BNN provides English-language US and world news, analysis and opinion from all over the Internet. We strive for high standards, ethical behavior, and the presentation of multiple responsible points of view.
|
Get More Traffic For Your Blog! Blog Explosion brings hundreds of interested visitors to your blog - without costing you a cent. BNN News Archive Page |
Monday, August 28, 2006
More stupid anti-conservative psychology The book says of course that conservatives are psychologically disturbed and "authoritarian" -- an ongoing leftist theme that goes all the way back to a 1950 book which had as its leading author the Marxist theoretican Theodor Wiesengrund (aka Adorno). The Adorno book was written at a time when most Leftists alive could remember themselves espousing doctrines similar to Hitler's (the prewar American Left was heavily into racism, antisemitism, eugenics, nationalism, homophobia etc.) so, nonsensical though it was, the book was eagerly seized on by the Left of the day as a way of attaching Nazism to conservatives rather than to themselves. The book has long since been discredited (See e.g. here and here) and one of the most comprehensive demolitions of it was by a curious Canadian psychology professor known as "Bob" Altemeyer. Altemeyer (1981) pointed out in great and convincing detail that the research methods and research results available did not support the claims of the book but he still thought that the theory behind the book was pretty right. So he set out on his own large program of research to find support for at least some parts of the theory. The central pillar of his research was a new inventory of attitudes -- attitudes which he claimed reflected "Right-wing authoritarianism" (RWA). In a quite hilarious piece of bathos, however, he concluded in one of his later books that: "Right wing authoritarians show little preference in general for any political party" (p. 239 of Enemies of Freedom). In other words, the people Altemeyer's questionnaire identified as "Right-wing authoritarians" were in fact as likely to vote for the Canadian Liberals or the U.S. Democrats as they were likely to vote for Conservatives or Republicans! His "Rightists" were, in other words, often Leftists! Such a stupid body of work as Altemeyer's claims about conservatism would of course long ago have been consigned to the dustbin of history if reason and logic were what motivated the Left but in fact Altemeyer's work is wildly popular among Leftist social scientists and social commentators -- and the John Dean book relies heavily on it. So if you ever do get around to looking at the Dean book, just remember that everything he says is just as likely to be true of Democrat supporters as GOP voters! For those interested in a more comprehensive demolition of the Dean book, Peter Thomas has written one. See Liberals Without Logic. References Adorno,T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J. & Sanford, R.N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper. Altemeyer, R. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press. Altemeyer, R. (1988) Enemies of freedom: Understanding Right-wing authoritarianism. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Page. Email me (John Ray) here.) Blogger News Network is advertiser-supported, and your visits to our advertisers help BNN to meet its expenses. Help keep us afloat! posted by JR at 8:10 PM |
Subscribe to BNN and get a daily bulletin of all our news postings. Interested in writing for BNN? Want information on our news service? Contact The Editor Writing for BNN BNN Editorial Policies Previous Posts
|
1 Comments:
I am the "curious Canadian psychology professor" that John Ray referred to, and I'd like to set the record straight about some of the things he said.
I don't think that John Dean's book said conservatives are psychologically disturbed. First, I think one will find that the book is not about conservatives in general--whom one can find in all parties and among Independents--but about the people who have taken control of the Republican party now. One of the strong messages I get from the book is that true Republican conservatives should reclaim their party from the groups that have taken it over. Second, I don't think Mr. Dean says that those groups or their members are psychologically disturbed. He says they are authoritarian leaders and authoritarian followers, and I have studied these groups to a certain extent. But I have never said they are psychologically disturbed. I don't like what they're doing, but they probably don't like what I've been doing either.
Secondly, Dr. Ray is correct in saying I intensely criticized the research methods and the results presented in the 1950s book, "The Authoritarian Personality." (In all fairness to my predecessors, I was hardly the first, but I was perhaps the most outspoken.) But I have no idea where Dr. Ray got the notion that I "still thought the theory behind the book was pretty right." I have criticized the theory so many times in so many places, including the book where I went after the research itself, that it is just an absurd thing to say. My own explanation of authoritarianism has rested on social learning theory, not the Freudian one presented in 1950.
Dr. Ray goes on to say that, "in a hilarious piece of bathos," I concluded that right-wing authoritarians (authoritarian followers) show little preference in general for any political party. I didn't "conclude" that. I began a discussion of authoritarianism and politics with the observation that studies in Canada and the United States had consistently found statistically significant differences in the authoritarianism scores of persons who support various political parties, with Conservative and Republican supporters scoring highest. I went on to say that there was so much overlap in the general data, however, that the relationship was weak. Then I presented evidence, that Dr. Ray does not seem able to report to others, that if you look at people who are interested in politics, you find substantially stronger connections between authoritarianism and party preference. I have since reported studies of some two hundred Canadian lawmakers and over a thousand American state legislators that showed strong-to-incredibly-strong connections between politicians' level of authoritarianism and the party they belonged to.
It may be that I was wrong. A recent nation-wide poll conducted by the Libertarian Party found that Republican supporters scored much, much higher than Democrats on my measure of being an authoritarian follower than any previous study had shown. I'm waiting to see if that gets replicated.
Characterizing my body of work as "stupid," Dr. Ray says it would have been forgotten long ago were it not so popular among leftists. It may not be that simple. It could be that some people simply look at the studies and find them convincing. For those who think "It can't be so; this has got to be wrong!" I offer this hope. Science is self-correcting. Studies that miss the boat, miss the point, misinterpret the results, had flawed or unfair designs, were biased against some group, and so on will be criticized by other researchers and redone in better ways. So far the research on authoritarianism upon which John Dean based his analysis of "Conservatives without Conscience" has held up pretty well. But it is only thirty years old, and if/where it is wrong, that will be discovered.
In this regard, I would recommend the review of Mr. Dean's book written by Austin Bramwell for the July 17th "The American Conservative" magazine, which takes my research to task on many points. If you'd like to have my response to these criticisms, email me at altemey@cc.umanitoba.ca.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home