1 00:00:01,720 --> 00:00:09,800 Speaker 1: All media. 2 00:00:08,440 --> 00:00:11,200 Speaker 2: Welcome, TA could happen here? I'm Andrew Sage of the 3 00:00:11,240 --> 00:00:14,920 Speaker 2: YouTube channel Andraism, and I'm here with James. 4 00:00:15,040 --> 00:00:16,560 Speaker 1: Yeah, it's me and Andrew again. 5 00:00:16,880 --> 00:00:21,000 Speaker 2: Yes, once again. So I recently dropped a video on states, 6 00:00:21,239 --> 00:00:23,639 Speaker 2: or more pointedly, a video that sought to define the 7 00:00:23,640 --> 00:00:27,400 Speaker 2: state and its functions, synthesize its critique by anarchists, and 8 00:00:27,600 --> 00:00:32,000 Speaker 2: basically understand the ways that states fail both society and nature, 9 00:00:32,400 --> 00:00:35,239 Speaker 2: so we can let go of status inevitability and think 10 00:00:35,280 --> 00:00:38,360 Speaker 2: outside of it to realize the freedom and power of 11 00:00:38,400 --> 00:00:43,559 Speaker 2: all the people. Most people aren't anarchists, unfortunately, but I've 12 00:00:43,560 --> 00:00:47,640 Speaker 2: noticed that generally speaking, some folks are more receptive to 13 00:00:47,680 --> 00:00:51,360 Speaker 2: anarchist ideas and others just seem to shut down without 14 00:00:51,560 --> 00:00:55,480 Speaker 2: engaging with it earnestly or meaningfully. You get a mix 15 00:00:55,520 --> 00:00:58,720 Speaker 2: of those reactions in my comments, so overwhelmingly toward the 16 00:00:58,760 --> 00:01:02,600 Speaker 2: receptive side, because I mean, that's the kind of intellectual 17 00:01:02,640 --> 00:01:07,160 Speaker 2: curiosity I tried to attract my space, But the more 18 00:01:07,160 --> 00:01:09,760 Speaker 2: hostile reactions had me thinking about a book that I 19 00:01:09,760 --> 00:01:13,040 Speaker 2: read many years ago, and their video on years after 20 00:01:13,240 --> 00:01:17,479 Speaker 2: that was called The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer. So, once 21 00:01:17,560 --> 00:01:19,920 Speaker 2: taking another look at the ideas in that book, because 22 00:01:19,959 --> 00:01:23,440 Speaker 2: even though Ultimid doesn't land and any truly radical conclusions, 23 00:01:24,080 --> 00:01:26,720 Speaker 2: his scholarship, in my opinion, gets us closer to understanding 24 00:01:26,720 --> 00:01:32,520 Speaker 2: the psychology of both authoritarian followers and authoritarian leaders. Also 25 00:01:32,880 --> 00:01:35,080 Speaker 2: Rest in Peace. I found out that he died when 26 00:01:35,120 --> 00:01:39,800 Speaker 2: I was preparing this just this year in February. But yeah, 27 00:01:39,880 --> 00:01:42,200 Speaker 2: that aside. We'll be talking about the former first, and 28 00:01:42,240 --> 00:01:47,240 Speaker 2: that is what's up with authoritarian followers. Let's get into 29 00:01:47,240 --> 00:01:50,200 Speaker 2: it first. We need some context. So in the wake 30 00:01:50,240 --> 00:01:52,960 Speaker 2: of wil Wards, two social scientists sought an explanation for 31 00:01:53,040 --> 00:01:55,680 Speaker 2: the evils perpetuated by the Nazi government during the war. 32 00:01:56,280 --> 00:02:01,120 Speaker 2: Theodore W. A'dno Els, Frankel Brunswick, Daniel Evanson, and Nevit 33 00:02:01,120 --> 00:02:05,880 Speaker 2: Sandford published The Authoritarian Personality in nineteen fifty, proposing a 34 00:02:05,880 --> 00:02:10,680 Speaker 2: personality type for the fascist follower ranked on an F scale. 35 00:02:11,240 --> 00:02:15,400 Speaker 2: They particularly concentrated on prejudice within the psychoanalytic and psychosocial 36 00:02:15,400 --> 00:02:20,480 Speaker 2: frameworks of Freudian and Fromian theories. Their work was highly critiqued, 37 00:02:20,760 --> 00:02:23,560 Speaker 2: but it was also highly influential in laying the groundwork 38 00:02:23,600 --> 00:02:28,040 Speaker 2: forile understanding of authoritarian personalities. In the aftermath of Adorno 39 00:02:28,120 --> 00:02:31,520 Speaker 2: and Company's book, Social scientists will continue to tweak, develop 40 00:02:31,560 --> 00:02:35,800 Speaker 2: and expand our understanding of authoritarian psychology. Most notably, the 41 00:02:35,840 --> 00:02:39,240 Speaker 2: concept will be refined by Bob Altemeyer, a Canadian American 42 00:02:39,240 --> 00:02:43,160 Speaker 2: psychology professor, proposed the right wing authoritarian personality in nineteen 43 00:02:43,240 --> 00:02:47,880 Speaker 2: eighty one. After numerous studies, Oltimin presented his findings in 44 00:02:47,919 --> 00:02:50,920 Speaker 2: his free book The Authoritarians in two thousand and six. 45 00:02:51,840 --> 00:02:54,040 Speaker 2: I had to clarify, though right wing here is not 46 00:02:54,080 --> 00:02:56,760 Speaker 2: being used in the context of the political spectrum, which 47 00:02:56,840 --> 00:03:00,000 Speaker 2: is a concept that its own scrutiny. In this context, 48 00:03:00,240 --> 00:03:02,280 Speaker 2: Ultimate uses the word right in the sense of the 49 