patrick.net

i'm glad people are talking about motives here, trying to understand what is going on instead of just indulging in group-think hate as a kind of self-reassurance.

That story is ridiculous! Plenty of brain-dead liberals obey. They obey politically correct doctrine, and they censure anyone who doesn't in a very authoritarian way. They obey Hillary, they obey George Clooney, etc.

The one trait supporters share is the implanted microchip. Beware.

thunderlips11 says

The "Authoritarian" trait is based on a one-horse metric about child rearing. What evidence does the author have that child-rearing strategies determine overall political/psychological traits? It's far too narrow to be reliable.

One might measure tidiness and insist it's a metric of Authoritarianism. I know plenty of flaming liberals who get bent out of shape unless you can bounce a quarter off the bed and if the towels aren't the right color and perfectly aligned in the bathrooms, or god forbid the toilet seat is left up.

I disagree completely. The questions are getting to the heart of one's feelings about conformity vs. independence--they just used child rearing as a way to get people to relate and answer honestly. It has nothing to do with Republican vs. Democrat--not sure why you think there are no liberals that are Authoritarian in nature.

And I don't think Authoritarianism is good or bad. It just is. Some people prefer conformity and some prefer disorganization.

That's why it's interesting that they found a statistically significant correlation with Trump supporters. I bet if you looked at the folks on pat.net that tend to idolize Putin--they also support Trump.

gsr says

Did you wake up today? It has been a very old news.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/16/ron-paul-calls-donald-trump-a-dangerous-authoritar/

No, but I find a study that reaches a statistical conclusion far more interesting than one politician calling another one names.

Blurtman says

That story is ridiculous! Plenty of brain-dead liberals obey. They obey politically correct doctrine, and they censure anyone who doesn't in a very authoritarian way. They obey Hillary, they obey George Clooney, etc.

The one trait supporters share is the implanted microchip. Beware

What the hell? The story doesn't say liberals aren't authoritarian. Did you even read it??

Blurtman says

That story is ridiculous! Plenty of brain-dead liberals obey. They obey politically correct doctrine, and they censure anyone who doesn't in a very authoritarian way. They obey Hillary, they obey George Clooney, etc.

Yep, Social Justice Warriors are a great example of Authoritarian behavior.tatupu70 says

I disagree completely. The questions are getting to the heart of one's feelings about conformity vs. independence--they just used child rearing as a way to get people to relate and answer honestly. It has nothing to do with Republican vs. Democrat--not sure why you think there are no liberals that are Authoritarian in nature.

Well, I find that to be insufficient evidence. The questions are wholly about child rearing, with no other points. They are also binary questions, most people would put these things on a scale. Like I said, far too narrow, and I used the example of "Tidiness".

"People who are too tidy and neat are overly concerned with Order!" is too much of a stretch based on one single personality trait. There are plenty of neo-nazis and Communists who are bad housekeepers, and ACLU members who can't stand the toilet seat being left down or a dirty dish left overnight in the sink.

thunderlips11 says

The questions are solely about child rearing, with no other points. Like I said, far too narrow, and I used the example of "Tidiness

Not at all. They are about one's view--is it better to conform or to be independent.

tatupu70 says

Not at all. They are about one's view--is it better to conform or to be independent.

Again, one point of personality is far too narrow to define an overarching worldview based on one trait. Also, these are binary questions, what happens if you ask these questions on a scale of 1-10?

thunderlips11 says

Again, one point of personality is far too narrow a trait. Also, these are binary questions, what happens if you ask these questions on a scale of 1-10?

But, obviously it's not as the study showed statistical significance.

thunderlips11 says

These questions pertain to child-rearing: whether it is more important for the voter to have a child who is respectful or independent; obedient or self-reliant; well-behaved or considerate; and well-mannered or curious. Respondents who pick the first option in each of these questions are strongly authoritarian.

For example, considerate and curious have nothing to do with authoritarianism.

Stalin was interested in Spaceflight and theoretical Sciences. So was Lenin and Kruschev. Hitler also was interested in Space Flight and Potential Super Weapons.

Also, what is the difference between well-behaved or considerate? Isn't being well-behaved a mark of being considerate, and vice-versa?

"Don't fart on the bus because it bothers other people"
"Mind your cussing at the table in the restaurant, some people are annoyed by it"

"I know you want to push the button at the Kid's Museum, but you have to wait your turn little Jimmy"

You can certainly be both well-mannered and curious, well-behaved and considerate simultaneously.

If this was on a scale, I doubt people would be like "I want my kid to learn manners, but be totally incurious and only learn what authorities tell him." "I want my kid to be well-behaved, but to disregard other's feelings."

thunderlips11 says

For example, considerate and curious have NOTHING to do with authoritarianism.

Stalin was interested in Spaceflight and theoretical Sciences. So was Lenin and Kruschev. Hitler also was interested in Space Flight and Potential Super Weapons.

Also, what is the difference between well-behaved or considerate? Isn't being well-behaved a mark of consideration, and vice-versa?

Again--you're arguing points that would have shown up in the results. If the questions were too vague, then there would have been no significance in the results.

