I agree.
-
By using this site you agree to the terms, rules, and privacy policy.
-
Dear Carnivore Dieters, A Muscle Meat Only Diet is Extremely Healing Because it is a Low "vitamin A" Diet. This is Why it Works so Well...
Rest the rest of this post by clicking here
-
The Forum is transitioning to a subscription-based membership model - Click Here To Read
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
"Authoritarian"
- Thread starter bobbybobbob
- Start date
Amazoniac
Member
Virtual entities,
A lot of discussion about authoritarianism..
There is a poet in this forum called cantstoppeating and I'm going to paraphrase him: stop whining.
The information is being presented and you absorb whatever you want from it, just like everywhere else; you just have to filter what is reasonable for you and discart what doesn't make sense, and move on.
The problem is that most of the information that is presented, is challenging the current dogma and requires at least some degree of conviction. Not only that; but it also points to the consequences of choosing a way of eating/living that differs from it; it's a perspective of what optimal is.
The reason I think some people might interpret that as forcing a fearful mindset is because they want to be told exactly what to do and are not willing to take responsilibility for their own choices when they deviate from that. They need someone to blame if they fail.
No one is going to write exactly what you want to read, not even pboy.
..or burtlancast.
A lot of discussion about authoritarianism..
There is a poet in this forum called cantstoppeating and I'm going to paraphrase him: stop whining.
The information is being presented and you absorb whatever you want from it, just like everywhere else; you just have to filter what is reasonable for you and discart what doesn't make sense, and move on.
The problem is that most of the information that is presented, is challenging the current dogma and requires at least some degree of conviction. Not only that; but it also points to the consequences of choosing a way of eating/living that differs from it; it's a perspective of what optimal is.
The reason I think some people might interpret that as forcing a fearful mindset is because they want to be told exactly what to do and are not willing to take responsilibility for their own choices when they deviate from that. They need someone to blame if they fail.
No one is going to write exactly what you want to read, not even pboy.
..or burtlancast.
Drareg
Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2016
- Messages
- 4,772
Amazoniac
Member
But is that speech Peaty or non-Peaty?
Drareg
Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2016
- Messages
- 4,772
Current Scientific establishment.
Amazoniac
Member
I have never been aware of you using the word "authoritarian" inappropriately, haidut.
I haven't ever said that.
I guess you mean that "bobbybob" said/implied that about you...?
I guess, for me, the curious thing that happens with the word and idea "authoritarian"
here is,
people on the forum read Peat,
and they see that he often refers to someone, negatively of course, as "authoritarian."
And then Peat lovers and popularizers like Roddy
copiously reiterate that detail/aspect of Peat in their own writings and shows.
Some of the current or past moderators have incorporated related Peat "authoritarian" taglines
into their signatures...like the one about disabling someone's guidance system.
It becomes a Peat meme.
And like a lot of memes it gets soaked up and repeated,
often without much of thought.
That is where I think the OP was onto something.
I think the meme kinduv devitalizes sometimes around here with thoughtless repetition,
and simply becomes
1. a way to show that you identify with Peat's ideas and reside in the inner sanctum of grasping The True Way of Peat
2. a way to insult somebody who says something you disagree with
Give you an example from my own experience.
We used to argue a lot about starch around here--whether it is a good Peat food.
We've pretty well thrashed that one out over the years,
and also Peat has made additional clarifying statements,
so...I think now it is pretty well accepted that starches aren't an optimal Peat food...
...but when I read Peat thoroughly and noted his generalizations
about starch not--generally!--being an optimal food,
and argued that was the case on the forum in its early days,
I was roundly called an "authoritarian."
I didn't try in any way to force people to not eat starches.
I didn't insinuate they were bad people if they chose to eat starch.
I didn't ostracize them or anything.
I just made the case that Peat generally didn't think starch an optimal food.
In fact, back then, people didn't even want to allow me to speak of an "optimal Peat diet,"
because just using that word--"diet"--was called "authoritarian."
lol.
