Speaker 1: A zone.
Speaker 2: Media. Welcome to it could happen here. I'm Andrew Sage
Speaker 2: of YouTube channel Andrewism. Once again. I'm joined by.
Speaker 3: Jane and We're back in and I'm excited to learn
Speaker 3: more about authoritarian leaders this time right.
Speaker 2: Yes, last time, we discussed the mind of the authoritarian follower.
Speaker 2: Thanks to the research of the lead Bob Altmeyer. You
Speaker 2: should definitely listen to the previous episode, but in summary,
Speaker 2: we looked at this concept of right wing authoritarianism, which
Speaker 2: refers to a personality type that features three primary traits
Speaker 2: or attitudes. First is a high degree of submission to
Speaker 2: authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in
Speaker 2: the society is in which one lives. The second is
Speaker 2: a general aggressiveness directed against various persons it is perceived
Speaker 2: to be sanctioned by established authorities. And the third is
Speaker 2: a high degree of adherence to the social convents that
Speaker 2: are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities.
Speaker 2: We also speculated the roots of authoritary and aggression and
Speaker 2: looked at the mind of the authoritarian follower, which demonstrates
Speaker 2: straits such as illogical thinking, highly compartmentalized minds, double standards,
Speaker 2: hypocrisy and lack of self awareness, ethno centrism, and dogmatism. Today,
Speaker 2: as promised, we're looking at the other side of the coin.
Speaker 2: We're looking at the leaders, but also what we can
Speaker 2: do to address both followers and leaders. So let's begin.
Speaker 2: In nineteen ninety four, social psychologists Fleescha Pratu and Jim
Speaker 2: Sedanias presented the social Dominance Orientation test as a measure
Speaker 2: of belief in social inequality. Social dominators agreed with statements
Speaker 2: like quote, this country would be better off if we
Speaker 2: cared less about how equal all people are and quote
Speaker 2: some people just more worthy than others, while disagreeing with
Speaker 2: statements like god, if people were treated more equally, we
Speaker 2: would have fewer problems in this country. Fellow social psychologist
Speaker 2: Sam MacFarland took their test on twenty one others, including
Speaker 2: the Art of Way scale, to determine which will be
Speaker 2: the best predictor of prejudice. His research found that only
Speaker 2: two of those tests, the Social dominant Orientation and the
Speaker 2: Art of Way, could do the job well. But the
Speaker 2: thing is, though, while both tests were able to identify
Speaker 2: prejudiced people, they were identifying different types of prejudice people
Speaker 2: with very little overlap. Social dominators and high art of
Speaker 2: ways authoritarians of two flavors. They have some things in common, though,
Speaker 2: besides prejudice. They tend to support the same political parties.
Speaker 2: They tend to have shared economic philosophies, usually conservative on
Speaker 2: both counts, but they also have some huge differences. Starting
Speaker 2: with a desire for power also why, I conducted two
Speaker 2: surveys with students that included the question how much power,
Speaker 2: as in the ability to make adults do what you want?
Speaker 2: Do you want to have when you're forty years old?
