The Authoritarians

Sep 15, 2011 Whitaker rated it 4 of 5 stars

Recommended to Whitaker by: Manny

Shelves: 2011-read, e-book, uncategorised

Update (15 September 2011)

CNN: What do you tell a financially secure guy who is sick, goes into a coma and doesn't have health insurance? Are you saying society should just let him die?

Tea Party: YEAH!! LET HIM DIE!!

You can check out the Youtube of it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F56cfS...

Update (24 August 2011)

An interesting study, "Cultures of the Tea Party", purports to break down the cultural attitudes of Tea Party loyalists, through a mix of polling data and interviews with tea par...more

like 18 likes · see review

Jun 11, 2011 Jennifer (aka EM) rated it 4 of 5 stars

Recommended to Jennifer (aka EM) by: Manny

A random set of notes on this book, in descending date order. And everyone must read this book. Resistance is NOT futile. I may be low RWA, but I'll be damned if I'll go down without a fight.

I have to stop reading now. Now, it's personal. Now, it's my country, my democracy that is under direct attack by Double High Religious Right-wingers who -- incidentally -- have been insidiously, directly, deliberately advised by GW Bush strategists.

Less than 40% of less than 60% elected the current governme...more A random set of notes on this book, in descending date order. And everyone must read this book. Resistance is NOT futile. I may be low RWA, but I'll be damned if I'll go down without a fight.

I have to stop reading now. Now, it's personal. Now, it's my country, my democracy that is under direct attack by Double High Religious Right-wingers who -- incidentally -- have been insidiously, directly, deliberately advised by GW Bush strategists.

Less than 40% of less than 60% elected the current government in Canada. But the mandate, as Altemeyer noted with Bush, doesn't matter to a Double High elected leader. It's power and domination at all costs.

I MUST MOVE TO NORWAY. NOWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!

______________

June 11/11:

OH. MY. GOD. Canadian politics, in 2006 when Altemeyer published (likely, the RWA scores and party affiliation stuff remains true, it's just who's in power that has changed and the INCREDIBLE polarization that has emerged - both on party and RWA lines, it is clear - out of the 2011 federal election. This is INCREDIBLE. (my emphases):

"If you look at just the New Democrats’ and the conservatives’ scores on the RWA scale, party affiliation correlated .82 on the average with authoritarianism, which is one of the strongest relationships ever found in the social sciences. The RWA scale divides these two groups almost as cleanly as a vote in the legislature would. Nothing else, so far as I know, correlates so highly with left-wing versus right-wing politics, anywhere. In Canada at least, when you are talking about the “left-to-right” political dimension among politicians, you are talking about the personality trait measured by the RWA scale."

And NOW what we have is that polarization all the clearer and more oppositional, now that there is no centrist party remaining in Canada. The Liberals are gone. It is left against right; low RWA versus high RWA in Canada. To me, the only question is - will the NDP be strong enough (esp. since they've *never* been in official Opposition power before) to exert a moderating influence? Or, will their lack of experience and, frankly, credibility enable the RWA/Right to stomp all over them - and the rest of us?

____________________

June 10/11: Aye, and now we come to it. The key differences between authoritarian despots and their followers:

"huge differences exist between these two parts of an authoritarian system in (1) their desire for power, (2) their religiousness, (3) the roots of their aggression, and (4) their thinking processes." (p. 162)

******

The Exploitive Manipulative Amoral Dishonesty Scale (p. 166) (hey! I had three, count 'em, three bosses like that!) -- still not sure what the difference is here with psychopathy.

******

"social dominators might incite authoritarian followers to commit a hate crime, but the dominators and followers probably launch the attack for different reasons: the dominator out of meanness, as an act of intimidation and control; the follower out of fear and self-righteousness in the name of authority." (p. 169)

Police-reported hate crimes up 42% in 2009, Toronto Star, June 8, 2011.

Correlation is not causation. But it doesn't have to be the direct influence of a dominator that inspires hate crimes. I think it can happen almost by osmosis - by a general loosening up of the constraints on intolerance that leak out from, in this case, Parliament Hill. This is not a stat to be taken lightly.

*****

He just missed an opportunity to explore the role of bullying in producing high social dominators. He's not a clinical or personality psychologist, so I forgive him. But I would have liked a quick detour into the research on how being bullied turns one into a bully within the context of his "social dominance" construct.