My interpretation has been roughly this:
people wanted to consider themselves "Peatians"
and also wanted to be left alone to eat their bread, rice, and potatoes in peace!:)
It made them mad as hell to contemplate that, optimally, they might want to give up their starches.
So the nastiest thing they could think of to say to me,
and the thing that also signaled that they knew more about Peat than me,
was to call me an "authoritarian."
It can just devolve into merely a high-handedly Peatian way to insult.
here is,
people on the forum read Peat,
and they see that he often refers to someone, negatively of course, as "authoritarian."
And then Peat lovers and popularizers like Roddy
copiously reiterate that detail/aspect of Peat in their own writings and shows.
Some of the current or past moderators have incorporated related Peat "authoritarian" taglines
into their signatures...like the one about disabling someone's guidance system.
It becomes a Peat meme.
And like a lot of memes it gets soaked up and repeated,
often without much of thought.
That is where I think the OP was onto something.
I think the meme kinduv devitalizes sometimes around here with thoughtless repetition,
and simply becomes
1. a way to show that you identify with Peat's ideas and reside in the inner sanctum of grasping The True Way of Peat
2. a way to insult somebody who says something you disagree with
Give you an example from my own experience.
We used to argue a lot about starch around here--whether it is a good Peat food.
We've pretty well thrashed that one out over the years,
and also Peat has made additional clarifying statements,
so...I think now it is pretty well accepted that starches aren't an optimal Peat food...
...but when I read Peat thoroughly and noted his generalizations
about starch not--generally!--being an optimal food,
and argued that was the case on the forum in its early days,
I was roundly called an "authoritarian."
I didn't try in any way to force people to not eat starches.
I didn't insinuate they were bad people if they chose to eat starch.
I didn't ostracize them or anything.
I just made the case that Peat generally didn't think starch an optimal food.
In fact, back then, people didn't even want to allow me to speak of an "optimal Peat diet,"
because just using that word--"diet"--was called "authoritarian."
lol.
My interpretation has been roughly this:
people wanted to consider themselves "Peatians"
and also wanted to be left alone to eat their bread, rice, and potatoes in peace!:)
It made them mad as hell to contemplate that, optimally, they might want to give up their starches.
So the nastiest thing they could think of to say to me,
and the thing that also signaled that they knew more about Peat than me,
was to call me an "authoritarian."
It can just devolve into merely a high-handedly Peatian way to insult.
Last edited:
Gonna have to point out, Amazon,
that both of those "poets"
of the forumdefinitely have an authoritarian tendency, at times.
Drareg
Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2016
- Messages
- 4,772
Why not start a thread on this diet, rather than calling it ,"optimal Peat diet " maybe ,"ideal Peat diet". The ideal diet is tough to maintain but would be a good pointer to those who claim they are eating within Peats guidelines yet they have not solved problems,it seems pointless to take on his diet without at least getting rid of grains,starch in vegetables fruit are a lesser evil but not "ideal".
The start of this thread Veers off point from the title to be fair,it doesn't get the thread off to a good start, the title is spot on and op is asking some interesting questions, it seems to be about how Danny Roddy is viewing authoritarianism mainly, I'm not sure Peat is just using Reich as his go to ,he has direct experience of it.
Are we all not veering in and out of authoritarian like behaviour at times based on metabolic rate??
It seems the only way out of authoritarianism is to use a type of dialectic which Peat and many other remarkable thinkers of the past speak of, they put it to practice.
From what I gather on dialectic it does require a very open mind with a certain level of intelligence ,we would struggle on the forum as new people sign up with health issues.
With dialectic should we just be highlighting the obvious contradictions in a viewpoint, we all get something from it, this takes mental energy so maybe people are guilty of taking the easy option in saying authoritarian, is it possible to become authoritarian on the use of the word authoritarian?
Is it not then about the tone behind it which highlights energy levels in the person using it?
It's definition does not make it clear ,Haidut believes using fear to get you on to their viewpoint, maybe from Peats point of view it's an immunity to change and truth because of perceived loss of power ? Lack of engagement in dialectic ,fear may then be used as a tool to get you stop.