00:03:02,280 --> 00:03:06,640 Speaker 2: old English writ, an adjective for lawful and proper. Ultimate 50 00:03:06,800 --> 00:03:11,639 Speaker 2: defines authoritarianism as quote, something authoritarian followers and authoritarian leaders 51 00:03:11,720 --> 00:03:15,040 Speaker 2: cook up between themselves. It happens when the followers submit 52 00:03:15,120 --> 00:03:17,679 Speaker 2: too much to the leaders, trust them too much, and 53 00:03:17,760 --> 00:03:19,799 Speaker 2: give them too much leeway to do whatever they want, 54 00:03:20,120 --> 00:03:25,320 Speaker 2: which often is something undemocratic, tyrannical, and brutal unquote. I 55 00:03:25,360 --> 00:03:29,720 Speaker 2: find this definition of authoritarianism lacking, but am anarchist, so 56 00:03:29,800 --> 00:03:33,480 Speaker 2: of course I would to me if authority is defined 57 00:03:33,520 --> 00:03:37,000 Speaker 2: as the recognized right above others in a social relationship 58 00:03:37,080 --> 00:03:41,120 Speaker 2: to give commands, make decisions, and enforce obedience. Then I 59 00:03:41,120 --> 00:03:45,040 Speaker 2: would define authoritarianism as a matter of degree to which 60 00:03:45,040 --> 00:03:48,160 Speaker 2: you uphold the principle of authority. I think many people 61 00:03:48,160 --> 00:03:52,320 Speaker 2: are at least authoritarian light because that's the status go unfortunately. 62 00:03:52,800 --> 00:03:56,240 Speaker 2: But more specifically, I think the people we call authoritarians 63 00:03:56,520 --> 00:03:59,960 Speaker 2: are those which are especially invested in the enforcement or 64 00:04:00,080 --> 00:04:03,480 Speaker 2: advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of 65 00:04:03,480 --> 00:04:07,640 Speaker 2: freedom and plurality. So right wing authority and followers or 66 00:04:07,760 --> 00:04:12,360 Speaker 2: r WA's are those which overwhelmingly support the established authorities 67 00:04:12,360 --> 00:04:15,440 Speaker 2: in their society, like government officials, arms of the state, 68 00:04:15,640 --> 00:04:19,800 Speaker 2: and traditional religious leaders. In North America and elsewhere, r 69 00:04:19,960 --> 00:04:23,240 Speaker 2: WA's tend to be or other I should say high 70 00:04:23,400 --> 00:04:26,760 Speaker 2: r was because the RWA thing is a scale, but 71 00:04:26,800 --> 00:04:30,799 Speaker 2: the high r was tend to be political conservatives. However, 72 00:04:30,880 --> 00:04:34,400 Speaker 2: that doesn't mean the authority and personality is exclusive to conservatives, 73 00:04:35,560 --> 00:04:38,320 Speaker 2: not as exclusive to North America, but the scale is 74 00:04:38,360 --> 00:04:41,440 Speaker 2: definitely tailored to a North American and English speaking audience 75 00:04:41,920 --> 00:04:45,479 Speaker 2: lend into its documented issues that translate into other regions. 76 00:04:46,000 --> 00:04:48,600 Speaker 2: But with effort, I could definitely see it being adapted 77 00:04:48,640 --> 00:04:52,039 Speaker 2: to other cultural contexts as well, and as also my argues, 78 00:04:52,400 --> 00:04:55,119 Speaker 2: the concept of the right wing authoritarian could equally apply 79 00:04:55,240 --> 00:04:58,400 Speaker 2: to society with the established authorities claim to be represent 80 00:04:58,480 --> 00:05:04,040 Speaker 2: in the left. So what defines the right wing authorityian personality? 81 00:05:04,360 --> 00:05:11,480 Speaker 2: Psychologically speaking? They feature three primary traits or attitudes. For one, 82 00:05:11,600 --> 00:05:14,599 Speaker 2: a high degree of submission to authorities we perceived to 83 00:05:14,600 --> 00:05:17,640 Speaker 2: be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives. 84 00:05:18,680 --> 00:05:22,599 Speaker 2: Two a general aggressiveness directed against various persons that is 85 00:05:22,640 --> 00:05:28,000 Speaker 2: perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities, And three a 86 00:05:28,080 --> 00:05:30,960 Speaker 2: high degree of adherence to the social conventions that are 87 00:05:31,000 --> 00:05:35,000 Speaker 2: perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities. 88 00:05:36,520 --> 00:05:39,760 Speaker 2: These traits are measured with the right Wing Authoritarianism Scale 89 00:05:39,880 --> 00:05:43,680 Speaker 2: or r A scale for short. It's readily accessible online, 90 00:05:43,760 --> 00:05:45,560 Speaker 2: so I'm not going to go through the entire scale 91 00:05:45,600 --> 00:05:48,640 Speaker 2: point by point, but basically includes a mixed series of 92 00:05:48,680 --> 00:05:51,719 Speaker 2: statements that folks can indicate their level of agreement or 93 00:05:51,720 --> 00:05:55,480 Speaker 2: disagreement with statements like our country will be great if 94 00:05:55,480 --> 00:05:58,440 Speaker 2: we on other ways of our forefathers. Do the authorities 95 00:05:58,440 --> 00:06:00,520 Speaker 2: tell us to do? And get rid of the naples 96 00:06:00,560 --> 