Andrew on the Authoritarian Follower

all the people. Most people aren't anarchists, unfortunately, but I've noticed that generally speaking, some folks are more receptive to anarchist ideas and others just seem to shut down without

engaging with it earnestly or meaningfully. You get a mix of those reactions in my comments, so overwhelmingly toward the receptive side, because I mean, that's the kind of intellectual curiosity I tried to attract my space, But the more hostile reactions had me thinking about a book that I read many years ago, and their video on years after

that was called The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer. So, once taking another look at the ideas in that book, because even though Ultimid doesn't land and any truly radical conclusions, his scholarship, in my opinion, gets us closer to understanding the psychology of both authoritarian followers and authoritarian leaders. Also Rest in Peace. I found out that he died when I was preparing this just this year in February. But yeah, that aside. We'll be talking about the former first, and

that is what's up with authoritarian followers. Let's get into it first. We need some context. So in the wake of wil Wards, two social scientists sought an explanation for the evils perpetuated by the Nazi government during the war. Theodore W. A'dno Els, Frankel Brunswick, Daniel Evanson, and Nevit Sandford published The Authoritarian Personality in nineteen fifty, proposing a personality type for the fascist follower ranked on an F scale.

They particularly concentrated on prejudice within the psychoanalytic and psychosocial frameworks of Freudian and Fromian theories. Their work was highly critiqued, but it was also highly influential in laying the groundwork forile understanding of authoritarian personalities. In the aftermath of Adorno and Company's book, Social scientists will continue to tweak, develop

and expand our understanding of authoritarian psychology. Most notably, the concept will be refined by Bob Altemeyer, a Canadian American psychology professor, proposed the right wing authoritarian personality in nineteen eighty one. After numerous studies, Oltimin presented his findings in his free book The Authoritarians in two thousand and six. I had to clarify, though right wing here is not being used in the context of the political spectrum, which

is a concept that its own scrutiny. In this context, Ultimate uses the word right in the sense of the old English writ, an adjective for lawful and proper. Ultimate defines authoritarianism as quote, something authoritarian followers and authoritarian leaders cook up between themselves. It happens when the followers submit too much to the leaders, trust them too much, and give them too much leeway to do whatever they want,

which often is something undemocratic, tyrannical, and brutal unquote. I find this definition of authoritarianism lacking, but am anarchist, so of course I would to me if authority is defined as the recognized right above others in a social relationship to give commands, make decisions, and enforce obedience. Then I would define authoritarianism as a matter of degree to which

you uphold the principle of authority. I think many people are at least authoritarian light because that's the status go unfortunately. But more specifically, I think the people we call authoritarians are those which are especially invested in the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of

freedom and plurality. So right wing authority and followers or r WA's are those which overwhelmingly support the established authorities in their society, like government officials, arms of the state, and traditional religious leaders. In North America and elsewhere, r WA's tend to be or other I should say high r was because the RWA thing is a scale, but

the high r was tend to be political conservatives. However, that doesn't mean the authority and personality is exclusive to conservatives, not as exclusive to North America, but the scale is definitely tailored to a North American and English speaking audience lend into its documented issues that translate into other regions.

But with effort, I could definitely see it being adapted to other cultural contexts as well, and as also my argues, the concept of the right wing authoritarian could equally apply to society with the established authorities claim to be represent in the left. So what defines the right wing authorityian personality?

Psychologically speaking? They feature three primary traits or attitudes. For one, a high degree of submission to authorities we perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives. Two a general aggressiveness directed against various persons that is perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities, And three a high degree of adherence to the social conventions that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities.

These traits are measured with the right Wing Authoritarianism Scale or r A scale for short. It's readily accessible online, so I'm not going to go through the entire scale point by point, but basically includes a mixed series of statements that folks can indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with statements like our country will be great if we on other ways of our forefathers. Do the authorities

tell us to do? And get rid of the naples who are ruining everything, or what our country really needs is a strong, determined leader who will crush evil and take us back to our true path. And just to mix things up. A woman's place should be wherever she wants to be. The days when women were submissive to their husbands and social conventions belong strictly in the past. As you could imagine, the degree to which you agree or discree these statements would place you somewhere along the scale.

