Discussions on Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. (Split requested by Phi for All)

[Acme]

As I said I understand where you're coming from Phi for All and agree.

 

And sure a household budjet is vastly different from a national economy, iNow, and its understandable that sometimes exceptions have to be made. However when you are in trouble with your spending you don't ask for a higher limit on your credit card !

The examples of nations who haven't learned this lesson are plentiful...

Argentina, Greece , Portugal, Spain, Italy etc. How are thir economies doing ?

The US has raised its borrowing limit to avoid defaulting

My own province, Ontario, has a higher debt than California

Yet again you avoid addressing the specifics of what you want cut. I'm not surprised. And never mind that raising the debt ceiling has historically been a no-big-deal regular occurrence even in Republican/conservative run Congress' of the US. Oh, and pay no attention to the surplus that Bush inherited and what he did to it. Conservative insanity is no different in Canada as you would know from the Canadian author of the scientific psychological work I have been citing if you were to bother and read it.

[MigL]

As I've often mentioned, stupidity runs rampant in all types of governments, wether republican/consrvative or democrat/liberal.

It is only you that seeks to assign those labels to stupid behaviour, that one ideology is much better than the other, and that approx. half of the american population is insane and undeserving of an apinion. You're a little full of yourself, aren't you ?

 

And you're not surprised that I don't mention cuts ? Re-read my posts as well as your own and tell me where I've mentioned cuts, or where you've asked me about cuts ? Have you simply imagined most of this discussion and not bothered to read anyone else's posts ?

 

And while we're on the subject, scientific psycological work is a misnomer. There is very little that's scientific about psycology. And if you were a scientist you'd know why.

[John Cuthber]

Come on, to "live within your means " implies that , if times get hard you cut spending.

 

You said "However when you are in trouble with your spending you don't ask for a higher limit on your credit card !" so, either you cut spending or you do the thing that sets a government apart from a household.

 

You increase your income.

Governments can do that- they can (and do) raise taxes.

 

The classic distinction between Left and Right is whether they want to increase or decrease tax revenue.

You presumably have a view on that and it defines whether you are politically Left or Right, no matter how you think your daughter should dress.

[MigL]

Correct me if I'm wrong, John, but I think republicans have raised taxes more than democrats in the last 20 yrs or so. I'm not 100% sure as I'm not american after all. Bush Sr. IIRC asked us to read his lips.

Raising taxes is a necessary evil. I am canadian after all. We are overtaxed and our consrvatives are more liberal than your democrats.

 

My problem is with borrowing.

When servicing the debt becomes one of the largest expenses in the budget, higher than health care, higher than education, higher than defense and higher than social programs, then you and Acme have to explain what YOU would start cutting.

Edited August 8, 2014 by MigL

[Acme]

As I've often mentioned, stupidity runs rampant in all types of governments, wether republican/consrvative or democrat/liberal.

It is only you that seeks to assign those labels to stupid behaviour, that one ideology is much better than the other, and that approx. half of the american population is insane and undeserving of an apinion. You're a little full of yourself, aren't you ?

 

And you're not surprised that I don't mention cuts ? Re-read my posts as well as your own and tell me where I've mentioned cuts, or where you've asked me about cuts ? Have you simply imagined most of this discussion and not bothered to read anyone else's posts ?

 

And while we're on the subject, scientific psycological work is a misnomer. There is very little that's scientific about psycology. And if you were a scientist you'd know why.

The topic of this thread is [political] psychology and if you can't stay on topic stay out of it. Introducing your personal opinions/preferences/actions as evidence is baiting other respondents to direct personal replies to/at you which is against our rules and already warned against by staff in this thread.

------------------------

 

Returning to the topic at hand, a summary of topic headings from Chapter Three of The Authoritarians which are indicative of 'mild' insanity and a quote from that chapter's footnotes.

