Difference between revisions of "Bob Altemeyer"

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Line 11: Line 11:
 
==What exactly is right-wing authoritarianism?==
 
==What exactly is right-wing authoritarianism?==
  
Although the bulk of Altemeyer's examples are indeed examples from US right-wing politics, right-wing authoritarianism is not inherently right-wing (Stalin's supporters, for example, were politically at least nominally left-wing collectivist, but most definitely RWA followers). The "right wing" in the term is essentially a mindset, a sort of hyperpaternalistic world view with an emphasis on stratification between leaders and followers and a definite concept of a "chain of being", as well as a generally high level of dogmatic thinking. RWAs are not necessarily low in intelligence, but are often quick to grab on to any evidence that supports their beliefs no matter how tenuous; [[doublethink|compartmentalized thinking]] is common.
+
Although the bulk of Altemeyer's examples are indeed examples from US right-wing politics, he states that "right-wing authoritarianism" is not inherently right-wing; Stalin's supporters, for example, were politically at least nominally left-wing collectivist, but most definitely RWA followers. This insistence that "right-wing" does not actually refer specifically to right-wingers makes one wonder why he put the adjective on at all.<ref>Some would suggest that this departure from usual scientific standards of precision is an attempt to [[Bullshit|put one over on somebody]].</ref>
 +
 
 +
The "right wing" in the term is essentially a mindset, a sort of hyperpaternalistic world view with an emphasis on stratification between leaders and followers and a definite concept of a "chain of being", as well as a generally high level of dogmatic thinking. RWAs are not necessarily low in intelligence, but are often quick to grab on to any evidence that supports their beliefs no matter how tenuous; [[doublethink|compartmentalized thinking]] is common.
  
 
Altemeyer divides RWAs into leaders and followers. Leaders tend to be aggressive and individualistic, while followers tend towards a somewhat fatalistic but principled acceptance as their status as cogs in a machine, generally condemning those not seen to be in conformance with the leaders' wishes. Independence and dissent are discouraged both by leader diktat and social pressure, and outgroups are frequently demonized as a further incentive to obedience to the social order. Further research (including experiments involving a nation sim, the Global Change Game) showed RWAs to be more possessive and more likely to attempt to solve problems by starting turf wars with perceived competitors (in the case of one GCG experiment, causing an all-out nuclear war on the first runthrough and creating a global resource crisis leading to mass famine when given a mulligan).
 
Altemeyer divides RWAs into leaders and followers. Leaders tend to be aggressive and individualistic, while followers tend towards a somewhat fatalistic but principled acceptance as their status as cogs in a machine, generally condemning those not seen to be in conformance with the leaders' wishes. Independence and dissent are discouraged both by leader diktat and social pressure, and outgroups are frequently demonized as a further incentive to obedience to the social order. Further research (including experiments involving a nation sim, the Global Change Game) showed RWAs to be more possessive and more likely to attempt to solve problems by starting turf wars with perceived competitors (in the case of one GCG experiment, causing an all-out nuclear war on the first runthrough and creating a global resource crisis leading to mass famine when given a mulligan).
Line 19: Line 21:
 
In ''The Authoritarians'', Altemeyer identifies himself only as a political anti-authoritarian, rather than a left-winger. His son, Rob, however, is a [[New Democratic Party|New Democratic]] legislator in the provincial assembly.<ref>http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/Introduction_links.pdf</ref>
 
In ''The Authoritarians'', Altemeyer identifies himself only as a political anti-authoritarian, rather than a left-winger. His son, Rob, however, is a [[New Democratic Party|New Democratic]] legislator in the provincial assembly.<ref>http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/Introduction_links.pdf</ref>
  
==See also==
+
==Altemeyer vis-a-vis [[Lyle Rossiter]]==
 +
 
 +
Altemeyer differs from his fellow psychologist, [[Lyle Rossiter]], in exactly two respects:
 +
 
 +
# He works for a university.
 +
# It is "Right-Wing Authoritarians," rather than [[liberal]]s, that he claims have a mental disorder.
 +
 
 +
In many other regards, they are remarkably similar:
  
* [[Lyle Rossiter]] (a right-winger who considers liberals to be inherently deranged)
+
* They both introduce personal political views into psychological analyses.
 +
* They both try to read psychological causes into behavior said to have caused political outcomes disagreeable to them.
 +
* They both presuppose the truth of a certain political view and then try to work out what warped mind could possibly not adhere to said view.
 +
* They both [[crank]]ishly insist that their analyses need to be listened to ''now'' lest the Nasties get the ascendancy.
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==

Revision as of 03:43, 24 August 2010


Robert J. ("Bob") Altemeyer is a professor of psychology at the University of Manitoba.

The Authoritarians

He is best known for a long-term self-funded study into what he terms "right-wing authoritarianism", and builds heavily on the work of Richard Hofstadter and others who studied authoritarian movements in the 20th century. The conclusions of this study, presented in a freely available book entitled The Authoritarians, are that there are a certain set of psychological characteristics shared by these "right-wing authoritarians," and that people should learn to identify these characteristics so as to avoid being politically dominated and/or popped off.[1]

The book has been updated twice since its release, with Altemeyer adding chapters on the 2008 US Presidential elections and the Tea Party Movement.

What exactly is right-wing authoritarianism?

Although the bulk of Altemeyer's examples are indeed examples from US right-wing politics, he states that "right-wing authoritarianism" is not inherently right-wing; Stalin's supporters, for example, were politically at least nominally left-wing collectivist, but most definitely RWA followers. This insistence that "right-wing" does not actually refer specifically to right-wingers makes one wonder why he put the adjective on at all.[2]

The "right wing" in the term is essentially a mindset, a sort of hyperpaternalistic world view with an emphasis on stratification between leaders and followers and a definite concept of a "chain of being", as well as a generally high level of dogmatic thinking. RWAs are not necessarily low in intelligence, but are often quick to grab on to any evidence that supports their beliefs no matter how tenuous; compartmentalized thinking is common.

Altemeyer divides RWAs into leaders and followers. Leaders tend to be aggressive and individualistic, while followers tend towards a somewhat fatalistic but principled acceptance as their status as cogs in a machine, generally condemning those not seen to be in conformance with the leaders' wishes. Independence and dissent are discouraged both by leader diktat and social pressure, and outgroups are frequently demonized as a further incentive to obedience to the social order. Further research (including experiments involving a nation sim, the Global Change Game) showed RWAs to be more possessive and more likely to attempt to solve problems by starting turf wars with perceived competitors (in the case of one GCG experiment, causing an all-out nuclear war on the first runthrough and creating a global resource crisis leading to mass famine when given a mulligan).

Politics and family

In The Authoritarians, Altemeyer identifies himself only as a political anti-authoritarian, rather than a left-winger. His son, Rob, however, is a New Democratic legislator in the provincial assembly.[3]

Altemeyer vis-a-vis Lyle Rossiter

Altemeyer differs from his fellow psychologist, Lyle Rossiter, in exactly two respects:

  1. He works for a university.
  2. It is "Right-Wing Authoritarians," rather than liberals, that he claims have a mental disorder.

In many other regards, they are remarkably similar:

  • They both introduce personal political views into psychological analyses.
  • They both try to read psychological causes into behavior said to have caused political outcomes disagreeable to them.
  • They both presuppose the truth of a certain political view and then try to work out what warped mind could possibly not adhere to said view.
  • They both crankishly insist that their analyses need to be listened to now lest the Nasties get the ascendancy.

External links

Footnotes

  1. http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
  2. Some would suggest that this departure from usual scientific standards of precision is an attempt to put one over on somebody.
  3. http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/Introduction_links.pdf