The lowest total possible score and ultimized version of the test would be twenty and the highest one hundred and eighty, but most people will hit either extreme. A sample of one thousand Americans in two thousand and five found that

the average score was ninety. Technically speaking, high RWAs are just people who score higher than the average population, so it's really a relative to Also another disclaimer, in the context of psychological studies, personality tests can definitely make mistakes about individuals, so it's not a diagnostic tool for individuals to determine if they'd make a good storm trooper. However,

the scale can reliably identify levels of authoritarianism in groups. Also, keep in mind that stuff like the interpretation of wording and fore knowledge of what the test is trying to measure can definitely influence results. Still, this tool has been used for most of Altemeier's research authoritarianism, so it's good to be familiar with it. So now you may be wondering how well does the RWA skill's measurement of submission, aggression,

and conventionalism map onto people's reality. So for submission, higher RWs tend to believe that people should submit authority in almost all circumstances, So they put a lot of trust in the law and the authorities. Maybe not all authorities in every single circumstance, but they definitely brought into the

concept itself. For the types who trusted Nixon during and even after the War to Gaate crisis, likely the ones in Germany in nineteen forty five who refuse to believe that Hitler was responsible for the Holocaust, the type to rapidly support anti terrorist initiatives, no matter to how invasive. Throughout his research, Altimore found that higheres are far more likely to tolerate police burglaries, drug rades without warrants, police

crackdowns on peaceful protests. Subversion via Ajan's provocateurs and so on. As far as they're concerned, Father knows best. Their favorite authorities are above the law, But like I said, they don't always submit. Their blind support can be trumped by other concerns. But most times they're not big fans of holding officials accountable for their actions. They really don't care if a cop kills someone in broad daylight or someone

drives through a crowd of protesters on the street. In terms of aggression, higher wees aggress when they believe right and might on their side. Right meaning their hostility is authority approved might meaning they have a physical, tactical, or numerical advantage over their target. They don't fight far, and just like they go easier on authorities who commit crimes, they go easier on anyone who attacks people they're prejudiced against. But they definitely don't go easy on the people they hate.

They seek to sentence criminals to longer terms and average And there's some of the loudest supporters of capital punishment. And if they hate one group, bet your bottom dollar they probably hate other groups too. You could call them equal opportunity bigots. Chances are if they hate immigrants or trans people, those are not going to be the only targets of their ire. Their prejudice has more to do

with their own personality and their targets actual attributes. Still, they don't always aggress when they think the proper authorities approve, just like they don't always submit. They are always more factors that play in any given situation, including a fair of counter aggression or consequences that may hold their hostilities. Regarding conventionalism, higher was believe that everyone should live by

the norms that their authorities have decreed. Multiculturalism, plurality, diversity, those things clash with what they consider correct and what they consider wrong. They usually get their ideas from fundamentalists religions, so you'll find that higher WA's are strong advocates for the traditional family structure, with patriarchal husbands, submissive wives, and obedient children. They're also far more likely to support their

governments patriotic version of various historical narratives. Most interestingly, their conventionalism even influences their response to the high RW test itself. If they were totally average response for a statement on the test, they were far more likely to adjust their answers to the mean than most When asked what they would like their own RWA score to be. Low, rbs

said they would like to be low. RWs middle or W said they'd like to be low w's, but higher ws said they want to be middles, not lows or highs. Why because they tend to rank being normal very highly in values tests. Also, just because they were to be normal does means they don't want to be richer or smarter than others not doesn't mean they're necessarily going to drop their prejudices. They may get tugged slightly, like with the somewhat decrease in prejudice against gay people after the

legalization of gay marriage. But their normal is often a measure of what's normal in their in group. So if it's still normal in their in group to be violently homophobic, more than likely they will still be violently homophobic.

in hierarchy to facilitate said absolutism. But there are authoritarians who also fever absolutist forms of government with slight differences believe n that the presently dominates in hierarchy should be overthrown and replaced with their own. These have potentially been called left wing authoritarians, even though the right and right wing authoritarians didn't have anything to do with the political spectrum.

