I just posted an article on "Fukushima Emergency What Can We do". I have some other story lines I've wanted to share there and have been remiss in sharing them. So one of my New Years Resolutions is to be more diligent in reporting things I think others should know about and not only in my twitter or facebook accounts. I always wondered what happened to my baby Teeth. Well it turned out the ones in the St. Louis area were collected for study and some of them ended up locked away in an obscure Bunker. Those teeth were found and used for an epidemiological study. The results showed a correlation between high radiation levels in baby teeth and later morbidity from cancers. Critics raise the cry "correlation is not causality" but given we already know the causality involved in this case correlation supports evidence of causality.
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
"The Jerk" as prophesy
I don't know about you, but I'm old enough to remember the movie "The Jerk" and to have seen it at the movies. It was kind of lame in the way all such parody comedies are, but what always stays with me is how the main character played by Steve Martin, is so emblematic of modern invention and business practice. He invents an attachment that makes it easier for a person to adjust his glasses. He makes millions off the invention, thinks he's home free. Acts like an idiot and then his invention blows up, people wearing his glasses piece go cross eyed. They sue, he loses everything and as he's being evicted he tries to salvage what he can and winds up with nothing....
The Jerk and Unsafe Products
...I think of that every time I see a new ad for a product. It's even a cycle. First come the ads, promising salvation from some sort of dis-ease and/or an improvement on some existing product. Usually I know that the new product is almost a copy of the first product and is in the same class of medicines as the original, just has a bromine atom where the other has a chlorine atom, a methyl chain where the other had something else, but is virtually the same. Those ads come heavy on the airwaves with some catch phrase like "ask your Doctor about...." and images of happy people doing happy things. Usually there is also a long list of side effects that would scare the bejeezies out of anyone if they weren't said so softly the targeted audience can't hear it. This has been going on for years and goes all the way back to when medicine was literally huckstered on the street with medicine shows. We've seen it with Opium, heroin, morphine, followed by an even longer sequence of artificial and semi-artificial opiates like methadone, oxycodone, etc. All with the same unintended, and sometimes intended side effects. This usually leads to the next phase in invention:
...ads for lawyers. "Call this number if you used ACME Drug AlphaDumwit".
The Jerk is a funny movie. And it is semi serious. But we have a lot of Jerks. And most of them are far more clever than the jerk because they are usually grifters who know when to bolt town, lawyer up & hide their money, before the law-suits come down. The Jerk had good intentions. The grifters don't. Anyway the movie was funny. It's still funny. There are a lot of real Jerks out there. Ultimately, Steve Martin's Character isn't one of *them*, he realizes he is a jerk and changes.
Monday, January 19, 2015
Are you a Social Dominator?
Social Dominator Test
Just for fun, I want to call out the section on Social Dominators for my Social Dominator Friends. You can test yourself and see if you too are high in "SDO" traits. Take the test!
What is a Social Dominator?
People who score high on the "Social Dominator scales" aren't necessarily Right Wing in all their views. What they are are people who engage in "Exploitive Manipulative Amoral Dishonesty (EMAD)" behavior. To have a higher you have to have your alpha males. And Socially dominant people see themselves as those males. They are attracted to notions that justify their dominance of other and they use ideology to dominate others. Some of them don't personally believe what they say. So when tested for "Authoritarian" characteristics they won't often get a high score. But their belief in social darwinism is there even when they preach Creationism and attack Darwins theory of evolution. It might be justified through biblical stories, or it might be disguised, but social dominators are the ones who want to, or do, stand at the top of the social pecking order!
Of course if you don't score high on this test you might be a "Social Dominance enabler" or a "Right Wing Authoritarian" and have the combinations of submissiveness, aggression and conventionality that let the socially dominant get away with murder.
The studies I've been referring to describe hierarchy formation, pecking order behavior, discrimination, oppression and bullying in society. They origin in studies that date to the 40's when behavioral scientists were trying to understand the madness of Totalitarianism, especially the Nazis and the holocaust. In addition to studying the appearance of the phenomena the studies also try to describe how that behavior is produced.
