Talk:Right-wing Authoritarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 12 September 2007. The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn.


Undid edit to change word perverse back to profound as perverse, although potentially accurate, potentially represents an unnecessary POV. Briholt (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed Dr. Fred Bortz's (repeated) inclusion of a link to one of his book reviews on an unrelated subject. --Mrnorwood (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed claim of POV from article because no dispute was given for it. If a dispute exists, please articulate it here before altering the article. Briholt (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed following because both claims are not substantiated with evidence; the jonjayray link appears biased--it appears to just be a book review Briholt (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC) :

The RWA theory has had widespread acceptance[citation needed] but swingeing criticisms of it have also been made in the academic literature. See, for instance, http://jonjayray.tripod.com/alt.html

Removed the following paragraphs because it's unclear as to the relevance of this section. Also, the claim that the correlation is to be expected doesn't necessarily follow; to evaluate that claim one would need to provide more detailed statistics regarding the convergent validity of the measures in addition to a clear list of which items would contribute to this convergence, both of which are beyond the scope of Wikipedia. An alternative paragraph could mention that the overall point in studying RWA is to more clearly articulate the nature and limits of conservatism in general, and that overlap is to be expected. Briholt (talk) 06:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Since both the RWA scale and the SDO scale include many items that would normally be taken as indicating conservatism, the correlation[citation needed] between the two scales is to be expected.
(But they don't correlate very well: only about .25.)[citation needed]
Which 'they' do you refer? RWA to SDO? or RWA to conservatism? or SDO to conservatism? Briholt (talk) 06:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


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)

No, you are wrong. This is exactly what the theory states. The theory uses terms such as "homophobic" and "racist." The theory is a legitimate, academic theory. This article accurately describes the theory. To claim that describing anyone as homophobic or racist amounts to some sort of personal attack or NPOV violation eliminates the potential usage of these terms when they are legitimately needed. The theory is a real academic theory with solid experimental evidence behind it. The theory is not meant to attack people. And this article accurately and objectively describes the theory. As anyone who has ever studied free speech or libel law would know, it isn't a personal attack if the claim is true.RomanHistorian 04:41, 17 September 2007 (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)
Altemeyer makes clear that "Right Wing" Authoritarianism has little if anything to do with right or left politics. Under the theory, extremists on the left are classified as Right-Wing Authoritarians just as easily as extremists on the right. Altemeyer makes clear that traits of RWAs, such as being highly prejudiced, are not traits of right wing politics (think of Barry Goldwater), but rather of extremists politics.RomanHistorian 04:54, 17 September 2007 (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)

Wow, this whole article is nothing but hate speech that promotes a single person's bias and works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.53.122 (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is not biased. It accurately describes a legitimate academic theory. The theory is legitimate, backed up by objective experimental evidence. This article objectively describes the theory. It isn't a personal attack if the claim is true.RomanHistorian 04:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


That's rich. Especially from a person that authors a blog for the Dail Kos. A known leftist, goverernment-hating, communistic safehold. That's not biased is it??? Because that is certainly true.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.246.128.158 (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

For someone so incensed by this page, you're a perfect example of what it's talking about. Why don't you go read up on the research behind this and make an argument instead of regurgitating misinformation and making personal attacks? -205.174.62.76 19:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not denying this theory ,it is legitimate. But the problem is we don't see articles about authority problems or disorders linked to this.I ran some searches and came up with nothing.

Perhaps you could be more clear in what you mean by authority problems/disorders. As stated, I'm not sure why it's relevant to topic of RWA. also, don't forget to sign your posts.Briholt (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It is amusing that an almost exact copy of this article, titled "left wing authoritarianism" and with Ann Coulter cited drew widespread howls and was immediately deleted from Wikipedia as "hate speech" and "the opinion of one person" while this is defended as "legitimate academic theory". Just yet another reason why wikipedia will *never* be considered a valid research source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.70.81 (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/RWA--rightwing_authoritarianism

This article on the "daily kos" pedia.

Of course you wont see anything about the libertarianism "Personality disorder"

Can anyone direct me to one?

No because it hasn't been demonstrated to be a useful construct, and therefore, does not exist. Should such a construct be articulated and tested for it's usefulness, it could earn it's own wikipage and place in academic research. Briholt 20:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

There will not be one, because rejecting all authority is seen as normal behavior under the libs, I guess.

This serves as a good example of faulty reasoning to reinforce one's belief system. The best one could claim is that MOST liberals (certainly not all) would recommend QUESTIONING all authority.Briholt (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Examples of Faulty Reasoning from this page

1. incorrect inferences from evidence:

  • Wow, this whole article is nothing but hate speech that promotes a single person's bias and works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.53.122 (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is not biased. It accurately describes a legitimate academic theory. The theory is legitimate, backed up by objective experimental evidence. This article objectively describes the theory. It isn't a personal attack if the claim is true.RomanHistorian 04:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

2. incorrect inferences from evidence & 4. Uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs:

  • It is amusing that an almost exact copy of this article, titled "left wing authoritarianism" and with Ann Coulter cited drew widespread howls and was immediately deleted from Wikipedia as "hate speech" and "the opinion of one person" while this is defended as "legitimate academic theory". Just yet another reason why wikipedia will *never* be considered a valid research source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.70.81 (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

4. Uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs.

Of course you wont see anything about the libertarianism "Personality disorder" Can anyone direct me to one?
There will not be one, because rejecting all authority is seen as normal behavior under the libs, I guess.

[edit] Hostility Toward Outgroups from this page

That's rich. Especially from a person that authors a blog for the Dail Kos. A known leftist, goverernment-hating, communistic safehold. That's not biased is it??? Because that is certainly true.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.246.128.158 (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

For someone so incensed by this page, you're a perfect example of what it's talking about. Why don't you go read up on the research behind this and make an argument instead of regurgitating misinformation and making personal attacks? -205.174.62.76 19:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Examples of Profound Character Attributes from this page

4. Be absolutists

"There will not be one, because rejecting all authority is seen as normal behavior under the libs, I guess."(emphasis added) Briholt 20:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutism is listed under number 3 of the section.

actually, it's listed under the 4th bullet under the 3rd section. since the section title "examples of profound character..." is listed here, I indicated the 4th example in the category. I agree it would be better to be consistent, but I haven't had time to copy the formating.Briholt (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Examples of Blindness To One’s Own Failings And To The Failings Of Authority Figures Whom They Respect from this page

Briholt (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crackpot?

Is this guy a comedic writer? I don't understand what this is all about

Another kind of personality, the "left-wing authoritarian," submits to authorities who want to overthrow the established authorities. But (perhaps naturally) it is harder to find such people. (Source: Altemeyer, 1996, Chapter 9).

Why would it be "naturally" harder to find someone who submits to authority on the "left"? In the previous sentence the article just discussed the Soviet Union. I looked at the link to Altman's book, and it doesn't even look like a serious work.

So is this a joke page, or what?

edit: Also, the page talks about how "RWA"s want the government to control them, and have little personal freedom, whereas Socialist governments are MORE tightly regulated than Conservative. Also, how does Libertarianism fit under this? I guess this is a joke page after all.


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.173.240.130 (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The "right" and "left" as discussed in this model are merely placeholder words denoting "established authority" and "political dissidents" respectively. They are not in any way connected to their US-contemporary political meaning. A "left-wing authoritarian" would be a person who would unquestioningly follow a leader seeking to overthrow the established order. The logic behind the presumption that it would be more difficult to find authoritarians in the "left" (dissident) group is that someone who is part of a dissident movement may be quite likely to dissent against his/her own authority figures. 85.226.239.90 (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)