*****

And there's my answer on the relationship between psychopathy (which he calls sociopathy - the two notions are commonly treated as synonyms, but there are differences in the clinical definitions) and high social dominator authoritarians:

"There even seems to be a whiff of the sociopath about the social dominator. Somebody do the studies and see if any of these hunches is right." (p. 180)

_____________________

June 9/11: Religious fundamentalism correlates highly with authoritarianism - but its chicken-and-egg. On the diffs between US & Cdn religious fundamentalists:

"... how much [do] Christian fundamentalists in Canada differ from American fundamentalists.... Both modern nations were founded by Christian immigrants from Western Europe. But Protestants settled almost all of the thirteen original colonies, whereas in Canada two Christianities took root from the start, Catholicism and Protestantism. Some Christian fundamentalists came directly to Canada from Europe ... but a lot also came up from the United States, and the biggest difference between fundamentalists in the two countries today may not involve theology or brand names, but strength. A much greater percentage of Americans than Canadians could be called Christian fundamentalists." (p. 143)

******

This is only marginally comforting to me. Most of them live and/or are from the western provinces - AB, SK, MB, including our illustrious PM Harper, who is a card-carryin', gun-totin', bible-thumpin' member of the Christian and Missionary Alliance.

See: Stephen Harper and the Theo-Cons, The Walrus, Oct 2006
______________________

June 8/11: "No other group comes close to being as zealous [as religious fundamentalists]. Feminists usually come in second in my studies, but way behind the religious fundamentalists, and one finds far, far fewer of them." (p. 132)

I don't know whether I should be more upset that there are far, far fewer feminists than fundamentalists, or that they come in second in the zealotry sweepstakes.
______________________

June 7/11: Explaining why high RWAs are so easily led because they do not evaluate ulterior motives if they already agree with the person:

"So (to foreshadow later chapters a little) suppose you are a completely unethical, dishonest, power-hungry, dirt-bag, scum-bucket politician who will say whatever he has to say to get elected. (I apologize for putting you in this role, but it will only last for one more sentence.) Whom are you going to try to lead, high RWAs or low RWAs? Isn’t it obvious? The easy-sell high RWAs will open up their arms and wallets to you if you just sing their song, however poor your credibility."

Right - and this is what makes the high RWAs - even though they are a very small minority - such a powerful (and threatening) political force. Probably also explains to some extent the Liberal implosion in Canada's May 2011 federal election. (although obviously there was much more to it than that.)
_______________________

June 6/11: I'm going to capture some bits and pieces here that particularly resonate with me. Doing it in the status updates seems cumbersome.

So, logical reasoning capacity of RWAs:

"In both studies high RWAs went down in flames more than others did. They particularly had trouble figuring out that an inference or deduction was wrong. To illustrate, suppose they had gotten the following syllogism:

All fish live in the sea.
Sharks live in the sea.
Therefore, sharks are fish.

The conclusion does not follow, but high RWAs would be more likely to say the reasoning is correct than most people would. If you ask them why it seems right, they would likely tell you, “Because sharks are fish.” In other words, they thought the reasoning was sound because they agreed with the last statement. If the conclusion is right, they figure, then the reasoning must have been right. Or to put it another way, they don’t “get it” that the reasoning matters--especially on a reasoning test."

******

I just keep gasping out loud at this stuff, thinking of high RWAs I know and how this explains exactly how their minds work. You know it, when you talk to them. But it's nice to have it confirmed with empirical data.

I'm still not sure having an explanation for it is ultimately going to make me feel any better or make my brain less likely to explode while engaged in these conversations, though.
(less)

like 6 likes · see review

view all 9 comments

Jennifer (aka EM) Ian wrote: "My wife and I were looking at it and it really hit us just how far we have transformed our world view (I'm a 43 and she's a 44).

My wife an...more
Jun 12, 2011 02:31pm

Ian Graye I'm a bit rusty on the difference between the two tests, but does he apply the RWA test to the power structures within churches or denominations, as i...more
Jun 15, 2011 02:32am

Oct 12, 2012 Hadrian rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: nonfiction, politics-and-foreign-policy, psychology-and-cognition

This is an interesting little study about a personality type, and its possible political implications.