Speaker 2: In this sense, automayer is using power in the sense
Speaker 2: of authority as I would define it, the recognized right
Speaker 2: above others in a social relationship to give commands, make decisions,
Speaker 2: and enforce obedience. So the scale went from zero meaning
Speaker 2: they don't care for it, to five me and their
Speaker 2: goal is to have a great deal of authority. Social
Speaker 2: dominators consistently wanted to have much more power than most
Speaker 2: people did AUTHORITAI and followers did not. Now, obviously, people
Speaker 2: often want authority for different reasons, some more self righteous
Speaker 2: than others, but social dominators take thrill in authority in
Speaker 2: and of itself, doesn't matter what the cause is as
Speaker 2: long as they can control others in the process. There's
Speaker 2: another scale Altmayer users, the power Mad scale. On it,
Speaker 2: social dominators agree with statements like it's a mistake to
Speaker 2: interfere with the law of the jungle, some people were
Speaker 2: meant to dominate others, and do you enjoy taking charge
Speaker 2: of things and making people do things your way? They
Speaker 2: also dissecure with statements like life is not governed by
Speaker 2: the survival of the fittest and we should let compassion
Speaker 2: and moral laws be your guide. Social dominators are some
Speaker 2: of the highest scores on this scale, and high scorers
Speaker 2: tend to be intimidating, ruthless, and vengeful, with no care
Speaker 2: for nobility or charity. They despise empathy and have a
Speaker 2: dog eat dog mentality toward the world. They love the
Speaker 2: power to hurt in their drive to the top. High
Speaker 2: or degrees just stn't have that drive. And while authoritarian
Speaker 2: followers might highly value group cohesiveness and loyalty, social dominators
Speaker 2: don't because, like I keep saying, they're in it for
Speaker 2: themselves for their power, and they will be trade their
Speaker 2: own group if push comes to shove. Another area where
Speaker 2: social dominators and hired W is diverge. It's when it
Speaker 2: comes to religiousness. Authoritarian followers are usually religious fundamentalists, while
Speaker 2: dominators don't tend to be that involved. Some of them
Speaker 2: do go to church regularly, but that's for manipulative reasons
Speaker 2: because social dominators could lie. They lie a lot. All
Speaker 2: they have to do is pretend to be religious and
Speaker 2: say the right words and boom to get through. The
Speaker 2: hirer was reminds me of a sitting politician.
Speaker 3: I'm just going to say this is put in the
Speaker 3: mind of like Donald Trump, tay getting a massive crowd
Speaker 3: of people so he can walk to a church and
Speaker 3: then take photos outside and not go in.
Speaker 2: Yeah, good times. There's another scale we could take a
Speaker 2: look at, and that's the exploitative, manipulative, immoral dishonesty, or
Speaker 2: exploitative mad scale. Unlike hirer ws, social dominators anonymous responses
Speaker 2: indicate that they agree with statements like there's really no
Speaker 2: such thing as right and wrong. It all boils down
Speaker 2: to what you can get away with, and there's a
Speaker 2: sucker bone every minute, and smart people learn how to
Speaker 2: take advantage of them. Social dominators disagree with statements like
Speaker 2: it gains a person nothing if he uses deceit and
Speaker 2: treachery to get power and riches and all in all,
Speaker 2: it is better to be humble and honest than important
Speaker 2: and dishonest. In essence, social dominators admit to strive and
Speaker 2: to manipulate, to be in dishonest, to be an immoral
Speaker 2: and treacherous. They see their followers as suckers, fools to
Speaker 2: be controlled. What else makes them different? Well, I could
Speaker 2: go back to the roots of hostility. Social dominators actually
Speaker 2: show greater prejudice against minorities and women than higher ws do,
Speaker 2: but their followers are much more hostile towards LGBTQ people.
Speaker 2: Why Well, it ties back to the religiousness and the
Speaker 2: hired WA respect for the law. Since attacks against minorities
Speaker 2: are less clearly supported by religious and civic authorities as
Speaker 2: they used to be, authoritarian follower aggression towards these groups,
Speaker 2: both overt or sneaky, had to be curved a little bit. Meanwhile,
Speaker 2: social dominators are hostile because they already live in the
Speaker 2: apocalyptic jungle that hired w is fair, and they are
Speaker 2: the apex predator. They don't score highly in the Dangerous
Speaker 2: World scale because they're not scared. They're the ones ready
Speaker 2: to weaponize that fear. Dominance is their first priority. For
Speaker 2: everyone they meet, they had a reason to not try
Speaker 2: to control them. They don't care too much about the
Speaker 2: law either. It's just about not getting caught. They're not
Speaker 2: as self righteous as hirer w is because they're quite immoral,
Speaker 2: and hired ws aggressed when they believe right and might
Speaker 2: on their side. Social dominators aggress because might makes right
Speaker 2: for them personally. Hired w is heat caremount of fair
Speaker 2: and self righteousness in the name of authority. Social dominators
Speaker 2: hate crime out or share desire to intimidate and control. Lastly,
Speaker 2: we need to look at the differences in their thought process.
