Talk:Social dominance orientation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Neutrality template

Language that makes right wingers sound like a mental disorder, should be presented more clearly as the opinion of the study's authors, not presented as undisputed fact as if the Republican Party had disbanded and requested therapy. I'd fix it myself, but I've already been reverted without explanation. Art LaPella 22:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If you read Robert Altemeyer's book, The Authoritarian Specter, you'll see that he analyzes both left-wing and right-wing authoritarians. Authoritarianism itself is a type of social deviance, and it's past due that we examined it as such. M. Bad Warrior, 11 January 2005.

[edit] For future research in re: Group-based or Individual Dominance?

(as I have no credentials or references for this induction):

Social dominance -- certain personality types (with certain things "wrong" with them) and a social variant priority in personality.

Interpersonal dominance -- the same certain personality types (usually, though possibly not completely) and a sexual variant priority in that personality.

This leads to a retrenchment "home"/castle (possibly territorial in general) dominance aligning with the self-preservational variant.

This would demonstrate why Social dominance and Interpersonal dominance do not fully align. Some Socially dominant people will be sexual (interpersonal) last - thus will be socially dominant, with a negligible interpersonal dominance -, some interpersonally dominant individuals will be social last - thus will be interpersonally dominant, with a negligible social dominance -, some territorially dominant individuals (here, I'm thinking of the game Stronghold) will be varyingly interpersonally or socially secondarily dominant in orientation.

Depending on how various social dominance scales are created, they can be measuring these instinctual variant variables combined with the base personality variables, or variables predominant to the base personality, regardless of variant - thus the overlap. --Formerly the IP-address 24.22.227.53

I've just edited this page rather intensively to pare away the speculative secondary material and focus on SDO itself--with some supporting reference to SDT. While the relationship of group-based to individual dominance is a fascinating subject in itself, the SDO scale--which I've added to the text to make it perfectly clear--has NO reference whatever to individual dominance. Hence whatever correlations appear are just that--correlations--and not challenges to conceptual meaning of SDO. SDO is what the SDO scale measures. That's what the scale is for. A separate entry on theories of dominance would be the appropriate place for this discussion to bear fruit. Paul Rosenberg 02:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attribution

Would it be OK with everybody if we started the disputed paragraph with something like "According to (name), ...", which is how most of the other paragraphs start? The literal meaning of the paragraph actually sounds plausible, but the political code words imply an attitude to the left of most Democrats. It should be treated as a controversial Point Of View, regardless of how unanimously it may or may not represent modern social "science". So is there a specific person or study that this paragraph can be attributed to? Art LaPella 02:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I can agree with your view that much of this seems like anti-right bias, because to an extent you are correct. For the record I am libertarian (neither left nor right). I've removed the worst sentence, but as it illustrates the relationship between RWA and SDO very well, I will put it back once I have a good reference. Ppe42 12:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC) (currently doing research using the SDO and RWA variables).
OK. Art LaPella 17:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I really feel like we're in the world of Soviet Science (e.g. Lysenko) where every fact is scrutinized for its political implications. There's really no question but that in the U.S.A. the Republican Party has made racial distinction (see Southern strategy where I notice Pat Buchanan gets no mention even though he is the proud author http://www.theamericancause.org/pattheneoconsandnixons.htm ; see David Duke, see anti-Civil Rights act behavior in the 60s) an important part of their identity, one that continually comes a popping out (see Tramm Hudson, see George Felix Allen, see Trent Lott). That's just what it is. There is no comparable "Us good, Others Bad" mentality on the left except arguably in various minorities. In fact, there's a fruitful area of exploration: "Us Betterism" can be seen on both sides of the political aisle except amongst whites where it is a GOP province. But once you've noticed this divide, pretending it doesn't exist doesn't help. And it's pretty easy to show a link between "Us betterism" and Authoritarianism, especially aggression, submission, etc. At the same time it's foolish to pretend that we know that MOST GOP members are racist or authoritarian. That's not what the evidence suggests, it suggests that most racist, authoritarian Whites side with the GOP.

Then we have the work of thousands of researchers refuted by reference to three papers by the same guy (Jon Jay Ray) who- -I've read the papers- -is a dolt. It's really very tiresome. And of course RWA/SDO sufferers are the premiere Wikipedia vandals. (See Right Wing Authoritarianism "Profound Character Flaws"), so you can be sure they will be climing all over these pages in the future.

Groups that create dominant people or were they already dominant to start with?

[edit] Social Dominance Theory

I have started the Social Dominance Theory article with the text of one of my essays from last year. The text kinda sucks, so feel free to wade in there and start tidying it up!  :-) Ppe42 02:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ray

I moved this from the article: 2). The Ray (1972a) Egalitarianism scale showed that people who rejected the notion of social equality were the better adjusted ones. 3). Surveys with the Ray (1972b) scale of politically deferential attitudes showed that it was REJECTION of social dominance that is deviant. When I followed the reference for 1972b, it seemed like at best fewer people in the sample held one view, and the source just chose to express this in an inflammatory way. Will someone rephrase both of these statements to seem more clear and NPOV? Dan 06:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)




I really find it interesting.