Yeah, but that test biases ridiculously hard to the lower left corner. I've never seen anyone take it and wind up on the top half, and maybe one in ten wind up on the right half.
I agree with that, I've tried that a couple of times now and thought it was great when I first discovered it years and years ago.
The reading lists are interesting because they contain authors in the libertarian left section which themselves would not have thought that label appropriate, like Ivan Illich, he thought that he was a critical traditionalist for the most part.
I used to be really precious about the libertarian socialist label, then gradually I got alienated by anything labelled libertarian, a lot of that part of the ideological spectrum strike me as people who are searching for a perfect theory and then aspiring to a quite fanatical correctness in conformity to the principles they imagine stem from it, its mirrored left and right, those people are usually not good company at all.
I thought this New York Times article was interesting, since it talks about Trump in the context of Haidt's theories, SDO, and authoritarianism.
The article quotes Haidt on Donald Trump:
Originally Posted by Haidt
[Many Americans] perceive that the moral order is falling apart, the country is losing its coherence and cohesiveness, diversity is rising, and our leadership seems to be suspect or not up to the needs of the hour. It’s as though a button is pushed on their forehead that says “in case of moral threat, lock down the borders, kick out those who are different, and punish those who are morally deviant.”
[Trump] is not a conservative, and is not appealing to classical conservative ideas. He is an authoritarian, who is profiting from the chaos in Washington, Syria, Paris, San Bernardino, and even the chaos on campuses, which are creating a more authoritarian electorate in the Republican primaries.
The article also contains this nice chart:
The article goes on to talk about Trump taps into the purity, in-group loyalty, and disgust dimensions, in particular:
Originally Posted by Thomas B. Edsall
Jesse Graham, a professor of psychology at the University of Southern California, elaborated on the purity-disgust dimension of this year’s political campaign:
More than any other Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump has been appealing to a particular combination of in-group loyalty and moral purity concerns. On the purity side, he often expresses disgust, often toward women and women’s bodies (e.g., Clinton’s bathroom break during a Democratic debate). But his purity appeals are most commonly in the context of group boundaries, like building walls on our national borders to prevent contamination by outsiders, who are cast as murderers and rapists, both morally and physically dirty.
They later talk about SDO:
Originally Posted by Thomas B. Edsall
Trump’s campaign style, his bullying and his pointed insults of competitors, fit into the psychological research concept of “social dominance orientation.” The level of an individual’s social dominance orientation is determined by agreement or disagreement with a series of statements. Those with a social dominance orientation agree strongly with such statements as:
“Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups;” “it’s O.K. if some groups have more of a chance in life than others;” and “to get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on other groups.”
And they disagree with such statements as: “It would be good if groups could be equal;” “we should do what we can to equalize conditions for different groups;” and “no group should dominate in society.”
So perhaps part of Trump's appeal is his appeal to those with an social dominance orientation, or with other authoritarian characteristics.
At any rate, it was fun to see an article that hit on most of the same sources as this thread, and applied them to current events.
In contemporary American parlance, and maybe it’s always been this way, a “leader” typically describes someone who will aggressively push your preferred policies. How much do Americans really care what this aggressiveness entails?
Trump’s entire case is propelled by the notion that a single (self-identified) competent, strong-willed president, without any perceptible deference to the foundational ideals of the nation, will be able to smash any cultural or political obstacles standing in the way of making America Great Again.
"I took one those personality tests. It came back negative." - Dan Mintz
I want a Parliamentary system similar to the UK. President should still be an office separate from the legislature, but one whose power is severely limited. Responsibilities of the President in the current system could be split between the President and the Prime Minister of Parliament. Or perhaps we could have a triumvirate run the exec branch. Keep the legislature largely as is, but in the executive branch, decision-making would require 2/3 majority in the consulship. Preferably, 1 democratic consul, 1 republican consul, and the third consul would be from whichever third party was runner up in the general election.
The article conclusions (i.e., pro- or anti-same-sex relationships and affirmative action) were varied between subjects. As expected, only RWA predicted evaluations of the same-sex relationships articles and authors, whereas only SDO predicted evaluations of the affirmative action articles and authors. These results extend applications of the dual-process model by demonstrating that RWA and SDO differentially predict evaluations of political information that pertains to socially threatening or subordinate groups, respectively.
So, Social Dominance Orientation tends to want groups viewed as "lesser" to stay lesser, whereas Right Wing Authoritarians tend to fear socially threatening groups.