 

Chapter Three

How Authoritarian Followers Think

1. Illogical Thinking

2. Highly Compartmentalized Minds

3. Double Standards

4. Hypocrisy

5. Blindness To Themselves

6. A Profound Ethnocentrism

7. Dogmatism: The Authoritarians Last Ditch Defense

 

[bolding mine]

[pg. 109]¹¹ An NBC News/Wall St. Journal poll released on December 12, 2006 found only 23% of Americans still approved of President Bush's policy on Iraq. Support on this issue is boiling down to the bed rock of hard-core right-wing authoritarians, who seem to make up roughly 20-25% of the American public. The same poll, and several others at the same time, found 34% still gave Bush's overall performance positive marks. A month later, on the eve of Bush's address to the nation pushing for a "surge" in troop strength in Iraq, a Gallup poll found his overall approval rating had dropped to 26%. A CBS News Poll on January 22, 2007 put the figure at 28%. At the end of 2006 an Ipsos Poll of the American public for AP/AOL News found the president was spontaneously named the baddest "bad guy" on the planet more often (25%) than anyone else. But he was also named by others the best

"good guy" more (13%) than anyone else. GWB was also spontaneously named the "most admired man" in the annual Gallup Poll at the end of the year--again by 13% of the respondents, more than anyone else. ...

[iNow]

Correct me if I'm wrong, John, but I think republicans have raised taxes more than democrats in the last 20 yrs or so.

Not really, no.

 

[Walter]

With respect to the government helping people,

 

Still a teenager in the Fall of 1971, I was sitting in a college chemistry lab and picked up a newspaper. I was never a reader of news, but noticed an article about the federal budget on the front page. I was skimming over the article when I got to the part about welfare. Ten percent of the population was living in poverty and ~$45 billion was budgeted to help them.

 

Well, I had to “translate”, so I took out my pencil and quickly did some arithmetic. 200 million times 0.1, divided by 4 for number of families, divided into the ~45 billion. I came up with ~$7000 per family. I immediately knew something was wrong because that Spring a senior chemistry major had been offered a job in industry for $7400 per year. There were a lot of zeros on that page and I immediately concluded that I was off by an order of magnitude. I messed up somewhere with canceling out all those zeros.

 

I repeated the arithmetic several times with no change. I even went to the calculator room (isn’t that funny, a calculator room) and sat down at one of the electromechanical Monroe calculators. These calculators weighed ~30 pounds. Well, no difference in the arithmetic. I knew that $70,000 was unlikely, so I thought about $700 per family per year. That seemed too low but more reasonable since the poor were still poor. After doing the calculations in reverse, I concluded that the $7000 number was indeed correct.

 

Still being afraid I missed something, I took that sheet home for Thanksgiving and went downstairs where the resident mathematician/electrical engineer spent most of his time. Dad glanced at the sheet for about 15 seconds and nodded. All correct.

 

I think a discussion about helping those in poverty should start in 1971, or better yet, 1964. Because we are scientists (analytical chemist for me), we should try to stick to numbers (population, percentages, dollars) and any other pertinent data.

 

Here is one way to look at the above numbers. If each poor family received $1000 per year, there was an administrative cost of 86%.

 

We can ignore dollars per year per poor family and look only at welfare as a percent of gross domestic product in 1971. However, I would still be interested in knowing who ended up with that $6000.

 

Here is an analogy. Think of food as a total dollar amount or percent of income. It might sound acceptable until you discover that my children are fed 300 calories per day and my wife and I eat the remainder.

[Acme]

With respect to the government helping people,

 

 

Still a teenager in the Fall of 1971, I was sitting in a college chemistry lab and picked up a newspaper. I was never a reader of news, but noticed an article about the federal budget on the front page. I was skimming over the article when I got to the part about welfare. Ten percent of the population was living in poverty and ~$45 billion was budgeted to help them.

 

Well, I had to “translate”, so I took out my pencil and quickly did some arithmetic. 200 million times 0.1, divided by 4 for number of families, divided into the ~45 billion. I came up with ~$7000 per family. I immediately knew something was wrong because that Spring a senior chemistry major had been offered a job in industry for $7400 per year. There were a lot of zeros on that page and I immediately concluded that I was off by an order of magnitude. I messed up somewhere with canceling out all those zeros.

 

I repeated the arithmetic several times with no change. I even went to the calculator room (isn’t that funny, a calculator room) and sat down at one of the electromechanical Monroe calculators. These calculators weighed ~30 pounds. Well, no difference in the arithmetic. I knew that $70,000 was unlikely, so I thought about $700 per family per year. That seemed too low but more reasonable since the poor were still poor. After doing the calculations in reverse, I concluded that the $7000 number was indeed correct.

