paragraph from the "History of the RWA Theory" section, as it is both out of place, and based on a complete misunderstanding and mischaracterization of Altemeyer's work:

Detractors contend Altemeyer's approach is a rather idiosyncratic one. They point out that Altemeyer also did a study of Left Wing Authoritarians (LWA) and could find no Left Wing Authoritarians in Canada. They argue that Canadians who have suffered pernicious effects of Canada's ban on private medicine would be surprised by his findings.

LWA is an empirical construct in parallel with RWA. It substitutes support for anti-establishment, revolutionary leadership in place of support for established authorities, but retains the authoritarian submission and aggression. While Altemeyer found many people who scored over 50% on the RWA scale, he found NONE who scored over 50% on the LWA. There is nothing idiosyncratic about this. It is a perfectly balanced approach. And it has nothing to do with Canada's health care system. The author of this "balancing" passage is merely adding confusion and obfuscation from a conservative POV as "balance" for inconvenient empirical research. Paul Rosenberg 26 Sept

The criticism from Sept 9 is based on careless reading: "This article looks really POV to me as it lables anyone who is right of centre or conservative as racist, homophobe or conflict causing agressors (which is not the case)." This is simply false. The article ACTUALLY states, "RWAs are more likely to: 'Be conservative/Reform party (Canada) or Republican Party (United States) lawmakers who...'" That's ARE MORE LIKELY TO. And that's what THE RESEARCH shows. The article also notes that high RWAs in the former Soviet Union supported the Communist government. (I have just strengthed this section to make it clear that this was not just a prediction, but a confirmed finding.)

Rather than trying to "balance" 40 or so years of empirical research with rightwing spin, and creating a muddled picture of RWA itself, it would be preferrable to create a separate section discussing the criticisms--which should ALSO make it clear that these criticisms are NOT based on empirical research. Paul Rosenberg 26 Sept

Possibly including example RWA test questions and noting the high-RWA answers vs the low-RWA answers may help clear up the debate. As Paul Rosenberg previously commented, it IS (as far as I understand it) basically a test of "Both scales are primarily catalogues of old-fashioned conservative attitudes" (though in the early 1900s, those views may have been considered "progressive," as the labels seem to have flipped ideologies in the ensuing century). Thus, people who hold those "old-fashioned conservative attitudes" will score highly on RWA, a name defined by a scientific correlation, not a "liberal bias."

Starting the article with something like "People who answer affirmatively to these questions (example RWA test questions here), are considered high in RWA. The name was inspired by the fact that people who score highly on this test are traditionally hold authoritarian right wing political views (in the US, where the idea began), and is based on the correlation between political views and test scores, not any political bias." MyOwnLittlWorld - Nov 17, 2006

I agree with the folks above who defended RWA as an empirical issue. It's just a fact that this pattern of thoughts and behavior correlates on the right rather than on the left. Left-wingers can be dogmatic and biased, but there doesn't seem to be a left-wing authoritarian, at least not that anyone can find. One point I would make about this article, however, is that the correlations section could be detailed with more empirical content, rather than the somewhat vague labels that do appear POV at first glance. It would also be nice to see some rigorous referencing here. Jcbutler 16:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)