Altemeyer defines a "Right-Wing Authoritarian" (RWA) personality, which is dimly related to the broad "True Believer" type found in Erich Fromm. An RWA is submissive to authority, willing to commit violence in the name of that authority, and applies strict adherence to tradition. Although Altemeyer applies this tradition to the worst elements of the Tea Party in an addenda, he notes that the nam...more

like 2 likes · see review

Aug 07, 2012 John Purcell rated it 5 of 5 stars

Sometime last year I read a book by John Dean called "Conservatives Without Conscience". That book relied heavily on Robert Altemeyer's studies involving authoritarian personalities. This book, "The Authoritarians" is the resulting synopsis of his research that John Dean relied on.

One of the things that often perplexes me while observing current politics, especially the struggle between the Democrats and Republicans, is the experience of such extreme bouts of cognitive dissonance watching the Re...more Sometime last year I read a book by John Dean called "Conservatives Without Conscience". That book relied heavily on Robert Altemeyer's studies involving authoritarian personalities. This book, "The Authoritarians" is the resulting synopsis of his research that John Dean relied on.

One of the things that often perplexes me while observing current politics, especially the struggle between the Democrats and Republicans, is the experience of such extreme bouts of cognitive dissonance watching the Republicans say and do things that don't make any sense, are irrational, often times are just outright lies, and seem to be said or done for the purpose of affecting a response in the populace, or gaining some sort of power advantage, rather than in imparting relevant and important information for the electorate to contemplate. The Debt Ceiling Debacle of last year is a good example. I kept thinking to myself that there must be something wrong with me, that all these people, elected by so many people, with important positions, apparently smart men and women, couldn't be taking those positions unless there was some validity behind them. I was obviously missing something.

It turns out I wasn't.

Altemeyer's been doing research on the subject since the 1960s, and publishing his results since the 1980s. This book is extremely persuasive in convincing anyone that reads it that the authoritarian mindset is the main reason why we have such polarization of thought and politics in this country.

Altemeyer defines an authoritarian as someone with 1) a high degree of submission to the established legitimate authorities in their society; 2) high levels of aggression in the name of their authority and 3) a high level of conventionalism. He created a scale, essentially a questionnaire, that sorts people into a high or low tendency towards or against authoritarianism. Those at the high end of the scale he calls "right wing authoritarians" or RWAs. These people tend to be highly religious, accepting of any authority, and prone to aggression against those who are not in their group. They are difficult to rationalize with, are capable of compartmentalizing and believing often opposing and hypocritical positions, and stick with those they believe are reliable authority even when they are shown to be wrong. It's a personality attribute ( I would call it a personality disorder) that is difficult to overcome with logic, reason or any degree of critical thinking.

I find his research and conclusions to be highly explanatory of that which previously befuddled me. There is science behind his conclusion, as the scales are repeatable, testable and relatively consistent in their results. RWAs are followers, but when combined with what he calls "Double Highs" (essentially amoral authoritarian leaders) the results can be potentially lethal or catastrophic. Read about the Global Change Game he has conducted repeatedly for a chilling look at our possible future.

The book is free on his website in PDF format. It is written in a breezy, laid back style with very little in the way of statistical jargon, essentially written for the layman. This is a must read for anyone who sees the fascistic tendencies of our politicians ("wrapped in the flag carrying a cross") and can't figure out the attraction they hold to a sizable percentage of the country.(less)

like 2 likes · see review

Jul 24, 2008 Lithodid-man rated it 5 of 5 stars Recommends it for: Everyone

Recommended to Lithodid-man by: Topic on www.worldwideword.net

I believe this book is one of the most import things I have read in a very log time. Dr. Altemeyer has presented a very engaging yet thorough analysis of his research into authoritarian personalities.

I have been studying and attempting to understand the evangelical mindset for a long time. Throughout this book he presents insights into a personality type that transcends evangelicals, making the claim that there is a personality profile that is attracted to authority. Fundamentalism would be jus...more

like 2 likes · see review

May 24, 2012 Mystyc rated it 5 of 5 stars

This book is nothing less than spectacular. Robert Altemeyer, a renowned social scientist in the field of authoritarian followers and leaders, shares his life's work and the implications it has for modern society. If you ever wondered why certain people continue to do "stupid things" while holding a collection of erroneous and often contradicting ideas, but these people do not all consistently fit into one category, then this book will reveal that category in a scientific manner. For example, Al...more

like · see review

Jul 24, 2011 Ben Labe rated it 3 of 5 stars

In this portentous account of the degrading state of political discourse in the United States, Bob Altemeyer provides a pedestrian overview of his career studying the psychology of "authoritarians". In particular, he identifies the perfect storm which can result when authoritarian leaders and authoritarian followers join forces. The willingness of authoritarian leaders to manipulate and connive their way into power, combined with authoritarian followers' willingness to accept those who profess t...more

like 3 likes · see review

May 18, 2011 Remittance rated it 5 of 5 stars Recommends it for: anyone with an interest in understanding the right-wing mind.