And authoritarianism (as measured in this study) has more to do with the followers than with the leader.

Authoritarianism? And all this time, I just thought it was bad taste.

tatupu70 says

Again--you're arguing points that would have shown up in the results. If the questions were too vague, then there would have been no significance in the results.

I'm pointing out that these are false binaries (how many people want an incurious child so long as they have excellent manners?) - not opposites. I have a very hard time figuring out the difference between well-behaved and considerate, for example. Most marks of "Well-behaved" would be politeness, itself a series of social norms that revolve around being considerate of others. Opening doors, waiting till everybody is served before eating yourself, giving up a seat to the elderly, etc.

tatupu70 says

authoritarian voters who identify as Independent and Democrat

exactly, limousine liberal types who try to decide what is good for everyone else.

thunderlips11 says

I'm pointing out that these are false binaries (how many people want an incurious child so long as they have excellent manners?) - not opposites. I have a very hard time figuring out the difference between well-behaved and considerate, for example. Most marks of "Well-behaved" would be politeness, itself a series of social norms that revolve around being considerate of others. Opening doors, waiting till everybody is served before eating yourself, giving up a seat to the elderly, etc.

I'm not sure they need to be opposites. I'm saying that if the questions were so vague that people had a difficult time choosing, it would certainly have shown up in the results.

They ask the person to choose which is more important. Doesn't have to be opposites in that case.

"favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom."

Sounds like you've got a warped sense of Authoritarian if you or anyone believes that describes Trump and his supporters.
This is Why there is Trump. Not because there's not enough, not by any stretch of the imagination.

MMR says

exactly, limousine liberal types who try to decide what is good for everyone else.

Actually that is not authoritarian as measured in this study. It's more about conformity.

Clearly authoritarianism has a bad connotation on pat.net. I don't think it was intended as a negative--just a personality trait. Like being outgoing or being a free spirit.

Tenpoundbass says

"favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom."

Sounds like you've got a warped sense of Authoritarian if you or anyone believes that describes Trump and his supporters.

This is Why there is Trump. Not because there's not enough, not by any stretch of the imagination.

"Authoritarians obey. They rally to and follow strong leaders. And they respond aggressively to outsiders, especially when they feel threatened"

I think that does likely describe a lot of Trumps supporters.

errc says

But if IHLary is the candidate

She will almost certainly be the candidate and if that is the case, will almost certainly win. Bernie Sanders and Trump are merely weathervanes to see which way the political winds blow.

When ross perot won 19% of the popular vote, best believe that clinton made it a priority to balance the budget.

From Daily Kos, 2008: Hillary's Authoritarianism Problem

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/5/509204/-

Non-Authoritarians pick Obama as the nominee!

Daily Kos, 2008:

Authoritarians are biased against Obama!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/4/508775/-

thunderlips11 says

Non-Authoritarians pick Obama as the nominee!

Yep--the authors mention that in the article I posted.

tatupu70 says

"Authoritarians obey. They rally to and follow strong leaders. And they respond aggressively to outsiders, especially when they feel threatened"

I think that does likely describe a lot of Trumps supporters.

Yup, the same group that was allegedly offended when Barack said that police officer was "acting stupidly" in that professor case that resulted in beer summit had no problems when trump referred to a whole group of people as "rapists, murderers and some I assume are good people." Unbelievable!

tatupu70 says

Yep--the authors mention that in the article I posted.

"The people who are for the candidate I despise, and against the candidate I support, are Authoritarians'

tatupu70 says

Authoritarians obey.

This is different, Trump supporters just want illegals to obey laws that already exist, quit Libbing the facts, Trump is a done deal. No matter how you romanticise, criticize, anaylize, skew it or even Stew over it.
My advice is don't watch South Park on super Tuesday, it will just add to the sting... Trust ME!

thunderlips11 says

"The people who are for the candidate I despise, and against the candidate I support, are Authoritarians'

Why are you so offended? Do you think conformity is a bad trait?

Tenpoundbass says

This is different, Trump supporters just want illegals to obey laws that already exist, quit Libbing the facts, Trump is a done deal. No matter how you romanticise, criticize, anaylize, skew it or even Stew over it.

My advice is don't watch South Park on super Tuesday, it will just add to the sting... Trust ME!

Nothing would make me happier than seeing Trump win the Republican nomination.

tatupu70 says

Why are you so offended? Do you think conformity is a bad trait?

Not at all, it's just PR Baloney. Social Science in the service of Politics.

I believe in moderation in most things, like Aristotle. You know, don't stiff your needy friends and family, but don't be so generous you put yourself and/or family at risk of poverty.

I said President.

You forget the media and politcs has forgotten how to be transparent.

The Bernie or Hillary Pandering from the media and the establishment is going to be a huge turn off on the November push.

Tenpoundbass says

I said President.

Uh--no you didn't. You mentioned Super Tuesday which is a primary day, not general election.

thunderlips11 says

Not at all, it's just PR Baloney. Social Science in the service of Politics.