Last edited:
haidut
Member
Sorry, I must have misread your post. Well, then maybe bobbybob can respond instead.
Looking back to the OP, I see that bobbybob did refer to D. Roddy and you.
I do go along with his general view that the charge of authoritarianism
gets thrown around too loosely here.
But I wasn't thinking of you, or Roddy either really.
I've heard Danny use the term, but in appropriate ways as I recall.
I mentioned Roddy in my post as an example of how "authoritarianism"
has spread as a popular Peat meme,
but I didn't mean to imply that he uses the term inappropriately.
If anything, with Roddy,
he almost seems a counter-example.
That is, he bends over so far backwards to avoid any whiff of anything
that might be construed by anyone as even slightly authoritarian
that...it's a little comical to me.
But that probably proves my point:
people in the Peat orbit get so all-about the Authoritarian Thing
that it kinda ties people up in knots and makes them walk on eggshells
and issue caveats and disclaimers left and right
to defend at every turn
against that most despicable and heinous
of all possible Peatian charges: AUTHORITARIAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Last edited:
Amazoniac
Member
Haha. Indeed, they have. But wouldn't trying to supress their a bit more agressive/intolerant behaviour be an act of non-acceptance, exactly what's being critized here the whole time?Gonna have to point out, Amazon,
that both of those "poets"
definitely have an authoritarian tendency, at times.
Both of those poets measure their words less than most of us; they may appear intolerant, authoritarian or whatever you decide to call it, but I think they just express their thoughts as soon as they come, unlike our polished manners. And sometimes we need people like them hanging around..
And you're no less of a poet, check the structure of your posts.
Drareg
Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2016
- Messages
- 4,772
Looking back to the OP, I see that bobbybob did refer to D. Roddy and you.
I do go along with his general view that the charge of authoritarianism
gets thrown around too loosely here.
But I wasn't thinking of you, or Roddy either really.
I've heard Danny use the term, but in appropriate ways as I recall.
I mentioned Roddy in my post as an example of how "authoritarianism"
has spread as a popular Peat meme,
but I didn't mean to imply that he uses the term inappropriately.
If anything, with Roddy,
he almost seems a counter-example.
That is, he bends over so far backwards to avoid any whiff of anything
that might be construed by anyone as even slightly authoritarian
that...it's a little comical to me.
But that probably proves my point:
people in the Peat orbit get so all-about the Authoritarian Thing
that it kinda ties people up in knots and makes them walk on eggshells
and issue caveats and disclaimers left and right
to defend at every turn
against that most despicable and heinous Peatian charge: AUTHORITARIAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe at the start of this forum it did but I'm not aware of it getting thrown around loosely now. Danny Roddy uses it a bit alright. Is it not good to be clear on where your opinions are coming from with a polite disclaimer?
Roddy does not claim to be just representing Peats work if I recall,others are clearly used in his ideas.
Ray Peat memes are going to get worse,it's like Ray Peat Chinese whispers, the Ray Peat singles club on Facebook is supposed to be a bit of fun but it completely discredits Ray Peats name.
How many people even read his articles or books? They will email the most ridiculous questions instead.
Many of those claiming to follow his work are interesting to somebody who as exhausted all alternative health ,however when the questions from academics or biochemists come flying in, all of a sudden their argument becomes Ray Peat said this,Ray peat said that, if that's your understanding you probably should not be using his work to profit, if don't grasp Gilbert Ling or Gerald Pollack and also take the time to sincerely understand mainstream view ,you will be ripped to shreds by any biochemist doing a PHD.
Ray Peat spoke before about arguments with people,they are hugely stimulating when you are challenged ,you can't move away claiming they are authoritarian. Ray Peat can engage these people as can Pollack, former students of Ling can't understand his work,neither can many biochemists,his last 2 books might change this, I can imagine some biochemists would rather get in the octagon with a heavyweight UFC fighter than a debate with Ling even at his age.