 

Still being afraid I missed something, I took that sheet home for Thanksgiving and went downstairs where the resident mathematician/electrical engineer spent most of his time. Dad glanced at the sheet for about 15 seconds and nodded. All correct.

 

I think a discussion about helping those in poverty should start in 1971, or better yet, 1964. Because we are scientists (analytical chemist for me), we should try to stick to numbers (population, percentages, dollars) and any other pertinent data.

 

Here is one way to look at the above numbers. If each poor family received $1000 per year, there was an administrative cost of 86%.

 

We can ignore dollars per year per poor family and look only at welfare as a percent of gross domestic product in 1971. However, I would still be interested in knowing who ended up with that $6000.

 

Here is an analogy. Think of food as a total dollar amount or percent of income. It might sound acceptable until you discover that my children are fed 300 calories per day and my wife and I eat the remainder.

 

With all due respect none of that is the subject of this thread. Please revisit the OP and stay on topic.

[Ten oz]

Sorry I took so long to get back to you Ten oz.

I don't know what political conservatism is but I consider myself fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

 

Although as someone has stated, being socially liberal is fine when it applies to yourself or others; not so much when applied to your daughter ( I don't have a daughter, just a niece, but I see his point ).

This is how I once viewed myself. Fiscally conservative and Socially liberal. More I followed politics the more I began to wonder if either classification truly existed as stances that could be without conflict. For example:

Is raising the minium wage a social issue or a fiscal issue?

Is providing Healthcare a social or fiscal issue?

Is the Social Security program a social or fiscal issue?

Is corperate personhood a social or fiscal issue?

Is Climate Change a social or fiscal issue?

Is Afghanistan and Iraq a social or fiscal issue?

 

There is a lot of overlap. Worse still is that we (USA) have a two party system. So it often feels like a choice between the better of two evils. For me, I identify the two party system as absolute. Because for now I feel it is. Beyond the rhetoric of any campaign politicians are either Democrat or Republican. They will yield to the will of there party. They will no matter the issue be opposed by the other party. This makes it naive, IMO, to vote for the person and not the party. So as a fiscal conservative who is socially liberal which party do you most feel represented by? For me that was tough question to answer. So tough I realized I was not a fiscal conservative and social liberal. Neither made sense when comparing the two party we (USA) have.

[John Cuthber]

BTW, for the benefit of those in the USA, much of the rest of the world wonders why you call your two parties Left and Right.

From our point of view it's a matter of very Right and even more Right,

 

This may go some way to explaining the issues raised.

[Acme]

This is how I once viewed myself. Fiscally conservative and Socially liberal. More I followed politics ...

I suppose I'm beating a dead horse here, but any chance you could couch your comments in terms of the topic?

 

BTW, for the benefit of those in the USA, much of the rest of the world wonders why you call your two parties Left and Right.

From our point of view it's a matter of very Right and even more Right,

 

This may go some way to explaining the issues raised.

While I have not seen much-if-any mention of British 'mild' political insanity in the study that I am currently covering, there is mention of Canada and Australia. I assure you y'all aren't missing out on a share of high right-wing authoritarians and I suspect your years-long dust-up between the Catholics and Protestants would not be lacking for such individuals whether followers or leaders. You seem to have at least hinted at the psychology of right-wing/conservative politics, but as for reference or -dare I say evidence- ...nada.

 

On that note, the next up is Chapter 4. Note that this is just the first of 80+ plus studies covered in the meta study of the OP so we have ample time for on topic commentary of the scientific kind. (Not that I'm holding my breath for that party.)

 

The Authoritarians

[pg. 112]Chapter Four

Authoritarian Followers and Religious Fundamentalism

Edited August 9, 2014 by Acme

[Ten oz]

I suppose I'm beating a dead horse here, but any chance you could couch your comments in terms of the topic?

This is your thread. If it is your preference that I not comment in it I will most certain respect that?

[Acme]

This is your thread. If it is your preference that I not comment in it I will most certain respect that?

As I earlier pointed out, it's not my thread by choice. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you read the whole thread even if it's not apparent.