I listened to the audio version of this book (available at Audible.com) and then downloaded the text because I was so utterly stunned by the data, I wanted to see the his footnotes and look up the published articles that pertain to many of the studies the author mentions.

Altemeyer identifies 'authoritarians' as those who have scored high on the scale he developed as an experimental testing tool, the Right-Wing Authoritarianism scale (RWA). After having studied the psychology of socio-political l...more I listened to the audio version of this book (available at Audible.com) and then downloaded the text because I was so utterly stunned by the data, I wanted to see the his footnotes and look up the published articles that pertain to many of the studies the author mentions.

Altemeyer identifies 'authoritarians' as those who have scored high on the scale he developed as an experimental testing tool, the Right-Wing Authoritarianism scale (RWA). After having studied the psychology of socio-political leanings over 23 years, concluded that authoritarians exhibit the following traits:
1) a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in their society;
2) high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and
3) a high level of conventionalism. (page 9)

That's probably no surprise but, he goes on to conclude that:

"Research reveals that authoritarian followers drive through life under the influence of impaired thinking a lot more than most people do, exhibiting sloppy reasoning, highly compartmentalized beliefs, double standards, hypocrisy, self-blindness, a profound ethnocentrism, and -- to top it all off -- a ferocious dogmatism that makes it unlikely anyone could ever change their minds with evidence or logic."

Sounds like an outrageous generalization? Well, I thought so, until I finished this book. I can't recommend it enough. It's a superb summary of the portrait of an authoritarian mind.

The downside is, it really convinced me there's absolutely no point in reasoning or engaging in debate with the sort of people who score high on the RWA scale (and when you see the questionnaire, you will have no problem recognizing the kind of people who score high). They are fully capable of insisting that black is white while looking at you straight in the face. Their entire identity depends on their ability to do so.

The book is available for free in PDF form to download at http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ but I would encourage you to either buy the book at Lulu to give this amazing social scientist some money, or download the audio version from Audible.com (less)

like · see review

Jun 15, 2011 notgettingenough rated it 1 of 5 stars

Shelves: will-be-regretted-on-my-deathbed

Warning: I could only bear to read about the first 50 pages of this in depth. The rest I skimmed through. Far be it for me to say that merely because something is a belligerent ranting diatribe, it doesn't have merit. After all, I have written this....

Permit me, if you will, to counterpoise the RWA with the HPA. That is the Harry Potter authoritarian. It suddenly and obviously struck me yesterday, that it is a perfect example of how you can’t actually talk about the RWA like it is some special b...more

like 5 likes · see review

view all 39 comments

Dean I quote "Warning: I could only bear to read about the first 50 pages of this in depth. The rest I skimmed through..." and then you enter into a diatri...more
Aug 17, 2012 09:03am

notgettingenough Dean wrote: " On the other hand, you are doing exactly what he states - you have a preconceived notion of 'how people are' and no matter what evidence...more
updated Aug 17, 2012 09:14am

Jun 09, 2011 Ian rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: nonfiction, politics

First things first, if you haven't yet read this book you need to read it, or at least you need to read Manny's excellent summary of this book's contents. Right now.

Ok. Now that you have the gist, I have a few comments:

First, I know the people this book describes. Intimately. I used to be one. I still have lots of friends who fit, for the most part, the high-RWA description. My wife's entire family are high RWA's, to a tee. They're (usually) good people and good friends. But they'll support disc...more

like 5 likes · see review

view all 6 comments

Jennifer (aka EM) Ian, thank you for being so open to share with us those details of your life.

Your comment on Catholic higher education led me to think about the Jesui...more Ian, thank you for being so open to share with us those details of your life.

Your comment on Catholic higher education led me to think about the Jesuits and I found this on wiki:

"Ignatius gathered six young men, including St. Francis Xavier and Bl. Pierre Favre, and together they professed vows of poverty and chastity, and then later, obedience, including a special vow of obedience to the Pope. Rule 13 of Ignatius' Rules for Thinking with the Church said: "That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity[...], if [the Church] shall have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appears to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black."

