Andrew on Authoritarian Leaders

the society is in which one lives. The second is a general aggressiveness directed against various persons it is perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities. And the third is a high degree of adherence to the social convents that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities.

We also speculated the roots of authoritary and aggression and looked at the mind of the authoritarian follower, which demonstrates straits such as illogical thinking, highly compartmentalized minds, double standards, hypocrisy and lack of self awareness, ethno centrism, and dogmatism. Today, as promised, we're looking at the other side of the coin. We're looking at the leaders, but also what we can do to address both followers and leaders. So let's begin.

In nineteen ninety four, social psychologists Fleescha Pratu and Jim Sedanias presented the social Dominance Orientation test as a measure of belief in social inequality. Social dominators agreed with statements like quote, this country would be better off if we cared less about how equal all people are and quote some people just more worthy than others, while disagreeing with statements like god, if people were treated more equally, we

would have fewer problems in this country. Fellow social psychologist Sam MacFarland took their test on twenty one others, including the Art of Way scale, to determine which will be the best predictor of prejudice. His research found that only two of those tests, the Social dominant Orientation and the Art of Way, could do the job well. But the thing is, though, while both tests were able to identify prejudiced people, they were identifying different types of prejudice people

with very little overlap. Social dominators and high art of ways authoritarians of two flavors. They have some things in common, though, besides prejudice. They tend to support the same political parties. They tend to have shared economic philosophies, usually conservative on

both counts, but they also have some huge differences. Starting with a desire for power also why, I conducted two surveys with students that included the question how much power, as in the ability to make adults do what you want? Do you want to have when you're forty years old? In this sense, automayer is using power in the sense of authority as I would define it, the recognized right above others in a social relationship to give commands, make decisions,

and enforce obedience. So the scale went from zero meaning they don't care for it, to five me and their goal is to have a great deal of authority. Social dominators consistently wanted to have much more power than most people did AUTHORITAI and followers did not. Now, obviously, people often want authority for different reasons, some more self righteous than others, but social dominators take thrill in authority in and of itself, doesn't matter what the cause is as

long as they can control others in the process. There's another scale Altmayer users, the power Mad scale. On it, social dominators agree with statements like it's a mistake to interfere with the law of the jungle, some people were meant to dominate others, and do you enjoy taking charge of things and making people do things your way? They also dissecure with statements like life is not governed by the survival of the fittest and we should let compassion

and moral laws be your guide. Social dominators are some of the highest scores on this scale, and high scorers tend to be intimidating, ruthless, and vengeful, with no care for nobility or charity. They despise empathy and have a dog eat dog mentality toward the world. They love the power to hurt in their drive to the top. High

or degrees just stn't have that drive. And while authoritarian followers might highly value group cohesiveness and loyalty, social dominators don't because, like I keep saying, they're in it for themselves for their power, and they will be trade their own group if push comes to shove. Another area where social dominators and hired W is diverge. It's when it comes to religiousness. Authoritarian followers are usually religious fundamentalists, while

dominators don't tend to be that involved. Some of them do go to church regularly, but that's for manipulative reasons because social dominators could lie. They lie a lot. All they have to do is pretend to be religious and say the right words and boom to get through. The hirer was reminds me of a sitting politician.

take advantage of them. Social dominators disagree with statements like it gains a person nothing if he uses deceit and treachery to get power and riches and all in all, it is better to be humble and honest than important and dishonest. In essence, social dominators admit to strive and to manipulate, to be in dishonest, to be an immoral and treacherous. They see their followers as suckers, fools to be controlled. What else makes them different? Well, I could

go back to the roots of hostility. Social dominators actually show greater prejudice against minorities and women than higher ws do, but their followers are much more hostile towards LGBTQ people. Why Well, it ties back to the religiousness and the hired WA respect for the law. Since attacks against minorities are less clearly supported by religious and civic authorities as they used to be, authoritarian follower aggression towards these groups,

both overt or sneaky, had to be curved a little bit. Meanwhile, social dominators are hostile because they already live in the apocalyptic jungle that hired w is fair, and they are the apex predator. They don't score highly in the Dangerous World scale because they're not scared. They're the ones ready to weaponize that fear. Dominance is their first priority. For everyone they meet, they had a reason to not try to control them. They don't care too much about the

law either. It's just about not getting caught. They're not as self righteous as hirer w is because they're quite immoral, and hired ws aggressed when they believe right and might on their side. Social dominators aggress because might makes right for them personally. Hired w is heat caremount of fair and self righteousness in the name of authority. Social dominators hate crime out or share desire to intimidate and control. Lastly, we need to look at the differences in their thought process.