00:06:04,280 Speaker 2: who are ruining everything, or what our country really needs 97 00:06:04,320 --> 00:06:07,080 Speaker 2: is a strong, determined leader who will crush evil and 98 00:06:07,120 --> 00:06:09,839 Speaker 2: take us back to our true path. And just to 99 00:06:09,839 --> 00:06:12,880 Speaker 2: mix things up. A woman's place should be wherever she 100 00:06:12,960 --> 00:06:15,359 Speaker 2: wants to be. The days when women were submissive to 101 00:06:15,360 --> 00:06:18,520 Speaker 2: their husbands and social conventions belong strictly in the past. 102 00:06:19,600 --> 00:06:21,800 Speaker 2: As you could imagine, the degree to which you agree 103 00:06:21,920 --> 00:06:25,839 Speaker 2: or discree these statements would place you somewhere along the scale. 104 00:06:26,000 --> 00:06:28,680 Speaker 2: The lowest total possible score and ultimized version of the 105 00:06:28,720 --> 00:06:31,480 Speaker 2: test would be twenty and the highest one hundred and eighty, 106 00:06:31,920 --> 00:06:34,640 Speaker 2: but most people will hit either extreme. A sample of 107 00:06:34,680 --> 00:06:37,240 Speaker 2: one thousand Americans in two thousand and five found that 108 00:06:37,279 --> 00:06:42,280 Speaker 2: the average score was ninety. Technically speaking, high RWAs are 109 00:06:42,360 --> 00:06:45,680 Speaker 2: just people who score higher than the average population, so 110 00:06:45,720 --> 00:06:50,479 Speaker 2: it's really a relative to Also another disclaimer, in the 111 00:06:50,480 --> 00:06:54,360 Speaker 2: context of psychological studies, personality tests can definitely make mistakes 112 00:06:54,360 --> 00:06:58,279 Speaker 2: about individuals, so it's not a diagnostic tool for individuals 113 00:06:58,320 --> 00:07:01,400 Speaker 2: to determine if they'd make a good storm trooper. However, 114 00:07:01,440 --> 00:07:06,960 Speaker 2: the scale can reliably identify levels of authoritarianism in groups. Also, 115 00:07:07,040 --> 00:07:09,400 Speaker 2: keep in mind that stuff like the interpretation of wording 116 00:07:09,520 --> 00:07:11,280 Speaker 2: and fore knowledge of what the test is trying to 117 00:07:11,280 --> 00:07:15,520 Speaker 2: measure can definitely influence results. Still, this tool has been 118 00:07:15,600 --> 00:07:19,360 Speaker 2: used for most of Altemeier's research authoritarianism, so it's good 119 00:07:19,360 --> 00:07:21,720 Speaker 2: to be familiar with it. So now you may be 120 00:07:21,800 --> 00:07:25,640 Speaker 2: wondering how well does the RWA skill's measurement of submission, aggression, 121 00:07:25,680 --> 00:07:31,400 Speaker 2: and conventionalism map onto people's reality. So for submission, higher 122 00:07:31,440 --> 00:07:34,960 Speaker 2: RWs tend to believe that people should submit authority in 123 00:07:35,040 --> 00:07:38,240 Speaker 2: almost all circumstances, So they put a lot of trust 124 00:07:38,280 --> 00:07:41,680 Speaker 2: in the law and the authorities. Maybe not all authorities 125 00:07:41,680 --> 00:07:44,480 Speaker 2: in every single circumstance, but they definitely brought into the 126 00:07:44,560 --> 00:07:48,640 Speaker 2: concept itself. For the types who trusted Nixon during and 127 00:07:48,720 --> 00:07:51,640 Speaker 2: even after the War to Gaate crisis, likely the ones 128 00:07:51,720 --> 00:07:54,280 Speaker 2: in Germany in nineteen forty five who refuse to believe 129 00:07:54,280 --> 00:07:57,200 Speaker 2: that Hitler was responsible for the Holocaust, the type to 130 00:07:57,280 --> 00:08:00,920 Speaker 2: rapidly support anti terrorist initiatives, no matter to how invasive. 131 00:08:01,840 --> 00:08:05,240 Speaker 2: Throughout his research, Altimore found that higheres are far more 132 00:08:05,320 --> 00:08:09,680 Speaker 2: likely to tolerate police burglaries, drug rades without warrants, police 133 00:08:09,720 --> 00:08:14,480 Speaker 2: crackdowns on peaceful protests. Subversion via Ajan's provocateurs and so on. 134 00:08:15,320 --> 00:08:19,440 Speaker 2: As far as they're concerned, Father knows best. Their favorite 135 00:08:19,440 --> 00:08:23,720 Speaker 2: authorities are above the law, But like I said, they 136 00:08:23,720 --> 00:08:26,920 Speaker 2: don't always submit. Their blind support can be trumped by 137 00:08:26,960 --> 00:08:29,920 Speaker 2: other concerns. But most times they're not big fans of 138 00:08:29,960 --> 00:08:34,000 Speaker 2: holding officials accountable for their actions. They really don't care 139 00:08:34,080 --> 00:08:36,839 Speaker 2: if a cop kills someone in broad daylight or someone 140 00:08:36,920 --> 00:08:41,960 Speaker 2: drives through a crowd of protesters on the street. In 141 00:08:42,040 --> 00:08:45,760 Speaker 2: terms of aggression, higher wees aggress when they believe right 142 00:08:45,880 --> 00:08:49,480 Speaker 2: and might on their side. Right meaning their hostility is 143 00:08:49,520 --> 00:08:53,680 Speaker 2: authority approved might meaning they have a physical, tactical, or 144 00:08:53,760 --> 00:08:57,840 Speaker 2: numerical advantage over their target. They don't fight far, and 145 00:08:57,960 --> 00:09:00,520 Speaker 2: just like they go easier on authorities who commit crimes, 146 00:09:01,000 --> 00:09:03,760 Speaker 2: they go easier on anyone who attacks people they're prejudiced against. 