How amazing a statement of RWA is that!

And yet, the Jesuit intellectual tradition and results (in the colleges you speak of, as just one example) takes them far beyond that bubble.

Just by way of a slight aside (because this book is influencing just about every interaction I have these days! I think I might score high on the 'zealotry' scale - oooops), I had the most fascinating conversation with two friends last night - one in Seattle and one in Los Angeles. What I realized out of that is something Bob A. alludes to: religious fundamentalism in Canada has a far different complexion than it does in the U.S.

Canada was founded equally by French & British, hence Roman Catholic and a mild sort of Protestantism with some Church of England (Anglican) in there for good measure. With exception of some in the West/Prairies (Alberta, Saskatchewan and some Manitoba, and maybe a little inland BC), we don't have the kind of mega-church, evangelical fundamentalism that is seen in the US.

As a result, the big ticket political issues that bring the religious conservatives into the political sphere (antiabortion, anti-gay rights) are championed more frequently by RCs up here.

My friends last night both came out with the statement that RCs in the U.S. are more frequently liberal (politically) than the teachings of their Church would probably condone. Low RWAs, in other words.

That astounded me, because I would have said the opposite is true here - however, if RCs are really more likely to be low RWA, then that explains the *much* lower conflict around and greater tolerance of legislation related to things such as a woman's right to a safe abortion and gay marriage in Canada. These are not issues that you want to build a political movement on up here, because you will not gain majority support for them (at least, that used to be true -- the landscape is shifting). It's a minority of a minority that is high RWA and they have little back-up from evangelical/fundamentalist Protestants.

All that to say, we still have a growing threat because religious fundamentalism and high RWA of exactly the type Altemeyer is describing is growing in Canada.

Manny, I'm just getting to the chart of Canadian politics now.(less)
Jun 11, 2011 05:49am

Ian I should mention that I scored a 43 on the RWA scale when I took it last week. Today I tried to answer the questions as though I was 21 years old agai...more
Jun 14, 2011 06:59pm

Jun 04, 2011 Manny rated it 4 of 5 stars Recommends it for: People worried by the religious right

Shelves: history-and-biography, well-i-think-its-funny, science

Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile.

- Kurt Vonnegut, Mother Night

In this unassuming little book, Bob Altemeyer, a 60-something Canadian professor of social sciences, presents a straightforward theory explaining how authoritarian leaders arise, and what people compose their power base. He starts with the followers. What kind of person wants to support a leader like Hitler or Stalin? Altemeyer started investi...more

Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile.

- Kurt Vonnegut, Mother Night

In this unassuming little book, Bob Altemeyer, a 60-something Canadian professor of social sciences, presents a straightforward theory explaining how authoritarian leaders arise, and what people compose their power base. He starts with the followers. What kind of person wants to support a leader like Hitler or Stalin? Altemeyer started investigating this question during the Nixon era. He developed a simple questionnaire, which he scores to produce what he calls "the Right Wing Authoritarian scale" (RWA scale). Typical questions are things like the following, where in each case the subject is asked to give a response ranging from -4 (strongly disagree) to +4 (strongly agree):

The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to get back to our traditional values, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading bad ideas.

Our country needs free thinkers who have the courage to defy traditional ways, even if this upsets many people.

The "old-fashioned ways" and the "old-fashioned values" still show the best way to live.

The questions seem laughably transparent, and I am indeed a little surprised when Altemeyer says that the RWA score has a great deal of predictive value. It correlates well with other ways of testing submission to established authority and also with tendency to xenophobia and bigotry. If you want to compute your own RWA score, you can find an online version here. It takes a few minutes to complete.

Most interestingly, the RWA score correlates very well with fundamentalist religious beliefs. Altemeyer has developed a second scale to measure this, based on a similar type of questionnaire. Typical questions on the Religious Fundamentalism scale look like the following:

The basic cause of evil in this world is Satan, who is still constantly and ferociously fighting against God.

When you get right down to it, there are basically only two kinds of people in the world: the Righteous, who will be rewarded by God, and the rest, who will not.

Whenever science and sacred scripture conflict, science is probably right.

You can find an online version of the Religious Fundamentalism test here.