 

Be that as it may I have yet to see a response from anyone on the topic of the studies put forward in the (or per se my) Opening Post nor any indication any respondents have actually read the meta-study or the first study I have been exploring in depth. I welcome your comments Ten oz -and any-or-every ones' comments- if they are on topic.

 

Here we have an opportunity to gain a scientific perspective on a most vexing phenomena and yet no one seems able or willing to seize it and instead all seem determined to do exactly the opposite to imatfaal's early admonition. To whit:

!

Moderator Note

Can we ensure we keep this discussion fairly dispassionate and disinterested? It has the potential to descend into a morass of gross stereotyping and bigotry; any hint of an "us v them" slanging match will be frowned upon.

If this trend continues I entreat staff to close the thread.

Color me frowning.

[Walter]

Acme,

A scientific perspective is what I was attempting. And there have been references to fiscal restraint in many of the comments. Two family members would easily describe me as insane.

 

National Debt (independent of which party is in power)

1976 0.6 trillion

2014 17

2020 21 plus or minus

2025 24

 

Administrative costs for charity, 1971, $7000 contributed per poor family per year:

1000 to family 86%

2000 71

3000 57

4000 43

5000 29

6000 14

7000 0

[John Cuthber]

. You seem to have at least hinted at the psychology of right-wing/conservative politics, but as for reference or -dare I say evidence- ...nada.

 

You seem to have missed the evidence I cited.

Here it is again.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68375-has-the-republican-party-lost-its-collective-mind/?hl=batshit#entry697415

[Acme]

Acme,

A scientific perspective is what I was attempting. And there have been references to fiscal restraint in many of the comments. Two family members would easily describe me as insane.

 

National Debt (independent of which party is in power)

1976 0.6 trillion

2014 17

2020 21 plus or minus

2025 24

 

Administrative costs for charity, 1971, $7000 contributed per poor family per year:

1000 to family 86%

2000 71

3000 57

4000 43

5000 29

6000 14

7000 0

But Walter, that does not address the psychology in-and-of itself. You are just giving an example of an economic approach without any reference to the whys and wherefores of the reasoning or motivation behind it.

 

You seem to have at least hinted at the psychology of right-wing/conservative politics, but as for reference or -dare I say evidence- ...nada.

You seem to have missed the evidence I cited.

Here it is again.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68375-has-the-republican-party-lost-its-collective-mind/?hl=batshit#entry697415

 

I followed your link when you posted it John but it is just to a thread rife with ranting and examples of 'bat-shit crazy' Rebublican behavior. (Yes, I joined in a bit of that myself. Shame on me. ) However, as with Walter's example above, your reference John does not address the psychology behind such behaviors nor is that thread as broad as the topic of this thread which is looking at the science that analyses 'whacky' conservative behaviors beyond just Republicans or just within the US.

 

Have either of you yet read the initial meta-study from the OP here? Anyone? I can only presume not.

[Ten oz]

As I earlier pointed out, it's not my thread by choice. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you read the whole thread even if it's not apparent.Be that as it may I have yet to see a response from anyone on the topic of the studies put forward in the (or per se my) Opening Post nor any indication any respondents have actually read the meta-study or the first study I have been exploring in depth. I welcome your comments Ten oz -and any-or-every ones' comments- if they are on topic.

Okay, you caught me. I have been purposely avoiding a direct reply to "Conservatism as a motivated social cognition". My views wade into areas that are difficult to discuss openly and can polarize people. I assume that is why it (it will be defined shortly) was left out of the research on this issue. So I will just apologize in advance to anyone may be offended. I am merely trying to be honest about my thoughts toward the supporting research presented toward original topic. That send I can already feel all the negative reputations coming.

 

Of the several theories presented IMO only Social Dominance comes close to exampling the conservative state of mind as it applies to the western world: "According to social domi- nance theory, human societies strive to minimize group conflict by developing ideological belief systems that justify the hegemony of some groups over others".

