Altemeyer's Right Wing Authoritarianism Scale

I mostly agree with #2, with the caveat that a wife can disobey her husband when he is telling her to disobey God. It is also counterbalanced with husbands should have to promise to always love their wives. The key is a Christian understanding of love. Love is not self-seeking. That is what a proper biblical marriage looks like. Things tend to go downhill really fast when the husband stops holding up his end of the deal, but the wife is expected to hold up her end of the deal. When the nature of the marriage morphs into you have to obey all of my selfish demands the husband has failed big time.

#3 I don't think it is the state's job to make society righteous. It can't. The state should punish person to person injustice, but the state cannot make anyone righteous.

#5 I think I answered slightly agree, but I also could have answered slightly disagree. I mean you can slightly agree and slightly disagree at the same time. That is one of the flaws in the poll I think. Nonetheless, every authority can be wrong, except for God. It is better to weigh the evidence on a case by case basis.

 

I would be scared to attempt to let my wife know she disobeyed me, there's a reason why we are fixing to celebrate 33 years together

 

Well, that is why you do your due diligence on the front end. If I ever dated a woman who flat out said she didn't believe in submitting to her husband like the Bible says she should, then that would be the end of the relationship right there. That wouldn't be first question first date, lol. But you get around to discussing stuff like that after a while. Dismissing biblical authority and saying you won't submit to it is a huge red flag, though. If she's unwilling to submit to the Bible there, then that is the tip of the iceberg.

FWIW, The Bible also tells husbands to love their wives like Christ loves the church. Both of those are high callings and hard to do. Both of those involve denying yourself and putting the other person first. Hence, the Bible verse that says submit yourselves one to another. So, it is not a dictatorship. You both die to yourself to best serve and love the other person, but the husband gets the tie breaker when there is an impasse.

 

First of all, thanks to Lacuna for sharing.

I understand the purpose of the test is to measure "right-wing" authoritarianism.

But I don't consider that to be particularly meaningful. I don't know exactly how the score is measured, but if you generally think abortion, pornography, and hippy culture are bad for the country and simultaneously value religion and tradition, it looks like the test holds all of that against you, and that skews around half of the questions, despite not actually representing anything meaningful.

It's like the test is telling you that you're "safer" if you're an atheist progressive nihilistic hippy as though there's nothing dangerous or potentially authoritarian about that.

The test also looks skewed in favor of women as the "good" answers typically also favor women more than men. Ask a whole lot of women if they think their "husbands should obey" them, and their answer to number 2 looks really different.

EDIT: Looks like I was on to something.

I took the test a second time and scored a 20 (the best possible score). Looks like the test treated every question exactly how I thought. Here's a hint, if you're a hippy, pro-choice, animal rights-loving, atheist feminist, you probably had a great score.

 

The test also forces you to choose between "strong" (and apparently right-wing) leaders, and the animal rights, feminist, pro-choice, anti-religion protesters. It paints a pretty clear picture of the "teams" and skews the test in favor of the people who sympathize with those groups.

If the test forced you to choose between leaders who abandon tradition with a vision of a better future, subvert religion in favor of absolute tolerance for all non-traditional lifestyle choices... and religious zealots, traditionalists, and guns rights advocates; I think the results of the test would look pretty different.

Which means the test gauges your affinity for religion and tradition as much as if not more than it tests your propensity for authoritarianism.

 

Looks like another libbie set up for cons is exposed.
Well done 715!

 

That disclaimer confused me more this time than it did the first time. In any event, my score was slightly higher this time.

 

To be fair, I don't think that was Lacuna's intention, or even necessarily whoever wrote the test.

I guess my biggest problem with the test is the premise that "right wing authoritarianism" is something worth testing as opposed to just "authoritarianism."

I wouldn't treat it as some "gotcha" that my progressive friends are more likely than me to side with a leader who subverts religion and rejects tradition than NRA-endorsing, God-fearing, old-fashioned men. I would expect it. And it doesn't really tell me anything that I didn't already know, that I'm more conservative than them and they're more progressive than me.