Low Agreeableness predicted change in the motivational goal for group-based dominance and superiority (SDO), whereas Openness to Experience predicted change in the motivational goal for social cohesion and collective security (RWA). Extending previous longitudinal research, this study indicates that the effect of personality on ideology is unidirectional, as RWA and SDO did not predict reciprocal prospective change in broad-bandwidth personality. These findings are consistent with a model in which relatively stable broad-bandwidth personality traits shape ideological attitudes over even relatively short time periods, and not the reverse.
So, low Agreeableness (correlated with MBTI thinking) tends to push people towards SDO, whereas low Openness to Experience (correlated with MBTI S) tends to push people towards RWA.
Drawing from 14 independent New Zealand–based samples, we show, through meta-analysis and multilevel random coefficient modelling, that SDO and RWA additively and interactively predict levels of political conservatism operationalised in a variety of ways. Specifically, both constructs are associated with increasing political conservatism, and the lowest levels of conservatism (or highest levels of political liberalism) are found in those lowest in both SDO and RWA.
So SDO and RWA are additively associated with conservatism.
We integrate these moral signatures within the Dual Process Model (DPM) framework and show that Social Dominance Orientation predicts membership in the Neutral moral signature (moderate/lukewarm support for multiple moral foundations); whereas Right-Wing Authoritarianism predicts membership in the High Moralist signature (undifferentiated high support across moral foundations). These findings were observed controlling for Big-Six personality and various demographics. Thus, the authoritarian and dominance-based motives identified by the DPM independently predict categorical differences in the signatures people use to judge morality.
Which does a nice job of linking Haidt to SDO and RWA.
Effects of Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Threat from Terrorism on Restriction of Civil Liberties
Which helps explain why fear tends to make people rush to give up civil liberties.
I tried to find some studies looking at the positive effects of RWA and SDO, but didn't come up with much. I did run across a theory that claims to predict bias, however:
According to the IOPM, objectionable premises present perceivers with considerations that they should reject outright. Once a perceiver deems a judgment premise as objectionable, little else about that judgment (e.g., one’s attitude toward the judgment target) will matter, short- circuiting biases against one target relative to another. On the other hand, ideologically acceptable premises allow perceivers to give fuller consideration to a judgment (including one’s attitude toward the target) and thus allow for biases to emerge. From these assumptions, the IOPM predicts three patterns of biases among the political left and right: when the premise is objectionable only to people on the left, biases will emerge only among people on the right (asymmetrical right-wing bias); when the premise is objectionable only to people on the right, biases will emerge only among people on the left (asymmetrical left-wing bias); and when the premise is acceptable to people on both the left and right, biases will emerge among people on the left and right (sym- metrical biases).
According to the DPM model, RWA more strongly relates to concerns over social cohesion, collective security, and traditional values, whereas SDO more strongly relates to concerns over intergroup dominance and superiority (Duckitt, 2001; Duckitt & Sibley, 2010).
The paper uses responses to Tea Party vs Occupy Wall Street protesters as an example of how this plays out. Kind of cool to have a model that can help predict biases, so we can be more aware of our own.
I see so much authoritarianism on the Left these days which makes me think that this research is based upon faulty premises.
Looking at the last hundred years, Wilson was very authoritarian, used Freudian tools to manipulate they people in support of war, threw Eugene V. Debs in jail for calling WWI a capitalist war, introduced numerous authoritarian controls on the country, the first Red Scare, etc.
FDR was extremely authoritarian with the New Deal. Truman started the second Red Scare.
LBJ certainly used authoritarian tools for control, including escalating an unnecessary foreign conflict.
The environmental and SJW movements are very authoritarian.
Of course, Obama loves executive orders and struggles with actually working to solve issues instead of dictating....
It almost seems like a borg like, you must assimilate to the SJW position or too are a fascist....
This isn't to say some conservatives are authoritarian, but I see this a function of Southern Blue Dog Democrats switching parties and keeping their values. Rich Perry is a great example of this, as I doubt he changed a single position upon joining the Republican Party. And the extreme worship of unrestricted economics is the economic policy of the Southern Democrat since Calhoun or earlier.
Nixon was very authoritarian, but more anti-Communist than conservative (he used anti-Communism as a tool for power since his first election). His economic and environmental policies were pretty Leftist.
The political winds do change things over time (not many NE or California Republicans anymore).....
Originally Posted by Archilochus
The fox knows many things--the hedgehog one big one.
And I am not a hedgehog......
Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers" not "blessed are the conflict avoiders.....