It was actually a positive piece for Trump explaining why he will have crossover appeal to Independents and liberals. And theorizing that, contrary to popular belief, his numbers may still have room to rise in the general election.

tatupu70 says

Uh--no you didn't. You mentioned Super Tuesday which is a primary day, not general election.

He's going to win Fat Tuesday too Brudah!

tatupu70 says

What the hell? The story doesn't say liberals aren't authoritarian. Did you even read it??

The author does not describe the percentage of Democrats who are authoritarian. He indicates other work has shown a migration to Republicans, but that is poorly described. So I can fill in my own observation that Democrats are as authoritarian as Repubs, and I also find his methodology to be a bit strange, and also it down not take into account other variables that are in play. Silly sociology, poorly contrived design, and reaching no real conclusion outside of the ridiculous constraints of the study. Pseudo science the "findings" of which suit the needs of haters.

Blurtman says

The author does not describe the percentage of Democrats who are authoritarian. He indicates other work has shown a migration to Republicans, but that is poorly described. So I can fill in my own observation that Democrats are as authoritarian as Repubs, and I also find his methodology to be a bit strange, and also it down not take into account other variables that are in play. Silly sociology, poorly contrived design, and reaching no real conclusion outside of the ridiculous constraints of the study. Pseudo science the "findings" of which suit the needs of haters.

Except that's not what you did. You implied that the author's finding was that liberals weren't authoritarian. Which is the opposite of what the article stated--pretty clearly actually.

You are free to find his methodology strange but you must acknowledge that his methodology found a statistically significant result. I think you are trying to apply the results to characteristics outside the study--not the author. You obviously have a pre-determined view of what authoritarianism means and it is probably different than what the authors are measuring.

And what "haters"? Neither the authors nor I are implying that valuing conformity is bad.

tatupu70 says

is it better to conform or to be independent.

It's a false dichotomy. Especially in a liberal democracy you can be independent and conformist.
We could return this: relative to the establishment, I guess Trump supporters refuse to conform, are more independent, more willing to change the system, more willing to create chaos.

Doesn't sound like people who respect (the establishment's) authority.

Heraclitusstudent says

It's a false dichotomy. Especially in a liberal democracy you can be independent and conformist.

We could return this: relative to the establishment, I guess Trump supporters refuse to conform, are more independent, more willing to change the system, more willing to create chaos.

Doesn't sound like people who respect (the establishment's) authority.

In a capitalist society, following/supporting the oligarch is a sign of conformity just like in a communist society being a follower of stalin/fidel is a sign of conformity. It is all relative to the overarching system.

Heraclitusstudent says

It's a false dichotomy. Especially in a liberal democracy you can be independent and conformist.

We could return this: relative to the establishment, I guess Trump supporters refuse to conform, are more independent, more willing to change the system, more willing to create chaos.

Doesn't sound like people who respect (the establishment's) authority.

I disagree that it's a false dichotomy. I guess it depends on your definition of conform and independent, but they are pretty clearly opposing views.

And the Republican establishment isn't the leader by any means. I think it's very rare for authoritarians to want to follow a vague group. They want a strong leader. All strong leaders change the system. It's not about holding back change.

tatupu70 says

I disagree that it's a false dichotomy. I guess it depends on your definition of conform and independent, but they are pretty clearly opposing views.

Would you at least agree you can conform to different things and independence is therefore relative.

tatupu70 says

I think it's very rare for authoritarians to want to follow a vague group. They want a strong leader.

Maybe that's the difference between authoritarians and conformists.
Authoritarians want an assertive leader and want all people to follow the leader.
Conformists are just more like sheep, following the crowd. They are generally herded rather than led. They are obedient to the "system" and so the establishment. Often, they don't realize or don't think of themselves as conformists - but they are. I would say many liberals are strongly conformist.

The establishment is counting on conformism.
Trump, more on authority. But as long as his claim on authority is just "I'm rich", his success with liberals/independents will be limited.

The linked article says, "Only two of the variables I looked at were statistically significant: authoritarianism, followed by fear of terrorism, though the former was far more significant than the latter." It does not say all Trump supporters share one trait.

Also, we live in an era dominated by partisan/sectarian authoritarian paradigms. Voters have a "choice":
1) religious charlatans demanding more power for themselves on behalf of their imaginary friend (Allah, Jehovah, whatever);
2) corporate spokesmen demanding more power for themselves on behalf of their sponsors (Obamneycare, Booz Allen Hamilton, whatever);
3) a guy who speaks for himself, and says he'll keep out the most lethal terrorists.
In that light, the appeal of perceived anti-establishment insurgents Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump makes more sense. As between Putin's candidate (Trump) and the Saudi sponsored candidates (almost everyone else), Putin's Russia seems somewhat less authoritarian than Saudi Arabia.

Remember folks, the MSM-Establishment Square Dance:

"Grab Your Partner, Think like this,
Don't vote for the Radical,
Life is Bliss!

Now go for Immigrants, Deregulate
Vote for so-and-so,
Or you're an ingrate!"

(Fun fact: least favorite but official part of the NYC School Curriculum in the 80s. "Teacher, why can't we put on Whodini and breakdance?")

Trump's GOT DIS!