Social dominators, for the most part, don't have a web of contradictions, weak reason and skills, compartmentalized thinking, or gullibility that define higher WA's mental life. They're not particularly dogmatic or zealous about any particular cause or creed. They just want authority. They say whatever they need to say to get ahead because they have no consistent values. They'll be hypocrites like hawd was, but they're probably aware of and

find their own hypocrisy. For example, they're cool with wealth, inheritance and corruption. They're opposed to welfare. They're unconcerned with income inequality or photo disenfranchisement. They're apathetic to racial inequality and injustice. They believe that people should have to earn their place in society and they don't care if most of them can't. They still talk about how the only way to have a level play and field is to

get rid of things like affilmed to faction. And part of what defines social dominators is their utter disregard for equality. So we have to ask again, what causes this? Why are they like this? And well, social scientists just are shure. Yet if we look at the life shape and experiences or social dominators, they would probably report the deceit and cheating with good tactics because it led to what they wanted. Taking advantage of suckers felt great. They enjoyed having power

and having people afraid of them. Life boiled down to what you could get away with, and of course the experiences led them to believe that life is a jungle. Dominators were probably rewarded early in their lives when they cheated, took advantage of people, weaponized fear, overpowered others, or got away with something wrong, whether or not their peer and scare them that outlook on the world. Because of the psychological law of effect, they simply learn into the being amoral, unsympathetic,

and exploitative worked well for them. So what happens when higher WA's and social dominators work together. In this field of research, the lethal union refers to the combination of happily subservient hired ws with social dominators who share their values in the driver's seat, eager to dominate and control, a death spiral union that develops all the time in

the real world. As Altemaya aptly described quote true, sufficiently skilled social dominators served by dedicated followers can make the trains run in time, but you have to worry about what the trains may be haulin when dominators call the shots and the hired was to the shooting end quote. While most social dominators get fairly low scores on RWA tests and vice versa are very very small, more percentage of people and ultimized samples scored highly on both r

WAY and social dominance tests. These other double highs. If prejudice was a sports in the Olympics, hird WA's we get bronze, social dominators we get silver. And double Highs would definitely get gold. Now you might be wondering, how do they manage to score so highly on both tests? If social dominators and high ways have so many differences, how can somebody be a submissive dominator? So there are a couple of reasons why want to be dictator would

score highly on both tests. One is because some r WA scale statements are open to interpretation. Take the statement code our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us. End quote. A follow it will be like yes, please, and a dominator will be like here I am behold, I'm your leader. Double high still score highly on all the power scales,

like other social dominators and unlike other hard ways. Secondly, double Highs are the religious among the social dominators, so they respond to this religious items on the r W scale that other social dominators don't, thereby significantly raising their r W score. I don't think I need to go into too much detail. I feel like I should be absolutely clear the double Highs suck. Whatever the su they

probably are on the wrong side of it. The worst of the worst prejudiced, power hungry, exploititive, mad, religiously fundamentalist, dogmatic, dangerous worldest a noxious stew of the worst of all social dominators and hard was Regular social dominators might end up in charge of ptas, hoas, workplaces, local governments, and

other personal kingdoms. Not all of them succeed in life due to the animosity they create, the obstacles they might face, lack of intelligence, attractiveness, or network to gain the kind of power they want, and some of them might even get caught in their lives and illegalities and don't have the capital to get out of it. They see double highs, they tend to have a head start well. Regular social dominators have to fake their religiousness to get the support

of higher ws. Double highs can more easily get started in their own churches, already part of the in group, sharing their prejudices, economic philosophies, and political lean needs. Even if they are faking it a little bit, a double high already knows all the code words, dog whistles and Bible verses they need to get ahead. They know what stands they should hold about evolution, the role of women, abortion, school, prayer, censorship, law and order, et cetera, et cetera. Double highs run

the show you dig? Yeah for sure? So now what? Knowing that social dominators do whatever they can to hold on to power and higher ws are extremely resistant to change, how do we deal with a situation where social change requires dealing with these people? I mean, they can't debate them. Even if you were to intellectually wrestle with a double high leader and utterly destroy them with facts and logic, their higher WA audience is not likely to change their minds.