If you don't score high on the Social dominance test, try this one:
- http://helloquizzy.okcupid.com/tests/the-altemeyer-authoritarian-test
- Further Reading on Social Dominance Theory:
- A Proposed Measure of Social Dominance Orientation in Children: https://www.academia.edu/954487/A_Proposed_Measure_of_Social_Dominance_Orientation_in_Children
- Social Dominance Theory, Jim Sidanius and Felicia Pratto
- http://www.surrey.ac.uk/politics/research/researchareasofstaff/isppsummeracademy/instructors/Sidanius%20&%20Pratto,%20in%20press.pdf
- Related Articles and Issues:
- Broken Windows Theory
- Broken Windows Theory: http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-neighborhood-and-city-village-and.html
- Why Broken Windows Theory was corrupted http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2014/11/why-broken-windows-theory-was-corrupted.html
- Bullying:
- Bullying and What to do about it: http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2014/08/bullying-and-what-to-do-about-it.html
- http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/01/understanding-social-dominance-theory.html
Friday, January 16, 2015
Inequality and Power; the Curse of Financialization
My Friend Richard Torgerson introduced me to the "GINI" coefficient years ago. The Tax Justice Network put out a post that uses a measure based on the GINI and HDI measures. GINI-HDI graphed. And they tie this to something they call the "financial curse." Not being a professional economist, I'm more interested in this subject for what it says about what we should do as a society to do something about "financial curses" and inequality. [see http://www.taxjustice.net/2015/01/16/financial-sector-like-oil-industry-graph/?utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=twitterfeed]
- Defining Terms
- http://www.taxjustice.net/2015/01/16/financial-sector-like-oil-industry-graph/?utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=twitterfeed
- GINI index is named after Corrado Gini, an Italian statistician
- The World Bank defines the GINI coefficient or index this way:
"Gini index measures the extent to which the distribution of income or consumption expenditure among individuals or households within an economy deviates from a perfectly equal distribution. A Lorenz curve plots the cumulative percentages of total income received against the cumulative number of recipients, starting with the poorest individual or household. The Gini index measures the area between the Lorenz curve and a hypothetical line of absolute equality, expressed as a percentage of the maximum area under the line." [SI.POV.GINI]
- They sum it up: "Thus a Gini index of 0 represents perfect equality, while an index of 100 implies perfect inequality." [SI.POV.GINI]
- Human Development Index (HDI)
- The Human Development Index is a measure of the capabilities and education of a population.
- "A tool developed by the United Nations to measure and rank countries' levels of social and economic development based on four criteria: Life expectancy at birth, mean years of schooling, expected years of schooling and gross national income per capita. The HDI makes it possible to track changes in development levels over time and to compare development levels in different countries." [http://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/human-development-index-hdi.asp]
GINI
- "The most equal society will be one in which every person receives the same income (G = 0); the most unequal society will be one in which a single person receives 100% of the total income and the remaining people receive none (G = 1−1/N)."
- "While the income distribution of any particular country need not follow simple functions, these functions give a qualitative understanding of the income distribution in a nation given the Gini coefficient. The effects of minimum income policy due to redistribution can be seen in the linear relationships."
- "An informative simplified case just distinguishes two levels of income, low and high. If the high income group is u % of the population and earns a fraction f % of all income, then the Gini coefficient is f − u. An actual more graded distribution with these same values u and f will always have a higher Gini coefficient than f − u."
- "The proverbial case where the richest 20% have 80% of all income would lead to an income Gini coefficient of at least 60%."
- Src: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#Calculation
- "An often cited case that 1% of all the world's population owns 50% of all wealth, means a wealth Gini coefficient of at least 49%."
Subtracting the Gini - HDI gives an index that shows what the authors call "The Financial Curse Index" or how relying on financial industries blows up an economy. I believe the curse is actually "financialization" -- which is essentially the economic transfers that go on when folks have power over money and can use that to transfer wealth to themselves.