147 00:09:04,520 --> 00:09:07,040 Speaker 2: But they definitely don't go easy on the people they hate. 148 00:09:07,200 --> 00:09:10,120 Speaker 2: They seek to sentence criminals to longer terms and average 149 00:09:10,320 --> 00:09:13,160 Speaker 2: And there's some of the loudest supporters of capital punishment. 150 00:09:13,720 --> 00:09:17,320 Speaker 2: And if they hate one group, bet your bottom dollar 151 00:09:17,320 --> 00:09:20,400 Speaker 2: they probably hate other groups too. You could call them 152 00:09:20,640 --> 00:09:24,559 Speaker 2: equal opportunity bigots. Chances are if they hate immigrants or 153 00:09:24,640 --> 00:09:27,560 Speaker 2: trans people, those are not going to be the only 154 00:09:27,640 --> 00:09:30,480 Speaker 2: targets of their ire. Their prejudice has more to do 155 00:09:30,520 --> 00:09:36,160 Speaker 2: with their own personality and their targets actual attributes. Still, 156 00:09:36,240 --> 00:09:38,960 Speaker 2: they don't always aggress when they think the proper authorities approve, 157 00:09:39,559 --> 00:09:42,240 Speaker 2: just like they don't always submit. They are always more 158 00:09:42,280 --> 00:09:45,680 Speaker 2: factors that play in any given situation, including a fair 159 00:09:45,720 --> 00:09:50,439 Speaker 2: of counter aggression or consequences that may hold their hostilities. 160 00:09:52,120 --> 00:09:56,400 Speaker 2: Regarding conventionalism, higher was believe that everyone should live by 161 00:09:56,440 --> 00:10:01,480 Speaker 2: the norms that their authorities have decreed. Multiculturalism, plurality, diversity, 162 00:10:01,880 --> 00:10:04,120 Speaker 2: those things clash with what they consider correct and what 163 00:10:04,160 --> 00:10:08,200 Speaker 2: they consider wrong. They usually get their ideas from fundamentalists religions, 164 00:10:08,320 --> 00:10:11,000 Speaker 2: so you'll find that higher WA's are strong advocates for 165 00:10:11,040 --> 00:10:15,679 Speaker 2: the traditional family structure, with patriarchal husbands, submissive wives, and 166 00:10:15,720 --> 00:10:19,400 Speaker 2: obedient children. They're also far more likely to support their 167 00:10:19,400 --> 00:10:24,880 Speaker 2: governments patriotic version of various historical narratives. Most interestingly, their 168 00:10:24,920 --> 00:10:29,280 Speaker 2: conventionalism even influences their response to the high RW test itself. 169 00:10:30,240 --> 00:10:32,599 Speaker 2: If they were totally average response for a statement on 170 00:10:32,640 --> 00:10:35,480 Speaker 2: the test, they were far more likely to adjust their 171 00:10:35,480 --> 00:10:38,480 Speaker 2: answers to the mean than most When asked what they 172 00:10:38,480 --> 00:10:42,080 Speaker 2: would like their own RWA score to be. Low, rbs 173 00:10:42,120 --> 00:10:44,880 Speaker 2: said they would like to be low. RWs middle or 174 00:10:45,040 --> 00:10:48,080 Speaker 2: W said they'd like to be low w's, but higher 175 00:10:48,200 --> 00:10:51,760 Speaker 2: ws said they want to be middles, not lows or highs. 176 00:10:52,600 --> 00:10:56,600 Speaker 2: Why because they tend to rank being normal very highly 177 00:10:56,840 --> 00:11:00,199 Speaker 2: in values tests. Also, just because they were to be 178 00:11:00,240 --> 00:11:02,040 Speaker 2: normal does means they don't want to be richer or 179 00:11:02,080 --> 00:11:04,920 Speaker 2: smarter than others not doesn't mean they're necessarily going to 180 00:11:05,040 --> 00:11:09,000 Speaker 2: drop their prejudices. They may get tugged slightly, like with 181 00:11:09,080 --> 00:11:11,920 Speaker 2: the somewhat decrease in prejudice against gay people after the 182 00:11:12,080 --> 00:11:17,120 Speaker 2: legalization of gay marriage. But their normal is often a 183 00:11:17,160 --> 00:11:19,839 Speaker 2: measure of what's normal in their in group. So if 184 00:11:19,840 --> 00:11:23,600 Speaker 2: it's still normal in their in group to be violently homophobic, 185 00:11:23,880 --> 00:11:27,120 Speaker 2: more than likely they will still be violently homophobic. 