Some of the guys studying in these areas have a phenomenal level of intelligence, with that they work/study/experiment up to 80 hours per week, I believe this was Albert Szent Georgis workweek.
Was it Ray Peat who said that about changing the old saying ,you don't have to be a rocket scientist to you don't have to be a cell physiologist? This is life they are studying.
Is this fair to say Narouz ,you seem to be frustrated with the social media presence some people are creating for promotion of themselves and hiding behind Ray Peat when they get into trouble with lack of comprehension,profiteering etc?
The problem here is ,people who lack comprehension are going to hurt others,do no harm? If you are trying to heal yourself should you really be trying to heal others? When this happens and they end up in front of a judge they will say,guess what? It was RAY PEAT judge!
Last edited:
from Wikipedia.
I haven't read it, but...it's a biggie in the field...
The Authoritarian Personality is a 1950 sociology book by Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford, researchers working at the University of California, Berkeley, during and shortly after World War II.
The Authoritarian Personality "invented a set of criteria by which to define personality traits, ranked these traits and their intensity in any given person on what it called the 'F scale' (F for fascist)."[1] The personality type Adorno et al. identified can be defined by nine traits that were believed to cluster together as the result of childhood experiences. These traits include conventionalism, authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, anti-intellectualism, anti-intraception, superstition and stereotypy, power and "toughness", destructiveness and cynicism, projectivity, and exaggerated concerns over sex.[2][3]
Though strongly criticized for bias and methodology,[4][5] the book was highly influential in American social sciences, particularly in the first decade after its publication: “No volume published since the war in the field of social psychology has had a greater impact on the direction of the actual empirical work being carried on in the universities today.”[6]
Institutional context[edit]
The impetus[need quotation to verify] of The Authoritarian Personality was the Holocaust, the attempted genocidal extinction of European Jews by Adolf Hitler's National Socialist party. Adorno had been a member of the "Frankfurt School", a predominantly Jewish[7] group of philosophers and Marxist theorists who fled Germany when Hitler shut down their Institute for Social Research. Adorno et al. were thus motivated by a desire[citation needed] to identify and measure factors that were believed to contribute to antisemitic and fascist traits. The book was part of a "Studies in Prejudice" series sponsored by theAmerican Jewish Committee's Department of Scientific Research.[8][9]
Sources and influences[edit]
The Authoritarian Personality was based in part on earlier Frankfurt School analyses undertaken in Germany, but with a few key changes. First, their Marxist and radical[need quotation to verify] roots were downplayed. For example, the earlier “authoritarian personality/revolutionary personality” axis was changed to an “authoritarian personality/democratic personality” axis in America. Thus, values and behaviors earlier associated with revolutionary Marxism were now associated with support for democracy.[10] Second, the book abandoned and/or modified traditional Marxist sociological and economic explanations for human behavior in favor of psychological explanations, earning scorn from more orthodox Marxists.[11][need quotation to verify]
Generally, Adorno et al. took an antipositivist position;[12] they did not believe their theories required external verification orfalsification.[13][better source needed]
Content[edit]
A central idea of The Authoritarian Personality is that authoritarianism is the result of a Freudian developmental model. Excessively harsh and punitive parenting was posited to cause children to feel immense anger towards their parents; yet fear of parental disapproval or punishment caused people to not directly confront their parents, but rather to identify with and idolize authority figures.[page needed] Moreover, the book suggested that authoritarianism was rooted in suppressedhomosexuality, which was redirected into outward hostility towards the father, which was, in turn, suppressed for fear of being infantilized and castrated by the father.[14] This hypothesis was consistent with prevailing psychological theories of the time, and even though Frenkel-Brunswik reported some preliminary support, empirical data have generally not confirmed this prediction.[15][page needed][need quotation to verify] Authoritarianism was measured by the F-scale. The "F" was short for "pre-fascist personality." Another major hypothesis of the book is that the authoritarian syndrome is predisposed to right-wingideology and therefore receptive to fascist governments.[page needed]
Authors and conflicts[edit]
Sanford and Levinson were both psychology professors at Berkeley. They did much of the preliminary work on ethnocentrism and statistical measurement. Frenkel-Brunswik examined personality variables and family background with a series of interview studies. Adorno provided a political and sociological perspective to the book. Although Adorno's name heads the alphabetical list of authors, he arrived late to the project and made a relatively small contribution.[16][need quotation to verify] Adorno, in a 1947 letter to Horkheimer, said that his main contribution was the F-scale, which in the end was the "core of the whole thing."[17] An agreement among the authors held that each one was to sign the individual chapters to which he or she had contributed, and that all four were to sign the chapter on the F-scale;[17] Adorno was credited in 5 of the 23 chapters.