Let's keep pushing. In chapter nine of The Authoritarian Inspector, Altemaier conceptualizes left wing authoritarianism or LWA, as also composed of submission, aggression, and conventionalism, So essentially LWA is a subcategory of RWAs. He's also quick to point out not all leftists are lws, but as he describes them, l ws are revolutionaries who one submit to movement leaders who

must be obeyed aka submission. Two have enemies who must be ruined from capitalists to counter revolutionaries aka aggression, and three have rules and party discipline that must be followed aka conventionalism. In essence, authoritarianism is psychological r ways support the established authorities elders oppose them in favor of their own, but the underlying dispositional core is still authoritarianism. But the

focus is on ar debas in general. Here concerning these trade submission, aggression, conventionalism, it's clear that people with right wing authoritarian and personalities are rather dangerous. They find it easier to bully, harass, punish, mame, torture, eliminate, and exterminate their victims than most people do. They're more willing to join mobs and militias, more likely to blame victims for their misfortune, and more likely to condemn common criminals to

long brutal sentences in jail. They seem to have a lot of hostility boiling away inside them that their authorities can easily unleash. So we have to ask what causes this? Why are they like this? According to Albert Bandura's social learning theory of aggression, aggression occurs after two conditions are met. Firstly, some feelings like anger or envy meet us to a hostility. Secondly, inhibitions or contextual restraints against release in that hostility would

have to be overcome. Only then can the aggression erupt and flow. So let's discuss the instigator and releaser of authoritarian aggression. High days are highly motivated by fear like they have an extra dose of fair response in their genes more than most people. They probably learn to be fearful from their parents about all kinds of things you know, radicals, atheists, kidnappers,

queer people, et cetera, et cetera. They grew up in a scarier world than modes, which is probably why they tend to score so highly on the Dangerous World scale. That scale, like previous scales, provides statements and measures levels of agreement or disagreement with stuff like quote. If our society keeps degenerating the way it has been lately, it's liable to collapse like a rotten dog, and everything will be chaos and quote any d now, chaos and anarchy

could erupt around us. All the signs are pointing to it, and code everything to them is a sign of the times. A perversion corrupt in society in peaceful times and in generally dangerous ones. Hired luys feel threatened. But what releases that aggressive impulse to act? Also, I have found, more than anything else self righteousness. Of course, almost everyone thinks they're a bit more moral than average, but higher luys they tend to think they're the holy ones, the chosen,

the righteous. That empowers them to isolate, segregate, humiliate, persecute, harass, beat and kill. That self righteousness, combine with their high scores on the dangerous world scale, is what empowers their prejudice, their heavy handedness, their means spiritedness, and their eagerness to crusade against the other. So how do high ars become high ws? Are they born that way? Possibly? Do their parents make them that way? Somewhat but not completely? See

no one's a complete cobon copy of their parents. It's what determines a person's position on the art of wa experience. Our life experiences teach us lessons that our parents and payers may not. Our experiences with authorities shape or perception of authority. Especially when someone hits adolescence, they tend to chafe against authority, even if they submitted to authority as children. Those hormonal urges, desires for astronomy and new experiences could

shake up their early lessons completely. Experiences could either end up reinforcing their authorities teachings or contradicting them entirely. Naturally, it's easier for kids from authoritarian homes to remain authoritarian and vice versa, but ultimately experiences do most of the shape. Middle r was have some mix of experiences and upbringing that keeps them in the middle. When it comes to

Higher was, their experiences were probably very controlled. Authoritarian followers usually live in a homogeneous bubble of patriotic traditional people, an echo chamber apart from the evils of the world, safely kept on a short leash for most of their lives. But there's hope yet. Otomi's research has shown that higher was can change if they have some life experiences. That's why university can be such a game change of people.