186 00:11:27,600 --> 00:11:30,720 Speaker 1: The conformity is the value rather than specific bigotry or 187 00:11:30,720 --> 00:11:35,240 Speaker 1: what have you. Yeah, talking of conformity, Andrew, we have 188 00:11:35,320 --> 00:11:37,640 Speaker 1: to conform to the needs of sponsors of this show 189 00:11:37,880 --> 00:11:44,680 Speaker 1: right now, and we're back. 190 00:11:45,400 --> 00:11:45,600 Speaker 3: Yeah. 191 00:11:45,720 --> 00:11:48,960 Speaker 2: So, Alse my husband lightly critiqued for rendering r W 192 00:11:49,280 --> 00:11:53,520 Speaker 2: as the dominant psychological account of authoritarianism. Of course, it 193 00:11:53,600 --> 00:11:56,680 Speaker 2: makes sense that our has been the focus, considering the 194 00:11:56,679 --> 00:11:59,400 Speaker 2: study of authoritarian personality was born out of post World 195 00:11:59,400 --> 00:12:03,120 Speaker 2: War two study of fascists. Right wing authoritarians often fever 196 00:12:03,400 --> 00:12:08,040 Speaker 2: established absolutist forms of government and weaponize that presently dominates 197 00:12:08,040 --> 00:12:13,240 Speaker 2: in hierarchy to facilitate said absolutism. But there are authoritarians 198 00:12:13,280 --> 00:12:17,679 Speaker 2: who also fever absolutist forms of government with slight differences 199 00:12:18,120 --> 00:12:21,080 Speaker 2: believe n that the presently dominates in hierarchy should be 200 00:12:21,160 --> 00:12:27,160 Speaker 2: overthrown and replaced with their own. These have potentially been 201 00:12:27,200 --> 00:12:31,160 Speaker 2: called left wing authoritarians, even though the right and right 202 00:12:31,200 --> 00:12:34,560 Speaker 2: wing authoritarians didn't have anything to do with the political spectrum. 203 00:12:34,880 --> 00:12:38,960 Speaker 2: Let's keep pushing. In chapter nine of The Authoritarian Inspector, 204 00:12:40,400 --> 00:12:46,319 Speaker 2: Altemaier conceptualizes left wing authoritarianism or LWA, as also composed 205 00:12:46,320 --> 00:12:51,480 Speaker 2: of submission, aggression, and conventionalism, So essentially LWA is a 206 00:12:51,520 --> 00:12:56,800 Speaker 2: subcategory of RWAs. He's also quick to point out not 207 00:12:56,840 --> 00:13:01,760 Speaker 2: all leftists are lws, but as he describes them, l 208 00:13:01,880 --> 00:13:06,280 Speaker 2: ws are revolutionaries who one submit to movement leaders who 209 00:13:06,360 --> 00:13:10,720 Speaker 2: must be obeyed aka submission. Two have enemies who must 210 00:13:10,720 --> 00:13:16,679 Speaker 2: be ruined from capitalists to counter revolutionaries aka aggression, and 211 00:13:16,920 --> 00:13:20,800 Speaker 2: three have rules and party discipline that must be followed 212 00:13:21,120 --> 00:13:28,280 Speaker 2: aka conventionalism. In essence, authoritarianism is psychological r ways support 213 00:13:28,320 --> 00:13:32,560 Speaker 2: the established authorities elders oppose them in favor of their own, 214 00:13:33,040 --> 00:13:38,200 Speaker 2: but the underlying dispositional core is still authoritarianism. But the 215 00:13:38,240 --> 00:13:41,880 Speaker 2: focus is on ar debas in general. Here concerning these 216 00:13:41,920 --> 00:13:45,520 Speaker 2: trade submission, aggression, conventionalism, it's clear that people with right 217 00:13:45,559 --> 00:13:49,400 Speaker 2: wing authoritarian and personalities are rather dangerous. They find it 218 00:13:49,440 --> 00:13:53,560 Speaker 2: easier to bully, harass, punish, mame, torture, eliminate, and exterminate 219 00:13:53,600 --> 00:13:57,199 Speaker 2: their victims than most people do. They're more willing to 220 00:13:57,280 --> 00:14:00,640 Speaker 2: join mobs and militias, more likely to blame victims for 221 00:14:00,679 --> 00:14:03,960 Speaker 2: their misfortune, and more likely to condemn common criminals to 222 00:14:04,080 --> 00:14:08,000 Speaker 2: long brutal sentences in jail. They seem to have a 223 00:14:08,000 --> 00:14:11,360 Speaker 2: lot of hostility boiling away inside them that their authorities 224 00:14:11,400 --> 00:14:15,760 Speaker 2: can easily unleash. So we have to ask what causes this? 225 00:14:16,440 --> 00:14:21,840 Speaker 2: Why are they like this? According to Albert Bandura's social 226 00:14:21,920 --> 00:14:27,120 Speaker 2: learning theory of aggression, aggression occurs after two conditions are met. Firstly, 227 00:14:27,440 --> 00:14:32,560 Speaker 2: some feelings like anger or envy meet us to a hostility. Secondly, 228 00:14:32,920 --> 00:14:37,080 Speaker 2: inhibitions or contextual restraints against release in that hostility would 229 00:14:37,080 --> 00:14:40,720 Speaker 2: have to be overcome. Only then can the aggression erupt 230 00:14:40,760 --> 00:14:45,000 Speaker 2: and flow. So let's discuss the instigator and releaser of 231 00:14:45,040 --> 00:14:52,880 Speaker 2: authoritarian aggression. High days are highly motivated by fear like 232 00:14:53,160 --> 00:14:55,440 Speaker 2: they have an extra dose of fair response in their 233 00:14:55,480 --> 00:14:58,440 Speaker 2: genes more than most people. They probably learn to be 234 00:14:58,480 --> 00:15:04,280 Speaker 2: fearful from their parents about all kinds of things you know, radicals, atheists, kidnappers, 235 00:15:04,360 --> 00:15:06,920 Speaker 2: queer people, et cetera, et cetera. They grew up in 236 00:15:06,960 --> 00:15:09,440 Speaker 2: a scarier world than modes, which is probably why they 237 00:15:09,440 --> 00:15:13,480 Speaker 2: tend to score so highly on the Dangerous World scale. 