There once was a group of academic refuges from German called The Frankfurt School which included a bunch of intellectuals Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm, they all eventually squabbled and fell out so far as I can tell, especially Fromm and Marcuse following a big bust up about hwo understood and could interpret or revise Freud after Marcuse's publication of Eros and Civilisation.
One of the first big publications they were responsible for was the creation of an F-scale, F for Fascist, and research which became The Authoritarian Personality, which was supposedly a presentation of indicators which revealed underlying and deep seated, possibly unconscious tendencies, within any personalities which would make for someone being a proto-fascist, as opposed to actual fascist.
Now I've read some simple, and I think valid, criticisms of this effort, both in terms of methodology, it was a closed question, quantative survey which may have been composed in a manner reflecting researcher confirmation bias, stereotypes or things like that, it has been criticised as eschewed by what the intellectual refugees had experienced themselves in their flight from Germany (Orwell strained in his attempts to emphasis that fascism in one context would seldom resemble fascism in another or be easily detected as such) and finally that it was an example of ideology over rigorous scholarship (I think that is a claim which can be levelled at a lot of academic studies from that era and since).
However, my question in this thread is whether or not you consider it a worthy effort to attempt to research underlying and deep seated psychological traits of this kind? Is is possible? Views about MBTI and consciousness and character research like Dennetts or some behaviourists who deny it exists at all will come into this but try and remain on topic, it is authoritarianism, left, right and centre, and mainly as an underlying drive which I'm interested in discussing.