Altemeyer's rather shocking conclusion is that the core type of person susceptible to unquestioning belief in right-wing authority is the believer in a fundamentalist faith, which in modern North American society overlaps strongly with the religious right.He presents evidence supporting his claim that these people have, on average, substantially impaired abilities to follow logical or fact-based reasoning. I liked his methodology here. Clearly, a refusal to belive in evolution or other scientific theories may be contentious, as are various political beliefs (a surprising number of members of the religious right apparently think that WMDs actually were found in Iraq).

Much more interestingly, Altemeyer shows how hard the religious right find it to reason about the Bible, which logically ought to be their home territory. The experiment I found most convincing had him showing subjects the passages from the four Gospels describing the events of Easter Morning. As is well known, the four accounts differ in many particulars, some of them quite important. Altemeyer asks students what they consider the best explanation for these internal contradictions and inconsistencies. Astonishingly, to me at least, the most common response from people with high Fundamentalist scores was that there were no inconsistencies; even after subjects were given a week to discuss the issue with other members of their community, very few changed their minds. Incidentally, I should mention that Altemeyer is focussing on the American religious right mainly because they are the group he finds easiest to study. He quotes studies carried out by Russian researchers which show very similar belief patterns among old hardline followers of Marxist-Leninism.

Altemeyer then goes on to examine the other side of the question: if religious fundamentalists make up the docile mass who can propel authoritarian leaders into power, what type of person becomes a leader? Here, he uses a third score, which he calls Social Dominance. Typical questions look like these:

It's a mistake to interfere with the "law of the jungle". Some people were meant to dominate others.

It would bother me if I intimidated people, and they worried about what I might do next.

One of the most useful skills a person should develop is how to look someone straight in the eye and lie convincingly.

Although one's first impression is that the personality types associated with high RWA and high Social Dominance are completely dissimilar, Altermeyer was surprised to discover that the intersection of the two groups does contain a small group, whom he calls Double Highs. They are, by definition, people who both believe that the citizens around them are in need of a strong leader, and want to become that leader; they are, moreover, willing to lie and dissemble to whatever extent is needed. There are obvious difficulties associated with collecting data about Double Highs, but Altemeyer has been creative. He describes some nice experiments with multi-player role playing games, where Double Highs do indeed rush to seize power in exactly the way his theory predicts, often using underhand methods.

The overall picture Altemeyer paints is disturbing. My first reaction was that his analysis was surely too simplistic: there had to be more to it than this. On the other hand, he's been doing this work for a long time and published an impressive number of books and scholarly articles. He says that only two people have made a serious attempt to prove him wrong, and that their counterarguments were not convincing. (I will try to check the papers he refers to). On the positive side, he claims many other researchers have adopted his methods. A quick search on Google Scholar shows he's widely cited; this guy is not a crank. If you're at all worried by the American religious right, you might want to download his book and check him out.
(less)

like 22 likes · see review

view all 68 comments

Ian "Whether or not pollution causes climate change, we need to reduce pollution for the sake of our lungs and skin and other organs, not to mention other...more
Jun 10, 2011 04:17pm

Jennifer (aka EM) Manny wrote: "Canadians (Muse?) may well find the section on their country interesting, though I don't understand Canadian politics. Look in particula...more
updated Jun 11, 2011 10:05am

Sep 22, 2012 Sally rated it 5 of 5 stars

I love it when experienced academics let loose with a for the public version of their work. This is extremely informative - but very disturbing. I recommend it to all of my US friends who have any interest in politics at all.

It's be interesting to see an addendum following the first Obama term, as if anything the Tea Party and Co. have become even more fearful and excited, though thankfully unable to act upon their radical agenda. It'd be fascinating to see the response of the US public if the r...more

like · see review

Mar 06, 2012 Alison Whittington rated it 4 of 5 stars

A fascinating and alarming look at the authoritarian mindset, both among authoritarian leaders and authoritarian followers, based mostly (but not entirely) on the author's own research.

I have only two complaints. I wish the author had spent more time discussing effective ways to counteract this mindset, or at least mitigate its effect on our world today. He does address this at the end, but briefly and with a slightly hopeless air.

