5 ms·

The amount of bias in the wording of these questions makes me skeptical of the survey's usefulness. It feels more like a questionnaire about support of various

by pattrn 8y ago

The amount of bias in the wording of these questions makes me skeptical of the survey's usefulness. It feels more like a questionnaire about support of various social issues, where if you disagree with the social issue then you get categorized as authoritarian. For instance, it's very possible to believe that protesters are frequently wrong and that authorities are frequently correct without being an authoritarian. You can believe those things without believing it's the government's duty or responsibility to enforce your personal beliefs. Many of the questions exhibit this problem. One of the questions in particular categorizes you as less authoritarian if you support abolishing prayer in schools. By definition, using government to reduce personal freedom is an authoritarian policy, which makes banning prayer an authoritarian policy. This type of bias shows up in many of the questions. Scores from this test seem to represent how closely the person who answered matches the social views of the survey's author. I'm not sure how useful that is to anyone other than the author.

shubb 8y ago
It is also possible that they were looking for 'questions that indicate cluster membership'. RWA could be defined as "tendency to trust in authority, value obeying rules, and dislike people who break rules". It's a bad name, as someone in a left wing country with high RWA would tend to disapprove of right wing protesters for instance. So in designing the test you put together a huge list of questions that vagually relate to RWA, collect answers, and then look for ones that tend to cluster together. 'People who answer yes to this tend to answer yes to these others'. You then remove the ones that show poor correlation, and you have a test.
danek 8y ago
I think you have it backwards. Abolishing prayer in school is not authoritarianism and doesn’t reduce personal freedom. You’re still free to pray on your own at school. Having an official religion is authoritarian (unless it’s a religious school), and pressuring people to participate in a prayer is pressuring them to have less personal freedom (from your religion). I guess authoritarians tend to view a policy which gives equal preference to everyone as an attack on their “special status” and a reduction of their freedoms.
- pattrn 8y ago
  I completely agree with this, but the question didn't say "abolish forced prayer," or "abolish organized religion." It said to "abolish school prayer." I'm trying not to infer any context other than the literal interpretation of the words, which encompassed _all_ prayer. If the question used your phrasing, then it would not contain the bias that I mentioned.
- rayiner 8y ago
  School prayer challenges have extended far beyond opposition to schools having an “official religion” or requiring students to participate in school prayer. For example, permitting student-led and student-initiated prayer in school-sponsored events has been held unconstitutional: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Independent_School_District_v._Doe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Independent_School_.... If the majority of students in the school want to have a student-led prayer, in which individuals are not forced to participate, at a school event which happens to be a major life milestone, what is the “non-authoritarian” response? Allowing them to do so? Or preventing them from doing so?
  - danek 8y ago
    I’m no expert on this stuff but that Supreme Court judgement seems totally reasonable to me. Student-led optional prayer at an official school event doesn’t seem different from teacher-led prayer. I still have to sit around while a bunch of people around me participate in a sanctioned event to talk to some deity. Note that you’re still not prevented from praying, you’re just not allowed to make it part of the agenda and shove it in everyone’s faces at an official event. I really don’t see the problem, but as I mentioned before, authoritians likely view this as an infringement, while non-authoritarians see this as equalizing. One way to think about it is would you want school prayer if you were in a minority religion?
yarrel 8y ago
Forcing people to pray is authoritarian. Not forcing them to is not authoritarian. Organized prayer in schools is forcing people to pray. Abolishing organized prayer in schools ends forcing people to pray. Therefore abolishing organized prayer is anti-authoritarian. If individuals want to pray they are welcome to, and now they will not be forced to pray to the wrong God. If they are forbidden from praying on their own time without disrupting anyone else then yes that is authoritarian. But that's not what this is about.
- pattrn 8y ago
  The question did not mention forcing people to pray or organized prayer. Your last two statements would not be possible if the government "[abolished] school prayer." If that's not what this is about, then they should have written the question more specifically. As it is, they included _all_ forms of prayer -- both organized and voluntary -- in their question. That's the problem I have with this entire survey: it uses language loosely, and does so in a manner that shows bias. From what you wrote, I think we agree on the definition of authoritarian, and I suspect if you interpreted "abolish school prayer" the way I did (abolishing all prayer at schools), then we might agree on all points :).
- rayiner 8y ago
  Your “on their own time” is doing a lot of work in that sentence. The debate over the last three decades has not been about “forcing people to pray.” It has been over whether students can pray “on school time” or must do so “on their own time.” The current interpretation of the Establishment Clause requires schools to prohibit student-led prayers at school events, lest it seem like such prayer is being given official sanction. I think forcing kids to pray in school is clearly authoritarian. I don’t think it’s clear that banning them from doing so is anti-authoritarian. As I mentioned in a sibling post, you can reframe both sides of the debate as “authoritarian” or anti-authoritarian. Here, it’s the majority’s right to publicly practice their religion versus the minority’s right to participate in school free from public displays of religion. The debate isn’t about authoritarianism at all, but about the existence and scope of their rights. Is the right to practice one’s religion limited to practicing it in private? In public? Along with a group that happens to make up the majority of the community? Is there such a thing as a right to be free of religion?