Details
Princeton gives more definition to the GINI coefficient with their WIKI page [Gini Coefficient]:
The Gini coefficient is usually defined mathematically based on the Lorenz curve, which plots the proportion of the total income of the population (y axis) that is cumulatively earned by the bottom x% of the population (see diagram). The line at 45 degrees thus represents perfect equality of incomes. The Gini coefficient can then be thought of as the ratio of the area that lies between the line of equality and the Lorenz curve (marked 'A' in the diagram) over the total area under the line of equality (marked 'A' and 'B' in the diagram); i.e., G=A/(A+B). [Gini Coefficient]
Gini Coefficients pretty much represent a refinement and follow on to Vilfredo Pareto's power curves. by Gini
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
Demos in the Federalist Papers
The Far Right is now claiming that because the people who wrote the constitution were elitists and were afraid of "direct democracy" that it was never intended to be democratic. For example many of them say "This is a Constitutional Republic. No democrat in there" -- and seem to want to disenfranchise the citizens from voting. This all turns on the word "democratic" and years of propaganda seeking to undermine the democratic features of our Democracy.
But first folks need to understand a little etymology: The word "Republic" is from Latin; the word "democracy" is from Greek. The original Democracies were still oligarchic by our standards. So Democracy has two senses, similar to the word "collective", one meaning when people gather together to rule themselves "demos-the people" + "cracy -- rule." So when we talk about a "republican form of government" we are talking about "indirect democracy" not direct democracy at the Federal Level because the people are choosing representatives. But we are still talking democracy.
To prepare this post I searched the Federalist Papers to ensure that I wasn't missing any references to "democracy". I did a search on the keyword "demo" to pull up all references to democracy or related words.
FEDERALIST No. 10
- The Same Subject Continued (The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection)
- From the New York Packet.
- Friday, November 23, 1787.
- MADISON [http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_10.html]
"a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction." [fed_10]
He also was advocating for a written constitution, divided government and...
"A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."[fed_10]
"A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union."
"The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended."[fed_10]
"The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. "[fed_10]
"Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it."[fed_10]
FEDERALIST No. 14
- Objections to the Proposed Constitution From Extent of Territory Answered
- From the New York Packet.
- Friday, November 30, 1787.
- MADISON [http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_14.html]
Our system was also an innovation in that most previous republics had been small, even city states;
"The error which limits republican government to a narrow district has been unfolded and refuted in preceding papers. I remark here only that it seems to owe its rise and prevalence chiefly to the confounding of a republic with a democracy, applying to the former reasonings drawn from the nature of the latter. The true distinction between these forms was also adverted to on a former occasion."
The "former occasion he refers to is Federalist 10 we just discussed
- "It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region." [fed_14]
The forms of representation that make a republic useful in governing also make it easier to scale up into a larger land area. He then goes on to refer to the kinds of polemics and demagoguery used by anti-Federalists who feared democracy enough to lie about the distinction between republics and pure democracies.
"To this accidental source of the error may be added the artifice of some celebrated authors, whose writings have had a great share in forming the modern standard of political opinions. Being subjects either of an absolute or limited monarchy, they have endeavored to heighten the advantages, or palliate the evils of those forms, by placing in comparison the vices and defects of the republican, and by citing as specimens of the latter the turbulent democracies of ancient Greece and modern Italy. Under the confusion of names, it has been an easy task to transfer to a republic observations applicable to a democracy only; and among others, the observation that it can never be established but among a small number of people, living within a small compass of territory." [fed_14]
Some of this was due to ancient rewrites too. Athens lasted as a democracy for hundreds of years and was stable for a good portion of that time. Republics have endured for hundreds of years as well, as exemplified by Florence.