I also had problems with the use of the phrase "right-wing auth...more

like · see review

Nov 30, 2012 A.J. rated it 4 of 5 stars

This book is that wonderful combination of an academic who really knows his stuff and is also able to write about it in a way that will appeal to the non-expert reader. In this case, the academic is a psychologist who has studied the traits of people who have an unhealthy respect for authority: the ones who would sign up to a posse to drum gays out of town if their sheriff said it was a good idea, for example. Combine that type of person with an individual who is motivated by power and is willin...more

like · see review

Oct 12, 2009 Mike Jensen rated it 5 of 5 stars

I spent a year and a half studying why politics in the US has become so divisive that one side no longer speaks meaningfully to the other. I could have saved my self a year and 25 weeks if I’d found this book first. It took everything I learned and set it into a bigger context, the context of statistical psychology. Altemeyer has been surveying authoritarian personalities for decades, and really puts his finger on authoritarian leaders and those who blindly follow them. He understands their aggr...more

like 2 likes · see review

May 16, 2011 Kristen rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: 4-read-2011, 9-non-fiction, favorites-recommend

This book is regarding psychological data on a particular personality type, which is Authoritarian. Some data books can be boring, but Bob is a funny guy and he makes the reading fun. The reason I enjoyed this book as much as I did was that it dealt with the difference between a leader and a follower in authoritarian circles. We all meet people that are truly genuine and believe any made up story with passion. We have also met the leaders of lies and can see how different and fake they are. It s...more

like 2 likes · see review

Feb 15, 2010 Rocio rated it 5 of 5 stars

When people wonder why ordinary people can do such terrible things in certain societies under the order of a leader, the reason they can is called authoritarianism. These people have psychological tendencies that lead them to follow orders from authorities no matter what the consequences (and won't see that their leaders are lying when most rational individuals see that they are painfully clearly lying). Altemeyer warns that a large segment of the US population are authoritarians, blindly willin...more

like · see review

Sep 30, 2009 Charlie Crummer rated it 5 of 5 stars

A remarkable study. It investigated and quantifies the phenomena we have been witnessing for years, the rise of authoritarianism in the US. We have seen this before in European, African and South American countries but we haven't noticed it, or maybe just not taken it seriously in the US. It's becoming more and more evident that it *can* happen here. Being a liberal like Altemeyer is, I engage in introspection and I am afraid of my own role in this. This book is a must read. It is all too prophe...more

like 1 like · see review

Aug 06, 2010 David rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: psychology

Authoritarian followers are people who submits, bows to and leaps to follow authoritarian leaders. The first few chapters of this book focus on painting a picture of who these followers are. Among other things they are very religious, prejudiced, and often hold completely contradictory views on things at the same time. All it takes is a dominant, authoritarian leader, to whip them into shape. Often, perhaps surprisingly (perhaps not), the leader pretends to have the same values as the followers...more Authoritarian followers are people who submits, bows to and leaps to follow authoritarian leaders. The first few chapters of this book focus on painting a picture of who these followers are. Among other things they are very religious, prejudiced, and often hold completely contradictory views on things at the same time. All it takes is a dominant, authoritarian leader, to whip them into shape. Often, perhaps surprisingly (perhaps not), the leader pretends to have the same values as the followers (for example, pretends to be religious) to gain their support.

This book is extremely thought provoking, if for no other reason than it was usually evangelical/fundamentalist Christians (which I do not think the author does a good enough job differentiating between) who fit the profile of authoritarian followers. There were many times when he would give descriptions, based on studies and surveys, of these people and my first reaction was that such descriptions were in no way like Jesus. For example, Jesus teaches to love our enemies (which authoritarian followers will say is true), but they are very quick to hate, persecute, and remove the freedoms of those different from them.

So as a Christian I found this book very interesting because I can see many people like this. At the same time, and I credit the author for emphasizing this near the end of the book, we all have authoritarian tendencies. It would be easy to simply say the problem is someone else. Yet I do not think the author took it far enough. He wrote this book during the Bush years and consistently shows how the Bush government and its supporters fit the authoritarian mold. But now with Obama and his supporters in power, I wonder if they do not fit it too? Just as Bush's most vociferous supporters continued to defend him even when the evidence showed he was wrong or lying (think the lack of WMD in Iraq), when the time comes that Obama has clearly lied or failed, will his supporters continue to support him in the face of evidence?

Also, on some level, all of us have to trust authorities for many things. If I believe his findings in this book, I am believing an authority (the author is a psychology prof after all), and not really thinking for myself. That rings true for many of the issues. For example, how many people believe evolution or reject it because of authorities in their lives? How many have actually studied the scientific evidence? No one can study everything.

