4 ms·
Altemeyer should be viewed with some suspicion: He thinks left-wing authoritarianism is a "Loch Ness monster", and in talks with David Friedman couldn't compreh
by soundnote 6y ago
Altemeyer should be viewed with some suspicion: He thinks left-wing authoritarianism is a "Loch Ness monster", and in talks with David Friedman couldn't comprehend why eg. labor unions could constitute an authority to a person - he viewed union membership purely in transactional terms with little ideological content.
His scale may identify a certain kind of authoritarian, but his work is almost assuredly blind as a bat to others and not a comprehensive take.
- himinlomax 6y agoThis is textbook ad hominem. His work stands regardless of ideology. But you're also wrong on two counts: First, he wrote this and did most of his work at a time when power structures were clearly right wing. But the mechanisms he describes are universal and independent of the labels used by those in power: authoritarians will strongly conform to the dominant ideology, and social dominants will pretend to adhere to it to gain power. He just used the labels reflecting the situation at the time. Second, he specifically points out that authoritarians in the Soviet Unions were nominally left wing. Consider that this kind of shift in dominant ideology is a slow process, on a period longer that one academic's career.