 

Still, in outlining this theory RACISM was carefully avoided as the root cause. Racism was replaced with hegemony. Upon signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 LBJ famously said "we have lost the south for a generation". The "we" was a reference to the Democratic party. He was right. The southern states of the United States have staunchly been Republican since. The switch to "conservatism" having everything to do with race and little to do with: Fear and aggression, Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, Uncertainty avoidance, Need for cognitive closure, and Terror management. The Republican Southern Strategy is a real thing.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

 

A quick look around the United States at voting regions which are safely conservative reveals the role race plays. States like Idaho, Utah, Nebraska, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, and etc where the populations are overwhelming white the politics also happen to be overwhelmingly conservative. The only demographic the Republican party wins is whites. All other groups: blacks, hispanics, and Asians heavily favor Democrats.

http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politics/2012/all/president/#.U-ayL2t5mSM

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_08.html

 

Of course the analysis did not only look at the United States. It looked at Canada, England, South Africa, Israel, Germany, New Zealnd, Scottland, Poland, Sweden, and Italy. However all those countries have similar ethic strife and racial division that mirrors that of the United States past. The research fails to acknowledge or address the reason those countries were chosen.

 

I am not calling anyone who votes conservative a racist. There are legitimate agruments made by Republicans, Democrats, Communists, Socalists, libertarians, and so on. I am just pointing out what I feel is a rather obvious component that has been talk around rather than directly about. When groups like the Tea Party scream "we want our country back" who is the we?

[Acme]

Okay, you caught me. I have been purposely avoiding a direct reply to "Conservatism as a motivated social cognition". My views wade into areas that are difficult to discuss openly and can polarize people. I assume that is why it (it will be defined shortly) was left out of the research on this issue. So I will just apologize in advance to anyone may be offended. I am merely trying to be honest about my thoughts toward the supporting research presented toward original topic. That send I can already feel all the negative reputations coming.

+1 Kudos for taking on the topic in a straightforward and rational approach. This topic/thread is by nature polarizing and I don't doubt that fact is behind many of the 'I don't like labels' protestations. But science is not a matter of like or not, it's a matter of facts, or per se qualifications.

 

Of the several theories presented IMO only Social Dominance comes close to exampling the conservative state of mind as it applies to the western world: "According to social domi- nance theory, human societies strive to minimize group conflict by developing ideological belief systems that justify the hegemony of some groups over others".

I have not yet looked at Social Dominance in depth and until I do I can only give a cursory address to a few of the issues you bring up below.

 

Still, in outlining this theory RACISM was carefully avoided as the root cause. Racism was replaced with hegemony. Upon signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 LBJ famously said "we have lost the south for a generation". The "we" was a reference to the Democratic party. He was right. The southern states of the United States have staunchly been Republican since. The switch to "conservatism" having everything to do with race and little to do with: Fear and aggression, Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, Uncertainty avoidance, Need for cognitive closure, and Terror management. The Republican Southern Strategy is a real thing.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

I can only say that I lived through the Civil Rights era and I think Johnson's 'we' referred to we-the-people-of-the-United-States, i.e. the Union. I have my doubts that 'we' ever had the South in that vein and Johnson may have better said 'lost for another generation'. In any case I have bookmarked your link and will read it.

 

A quick look around the United States at voting regions which are safely conservative reveals the role race plays. States like Idaho, Utah, Nebraska, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, and etc where the populations are overwhelming white the politics also happen to be overwhelmingly conservative. The only demographic the Republican party wins is whites. All other groups: blacks, hispanics, and Asians heavily favor Democrats.

http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politics/2012/all/president/#.U-ayL2t5mSM

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_08.html

I am familiar with those statistical analyses in general even if not from those specific sources. Duly noted. I think you(all) will find those are also the areas with the greatest occurrences of gerrymandering and photo-ID legislation which have at their heart the aim to restrict the participation of poor [mostly] minority voters.

 

Of course the analysis did not only look at the United States. It looked at Canada, England, South Africa, Israel, Germany, New Zealnd, Scottland, Poland, Sweden, and Italy. However all those countries have similar ethic strife and racial division that mirrors that of the United States past. The research fails to acknowledge or address the reason those countries were chosen.

It's not clear which analysis you refer to here so I'll wait for clarification before commenting. Is it Social Dominance or Right-Wing Authoritarianism?

 

I am not calling anyone who votes conservative a racist. There are legitimate agruments made by Republicans, Democrats, Communists, Socalists, libertarians, and so on. I am just pointing out what I feel is a rather obvious component that has been talk around rather than directly about. When groups like the Tea Party scream "we want our country back" who is the we?