238 00:15:13,680 --> 00:15:17,880 Speaker 2: That scale, like previous scales, provides statements and measures levels 239 00:15:17,880 --> 00:15:20,960 Speaker 2: of agreement or disagreement with stuff like quote. If our 240 00:15:21,000 --> 00:15:23,800 Speaker 2: society keeps degenerating the way it has been lately, it's 241 00:15:23,840 --> 00:15:26,320 Speaker 2: liable to collapse like a rotten dog, and everything will 242 00:15:26,320 --> 00:15:30,160 Speaker 2: be chaos and quote any d now, chaos and anarchy 243 00:15:30,160 --> 00:15:32,880 Speaker 2: could erupt around us. All the signs are pointing to it, 244 00:15:33,440 --> 00:15:37,600 Speaker 2: and code everything to them is a sign of the times. 245 00:15:37,840 --> 00:15:41,800 Speaker 2: A perversion corrupt in society in peaceful times and in 246 00:15:41,840 --> 00:15:46,760 Speaker 2: generally dangerous ones. Hired luys feel threatened. But what releases 247 00:15:46,800 --> 00:15:50,200 Speaker 2: that aggressive impulse to act? Also, I have found, more 248 00:15:50,240 --> 00:15:55,400 Speaker 2: than anything else self righteousness. Of course, almost everyone thinks 249 00:15:55,440 --> 00:15:58,880 Speaker 2: they're a bit more moral than average, but higher luys 250 00:15:59,400 --> 00:16:02,120 Speaker 2: they tend to think they're the holy ones, the chosen, 251 00:16:02,400 --> 00:16:08,440 Speaker 2: the righteous. That empowers them to isolate, segregate, humiliate, persecute, harass, 252 00:16:08,600 --> 00:16:13,280 Speaker 2: beat and kill. That self righteousness, combine with their high 253 00:16:13,280 --> 00:16:17,160 Speaker 2: scores on the dangerous world scale, is what empowers their prejudice, 254 00:16:17,280 --> 00:16:20,600 Speaker 2: their heavy handedness, their means spiritedness, and their eagerness to 255 00:16:20,680 --> 00:16:26,880 Speaker 2: crusade against the other. So how do high ars become 256 00:16:27,040 --> 00:16:32,720 Speaker 2: high ws? Are they born that way? Possibly? Do their 257 00:16:32,760 --> 00:16:36,960 Speaker 2: parents make them that way? Somewhat but not completely? See 258 00:16:37,000 --> 00:16:45,200 Speaker 2: no one's a complete cobon copy of their parents. It's 259 00:16:45,240 --> 00:16:50,560 Speaker 2: what determines a person's position on the art of wa experience. 260 00:16:51,800 --> 00:16:54,680 Speaker 2: Our life experiences teach us lessons that our parents and 261 00:16:54,720 --> 00:16:58,640 Speaker 2: payers may not. Our experiences with authorities shape or perception 262 00:16:58,680 --> 00:17:02,640 Speaker 2: of authority. Especially when someone hits adolescence, they tend to 263 00:17:02,720 --> 00:17:06,480 Speaker 2: chafe against authority, even if they submitted to authority as children. 264 00:17:07,160 --> 00:17:11,440 Speaker 2: Those hormonal urges, desires for astronomy and new experiences could 265 00:17:11,480 --> 00:17:17,040 Speaker 2: shake up their early lessons completely. Experiences could either end 266 00:17:17,119 --> 00:17:22,040 Speaker 2: up reinforcing their authorities teachings or contradicting them entirely. Naturally, 267 00:17:22,119 --> 00:17:25,400 Speaker 2: it's easier for kids from authoritarian homes to remain authoritarian 268 00:17:25,640 --> 00:17:30,159 Speaker 2: and vice versa, but ultimately experiences do most of the shape. 269 00:17:30,640 --> 00:17:33,520 Speaker 2: Middle r was have some mix of experiences and upbringing 270 00:17:33,840 --> 00:17:37,520 Speaker 2: that keeps them in the middle. When it comes to 271 00:17:37,600 --> 00:17:42,879 Speaker 2: Higher was, their experiences were probably very controlled. Authoritarian followers 272 00:17:42,960 --> 00:17:46,600 Speaker 2: usually live in a homogeneous bubble of patriotic traditional people, 273 00:17:47,200 --> 00:17:50,360 Speaker 2: an echo chamber apart from the evils of the world, 274 00:17:50,600 --> 00:17:53,440 Speaker 2: safely kept on a short leash for most of their lives. 275 00:17:54,160 --> 00:17:57,760 Speaker 2: But there's hope yet. Otomi's research has shown that higher 276 00:17:57,880 --> 00:18:02,240 Speaker 2: was can change if they have some life experiences. That's 277 00:18:02,240 --> 00:18:04,800 Speaker 2: why university can be such a game change of people. 