The initially planned title for the book was The Fascist Character and the Measurement of Fascist Trends, but as early as 1947 Adorno feared that the assistants at Berkeley would try to sanitize it to a more innocuous title like Character and Prejudice. The final title was the result of a compromise.[17]
Responses[edit]
The Authoritarian Personality inspired extensive research in psychology, sociology, and political science during the 1950s and early 1960s on the relation between personality traits, behavior, and political beliefs. The Authoritarian Personality has often provoked polarized responses: “The Berkeley study of authoritarian personality does not leave many people indifferent.”[18]
The study "has been subjected to considerable criticism"[19] since the 1950s, particularly for various methodological flaws, including sample bias and poor psychometric techniques.[20][page needed][need quotation to verify]
In 1973, Gaensslen et al.[21] found that, contrary to predictions by Adorno et al.,[need quotation to verify] rigidity/dogmatism is not intrinsically maladaptive; e.g., rigidity can be associated with discipline and productivity.[need quotation to verify]
In 1980, sociologist J.J. Ray[22] argued that the project of The Authoritarian Personality was seriously flawed[need quotation to verify] on several points: for not asking questions regarding libertarian politics (which according to Ray are typically more anti-authoritarian than right- or left-wing politics[need quotation to verify]); for failing to demonstrate that authoritarian/right-wing beliefs are correlated with psychopathology; and, most importantly, for failing to demonstrate that authoritarian beliefs are associated with authoritarian behavior. In 1993, over a decade later, the latter point was also criticized by Billings, et al.[23][better source needed]
The book concludes that right-wing, authoritarian governments produce hostility towards racial, religious or ethnic minorities. Psychologist Bob Altemeyer argued against that conclusion, saying that Fascist Italy was not characterized by antisemitism, and that Jews occupied high positions in Mussolini’s government until pressure from Hitler disenfranchised these Jews.[24]
Rubenstein’s research in Israel revealed that Orthodox Jews scored higher on right wing politics and authoritarianism as traits than Reform Jews, and that both groups scored higher than Secular Jews. However, it cannot be said that there is no relationship between traits of Right-Wing Authoritarianis and antisemitism. In fact, Adorno's nine traits of the "F scale" are rather general and have been thought to identify fascist as well as anti-Semitic individual attributes. The fact that Rubenstein himself affirms that "the results confirm the validity of the RWA" represents a particularly interesting outcome: Orthodox and Reform Jews in Israel are classified closer to the fascist and anti-Semitic traits, as thought in 1950 by Adorno et. al., compared to Secular Jews in Israel.[25]
Some observers have criticized what they saw as a strongly politicized agenda to The Authoritarian Personality. Social criticChristopher Lasch[26] argued that by equating mental health with left-wing politics and associating right-wing politics with an invented “authoritarian” pathology, the book's goal was to eliminate antisemitism by “subjecting the American people to what amounted to collective psychotherapy—by treating them as inmates of an insane asylum.” The Authoritarian Personality remains widely cited in the social sciences and continues to inspire research interest today.[27]
I haven't read it, but...it's a biggie in the field...
The Authoritarian Personality is a 1950 sociology book by Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford, researchers working at the University of California, Berkeley, during and shortly after World War II.