Overall this was an extremely thought-provoking book. It is a relatively fast-paced read, though there were some portions where the author was not as clear as he could have been. And it can be found free online, so I encourage anyone to check it out. After reading it you definitely have a new understanding of leaders and followers, of politics, of "us vs. them" mentality. Being aware of these things helps us to avoid getting caught up in the mentality of the mob.(less)

like · see review

Oct 19, 2012 Linda Hilton rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: hh-and-hh

Written in a casual, non-academic style, The Authoritarians provides a solid sociological foundation for understanding "why do they think/act like that?" whether "they" are on the right or left of the socio-political scale. I have steered many people to this book who have wondered how their friends and family members can possibly vote and act and think in ways that seem contrary to their own best interests. Highly recommended.

like · see review

Dec 05, 2008 Peter rated it 5 of 5 stars

Very interesting book. This is a summary of this professor's sociological research over the last several decades. Discusses interesting personality dynamics between leaders and followers in authoritarian groups, and discusses ways to talk to members of this group without setting off their paranoid hostility, or alternately, how to shamelessly use these easily manipulable pawns to further your own political career.

like · see review

Jul 06, 2010 Ron rated it 5 of 5 stars

I struggled to understand what has happened in American politics over the last 30 years until I read this book. Reading it I no longer get so angry in discussions with my friends on the right who I have split between simply uninformed and willfully partisan uninformed

I still practice my written and verbal skills on the willful group but don't get frustrated at how easily they ignore facts. Facts don't matter.

like 1 like · see review

Jul 28, 2012 Tracy Dobbs rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: books-since-1-1-12, non-fiction

A very interesting take on the personality types currently controlling our political system. I'm sure that there are many who fit Professor Altemeyer's authoritarian mindset who will completely disagree with his analysis. However, as someone who lives in this system and just totally does not see HOW these people can act and think the way they do...well, this book has given me some valuable insight.

like · see review

Aug 15, 2012 Julia rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: political, psychology

Content: Interesting. I think he's too quick to make blanket statements about people who score high on the authoritarian scale, but it definitely got me thinking about the psychological underpinnings of submission to authority.

Writing style: Get an editor, dude.

like · see review

Mar 05, 2012 Mike rated it 5 of 5 stars

Everyone needs to read this book! There is a free PDF copy on Robert Altmeyer's website and you can either read it on an e-reader device or simply print it out. Mr. Altmeyer does not give his opinion about the tendencies of "authoritarians", he shows the evidence!

like · see review

Jan 18, 2010 Mark Wiliamson rated it 5 of 5 stars

This book is an absolute MUST READ for anyone with any interest in why politics is the way it is and why there are so many people who appear to base their lives based on things that are provably wrong. Very scary in someways.

like · see review

Jan 31, 2009 G. Branden rated it 5 of 5 stars

Compelling, thought-provoking, offers an intriguing glimpse of the nexus between sociology and psychology, and supplies a worldview-enhancing prism through which contemporary politics can be better understood.

like · see review

Jan 08, 2013 Melanie rated it 4 of 5 stars

Everyone should read this book and be afraid, be very afraid. Except that will make you more authoritarian so don't be afraid. The more I know about human psychology, the less I like people.

like · see review

Aug 02, 2011 Capntastic added it

A great overview of how some people are capable of living with sets of ideals that are in direct conflict with each other, and how that mindset manifests in different aspects of life.

like · see review

Feb 26, 2010 Ryan rated it 5 of 5 stars

Recommended to everyone. A psychologist shares the results of his psychological studies examining the specific personality trait of authoritarianism. This work is grounded in science as much as possible, and in the process we learn a great deal about how social scientists quantify and define psychological factors. As a result, this isn't simply a polemic or opinion piece about "authoritarianism" in the abstract, but a study about a specific mental trait and its attendant politics.

Rarely these da...more

like · see review

title link	preview: The Authoritarians
avg rating	preview: The Authoritarians Goodreads rating: 4.37 (171 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1971601.The_Authoritarians?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1323890989l/1971601.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1971601.The_Authoritarians?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer[/url]

The Authoritarians

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (3)

Genres

About Bob Altemeyer

Books by Bob Altemeyer

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About The Authoritarians

The Authoritarians

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topicDiscuss This Book

combineOther Editions (3)

Genres

About Bob Altemeyer

Books by Bob Altemeyer

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About The Authoritarians

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (3)