Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8927 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-23-2019 7:53 PM
25 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Faith, Son Goku, Tanypteryx (5 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,343 Year: 15,379/19,786 Month: 2,102/3,058 Week: 476/404 Day: 80/63 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are You an Authoritarian?
kuresu
Member (Idle past 744 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 17 of 181 (501750)
03-07-2009 4:10 PM


I scored either a 36 or a 37. It all depends on how you round (-2.6 is -2 or -3, and I went with -3).

Of course, if I didn't get hung over one of the questions that RAZD did (# 13, about admiring those who challenged the status quo over various topics), and decided to even just slightly agree, I would have the lowest score so far.

Has Boulder done this, or is it Bush?


Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Modulous, posted 03-07-2009 4:51 PM kuresu has responded
 Message 22 by kuresu, posted 03-07-2009 5:39 PM kuresu has not yet responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 744 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 20 of 181 (501778)
03-07-2009 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Modulous
03-07-2009 4:51 PM


Re: -2.6?
Ah, well he said that if you have different opinions about different parts of the statement, to take the average. Naturally, on one of the statements I had three separate opinions, {-1, -3, and -4}. Which gives you -2.666...7. Is my breakdown of that statement (19) justifiable? It was at the time for me. I get the feeling that trying to rationalize your answers is not the goal here, though.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Modulous, posted 03-07-2009 4:51 PM Modulous has not yet responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 744 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 22 of 181 (501784)
03-07-2009 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by kuresu
03-07-2009 4:10 PM


I'm reading through the book (far more interesting, and relevant, than my viking age reading...), and I found an interesting statement:

quote:
The only situation I found in which a crisis lowered RWA scores involved a repressive government that assaulted nonviolent protestors (which I have termed “the Gandhi trap”). Otherwise, when there’s trouble, people generally look to the authorities to fix things.

In my previous post, I asked if my low score was partly a result of the Bush administration's actions or from living in Boulder. I asked because I know I've gotten more liberal, or at least, I'm much more honest about my liberalism (it's far easier being a liberal in Boulder than in Bristol). It would seem, though, that the Bush administration is at least partly responsible for creating a low score, if at a subconscious level.

Of course, since I don't study psychology, I'm most likely talking completely out of my ass, but this is a very fascinating read. Thanks Percy for reminding me of this book.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by kuresu, posted 03-07-2009 4:10 PM kuresu has not yet responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 744 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 39 of 181 (501849)
03-08-2009 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by RAZD
03-07-2009 10:13 PM


Re: 65
And, for Kuresu (Message 22), he also talks about the moderating effect of education, with the children of 100 and up parents scoring 90s.

So you are moderate.

Moderate? I'm not so sure. He qualifies a low-RWA as one who scores in the bottom 25%, I believe (in the book, for simplicity's sake, it's just those who actually scored low). Granted, it's a self-administered test, but a score of 40, by my count, is the upper bound of the lowest 12.5% of the scale (not that 12.5% of people will score in this category). Which is where I fall. I dare say I qualify as a low-RWA, especially when the average for his intro psych students is approximately 75, and for americans is around 90.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 03-07-2009 10:13 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 744 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 42 of 181 (501853)
03-08-2009 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by RAZD
03-07-2009 10:13 PM


nuclear holocaust?
Where it gets fun is where he puts groups of students through an exercise with world governments and politics. He put all high scores in the same game, and they rapidly ended up in nuclear world wars that destroyed the earth, even after a "reset" to try again.

Meanwhile the groups of low scores together they resolved issues and formed world governments.

And then we look at the middle east crisis ... anyone want to guess on the scores for the participants there?

For some strange reason I am much happier with Obama on the red button than Bushie.

It's not necessarily hihg-RWAs who will lead us to this disaster. Much later in the book he controls for double-highs: people who score high on the RWA-scale and the social dominance scale. The group with no double-highs let 1.9 billion people die but didn't start a single war. The high-RWAs just couldn't bring themselves to lead, never mind cooperate.

When the double-highs were added to the mix, no nuclear holocaust occurred, but it was likely about to happen (if the simulation had lasted but another five minutes). Also, the elites actually cooperated, trying to maximize their positions. In cases where double-highs were not the chosen elite, they undermined authority and replaced it with theirs (except for one).

Moral of the story? Double-highs with high-RWA followers are greatly disastrous, solely high-RWAs are disastrous, and low-RWAs are much better at running the world.

Fun shit, this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 03-07-2009 10:13 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019