278 00:18:05,640 --> 00:18:10,520 Speaker 2: It's just meeting new people, leaving that small, enclosed world 279 00:18:10,640 --> 00:18:14,600 Speaker 2: and developing relationships with people of different walks of life, 280 00:18:14,760 --> 00:18:18,520 Speaker 2: and that makes a big difference. There are a couple 281 00:18:18,520 --> 00:18:23,359 Speaker 2: of traits that make Higher Ways such good followers for 282 00:18:23,440 --> 00:18:28,720 Speaker 2: would be dictators. In short, those traits are illogical thinking, 283 00:18:29,280 --> 00:18:35,360 Speaker 2: highly compartmentalized, minds, double standards, hypocrisy, a lack of self awareness, ethnocentrism, 284 00:18:35,640 --> 00:18:43,159 Speaker 2: dogmatism in long will consider syllogism. All fish live in 285 00:18:43,200 --> 00:18:49,320 Speaker 2: the sea, sharks live in the sea. Therefore sharks are fish. 286 00:18:49,640 --> 00:18:54,760 Speaker 2: Logically speaking, the conclusion doesn't follow. Even if sharks are fish, 287 00:18:54,960 --> 00:18:59,240 Speaker 2: and they are the premises don't support the conclusion. But 288 00:18:59,280 --> 00:19:01,919 Speaker 2: if higher w were asked if the reasoning was correct, 289 00:19:02,440 --> 00:19:04,480 Speaker 2: they were more likely than most to say that it was. 290 00:19:05,560 --> 00:19:11,160 Speaker 2: When asked why, they'd answer because sharks are fish, in essence, 291 00:19:11,520 --> 00:19:15,600 Speaker 2: because they agreed with the conclusion they assumed for reasoning 292 00:19:15,760 --> 00:19:19,280 Speaker 2: was right. That simple test shows that if authority and 293 00:19:19,280 --> 00:19:24,719 Speaker 2: followers like the conclusion, the logic involved is fairly irrelevant. 294 00:19:25,440 --> 00:19:28,040 Speaker 2: Reasoning is what should justify the conclusion, but as far 295 00:19:28,040 --> 00:19:33,560 Speaker 2: as they're concerned, the conclusion validates the reasoning. Of course, 296 00:19:33,800 --> 00:19:36,280 Speaker 2: let me not overstate a lot of people have trouble 297 00:19:36,320 --> 00:19:40,240 Speaker 2: with logistic reasoning. Higher was just happened to be slightly 298 00:19:40,320 --> 00:19:44,160 Speaker 2: more likely to make such mistakes, But higher WA's generally 299 00:19:44,200 --> 00:19:46,359 Speaker 2: have more trouble than most people do realize in a 300 00:19:46,440 --> 00:19:49,640 Speaker 2: conclusion as false. They have a harder time determine whether 301 00:19:49,680 --> 00:19:53,840 Speaker 2: empirical evidence proves or doesn't prove something. They more easily 302 00:19:53,880 --> 00:19:57,639 Speaker 2: fill gaps in science with supernatural forces, and they have 303 00:19:57,680 --> 00:20:00,840 Speaker 2: trouble being critical of anything unless they already gotten their 304 00:20:00,880 --> 00:20:06,800 Speaker 2: talking points from their authorities. Regarding the highly compartmentalized minds, 305 00:20:07,080 --> 00:20:10,679 Speaker 2: I mean, we all have some inconsistencies not thinking, but 306 00:20:11,040 --> 00:20:13,960 Speaker 2: their minds as be like oil and water. One second 307 00:20:13,960 --> 00:20:16,159 Speaker 2: they say in free speech, next they say in ban 308 00:20:16,359 --> 00:20:19,800 Speaker 2: critical race theory. One moment they're talking about individual freedom, 309 00:20:19,840 --> 00:20:22,399 Speaker 2: and next their basically throat in the boots of the state. 310 00:20:23,480 --> 00:20:26,200 Speaker 2: They don't merge files in their brain to really see 311 00:20:26,200 --> 00:20:29,080 Speaker 2: what fits. They centily just pick up whatever their demogogues 312 00:20:29,200 --> 00:20:33,119 Speaker 2: are saying. And if your mind is such a massive contradiction, 313 00:20:33,320 --> 00:20:34,480 Speaker 2: so you're going to end up with a lot of 314 00:20:34,520 --> 00:20:38,000 Speaker 2: double standards easily justify for whatever idea you hold, it's 315 00:20:38,040 --> 00:20:43,680 Speaker 2: most convenient in the moment. Principles are really irrelevant. Keep 316 00:20:43,680 --> 00:20:45,639 Speaker 2: in mind the excuses they make for those in power 317 00:20:45,720 --> 00:20:49,240 Speaker 2: and how hard they are in victims. Classic example is 318 00:20:49,240 --> 00:20:51,160 Speaker 2: the difference between how they treat a prisoner who beats 319 00:20:51,240 --> 00:20:53,919 Speaker 2: up another prisoner versus a police officer who beats up 320 00:20:53,920 --> 00:20:56,600 Speaker 2: a prisoner. The d de B is usually don't have 321 00:20:56,680 --> 00:21:02,480 Speaker 2: such stark double standards hypocrisy. I'm going to keep using 322 00:21:02,480 --> 00:21:05,760 Speaker 2: this example because you know it's still somewhat topical critical 323 00:21:05,880 --> 00:21:09,000 Speaker 2: race theory. As much as authoritarians accuse the left of 324 00:21:09,040 --> 00:21:12,680 Speaker 2: being anti free speech politically correct types, RBA is a 325 00:21:12,800 --> 00:21:15,680 Speaker 2: far more likely to report a desire to censor ideas 326 00:21:15,720 --> 00:21:18,760 Speaker 2: they don't like. This is also because they tend to 327 00:21:18,840 --> 00:21:22,159 Speaker 2: lack basic self awareness. If presented with a list of 328 00:21:22,160 --> 00:21:24,679 Speaker 2: things right between, authoritarians are likely to do like be 329 00:21:24,760 --> 00:21:27,520 Speaker 2: prejudiced to conform us, et cetera, and then ask how 330 00:21:27,560 --> 00:21:29,879 Speaker 2: true it is of themselves compared to most other people. 