"Such a fallacy may have been the less perceived, as most of the popular governments of antiquity were of the democratic species; and even in modern Europe, to which we owe the great principle of representation, no example is seen of a government wholly popular, and founded, at the same time, wholly on that principle." [fed_14]
At the time the constitution was written there was a massive movement to make the States more democratic in form and representative. This movement was opposed by many of the folks who already had the franchise. But none of these states were arguing for direct democracy, though many of the towns in New England came pretty close.
"As the natural limit of a democracy is that distance from the central point which will just permit the most remote citizens to assemble as often as their public functions demand, and will include no greater number than can join in those functions; so the natural limit of a republic is that distance from the centre which will barely allow the representatives to meet as often as may be necessary for the administration of public affairs. " [fed_14]
And of course with a thriving postal system, quality roads (railroads, airplanes, etc...) even those limits are transcended.
FEDERALIST No. 43
- The Same Subject Continued(The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered)
- For the Independent Journal.
- MADISON [fed_43]
"It has been remarked, that even among the Swiss cantons, which, properly speaking, are not under one government, provision is made for this object; and the history of that league informs us that mutual aid is frequently claimed and afforded; and as well by the most democratic, as the other cantons."[fed_43]
FEDERALIST No. 48
- These Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated as to Have No Constitutional Control Over Each Other
- From the New York Packet. Friday, February 1, 1788.
- MADISON [fed_48]
"In a democracy, where a multitude of people exercise in person the legislative functions, and are continually exposed, by their incapacity for regular deliberation and concerted measures, to the ambitious intrigues of their executive magistrates, tyranny may well be apprehended, on some favorable emergency, to start up in the same quarter."
"But in a representative republic, where the executive magistracy is carefully limited; both in the extent and the duration of its power; and where the legislative power is exercised by an assembly, which is inspired, by a supposed influence over the people, with an intrepid confidence in its own strength; which is sufficiently numerous to feel all the passions which actuate a multitude, yet not so numerous as to be incapable of pursuing the objects of its passions, by means which reason prescribes; it is against the enterprising ambition of this department that the people ought to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions." [fed_48]
FEDERALIST No. 58
- Objection That The Number of Members Will Not Be Augmented as the Progress of Population Demands Considered
- MADISON [fed_58]
"On the same principle, the more multitudinous a representative assembly may be rendered, the more it will partake of the infirmities incident to collective meetings of the people. Ignorance will be the dupe of cunning, and passion the slave of sophistry and declamation. The people can never err more than in supposing that by multiplying their representatives beyond a certain limit, they strengthen the barrier against the government of a few. Experience will forever admonish them that, on the contrary, AFTER SECURING A SUFFICIENT NUMBER FOR THE PURPOSES OF SAFETY, OF LOCAL INFORMATION, AND OF DIFFUSIVE SYMPATHY WITH THE WHOLE SOCIETY, they will counteract their own views by every addition to their representatives.
The countenance of the government may become more democratic, but the soul that animates it will be more oligarchic. The machine will be enlarged, but the fewer, and often the more secret, will be the springs by which its motions are directed." [fed_58]
FEDERALIST. No. 63
- The Senate Continued
- For the Independent Journal.
- HAMILTON OR MADISON [fed_63]
"In the most pure democracies of Greece, many of the executive functions were performed, not by the people themselves, but by officers elected by the people, and REPRESENTING the people in their EXECUTIVE capacity." [fed_63]
"From these facts, to which many others might be added, it is clear that the principle of representation was neither unknown to the ancients nor wholly overlooked in their political constitutions."
"The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies IN THE TOTAL EXCLUSION OF THE PEOPLE, IN THEIR COLLECTIVE CAPACITY, from any share in the LATTER, and not in the TOTAL EXCLUSION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE from the administration of the FORMER."