Trying to change highly dogmatic, evidence immune ethnocentric people is an exercise in frustration and futility. It's also hard to fight to share fair mongrant power of the likes of Fox News and Facebook to combat the class and religious roots of ethnocentrism and to reduce the self righteousness of their followers. It's even harder to convince them that they are being systematically misinformed and played for fools by their leaders.

Even if they listen to these episodes, or watch my videos or read ultimized books, they would either get defensive or honestly, because a lot of them aren't self aware, assume that this is about someone else finding a way to compartmentalize, misinterpret, rationalize, and dogmatically deny anything I've said so far. So what to do? First and foremost, representation matters. It's important that hire ws see more of the breath

and diversity of human existence and experience. The reality is skewed, and the visibility and representation of people from other backgrounds, not just the media, but also in their personal lives is very important. One thing studies have shown is that higher ws who know a Cay person are far less likely to be homophobic than their fellow higher ws. And the best exposures different types of people is through access to higher education, or more broadly, just any space with diversity.

College may not necessarily turn them into commit to the revolutionaries. Contrary it's popular belief, but the environment of higher education has a tremendously beneficial impact on higher ws. Four years of undergrad experience can knock their scores down by fifteen to twenty percent. Academic spaces need to be alive, vibrant, and most of all accessible, and we need people in academic and non academic spaces to embrace the power of influence. I don't mean this in a give them an authority

and to follow kind of way. I'm not talking about becoming a club president or ordering people around. I'm not thinking about hierarchical leadership, but rather the natural influence of individuals who model exemplary behavior and provide an example for others to look to, people who freely lend their talents

and knowledge and mentorship to others. In a conformity experiment in however, in the late nineteen forties, real subjects were surrounded by actors who deliberately gave obviously wrong answers to questions. Usually the sub went along with the wrong majority at least some of the time. But if in another condition of the experiment, one other person gave the right answer, real subjects were much more likely to do the right thing, even though it meant joining a distinct minority rather than

the majority. So I'm saying that as the people who hold radical beliefs, it's important to stand up. You know, you don't have to form majority to have an effect. Two or three people speaking out can sometimes change the decisions of entire school boards, church boards, or other institutions. Obviously, reform is not going to be enough, but we do need to present some opposition on that front, and that sphere.

You know, lack of opposition teaches dominators to keep dominating, and it only taaks one person to start the opposition the domino effects that could potentially influence even higher ws because at the end of the day, it's clear that they want to be quote unquote normal in their bubbles and their echo chambers. They don't really realize how extreme

they are. Then, to be exposed to the perspectives and experiences of people outside their tight circles, Mutual aid and other organized efforts can show them the humanity of other people, finding common ground and common cause. But ultimately, in my view, the best long term solutions require youth liberation and prefiguration. We need youth liberation both at home and at school

and everywhere else. As long as we continue to reinforce the notion that children need to blindly submit to authorities, as long as we refuse to grant them humanity and autonomy, we will continue to be without humanity and autonomy. We will continue to have adult generation after generation who do not know how to resist authority. We must prefigure those relationships in our personal lives and our social spaces, or we must prefigure our liberation. It's not enough to just

pain against social dominators. We have to dismantle the systems that allow them to dominate in the foost place. The only way to keep social dominators from season power is to prefigure a system where no one person can so easily coerce and dominate. To quote Bob Waltamaya one last time, we cannot secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity if we sitt with our oars out of the water. If we drift mind leslie, circumstances can sweep

us a disaster. Our societies presently produce millions of highly authoritarian personalities, as a matter of course, enough to stage the Nuremberg rallies over and over and over again. Turn in a blind eye to this put someday point guns at all of our heads, and the fingers on the triggers will belong to right wing authoritarians. We ignore this at our peril. Social dominators want you complacent, apathetic, hopeless,

and out of the world way. They want to control everything and everybody, and they have their loyal followers ready to mobilize. They are not the majority, but they're determined to win. Do not let them. If you know what's happening. If you spot these signs in your own spaces, it's your responsibility to do something about it, to organize, to educate. Because one person could accomplish so much, and two people could accomplish so much more. Good luck, all power to

all the people. Because it could happen here. Can follow me on puture in dot com stas saying true this has been Andrew Sage Andwism it could happen here, or La Jazz this.