Well, aren’t most people likely to trust someone who seems to agree with them? Probably, but people differ enormously in gullibility. (People showing few right-wing authoritarian tendencies) are downright suspicious of someone who agrees with them when they can see ulterior motives might be at work. They pay attention to the circumstances in which the other fellow is operating. But (people with strong tendencies toward authoritarianism) do not, when they like the message.
So suppose you are a completely unethical, dishonest, power-hungry, dirt-bag, scum-bucket politician who will say whatever he has to say to get elected. ... Whom are you going to try to lead, people with strong tendencies toward authoritarianism or people who have few authoritarian tendencies? Isn’t it obvious? The (gullible right-wing authoritarians) will open up their arms and wallets to you if you just sing their song, however poor your credibility. Those crabby non-authoritarian types, on the other hand, will eye you warily when your credibility is suspect because you sing their song?
So the scum-bucket politicians will usually head for the right-wing authoritarians, because the (right-wing authoritarians) hunger for social endorsement of their beliefs so much they’re apt to trust anyone who tells them they’re right. Heck, Adolf Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany running on a law-and-order platform just a few years after he tried to overthrow the government through an armed insurrection.
You sometimes hear that paranoia runs at a gallop in “right-wingers”. But maybe you can see how that’s an oversimplification. Authoritarian followers are highly suspicious of their many out-groups; but they are credulous to the point of self-delusion when it comes to their in-groups. So (in another experiment the author ran) subjects were told a Christian Crusade was coming to town led by a TV evangelist. The evangelist (the subjects were further told), knowing that people would give more money at the end of the evening if he gave them the kind of service they liked, asked around to see what that might be.
Finding out that folks in your city liked a “personal testimonial” crusade, he gave them one featuring his own emotional testimonial to Jesus’ saving grace. How sincere do you think he was? Most subjects had their doubts, given the circumstances. But (right-wing authoritarians) almost always trusted him.
http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer...oritarians.pdf
Blog from the Washington Post:
... I blogged about a striking figure created by evolutionary biologist Josh Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education, plotting U.S. based faiths and denominations based on 1) their members’ views about the reality of human evolution and 2) those members’ support for tough environmental laws.
The figure (below) has created much discussion, both because of what it seems to suggest about the unending debate over the relationship between science and religion, but also because of how it appears to confirm that more conservative leaning denominations harbor a form of science resistance that extends well beyond evolution rejection and into the climate change arena.
![[Image: rosenau-graphic.jpg&w=1484]](https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2015/05/rosenau-graphic.jpg&w=1484)
Can anyone explain the anomaly of the Jehovah's Witnesses? Otherwise this looks like a strong correlation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energ...ness_pop_b
Fundamentalist religion is inherently authoritarian. Where one would draw the line on this chart is a matter of choice. Rejection of evolution would seem consistent with authoritarianism due to the rejection of rational thought and objective science when such runs afoul of a world view that one holds precious.
People who reject evolution can apparently also reject the scientific evidence behind the concept of climatic change.
We may be seeing a cultural war within the schools, with the public schools being used as means of pushing some political agenda. State governments are becoming as centralized authorities on the curriculum as authoritarian national governments, past and present.
Parts of the Right have a desire for a Cultural Revolution as pervasive as that in China in the 1960s, but with fundamentalist Protestantism and pure plutocracy taking the role of Maoism in China. The ideal is a Bible-believing populace that recognizes responsibilities to economic elites who owe the common man nothing except promises of economic growth. Where the Right has even temporary power it is to take the opportunity to entrench its values permanently in institutions. Schools are to be tools of ideological brainwashing.
In earlier times the Right was content to win local contests through local school boards. Now it seeks to use statewide authority to establish one politically-loaded curriculum as uniform content statewide. Finding the values of rural backwaters more amenable to its agenda, the Right seeks to impose its authoritarian agenda where such is contrary to the local values, such as giant cities where the ethnic identity and religious heritage have very different values. African-American communities have much cause to distrust right-wing authoritarianism at the least on economics ("Know your place, boy!")
So suppose you are a completely unethical, dishonest, power-hungry, dirt-bag, scum-bucket politician who will say whatever he has to say to get elected. ... Whom are you going to try to lead, people with strong tendencies toward authoritarianism or people who have few authoritarian tendencies? Isn’t it obvious? The (gullible right-wing authoritarians) will open up their arms and wallets to you if you just sing their song, however poor your credibility. Those crabby non-authoritarian types, on the other hand, will eye you warily when your credibility is suspect because you sing their song?
So the scum-bucket politicians will usually head for the right-wing authoritarians, because the (right-wing authoritarians) hunger for social endorsement of their beliefs so much they’re apt to trust anyone who tells them they’re right. Heck, Adolf Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany running on a law-and-order platform just a few years after he tried to overthrow the government through an armed insurrection.
You sometimes hear that paranoia runs at a gallop in “right-wingers”. But maybe you can see how that’s an oversimplification. Authoritarian followers are highly suspicious of their many out-groups; but they are credulous to the point of self-delusion when it comes to their in-groups. So (in another experiment the author ran) subjects were told a Christian Crusade was coming to town led by a TV evangelist. The evangelist (the subjects were further told), knowing that people would give more money at the end of the evening if he gave them the kind of service they liked, asked around to see what that might be.
Finding out that folks in your city liked a “personal testimonial” crusade, he gave them one featuring his own emotional testimonial to Jesus’ saving grace. How sincere do you think he was? Most subjects had their doubts, given the circumstances. But (right-wing authoritarians) almost always trusted him.
http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer...oritarians.pdf
Blog from the Washington Post:
... I blogged about a striking figure created by evolutionary biologist Josh Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education, plotting U.S. based faiths and denominations based on 1) their members’ views about the reality of human evolution and 2) those members’ support for tough environmental laws.
The figure (below) has created much discussion, both because of what it seems to suggest about the unending debate over the relationship between science and religion, but also because of how it appears to confirm that more conservative leaning denominations harbor a form of science resistance that extends well beyond evolution rejection and into the climate change arena.
Can anyone explain the anomaly of the Jehovah's Witnesses? Otherwise this looks like a strong correlation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energ...ness_pop_b
Fundamentalist religion is inherently authoritarian. Where one would draw the line on this chart is a matter of choice. Rejection of evolution would seem consistent with authoritarianism due to the rejection of rational thought and objective science when such runs afoul of a world view that one holds precious.
People who reject evolution can apparently also reject the scientific evidence behind the concept of climatic change.
We may be seeing a cultural war within the schools, with the public schools being used as means of pushing some political agenda. State governments are becoming as centralized authorities on the curriculum as authoritarian national governments, past and present.
Parts of the Right have a desire for a Cultural Revolution as pervasive as that in China in the 1960s, but with fundamentalist Protestantism and pure plutocracy taking the role of Maoism in China. The ideal is a Bible-believing populace that recognizes responsibilities to economic elites who owe the common man nothing except promises of economic growth. Where the Right has even temporary power it is to take the opportunity to entrench its values permanently in institutions. Schools are to be tools of ideological brainwashing.
In earlier times the Right was content to win local contests through local school boards. Now it seeks to use statewide authority to establish one politically-loaded curriculum as uniform content statewide. Finding the values of rural backwaters more amenable to its agenda, the Right seeks to impose its authoritarian agenda where such is contrary to the local values, such as giant cities where the ethnic identity and religious heritage have very different values. African-American communities have much cause to distrust right-wing authoritarianism at the least on economics ("Know your place, boy!")
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.