"The distinction, however, thus qualified, must be admitted to leave a most advantageous superiority in favor of the United States. But to insure to this advantage its full effect, we must be careful not to separate it from the other advantage, of an extensive territory. For it cannot be believed, that any form of representative government could have succeeded within the narrow limits occupied by the democracies of Greece." [fed_63]
- The Collective in the Federalist Papers:
- http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-collective-in-federalist-papers.html
- Related Articles:
- http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2012/07/attacking-democracy-itself.html
- http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2012/08/definitions-related-to-democratic.html
- Defending Democracy and the Second Amendment
- Starve the Beast Destroy Democracy
- http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-republicans-dont-just-use-dog.html
- http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2014/04/fighting-democracy-since-1964.html
- Years ago I did a lot of work on the subject at my "Fraught with Peril Blog" Some of these are as good as my more recent work:
- Networked Democracy [http://fraughtwithperil.com/cholte/2011/05/21/networked-democracy/]
- When Do We Become a Democracy?/dd>
- We don't have too much democracy
- The Trouble with Democracy
- And this was darn good!
- Democracy is not an option
- This one refuted Ayn Rand:
- Objectivism as an Anti-Democratic ideology
Madison like Hamilton came from the "barrister"/lawyer class of people who pretty much ran our country in the 1700's. Both of them were brilliant men and they created the constitution partly to resist and control centrifugal forces from the varied states and also to create an ordered government that would neither be subject to mob violence [direct democracy] nor become an oligarchic or unitary hierarchal tyranny.
When Madison talked of democracy he was thinking of the Athenian Oligarchy, not the modern concept. Madison feared "faction". Hamilton feared actual violent conflict.
Madison is attacking "direct democracy", "pure democracy" and his comments on pure democracy are as true today as then:
"Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."[fed_10]
He then explains how republican values are superior to pure democracy
When you translate "Republic" into greek you get the word "δημοκρατία" which means "republic or democracy" The Romans also thought their Republic was superior to a Democracy, and it was until it lost it's representative quality and de-evolved into an Imperial monarchy. The vast masses of the people always need "officers" to lead and guide them. And so "direct people-rule (Democracy)" always de-evolves into some kind of tyranny as the officers abuse their power, sometimes with the support of majorities.
And he notes that a Republic has to be indirect due to:
"Factious combinations" occur in oligarchies and tyrannies too. But Madison was talking about how the attributes of representation would reduce the risk of faction.
Madison is also noting how a Federation composed of smaller units has less risk of factional conflict.
In Federalist 43 Madison makes one reference to the word "democracy". He notes that most Federations provide for defense against both external attack and armed conflict between states:
Even the "most democratic" of states will contribute to the defense of it's neighbors from both internal conflict, interstate conflict and external attack.
Madison is not attacking the concept of "democracy" so much as the inability of mass government, "direct democracy" or collective groups, to work in concert, collaborate, or avoid the intrigues of tyrants and socially dominant bullies:
On the other hand "indirect democracy through representation:
And you have to admit our form of "mixed" national and Federated Government has been resistant to tyrants and factionalists compared to direct democrats or to the intrigues of oligarchs who prefer to dispense with representation and simply drive out their enemies.
I'm not sure I agree with Madison, but his point is important to understand:
Mere Representation is not the same as democracy. Nor is it always an effective means of representation. The risk of republics and representation is that the representatives can become aristocrats and lose touch with the people who elect them. When that happens, numbers don't really help:
Like we've been seeing with Congress where deals are made in back rooms, and lobbyists pay representatives to do the opossite of what their representatives want. What is wanted with a Republic or a Democracy is participation by the people and sufficient equality and checks and balances so that no one will set themselves up to live high off the hog at the expense of others, for "private, separate advantage" [Locke's definition of Tyranny].
In Federalist 63 either (or both) Hamilton and Madison warn of the dangers of representation and they also note that even in direct democracies the officers of those democracies were usually representatives.
The key here is to enforce the principles. In the case of Republics the underlying principle is representation. While "democracy is dependent on folks "stepping up" (boulomenos) to participate in Governing.