It's just meeting new people, leaving that small, enclosed world and developing relationships with people of different walks of life, and that makes a big difference. There are a couple of traits that make Higher Ways such good followers for would be dictators. In short, those traits are illogical thinking, highly compartmentalized, minds, double standards, hypocrisy, a lack of self awareness, ethnocentrism, dogmatism in long will consider syllogism. All fish live in

the sea, sharks live in the sea. Therefore sharks are fish. Logically speaking, the conclusion doesn't follow. Even if sharks are fish, and they are the premises don't support the conclusion. But if higher w were asked if the reasoning was correct, they were more likely than most to say that it was. When asked why, they'd answer because sharks are fish, in essence, because they agreed with the conclusion they assumed for reasoning

was right. That simple test shows that if authority and followers like the conclusion, the logic involved is fairly irrelevant. Reasoning is what should justify the conclusion, but as far as they're concerned, the conclusion validates the reasoning. Of course, let me not overstate a lot of people have trouble with logistic reasoning. Higher was just happened to be slightly more likely to make such mistakes, But higher WA's generally have more trouble than most people do realize in a

conclusion as false. They have a harder time determine whether empirical evidence proves or doesn't prove something. They more easily fill gaps in science with supernatural forces, and they have trouble being critical of anything unless they already gotten their talking points from their authorities. Regarding the highly compartmentalized minds, I mean, we all have some inconsistencies not thinking, but

their minds as be like oil and water. One second they say in free speech, next they say in ban critical race theory. One moment they're talking about individual freedom, and next their basically throat in the boots of the state. They don't merge files in their brain to really see what fits. They centily just pick up whatever their demogogues

are saying. And if your mind is such a massive contradiction, so you're going to end up with a lot of double standards easily justify for whatever idea you hold, it's most convenient in the moment. Principles are really irrelevant. Keep in mind the excuses they make for those in power and how hard they are in victims. Classic example is the difference between how they treat a prisoner who beats up another prisoner versus a police officer who beats up a prisoner. The d de B is usually don't have

such stark double standards hypocrisy. I'm going to keep using this example because you know it's still somewhat topical critical race theory. As much as authoritarians accuse the left of being anti free speech politically correct types, RBA is a far more likely to report a desire to censor ideas they don't like. This is also because they tend to

lack basic self awareness. If presented with a list of things right between, authoritarians are likely to do like be prejudiced to conform us, et cetera, and then ask how true it is of themselves compared to most other people. They really have no idea how different they actually are, and that's partially because of the bubble they tend to exist in. Us versus them is a very hard line

in the sand for authoritarians. Humans as a whole do have a tendency sometimes to fall into tribal patterns of thinking, but authoritarians see the world far more sharply in terms of their in groups and our groups. And most we do tend to associate with people who agree with us in many issues, but authoritarians really do stick to their bubble and ethnocentric reinforcement. That's why they don't realize how presudiced, or aggressive or submissive they are to compare to most people.

By avoiding challenges to their beliefs and holding faster their authorities, they remain stuck in a circular logic of I'm right because the people I agree with say I'm right. Finally, in terms of dogmatism, higher was holds a unchangeable, unjustified certainty,

righteousness beyond a shadow of a doubt. They're more likely than most people to agree with statements like the things I believe in are so completely true, I could never doubt them, and there are no discoveries or facts that could possibly make me change my mind about the things that matter most in life. I am absolutely certain that

ideas about the fundamental issues in life are correct. Meanwhile, they're more likely than most people to disagree with statements like it's best to be open to all possibilities and ready to re evaluate all your beliefs. And flexibility is a real virtual and thinking since you may very well be wrong when you receive or absorb rather than contemplate your beliefs, you have no basis upon which SHO determine whether or not they're true. So you avoid challenges by

staying in the bubble as much as possible. When that can't be avoided, threaton out whatever talking points you got from wherever, and if that dialogue tree fails, you can always fall back in your group's assurance that you are right. Now, you could challenge your beliefs, or you could insist you're right and retreat. What option do you think higher was tend.