Speaker 2: Social dominators, for the most part, don't have a web
Speaker 2: of contradictions, weak reason and skills, compartmentalized thinking, or gullibility
Speaker 2: that define higher WA's mental life. They're not particularly dogmatic
Speaker 2: or zealous about any particular cause or creed. They just
Speaker 2: want authority. They say whatever they need to say to
Speaker 2: get ahead because they have no consistent values. They'll be
Speaker 2: hypocrites like hawd was, but they're probably aware of and
Speaker 2: find their own hypocrisy. For example, they're cool with wealth,
Speaker 2: inheritance and corruption. They're opposed to welfare. They're unconcerned with
Speaker 2: income inequality or photo disenfranchisement. They're apathetic to racial inequality
Speaker 2: and injustice. They believe that people should have to earn
Speaker 2: their place in society and they don't care if most
Speaker 2: of them can't. They still talk about how the only
Speaker 2: way to have a level play and field is to
Speaker 2: get rid of things like affilmed to faction. And part
Speaker 2: of what defines social dominators is their utter disregard for equality.
Speaker 2: So we have to ask again, what causes this? Why
Speaker 2: are they like this? And well, social scientists just are shure.
Speaker 2: Yet if we look at the life shape and experiences
Speaker 2: or social dominators, they would probably report the deceit and
Speaker 2: cheating with good tactics because it led to what they wanted.
Speaker 2: Taking advantage of suckers felt great. They enjoyed having power
Speaker 2: and having people afraid of them. Life boiled down to
Speaker 2: what you could get away with, and of course the
Speaker 2: experiences led them to believe that life is a jungle.
Speaker 2: Dominators were probably rewarded early in their lives when they cheated,
Speaker 2: took advantage of people, weaponized fear, overpowered others, or got
Speaker 2: away with something wrong, whether or not their peer and
Speaker 2: scare them that outlook on the world. Because of the
Speaker 2: psychological law of effect, they simply learn into the being amoral, unsympathetic,
Speaker 2: and exploitative worked well for them. So what happens when
Speaker 2: higher WA's and social dominators work together. In this field
Speaker 2: of research, the lethal union refers to the combination of
Speaker 2: happily subservient hired ws with social dominators who share their
Speaker 2: values in the driver's seat, eager to dominate and control,
Speaker 2: a death spiral union that develops all the time in
Speaker 2: the real world. As Altemaya aptly described quote true, sufficiently
Speaker 2: skilled social dominators served by dedicated followers can make the
Speaker 2: trains run in time, but you have to worry about
Speaker 2: what the trains may be haulin when dominators call the
Speaker 2: shots and the hired was to the shooting end quote.
Speaker 2: While most social dominators get fairly low scores on RWA
Speaker 2: tests and vice versa are very very small, more percentage
Speaker 2: of people and ultimized samples scored highly on both r
Speaker 2: WAY and social dominance tests. These other double highs. If
Speaker 2: prejudice was a sports in the Olympics, hird WA's we
Speaker 2: get bronze, social dominators we get silver. And double Highs
Speaker 2: would definitely get gold. Now you might be wondering, how
Speaker 2: do they manage to score so highly on both tests?
Speaker 2: If social dominators and high ways have so many differences,
Speaker 2: how can somebody be a submissive dominator? So there are
Speaker 2: a couple of reasons why want to be dictator would
Speaker 2: score highly on both tests. One is because some r
Speaker 2: WA scale statements are open to interpretation. Take the statement
Speaker 2: code our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will
Speaker 2: do what has to be done to destroy the radical
Speaker 2: new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us. End quote.
Speaker 2: A follow it will be like yes, please, and a
Speaker 2: dominator will be like here I am behold, I'm your leader.