I found the following passage disturbing and really had to think about it. The "Former" here refers to the LEGISLATIVE capacity and the "latter" to their ""PLENIPOTENTIARY" or executive capacity
After looking at it I think he's referring to separation of powers. The legislature has no executive role except in policing themselves (which turns out to be probably a mistake we need to rectify). But he also seems to have seen it important to have an appointed President. Something his successors changed with direct elections as it was unworkable. But he thought it was a great thing:
Greek Democracies could not succeed largely because the Greeks never transcended tribal and city identification. Athens rather than creating a representative common government tried to conquer territories. And the Greeks preferred fighting each other and competing over resources to collaboration and Union.
Further Reading
Monday, January 12, 2015
The Moral Ark
- There's a moral arc in the Universe
- There's a common center of decency
- Injustice only illustrates right
- There's always a candle in the night
- In that eternal moment between moments,
- When ultimate truth is revealed
- Retribution walks the earth
- Brought about by human folly
- We have our choices to touch that arc
- But we cannot change the way it bends.
- Our choice is to stand on the side of justice
- Or burn ourselves as justice flashes our way.
- because "you shall reap what you sow!"
- So efforts at injustice flash and burn
- Men tell lies, and turn lies into myths
- But justice comes and burns them away.
- No lie can live forever,
- Because lies were never alive.
- And like a phoenix from the ashes truth is born anew.
- And like gold separated from dross, the truth shines and does not corrode.
- And our arc of justice is an ark for the righteous.
- Carrying the righteous through waves of destruction.
- Remember after the flood of destruction, a rainbow always shines.
- We dig our own holes and then we fall into them.
- But when the earthquake is over we either come again to stand tall.
- Or we sleep peacefully waiting for the end of time.
- Dr. Martin Luther King & reference to him in an event yesterday.
- http://www.open.salon.com/blog/arthur_howe/2009/01/18/the_arc_of_the_universe_is_long_but_it_bends_towards_justice
- "I know you are asking today, "How long will it take?"....
- "I come to say to you this afternoon, however difficult the moment, however frustrating the hour, it will not be long,"
- because truth crushed to earth will rise again."
- "How long? Not long, because no lie can live forever."
- "How long? Not long, because you shall reap what you sow...."
- "How long? Not long, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
- The Salon Article then quotes, Theodore parker:
- Wikipedia
- http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Theodore_Parker
- "I do not pretend to understand the moral universe;"
- "the arc is a long one, my eye reaches but little ways;"
- "I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by the experience of sight;"
- "I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice."
- "In borrowing from Parker, Dr. King drew inspiration from a source that reaches back to our nation's birth."
- More from NPR:
- http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129609461
Inspiration:
The Salon Article author notes:
"Dr. King's words echo those of the 19th-century Unitarian minister Theodore Parker. In his 1853 sermon on "Justice and the Conscience," Parker declared:
And concludes
Fighting Authoritarianism
Bullying and "Right Wing Authoritarian" behavior aren't confined to right wingers, but is a primary issue in American Politics and one we have to combat rationally. Anyone following my series on Social Dominance and Right Wing authoritarian behavior knows that the attributes of RW people are that they are:
Authoritarian Followers
- Authoritarian Followers are:
- A. highly submissive to established authority,
- B. aggressive in the name of that authority,and
- C. conventional to the point of insisting everyone should behave as their authorities decide.
- The described behaviors include:
- Illogical thinking
- Compartmentalization
- Double Standards
- Hypocrisy
- Self Blindness
- Ethnocentrism
- Dogmatism
Social Dominators
And that the people they submit to are usually high scoring on "Social Dominator scales" which basically translate to "Exploitive Manipulative Amoral Dishonesty (EMAD)" behavior. The studies describe hierarchy formation, pecking order behavior, discrimination, oppression and bullying in society. None of the material is that new and all of it derives from studies that date to the 40's when behavioral scientists were trying to understand the madness of Totalitarianism, especially the Nazis. In addition to studying the appearance of the phenomena the studies also try to describe how that behavior is produced.