by pattrn 8y ago

shubb 8y ago

It is also possible that they were looking for 'questions that indicate cluster membership'. RWA could be defined as "tendency to trust in authority, value obeying rules, and dislike people who break rules". It's a bad name, as someone in a left wing country with high RWA would tend to disapprove of right wing protesters for instance. So in designing the test you put together a huge list of questions that vagually relate to RWA, collect answers, and then look for ones that tend to cluster together. 'People who answer yes to this tend to answer yes to these others'. You then remove the ones that show poor correlation, and you have a test.

danek 8y ago

I think you have it backwards. Abolishing prayer in school is not authoritarianism and doesn’t reduce personal freedom. You’re still free to pray on your own at school. Having an official religion is authoritarian (unless it’s a religious school), and pressuring people to participate in a prayer is pressuring them to have less personal freedom (from your religion). I guess authoritarians tend to view a policy which gives equal preference to everyone as an attack on their “special status” and a reduction of their freedoms.

pattrn 8y ago
I completely agree with this, but the question didn't say "abolish forced prayer," or "abolish organized religion." It said to "abolish school prayer." I'm trying not to infer any context other than the literal interpretation of the words, which encompassed _all_ prayer. If the question used your phrasing, then it would not contain the bias that I mentioned.
rayiner 8y ago
School prayer challenges have extended far beyond opposition to schools having an “official religion” or requiring students to participate in school prayer. For example, permitting student-led and student-initiated prayer in school-sponsored events has been held unconstitutional: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Independent_School_District_v._Doe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Independent_School_.... If the majority of students in the school want to have a student-led prayer, in which individuals are not forced to participate, at a school event which happens to be a major life milestone, what is the “non-authoritarian” response? Allowing them to do so? Or preventing them from doing so?
- danek 8y ago
  I’m no expert on this stuff but that Supreme Court judgement seems totally reasonable to me. Student-led optional prayer at an official school event doesn’t seem different from teacher-led prayer. I still have to sit around while a bunch of people around me participate in a sanctioned event to talk to some deity. Note that you’re still not prevented from praying, you’re just not allowed to make it part of the agenda and shove it in everyone’s faces at an official event. I really don’t see the problem, but as I mentioned before, authoritians likely view this as an infringement, while non-authoritarians see this as equalizing. One way to think about it is would you want school prayer if you were in a minority religion?

yarrel 8y ago

Forcing people to pray is authoritarian. Not forcing them to is not authoritarian. Organized prayer in schools is forcing people to pray. Abolishing organized prayer in schools ends forcing people to pray. Therefore abolishing organized prayer is anti-authoritarian. If individuals want to pray they are welcome to, and now they will not be forced to pray to the wrong God. If they are forbidden from praying on their own time without disrupting anyone else then yes that is authoritarian. But that's not what this is about.

pattrn 8y ago
The question did not mention forcing people to pray or organized prayer. Your last two statements would not be possible if the government "[abolished] school prayer." If that's not what this is about, then they should have written the question more specifically. As it is, they included _all_ forms of prayer -- both organized and voluntary -- in their question. That's the problem I have with this entire survey: it uses language loosely, and does so in a manner that shows bias. From what you wrote, I think we agree on the definition of authoritarian, and I suspect if you interpreted "abolish school prayer" the way I did (abolishing all prayer at schools), then we might agree on all points :).
rayiner 8y ago
Your “on their own time” is doing a lot of work in that sentence. The debate over the last three decades has not been about “forcing people to pray.” It has been over whether students can pray “on school time” or must do so “on their own time.” The current interpretation of the Establishment Clause requires schools to prohibit student-led prayers at school events, lest it seem like such prayer is being given official sanction. I think forcing kids to pray in school is clearly authoritarian. I don’t think it’s clear that banning them from doing so is anti-authoritarian. As I mentioned in a sibling post, you can reframe both sides of the debate as “authoritarian” or anti-authoritarian. Here, it’s the majority’s right to publicly practice their religion versus the minority’s right to participate in school free from public displays of religion. The debate isn’t about authoritarianism at all, but about the existence and scope of their rights. Is the right to practice one’s religion limited to practicing it in private? In public? Along with a group that happens to make up the majority of the community? Is there such a thing as a right to be free of religion?