 

Question: do you think those are "bad" positions to take? Anyway, congratulations on your score. There's hope for you yet.

 

Well, yeah if you wanna be fair…I suppose.
lol

 

I wouldn’t argue such a survey is “meaningful”.

Yet, the pro-choice, animal rights loving, hippy, feminist also wouldn’t likely be “authoritarian”. Would they?

Is there anything profound in saying “answer the questions as a non-authoritarian would, and you can totally game the test guyz”. Sounds like you kind of just did the obvious, and got a predictable result as the “test” would have intended.

 

Just took the test: 39
I found myself feeling quite strongly about most of the statements. I took each statement at face value and decided how I felt about it.I've no doubt that tests with different questions would.show me with a higher score.

 

Yes, they would, though not necessarily.

They are more likely to be authoritarian against hunters, gun-lovers, the patriarchy, pro-lifers, and traditional social power structures.

You see that's the problem. Getting a 20 is not answering the test as a "non-authoritarian" would. It's answering the test as a "non-right-wing authoritarian" would, a critical difference.

A lot of Communists would score greatly on this test because they're generally against religion and tradition.

There's a lot of disconnect in how people define Authoritarianism and Fascism. People treat Communism as a separate thing entirely when it's really simply the flip side of the Fascism coin, and they both typically fall under the "Authoritarianism" umbrella. The question is which authority you are loyal towards (if any). And you're typically loyal to some authority, you're probably not an Anarchist or a Nihilist.

Last I checked, lefties are awfully loyal to certain scientists, liberal arts academia, and causes that further diversity and equity.

 

my score went up to 61 (from 27 initially). I thought a bit more on each question this time.

 

I personally tend to view authoritarianism as about power being obtained, consolidated, and/or maintained by a strongman or elite class. That could be Fascist, Communist, Monarchist, etc., which I don't view as inherently left versus right. I consider that to be more about the process itself. Others use the word authoritarian in a way that I think is intended to describe people, systems, or societies which place great value on strict obedience to authority and norms (whether that authority is valid, ill-gotten, etc.) relative to personal freedom.

Not sure if others agree, but I feel like there might be multiple ways people use the word.

 

The thing is called “right wing authoritarian” scale. I guess he should have crafted a “left wing authoritarian” scale or just a combined one that people take blindly to see where they fall. Wouldn’t disagree with that.

I took the survey just for the hell of it, got a 50. Seems to me about half the questions are completely ridiculous, to the point if one answers strongly that essentially “the government must act strongly to impose morals” and vanquish those with different morals or religion, no shit that’s authoritarian leaning pov. I don’t quite agree that they are always two sides of the same coin either. A government vigorously enforcing civil rights and equality for its people is not “authoritarianism” against anyone but those who would deny those rights or who would oppress a minority population.

 

Stalin and Castro are nodding their heads in Hell somewhere saying "this guy understands us."

Your interpretation of "rights" and "equality" means everything here. And Communists typically have an incredibly corrupted one.

 

Lawl.

Im an old school “socially liberal, fiscal conservative” and you try to label me as a Marxist? Hilarious. You know nothing.

 

No, you misinterpret my post.

I'm not necessarily saying you're a Marxist. I'm saying your argument is the precise sort of argument that Marxists hide behind, which is absolutely true.

They use buzzwords people have positive associations with like "equality" or "rights" then rally people to their cause hoping they don't ask tough questions, like "equality for whom, why should we trust you to fairly reallocate wealth, what about my property, what if I'm working harder and producing more than the guy next to me."

It's a game where a politician gets some class of people that perceives themselves as oppressed in some way, and pins them against another class they see as privileged, all while the leaders stoking resentment and division there avoid any tough questions pointing back to them.

"Don't worry about me, worry about that rich guy exploiting you and stealing from you, I'm here to help you. Trust me."