Pecking Orders
Essentially, what social dominance and submissive authoritarian behavior produce is a Pecking Order:
In a pecking order the top rooster dominates, pecks at, bullies and rules the roost. And the increasingly submissive and frightened chickens down the hierarchy suffer bullying, pecking, clawing, and ultimately an early death from the hierarchy. We eat the Chicken Chickens. Dominating animals (or people) pick on everyone with lower rank than they have. And the members of the hierarchy enforce the hierarchy by punishing any animals (or people) who don't "know their place." Authoritarianism is essentially an ideology based on Chicken hierarchies.
If we want to do something about it, then we have to learn what produces that behavior and what to do about it.
Two kinds of enemies to peace
The studies show that there are two kinds of people involved in authoritarianism, totalitarianism and oppression. One kind are the enablers and followers. The other kind are the alphas who lead them. Combatting the behavior of authoritarians means fighting two very different styles of thinking and reacting to the environment. Which means that if we are to produce a better governed society we have to have at least two prongs on our forks for fighting Authoritarianism. On the one hand we have to have tactics that encourage ordinary people to question and stand up to authority (A), reduce the fear that causes the "aggression in the name of that authority (B), and that encourages folks to be less afraid of the unconventional and more accepting of diversity (C). Dealing with authoritarian followers requires we find ways to get them to shift allegiance from Conniving dishonest leaders to people with genuine moral authority. That requires us to fight fear and hatred, false myths and.... At the same time we have to deal with the exploitive, manipulative, immoral (forget amoral) and dishonest people who lead them.
Authoritarian followers require one kind of strategy, but the EMAD leaders require a very different one.
- Authoritarian Followers
- Require confidence building, "getting to know you", "Kumbaya", getting folks together and talking type behavior. As well as efforts to combat nasty myths with more positive narratives. Unfortunately dealing with the followers requires defeating the manipulative scoundrels who they trust and followers and that requires a different kind of strategy.
- Fighting EMADmen (Exploitive, Manipulative, Amoral, Dishonest) Authorities
- There is no authoritarianism without such authorities. The real thing depends on expertise and confidence in what they are doing. But the authoritarian leader exudes confidence and pretend expertise on the subjects he dominates. Followers and manipulators alike will engage in mental gymnastics, defamation, sophism, but the manipulators know they are lying and the followers are usually just in profound denial about the truth out of fear of the "Other" and/or misplaced loyalty to authorities who claim to know how to herd them through troubles. That the shepherds are herding them over cliffs or to the slaughter never occurs to the follower.
- Two different strategies that have to combine.
- Thus if one can compromise and work with the Authoritarian Followers to calm their fears and get their brains engaged one must first overcome their blind attachment to their leadership. And that is not easy. Sometimes the leaders themselves can be won over, but first we have to be aware that they won't be won over by reason. It has to be self interest.
Anyway. I'm still working on this subject, but I wanted to state the bald outlines.
Refer to:http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/01/understanding-social-dominance-theory.html
Also read this article from "Raw Story:"
- http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/conservatives-fear-center-brain/
- Not sure if the large fear center is a response to continual fear, or something genetic. Probably a "mind/body, genetics/nurture" thing with all four elements involved. Probably some folks are more prone to grow their fear centers in response to constant fear-mongering due to genetics. I suspect people with same genetics can be conditioned to respond to fear that way.
From Above article about fear response:
"A study at University College London in the UK has found that conservatives’ brains have larger amygdalas than the brains of liberals. Amygdalas are responsible for fear and other “primitive” emotions. At the same time, conservatives’ brains were also found to have a smaller anterior cingulate — the part of the brain responsible for courage and optimism." [Raw Story]
And:
“It is very significant because it does suggest there is something about political attitudes that are either encoded in our brain structure through our experience or that our brain structure in some way determines or results in our political attitudes,” [Raw Story]
Genetic study:
"researchers at Harvard and UC-San Diego found that a variant of the DRD4 gene predisposes people to being liberal, but only if they had active social lives as adolescents. The “liberal gene” has also been linked to a desire to try new things, and other “personality traits related to political liberalism.”" [Raw Story]