Speaker 2: Double high still score highly on all the power scales,
Speaker 2: like other social dominators and unlike other hard ways. Secondly,
Speaker 2: double Highs are the religious among the social dominators, so
Speaker 2: they respond to this religious items on the r W
Speaker 2: scale that other social dominators don't, thereby significantly raising their
Speaker 2: r W score. I don't think I need to go
Speaker 2: into too much detail. I feel like I should be
Speaker 2: absolutely clear the double Highs suck. Whatever the su they
Speaker 2: probably are on the wrong side of it. The worst
Speaker 2: of the worst prejudiced, power hungry, exploititive, mad, religiously fundamentalist, dogmatic,
Speaker 2: dangerous worldest a noxious stew of the worst of all
Speaker 2: social dominators and hard was Regular social dominators might end
Speaker 2: up in charge of ptas, hoas, workplaces, local governments, and
Speaker 2: other personal kingdoms. Not all of them succeed in life
Speaker 2: due to the animosity they create, the obstacles they might face,
Speaker 2: lack of intelligence, attractiveness, or network to gain the kind
Speaker 2: of power they want, and some of them might even
Speaker 2: get caught in their lives and illegalities and don't have
Speaker 2: the capital to get out of it. They see double highs,
Speaker 2: they tend to have a head start well. Regular social
Speaker 2: dominators have to fake their religiousness to get the support
Speaker 2: of higher ws. Double highs can more easily get started
Speaker 2: in their own churches, already part of the in group,
Speaker 2: sharing their prejudices, economic philosophies, and political lean needs. Even
Speaker 2: if they are faking it a little bit, a double
Speaker 2: high already knows all the code words, dog whistles and
Speaker 2: Bible verses they need to get ahead. They know what
Speaker 2: stands they should hold about evolution, the role of women, abortion, school, prayer, censorship,
Speaker 2: law and order, et cetera, et cetera. Double highs run
Speaker 2: the show you dig? Yeah for sure? So now what?
Speaker 2: Knowing that social dominators do whatever they can to hold
Speaker 2: on to power and higher ws are extremely resistant to change,
Speaker 2: how do we deal with a situation where social change
Speaker 2: requires dealing with these people? I mean, they can't debate them.
Speaker 2: Even if you were to intellectually wrestle with a double
Speaker 2: high leader and utterly destroy them with facts and logic,
Speaker 2: their higher WA audience is not likely to change their minds.
Speaker 2: Trying to change highly dogmatic, evidence immune ethnocentric people is
Speaker 2: an exercise in frustration and futility. It's also hard to
Speaker 2: fight to share fair mongrant power of the likes of
Speaker 2: Fox News and Facebook to combat the class and religious
Speaker 2: roots of ethnocentrism and to reduce the self righteousness of
Speaker 2: their followers. It's even harder to convince them that they
Speaker 2: are being systematically misinformed and played for fools by their leaders.
Speaker 2: Even if they listen to these episodes, or watch my
Speaker 2: videos or read ultimized books, they would either get defensive
Speaker 2: or honestly, because a lot of them aren't self aware,
Speaker 2: assume that this is about someone else finding a way
Speaker 2: to compartmentalize, misinterpret, rationalize, and dogmatically deny anything I've said
Speaker 2: so far. So what to do? First and foremost, representation matters.
Speaker 2: It's important that hire ws see more of the breath
Speaker 2: and diversity of human existence and experience. The reality is skewed,
Speaker 2: and the visibility and representation of people from other backgrounds,
Speaker 2: not just the media, but also in their personal lives
Speaker 2: is very important. One thing studies have shown is that
Speaker 2: higher ws who know a Cay person are far less
Speaker 2: likely to be homophobic than their fellow higher ws. And
Speaker 2: the best exposures different types of people is through access
Speaker 2: to higher education, or more broadly, just any space with diversity.
Speaker 2: College may not necessarily turn them into commit to the revolutionaries.
Speaker 2: Contrary it's popular belief, but the environment of higher education
Speaker 2: has a tremendously beneficial impact on higher ws. Four years
Speaker 2: of undergrad experience can knock their scores down by fifteen
Speaker 2: to twenty percent. Academic spaces need to be alive, vibrant,
Speaker 2: and most of all accessible, and we need people in
Speaker 2: academic and non academic spaces to embrace the power of influence.
Speaker 2: I don't mean this in a give them an authority
Speaker 2: and to follow kind of way. I'm not talking about
Speaker 2: becoming a club president or ordering people around. I'm not
Speaker 2: thinking about hierarchical leadership, but rather the natural influence of
Speaker 2: individuals who model exemplary behavior and provide an example for
Speaker 2: others to look to, people who freely lend their talents
Speaker 2: and knowledge and mentorship to others. In a conformity experiment
Speaker 2: in however, in the late nineteen forties, real subjects were
Speaker 2: surrounded by actors who deliberately gave obviously wrong answers to questions.