The Authoritarian Personality "invented a set of criteria by which to define personality traits, ranked these traits and their intensity in any given person on what it called the 'F scale' (F for fascist)."[1] The personality type Adorno et al. identified can be defined by nine traits that were believed to cluster together as the result of childhood experiences. These traits include conventionalism, authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, anti-intellectualism, anti-intraception, superstition and stereotypy, power and "toughness", destructiveness and cynicism, projectivity, and exaggerated concerns over sex.[2][3]
Though strongly criticized for bias and methodology,[4][5] the book was highly influential in American social sciences, particularly in the first decade after its publication: “No volume published since the war in the field of social psychology has had a greater impact on the direction of the actual empirical work being carried on in the universities today.”[6]
Institutional context[edit]
The impetus[need quotation to verify] of The Authoritarian Personality was the Holocaust, the attempted genocidal extinction of European Jews by Adolf Hitler's National Socialist party. Adorno had been a member of the "Frankfurt School", a predominantly Jewish[7] group of philosophers and Marxist theorists who fled Germany when Hitler shut down their Institute for Social Research. Adorno et al. were thus motivated by a desire[citation needed] to identify and measure factors that were believed to contribute to antisemitic and fascist traits. The book was part of a "Studies in Prejudice" series sponsored by theAmerican Jewish Committee's Department of Scientific Research.[8][9]
Sources and influences[edit]
The Authoritarian Personality was based in part on earlier Frankfurt School analyses undertaken in Germany, but with a few key changes. First, their Marxist and radical[need quotation to verify] roots were downplayed. For example, the earlier “authoritarian personality/revolutionary personality” axis was changed to an “authoritarian personality/democratic personality” axis in America. Thus, values and behaviors earlier associated with revolutionary Marxism were now associated with support for democracy.[10] Second, the book abandoned and/or modified traditional Marxist sociological and economic explanations for human behavior in favor of psychological explanations, earning scorn from more orthodox Marxists.[11][need quotation to verify]
Generally, Adorno et al. took an antipositivist position;[12] they did not believe their theories required external verification orfalsification.[13][better source needed]
Content[edit]
A central idea of The Authoritarian Personality is that authoritarianism is the result of a Freudian developmental model. Excessively harsh and punitive parenting was posited to cause children to feel immense anger towards their parents; yet fear of parental disapproval or punishment caused people to not directly confront their parents, but rather to identify with and idolize authority figures.[page needed] Moreover, the book suggested that authoritarianism was rooted in suppressedhomosexuality, which was redirected into outward hostility towards the father, which was, in turn, suppressed for fear of being infantilized and castrated by the father.[14] This hypothesis was consistent with prevailing psychological theories of the time, and even though Frenkel-Brunswik reported some preliminary support, empirical data have generally not confirmed this prediction.[15][page needed][need quotation to verify] Authoritarianism was measured by the F-scale. The "F" was short for "pre-fascist personality." Another major hypothesis of the book is that the authoritarian syndrome is predisposed to right-wingideology and therefore receptive to fascist governments.[page needed]
Authors and conflicts[edit]
Sanford and Levinson were both psychology professors at Berkeley. They did much of the preliminary work on ethnocentrism and statistical measurement. Frenkel-Brunswik examined personality variables and family background with a series of interview studies. Adorno provided a political and sociological perspective to the book. Although Adorno's name heads the alphabetical list of authors, he arrived late to the project and made a relatively small contribution.[16][need quotation to verify] Adorno, in a 1947 letter to Horkheimer, said that his main contribution was the F-scale, which in the end was the "core of the whole thing."[17] An agreement among the authors held that each one was to sign the individual chapters to which he or she had contributed, and that all four were to sign the chapter on the F-scale;[17] Adorno was credited in 5 of the 23 chapters.