While I did not directly quote many-if-any passages from The Authoritarians that approach racism, they are there. I think Bob refers to it as 'ethnocentrism' and we can debate whether or not that terminology is a dodge or not. However, a rose by any other name and Bob does take and analyze data on this psychological aspect of not only conservatives but all respondents to the questionnaires. In regard to 'mild' insanity, Bob's analysis finds that folks who rate as high RWAs do so in part because of their ethnocentric bias -say racism- and that a high RWA rating is strongly correlated to those who describe themselves as conservatives.

 

Kudos again Ten oz; I very much appreciate your comments and the time & effort it took to prepare them. I have yet to finish my own preparatory work, vis a vis finishing the reading of The Authoritarians, so I will get back to that before moving on to looking at Social Dominance. I'll also do a bit of review and see if there something on the racism issue that I can quote in response to the issues you bring up.

 

While I have not yet read it, Bob Altemeyer has a recent piece (2010 IIRC) on the Tea Party as it relates to RWA. Here is a link to the full PDF. >> Comment on the Tea Party Movement

-------------------------

Addendum: Here's something on prejudice/racism from Chapter 1. The section heading on A Profound Ethnocentrism is in Chapter Three beginning on PDF page 93, but there is no mention of racism. (Don't let that stop you from reading it anyway. ) I'll keep my eye out for any other mentions.

 

The Authoritarians

[pgs. 29-30]Here are some items from another scale. How would you respond to them on a -4 to +4 basis?

1. There are entirely too many people from the wrong sorts of places being

admitted into our country now.

2. Black people are, by their nature, more violent and primitive than others.

3. Jews cannot be trusted as much as other people can.

4. As a group, aboriginal people are naturally lazy, dishonest and lawless.

5. Arabs are too emotional, and they dont fit in well in our country.

6. We have much to fear from the Japanese, who are as cruel as they are

ambitious.

Ill bet you have figured out that I use these to measure prejudice. You may be taken aback however to discover that these prejudices usually show up bundled together in a person. But social psychologists found long ago that people who are prejudiced against one group are usually prejudiced against a whole lot more as well. Prejudice has little to do with the groups it targets, and a lot to do with the personality of the holder. Want to guess who has such wide-ranging prejudices? Authoritarian followers dislike so many kinds of people, I have called them equal opportunity bigots. They will not win the gold medal in the Prejudice Olympics (well find out who does in a later chapter), but high RWAs will definitely be on the podium.¹⁸

 

¹⁸ Right-wing authoritarians are prejudiced compared to other people. That does not mean they think that Jews cant be trusted at all, that all Black people are naturally violent, or that every Japanese is cruel. High RWAs may, as a group, even disagree with these blatantly racist statements. However they dont disagree very much, while most people strongly or very strongly disagree. So authoritarian followers are relatively prejudiced, which means it would presumably take less persuasion or social pressure to get them to discriminate than it would most people.

...

I can only say that I lived through the Civil Rights era and I think Johnson's 'we' referred to we-the-people-of-the-United-States, i.e. the Union. I have my doubts that 'we' ever had the South in that vein and Johnson may have better said 'lost for another generation'. In any case I have bookmarked your link and will read it.

...

Having now read about half of the article on the Southern Strategy I retract my doubtification. As we didn't have the interweb in the 60's, let alone the 80's, such in-depth analysis was the purview of political magazine articles and to a lesser extent newspapers. While I'm old enough to have lived through those times I am not so old as to have been focusing on these issues.

 

The article I will have to finish tomorrow, but I have already found the references to conservative Democrats pre-70's not at all in discord with the right-wing authoritarian assessments of personality 'disorder'. The names have been changed to protect the guilty?

 

PS My apparent wall-o-text is in reality 3 separate posts which were jammed together by our beloved forum software. Curses on its progenitors.

Edited August 10, 2014 by Acme

[Acme]

...Still, in outlining this theory RACISM was carefully avoided as the root cause. Racism was replaced with hegemony. Upon signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 LBJ famously said "we have lost the south for a generation". The "we" was a reference to the Democratic party. He was right. The southern states of the United States have staunchly been Republican since. The switch to "conservatism" having everything to do with race and little to do with: Fear and aggression, Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, Uncertainty avoidance, Need for cognitive closure, and Terror management. The Republican Southern Strategy is a real thing.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy ...