331 00:21:30,320 --> 00:21:33,120 Speaker 2: They really have no idea how different they actually are, 332 00:21:33,640 --> 00:21:35,879 Speaker 2: and that's partially because of the bubble they tend to 333 00:21:35,920 --> 00:21:40,040 Speaker 2: exist in. Us versus them is a very hard line 334 00:21:40,040 --> 00:21:43,359 Speaker 2: in the sand for authoritarians. Humans as a whole do 335 00:21:43,520 --> 00:21:47,159 Speaker 2: have a tendency sometimes to fall into tribal patterns of thinking, 336 00:21:47,920 --> 00:21:51,280 Speaker 2: but authoritarians see the world far more sharply in terms 337 00:21:51,320 --> 00:21:54,320 Speaker 2: of their in groups and our groups. And most we 338 00:21:54,359 --> 00:21:56,439 Speaker 2: do tend to associate with people who agree with us 339 00:21:56,440 --> 00:21:59,479 Speaker 2: in many issues, but authoritarians really do stick to their 340 00:21:59,480 --> 00:22:04,960 Speaker 2: bubble and ethnocentric reinforcement. That's why they don't realize how presudiced, 341 00:22:05,080 --> 00:22:08,040 Speaker 2: or aggressive or submissive they are to compare to most people. 342 00:22:09,320 --> 00:22:12,760 Speaker 2: By avoiding challenges to their beliefs and holding faster their authorities, 343 00:22:13,240 --> 00:22:16,280 Speaker 2: they remain stuck in a circular logic of I'm right 344 00:22:16,480 --> 00:22:20,120 Speaker 2: because the people I agree with say I'm right. Finally, 345 00:22:20,280 --> 00:22:25,919 Speaker 2: in terms of dogmatism, higher was holds a unchangeable, unjustified certainty, 346 00:22:26,760 --> 00:22:30,440 Speaker 2: righteousness beyond a shadow of a doubt. They're more likely 347 00:22:30,480 --> 00:22:33,040 Speaker 2: than most people to agree with statements like the things 348 00:22:33,080 --> 00:22:35,560 Speaker 2: I believe in are so completely true, I could never 349 00:22:35,600 --> 00:22:38,680 Speaker 2: doubt them, and there are no discoveries or facts that 350 00:22:38,720 --> 00:22:40,760 Speaker 2: could possibly make me change my mind about the things 351 00:22:40,800 --> 00:22:44,040 Speaker 2: that matter most in life. I am absolutely certain that 352 00:22:44,280 --> 00:22:48,639 Speaker 2: ideas about the fundamental issues in life are correct. Meanwhile, 353 00:22:49,000 --> 00:22:51,879 Speaker 2: they're more likely than most people to disagree with statements 354 00:22:51,960 --> 00:22:55,159 Speaker 2: like it's best to be open to all possibilities and 355 00:22:55,280 --> 00:22:59,280 Speaker 2: ready to re evaluate all your beliefs. And flexibility is 356 00:22:59,280 --> 00:23:02,000 Speaker 2: a real virtual and thinking since you may very well 357 00:23:02,040 --> 00:23:06,679 Speaker 2: be wrong when you receive or absorb rather than contemplate 358 00:23:06,720 --> 00:23:09,639 Speaker 2: your beliefs, you have no basis upon which SHO determine 359 00:23:09,640 --> 00:23:12,720 Speaker 2: whether or not they're true. So you avoid challenges by 360 00:23:12,760 --> 00:23:15,880 Speaker 2: staying in the bubble as much as possible. When that 361 00:23:15,880 --> 00:23:19,160 Speaker 2: can't be avoided, threaton out whatever talking points you got 362 00:23:19,200 --> 00:23:22,959 Speaker 2: from wherever, and if that dialogue tree fails, you can 363 00:23:23,000 --> 00:23:26,679 Speaker 2: always fall back in your group's assurance that you are right. Now, 364 00:23:26,760 --> 00:23:30,159 Speaker 2: you could challenge your beliefs, or you could insist you're 365 00:23:30,240 --> 00:23:34,159 Speaker 2: right and retreat. What option do you think higher was tend. 366 00:23:34,040 --> 00:23:36,920 Speaker 1: To choose, Yeah, the double down exactly. 367 00:23:37,680 --> 00:23:42,160 Speaker 2: Dogmatism is by far the best fallback defense, but it's 368 00:23:42,200 --> 00:23:45,399 Speaker 2: also the most blatant, that giveaway that the person doesn't 369 00:23:45,480 --> 00:23:50,120 Speaker 2: know why they believe what they believe. Alas hired was, 370 00:23:50,320 --> 00:23:54,359 Speaker 2: are only one side of the authoritarian coin, then nothing 371 00:23:54,400 --> 00:23:58,280 Speaker 2: without their leaders. So next time we'll be talking about 372 00:23:58,720 --> 00:24:04,879 Speaker 2: those leaders, those social dominators. Until then, all power to 373 00:24:04,960 --> 00:24:06,760 Speaker 2: all the people peace. 374 00:24:07,400 --> 00:24:11,879 Speaker 3: Yes, I knew it could happen here as a production 375 00:24:11,960 --> 00:24:14,960 Speaker 3: of cool Zone Media. For more podcasts from cool Zone Media, 376 00:24:15,080 --> 00:24:17,719 Speaker 3: visit our website cool Zonemedia dot com, or check us 377 00:24:17,720 --> 00:24:20,520 Speaker 3: out on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you 378 00:24:20,600 --> 00:24:23,200 Speaker 3: listen to podcasts. You can find sources for It could 379 00:24:23,200 --> 00:24:27,240 Speaker 3: Happen Here, updated monthly at cool zonemedia, dot com, slash sources, 380 00:24:27,359 --> 00:24:28,200 Speaker 3: thanks for listening.