|
Willie Tomg posted:near as i can tell so far, The Authoritarians is basically what PJ is trying to write, almost entirely, but What PJ is getting at is a worldview which gives rise to that behaviour which Altermeyer's classification doesn't explain very well, but is a starting point. Karen Stenner wrote The Authoritarian Dynamic, a difficult read for a non-academic but extremely carefully argued thesis that authoritarianism is an expression of a reactive worldview that cannot tolerate social diversity. She explains it more simply in this article. It's pretty much a definition of "triggered".
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 04:08 |
|
|
Prester Jane posted:There seems to be a rather significant difference between my own work and the academic world: the academic world seems to view behavior and decisions as ultimately being driven by beliefs. Whereas in my work behavior and decisions are driven by worldview* first and foremost and beliefs are structured in such a way to provide a socially acceptable justification for the individual's behavior and decisions. I think Stenner is trying to get at the worldview from strictly empirical data. Are you familiar with the black box concept of deduction? To get at something you cannot see the internal workings of, it can be useful to see what goes into it and out of it and deduce its internals that way. Just knowing where its inputs come from and where they go to is useful, that's the concept behind signals intelligence. Stenner is a lot more careful than Altermeyer about theories of beliefs. Her key survey asked questions about child-rearing, because she thought that was sufficiently universal to illuminate a wide spectrum of responses to analyse. But she goes no further than to assert what she did in that article albeit more academically, much of the picture is still incomplete. I'd like to read that book of essays, I didn't know she was doing more survey work until today.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2018 00:43
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:i contend that none of this is true merely because you assert it in earnest, and prefer previously existing scholarly explanations of this behavior instead. i have provided more support for my ideas than you or PJ for yours, because i've read things about this subject and shared a couple of them--though not nearly enough things to begin formulating grand unifying explicatory theories of my own. do you understand the problem? I found your appeals to authority rather weird. Adorno is well out of date, even Altermeyer is out of date, you also chose a Philosophy Phd thesis to back your claim which isn't properly related to the group sociology we're effectively discussing and it is also out of date, coming in the same year as Stenner's work but only quoting her initial paper. Unfortunately for you, if you had read Stenner you'd certainly need to read up on sociological/statistics jargon if you weren't already well-versed in that field, and since Stenner is relentlessly empirical your references are at least on similar shaky ground to PJ's which are after all still at the level of working theory.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2018 17:51
|
|
|
Dead Beef posted:So we see a lot of ridiculous conspiracy theories being perpetuated by chronic underachievers and the mediocre. Ironically the most exceptional skill conspiracy theorists have is the ability to delude themselves about being exceptional. It's certainly a part of it but there might be more to it than that. Conspiracy theories also attract people as entertainment, it's excitement without risk. You can be average and mediocre and still live in a world that has cabals and UFOs without actually confronting the supposed reality of those ideas. They're a form of voyeurism, like the flourishing true crime genre. They serve a similar function to fairy tales: preparing a person for the dangers of the outside world within a controlled narrative. Like fairy tales, they have rules about protagonists, villains, and narratives with one important difference: they can only imply conclusions because ironically, conclusions are death to conspiracy theories. Their "obvious" conclusion never occurs and in order to avoid this, the storytellers will sidetrack into another theory and so on until you get QAnon. None that is important to the intended audience, who indeed never want the conspiracy theory fairy tale to actually end anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2018 19:21
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Oh absolutely. I have no doubts that the GOP will go right back to the hard obstructionism that they practiced during Obama and Clinton's presidencies and do their level best to stop any governance happening at all (all while loudly proclaiming that the subsequent gridlock proves the illegitimacy of Democratic presidents generally and this one in particular). It's that narcissist/magical-thinking thing of always having a counter-narrative to anything regardless of reason, contradiction or sheer lunacy. They have a counter-narrative of the DMC "rigging" elections with the help of Ukrainians because their attempts to rig with Ukrainians were discovered. quote:Which is why the only hope anyone really has is a president who's mobilized a mass popular movement to continue agitating for progressive policies and willing to engage in direct action to see it made law, as the McConnell/Graham set are also fundamentally cowards who only get away with their obstruction because they've never experienced meaningful pushback. People felt that way about McGovern too and look how that went.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2019 04:33
|
|