I have finished reading the article and thanks again for throwing it into the psycho-politico mix. While I have yet to read all of Chapter Four on RWA and religion in Bob's work I found this bit interesting from your Sothern Strategy piece.

... In the mid-1990s, the Republican Party made major attempts to court African-American voters, believing that the strength of religious values within the African-American community and the growing number of affluent and middle-class African Americans would lead this group to increasingly support Republican candidates.[44] ...

As we all know, the attempt has failed. Perhaps because 'reasoning' that suggests religion will trump racial prejudice is flawed to the point of mild insanity.

[Ten oz]

I have finished reading the article and thanks again for throwing it into the psycho-politico mix. While I have yet to read all of Chapter Four on RWA and religion in Bob's work I found this bit interesting from your Sothern Strategy piece.As we all know, the attempt has failed. Perhaps because 'reasoning' that suggests religion will trump racial prejudice is flawed to the point of mild insanity.

Interesting you mentioned religion. I had initially thought religion played a role in Conservatism and the research you presented should have made more mention of that. The two things most conservatives have in common are race and Jesus. As I that about it I realized that the race component trumps religion. There are many people of color that are very religious and thus socially conservative yet they won't vote Republican. IMO this implies that most people in general liberal, moderate, or conservative vote based on what they believe is in their best personal interest.

 

As more people become educated and the global economy becomes less driven by a monopoly, change becomes inevitable. Since white male Christians have unequivocally had the most authority and influence in the 11 countries mentioned in the research (ironically even in Israel) they have the most to lose from any change or push toward greater equality. While at the same time minorities, ethnic or religious, have the most to gain. So if "reasoning" is the driving force of change conservatives will be against reason. Being against reason makes them appear insane.

Edited August 11, 2014 by Ten oz

[Acme]

Interesting you mentioned religion. I had initially thought religion played a role in Conservatism and the research you presented should have made more mention of that.

There's a whole chapter on it and I haven't quoted from it or commented as I haven't completed reading it yet.

 

The two things most conservatives have in common are race and Jesus.

On the face of it that is true. To revisit other shared qualities from study results we have:

1. Illogical Thinking

2. Highly Compartmentalized Minds

3. Double Standards

4. Hypocrisy

5. Blindness To Themselves

6. A Profound Ethnocentrism

7. Dogmatism: The Authoritarians Last Ditch Defense

 

Arguably these play into religious belief, but I'll wait 'til I finish the religion chapter before drawing unwarranted conclusions.

 

As I that about it I realized that the race component trumps religion. There are many people of color that are very religious and thus socially conservative yet they won't vote Republican. IMO this implies that most people in general liberal, moderate, or conservative vote based on what they believe is in their best personal interest.

Again this seems true on the face of it but the study I'm working through indicates there is more complexity to it and illumes some of the whys-and-wherefores of peoples' conception of 'best personal interest'.

 

As more people become educated and the global economy becomes less driven by a monopoly, change becomes inevitable. Since white male Christians have unequivocally had the most authority and influence in the 11 countries mentioned in the research (ironically even in Israel) they have the most to lose from any change or push toward greater equality. While at the same time minorities, ethnic or religious, have the most to gain. So if "reasoning" is the driving force of change conservatives will be against reason. Being against reason makes them appear insane.

Again turning to the study on RWA -and with understanding it is just one of 80+ studies evaluated in the meta-study- it is not so much that conservatives dislike reason as they don't know what it is or per se understand it and so they use reason/logic poorly. While I didn't quote much from the study about how high RWA come to their condition (another reason I encourage everyone to read it themselves), the indications are that it has much to do with living a sheltered childhood and continuing in later life to seek the company of like-minded folk. With that in mind, education exposes people to ideas and folk outside their otherwise narrow scope which can and does in some cases lessen some of the extremes of thought and action by high RWAs.

 

Will try and finish Chapter Four, Authoritarian Followers and Religious Fundamentalism by tomorrow and then post accordingly. Here's the PDF link again for those interested in doing their own reading. >> The Authoritarians

[Ten oz]

@ Acme, I read the first study referenced in the OP http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/resources_files/ConsevatismAsMotivatedSocialCognition.pdf

 

You are referencing other material I have not read. I will have to read through it and get back to you.