Speaker 2: Usually the sub went along with the wrong majority at
Speaker 2: least some of the time. But if in another condition
Speaker 2: of the experiment, one other person gave the right answer,
Speaker 2: real subjects were much more likely to do the right thing,
Speaker 2: even though it meant joining a distinct minority rather than
Speaker 2: the majority. So I'm saying that as the people who
Speaker 2: hold radical beliefs, it's important to stand up. You know,
Speaker 2: you don't have to form majority to have an effect.
Speaker 2: Two or three people speaking out can sometimes change the
Speaker 2: decisions of entire school boards, church boards, or other institutions. Obviously,
Speaker 2: reform is not going to be enough, but we do
Speaker 2: need to present some opposition on that front, and that sphere.
Speaker 2: You know, lack of opposition teaches dominators to keep dominating,
Speaker 2: and it only taaks one person to start the opposition
Speaker 2: the domino effects that could potentially influence even higher ws
Speaker 2: because at the end of the day, it's clear that
Speaker 2: they want to be quote unquote normal in their bubbles
Speaker 2: and their echo chambers. They don't really realize how extreme
Speaker 2: they are. Then, to be exposed to the perspectives and
Speaker 2: experiences of people outside their tight circles, Mutual aid and
Speaker 2: other organized efforts can show them the humanity of other people,
Speaker 2: finding common ground and common cause. But ultimately, in my view,
Speaker 2: the best long term solutions require youth liberation and prefiguration.
Speaker 2: We need youth liberation both at home and at school
Speaker 2: and everywhere else. As long as we continue to reinforce
Speaker 2: the notion that children need to blindly submit to authorities,
Speaker 2: as long as we refuse to grant them humanity and autonomy,
Speaker 2: we will continue to be without humanity and autonomy. We
Speaker 2: will continue to have adult generation after generation who do
Speaker 2: not know how to resist authority. We must prefigure those
Speaker 2: relationships in our personal lives and our social spaces, or
Speaker 2: we must prefigure our liberation. It's not enough to just
Speaker 2: pain against social dominators. We have to dismantle the systems
Speaker 2: that allow them to dominate in the foost place. The
Speaker 2: only way to keep social dominators from season power is
Speaker 2: to prefigure a system where no one person can so
Speaker 2: easily coerce and dominate. To quote Bob Waltamaya one last time,
Speaker 2: we cannot secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and
Speaker 2: our posterity if we sitt with our oars out of
Speaker 2: the water. If we drift mind leslie, circumstances can sweep
Speaker 2: us a disaster. Our societies presently produce millions of highly
Speaker 2: authoritarian personalities, as a matter of course, enough to stage
Speaker 2: the Nuremberg rallies over and over and over again. Turn
Speaker 2: in a blind eye to this put someday point guns
Speaker 2: at all of our heads, and the fingers on the
Speaker 2: triggers will belong to right wing authoritarians. We ignore this
Speaker 2: at our peril. Social dominators want you complacent, apathetic, hopeless,
Speaker 2: and out of the world way. They want to control
Speaker 2: everything and everybody, and they have their loyal followers ready
Speaker 2: to mobilize. They are not the majority, but they're determined
Speaker 2: to win. Do not let them. If you know what's happening.
Speaker 2: If you spot these signs in your own spaces, it's
Speaker 2: your responsibility to do something about it, to organize, to educate.
Speaker 2: Because one person could accomplish so much, and two people
Speaker 2: could accomplish so much more. Good luck, all power to
Speaker 2: all the people. Because it could happen here. Can follow
Speaker 2: me on puture in dot com stas saying true this
Speaker 2: has been Andrew Sage Andwism it could happen here, or
Speaker 2: La Jazz this.
Speaker 1: It could happen here, as a production of cool Zone Media.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts from cool Zone Media, visit our website
Speaker 1: cool zonemedia dot com, or check us out on the
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or every listen to podcasts. You
Speaker 1: can find sources where it could happen here, updated monthly
Speaker 1: at coolzonemedia dot com slash sources. Thanks for listening.