The initially planned title for the book was The Fascist Character and the Measurement of Fascist Trends, but as early as 1947 Adorno feared that the assistants at Berkeley would try to sanitize it to a more innocuous title like Character and Prejudice. The final title was the result of a compromise.[17]
Responses[edit]
The Authoritarian Personality inspired extensive research in psychology, sociology, and political science during the 1950s and early 1960s on the relation between personality traits, behavior, and political beliefs. The Authoritarian Personality has often provoked polarized responses: “The Berkeley study of authoritarian personality does not leave many people indifferent.”[18]
The study "has been subjected to considerable criticism"[19] since the 1950s, particularly for various methodological flaws, including sample bias and poor psychometric techniques.[20][page needed][need quotation to verify]
In 1973, Gaensslen et al.[21] found that, contrary to predictions by Adorno et al.,[need quotation to verify] rigidity/dogmatism is not intrinsically maladaptive; e.g., rigidity can be associated with discipline and productivity.[need quotation to verify]
In 1980, sociologist J.J. Ray[22] argued that the project of The Authoritarian Personality was seriously flawed[need quotation to verify] on several points: for not asking questions regarding libertarian politics (which according to Ray are typically more anti-authoritarian than right- or left-wing politics[need quotation to verify]); for failing to demonstrate that authoritarian/right-wing beliefs are correlated with psychopathology; and, most importantly, for failing to demonstrate that authoritarian beliefs are associated with authoritarian behavior. In 1993, over a decade later, the latter point was also criticized by Billings, et al.[23][better source needed]
The book concludes that right-wing, authoritarian governments produce hostility towards racial, religious or ethnic minorities. Psychologist Bob Altemeyer argued against that conclusion, saying that Fascist Italy was not characterized by antisemitism, and that Jews occupied high positions in Mussolini’s government until pressure from Hitler disenfranchised these Jews.[24]
Rubenstein’s research in Israel revealed that Orthodox Jews scored higher on right wing politics and authoritarianism as traits than Reform Jews, and that both groups scored higher than Secular Jews. However, it cannot be said that there is no relationship between traits of Right-Wing Authoritarianis and antisemitism. In fact, Adorno's nine traits of the "F scale" are rather general and have been thought to identify fascist as well as anti-Semitic individual attributes. The fact that Rubenstein himself affirms that "the results confirm the validity of the RWA" represents a particularly interesting outcome: Orthodox and Reform Jews in Israel are classified closer to the fascist and anti-Semitic traits, as thought in 1950 by Adorno et. al., compared to Secular Jews in Israel.[25]
Some observers have criticized what they saw as a strongly politicized agenda to The Authoritarian Personality. Social criticChristopher Lasch[26] argued that by equating mental health with left-wing politics and associating right-wing politics with an invented “authoritarian” pathology, the book's goal was to eliminate antisemitism by “subjecting the American people to what amounted to collective psychotherapy—by treating them as inmates of an insane asylum.” The Authoritarian Personality remains widely cited in the social sciences and continues to inspire research interest today.[27]
This one made me go, WTF!?...
"History proves that all dictatorships, all authoritarian forms of government are transient. Only democratic systems are not transient. Whatever the shortcomings, mankind has not devised anything superior."
--Vladimir Putin
"History proves that all dictatorships, all authoritarian forms of government are transient. Only democratic systems are not transient. Whatever the shortcomings, mankind has not devised anything superior."
--Vladimir Putin
Ray Peat has said that Noam Chomsky is an authoritarian for his views on language specifically "the poverty of stimulus" and "universal Grammar". His genetic inclination for language as being determined as genes similar to a computer program. If the antithesis to genetic determinism is epigenetic/lamarackian then it should be caterigoize as anti-authoritarian.
We must remember that the ford foundation funded Noam Chomsky. And how Ray Peat was told that that the program at the university was already committed to Noam Chomsky theories.
goodandevil
Member
- Joined
- May 27, 2015
- Messages
- 978
Godammit, not surprised whatsoever he was founded by the ford foundation. Probably had some interesting conversations with Louis Farrakhan. .
What does Louis Farrakhan has to do with the conversation ?
EMF Mitigation - Flush Niacin - Big 5 Minerals
Similar threads