[Acme]

@ Acme, I read the first study referenced in the OP http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/resources_files/ConsevatismAsMotivatedSocialCognition.pdf

 

You are referencing other material I have not read. I will have to read through it and get back to you.

Roger. That is the meta-study that I have been referring to. It summarizes some 80 different studies and Bob Altemeyer's The Authoritarians that I have been quoting from most recently is just the first of those 80+ studies that I have begun reading in depth. Take your time and a big g'donya for taking up the challenge of reading more than the snappy headline article that prompted this thread. Given the responses here I suspect many have not even bothered to go beyond the headline to the article, let alone the meta-study itself that you have now read and which I found referenced in that snappy article . The devil is in the details and the details are in the actual research. Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; read, and ye shall know.

[Acme]

Chapter Four opens with a questionnaire used to ascertain a person's religious fundamentalism. I'll give a few of the 12 questions and some commentary on the scale.

To clarify again, these scales are not directly measuring conservatism, rather they are measuring RWA [Right-Wing Authoritarianism], fundamentalism, prejudice, etc. and a statistically significant number of people who rank as high-RWA, high-fundamentalist, or high-prejudice have a strong correlation with self-identification as politically conservative.

 

The Authoritarians

Chapter Four

Authoritarian Followers and Religious Fundamentalism

[pgs.112-114]

Care to try your hand at another scale? Answer the one below, responding to

each item with anything from a -4 to a +4.

____ 1. God has given humanity a complete, unfailing guide to happiness and

salvation, which must be totally followed.

____ 2. No single book of religious teachings contains all the intrinsic, fundamental

truths about life.

____ 3. The basic cause of evil in this world is Satan, who is still constantly and

ferociously fighting against God.

...

Bruce Hunsberger and I called this the Religious Fundamentalism scale when we developed it some years ago. We did not mean by "fundamentalism" a particular set of religious beliefs, a creed. It was clear that the mind-set of fundamentalism could be found in many faiths. Instead we tried to measure a person's attitudes toward whatever beliefs she had, trying to identify the common underlying psychological elements in the thinking of people who were commonly called Christian fundamentalists, Hindu fundamentalists, Jewish fundamentalists, and Muslim fundamentalists.

 

We thought a fundamentalist in any of these major faiths would feel that her religious beliefs contained the fundamental, basic, intrinsic, inerrant truth about humanity and the Divine--fundamentally speaking. She would also believe this essential truth is fundamentally opposed by forces of evil that must be vigorously fought, and that this truth must be followed today according to the fundamental, unchangeable practices of the past. Finally, those who follow these fundamental beliefs would have a special relationship with the deity.³

[Acme]

I'll be reading on-and-off throughout the day and save any further quoting posts until this evening.

 

The Authoritarians

[pg. 114-115]Research has confirmed that the Religious Fundamentalism scale has validity in all the religions named. You can find some high scorers in all of them who fit the description just given. More to the point, the scale may give us a way to study the psychology of the Religious Right in America today. ⁴

⁴ Fundamentalists have been successful, to some extent, at appropriating the label religious for only themselves, just as some political conservatives have unfairly pilfered patriot. Many fundamentalists claim that if one does not believe what they believe and act as they say you should, one is not really religious (e.g. not a true Christian). This chapter is about religious fundamentalists, and I do not wish to imply that all religious people are fundamentalists. Most persons in my sample who consider themselves affiliated with an organized religion do not score highly on the Religious Fundamentalism scale, and there are many ways of being religious without even belonging to a religion.

 

The Plan for This Chapter

So here's the trip map for another seven-stop chapter. First we'll square up the terms "fundamentalists" and "evangelicals." Then we'll bring the discussion into the context of this book, authoritarianism. We'll analyze the ethnocentrism you often find in fundamentalists. We'll see how some of the mental missteps we covered in the last chapter appear in them. We'll appreciate the positive things people get from being fundamentalists. Then we'll come up against the intriguing fact that, despite these benefits, so many people raised in Christian fundamentalist homes leave the religion. We'll close our discussion with some data on shortfalls in fundamentalists' behavior, including a surprising fact or two about their practices and beliefs. By the time we have ended, we'll have learned many disturbing things about these people who believe, to the contrary, that they are the very best among us.