Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts

Saturday, January 9, 2021

Authoritarian Followers

Dr. Bob Altemeyer, a retired professor of psychology at the University of Manitoba, devoted forty years to studying authoritarianism, and literally wrote the book on it in 2006 (highly recommended, and conveniently free). Much shorter, and directly addressing recent years, his 2016 post Donald Trump and Authoritarian Followers deserves a fresh look¹. (Those who’ve read it can skip this post; Bob’s the expert, I’m just saying his work is important, go and see and judge for yourselves.) The portion of that 2016 post I most want to point-out is the enumeration, in Trump’s context, of authoritarian followers’ pschological traits. Those traits strike this writer as essential pieces missing from the mental puzzles many people are struggling to assemble as they try to understand Trump’s coup attempt of January 6th, his insurrectionists, the enablers of both within the Republican party and right-wing echo chambers, where those people came from, and where they’ll go.

Bob Altemeyer:

We know a lot about authoritarian followers, but unfortunately most of what we know indicates it will be almost impossible to change their minds, especially in a few months. Here are some things established by experiments. See if you recognize any of these behaviors in Trump supporters. Compared with most people:

They are highly ethnocentric, highly inclined to see the world as their in-group versus everyone else. Because they are so committed to their in-group, they are very zealous in its cause. They will trust their leaders no matter what they say, and distrust whomever the leader says to distrust.

They are highly fearful of a dangerous world. Their parents taught them, more than parents usually do, that the world is dangerous. They may also be genetically predisposed to experience stronger fear than people skilled at “keeping their heads while others are losing theirs.”

They are highly self-righteous. They believe they are the “good people” and this unlocks a lot of hostile impulses against those they consider bad.

They are aggressive. Given the chance to attack someone with the approval of an authority, they will lower the boom.

They are highly prejudiced against racial and ethnic minorities, non-heterosexuals, and women in general.

They will support their authorities, and even help them, persecute almost any identifiable group in the country.

Their beliefs are a mass of contradictions. They have highly compartmentalized minds, in which opposite beliefs live independent lives in separate boxes. As a result, their thinking is full of double-standards.

They reason poorly. If they like the conclusion of an argument, they don’t pay much attention to whether the evidence is valid or the argument is consistent. They especially have trouble realizing a conclusion is invalid.

They are highly dogmatic. Because they have mainly gotten their beliefs from the authorities in their lives, rather than think things out for themselves, they have no real defense when facts or events indicate they are wrong. So they just dig in their heels and refuse to change.

They are very dependent on social reinforcement of their beliefs. They think they are right because almost everyone they know and listen to tells them they are. That happens because they screen out sources that will suggest that they are wrong.

Because they severely limit their exposure to different people and ideas, they vastly overestimate the extent to which other people agree with them. And thinking they are “the moral majority” supports their attacks on the “evil minorities” they see in the country.

They believe strongly in group cohesiveness, and being loyal. They are highly energized when surrounded by a crowd of fellow-believers because it makes them feel powerful and supports their belief that “all the good people” agree with them.

They are easily duped by manipulators who pretend to espouse their causes when all the con-artists really want is personal gain.

They are largely blind to themselves. They have little self-understanding and insight into why they think and do what they do. They are heavily into denial.

I hasten to add that studies find examples of all these things in lots of others, not just authoritarian followers. But not as consistently, and not nearly as much.

Thank you, Bob.

Returning to two issues from the opening paragraph — where Trump's base came from, and where they’ll go post-Trump: Trump’s base isn’t his at all; authoritarian followers have always been a part of our society. Trump merely borrowed the current batch, and put them to work. Even if Trump were to magically vanish tomorrow, they’re not going anywhere, and won’t be changing their minds about much of anything. They’ll be waiting for the next leader who tells them they’re right and good, their desires will be fulfilled, and those they hate will be punished. No matter how many partisan divides are healed, people with their psychological traits will continue to appear in the population, find each other, form self-reinforcing groups, seek leaders to follow, and, tragically, break their children as badly as they themselves were broken.

That’s all bad, but it’s also nothing new.

The good news? A healthy society is likely to reduce the toxicity of authoritarian followers from one generation to the next¹, while a dysfunctional society will increase it. So, this writer’s master plan for America remains unchanged (and short on details): A United States government devoted to maximizing the quality of life of every American, at no harm to the rest of the world. Also, short-term, let’s finally take terrorism by white people seriously, and find some more checks and balances to protect the nation from authoritarians in its government, so we all arrive at the long-term in one piece.


  1. See also Bob Altemeyer’s 2018 post Why Do Trump’s Supporters Stand by Him, No Matter What?. It ends on a hopeful note, but should be read in context.

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Stephen Wolfram discusses “Computation and the Future of the Human Condition”

As found on the Wolfram Blog, Stephen Wolfram provides a transcript of his talk “Computation and the Future of the Human Condition” delivered at the H+ Summit @ Harvard on June 12, 2010. I found it interesting. Unfortunately for me, just as when I read his book A New Kind of Science (NKS), I think I can grasp the general ideas, but I can’t make the intellectual leap necessary to understand how to apply them to solving problems. I think I can see some of the outlines of what may be involved, but the full outline, and the all-important details of implementation remain beyond my reach. Frustrating.

Below is a brief excerpt dealing with ideas he’s discussed at length elsewhere, so it may not be the best choice of an excerpt. On the other hand, it may be good for piquing the curiosity of those without much exposure to Wolfram’s thinking.

[...T]o make a prediction, we have to be able to somehow out-compute the system that we're trying to predict.

Well, for systems like idealized planets orbiting a star, that's always been possible.

We don't have to trace every point in each orbit; we can just have a little computation that jumps immediately to the answer.

In effect, we can computationally reduce the behavior of the system.

But will that always be possible?

The Principle of Computational Equivalence implies that it won't.

And in fact it implies that even among very simple programs in the computational universe, it's common to find computational irreducibility.

The exact sciences have always avoided systems that work like this.

But they're all over the place.

We've always implicitly assumed for our science that we as observers or predictors of systems are much more computationally sophisticated than the systems we're observing or predicting.

But the Principle of Computational Equivalence says that this isn't true.

And that instead we are just equivalent to the systems.

So that we can never expect to outrun them.

And to find out what they do we have no choice but to simulate each step in their behavior, or in effect just to watch how the behavior unfolds.

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Guncotton and the Utility of Failure

From Rockets, Missiles, and Men in Space by Willey Ley, 1968 edition, pp. 80-81:

Guncotton [...] had been discovered [in 1845] by German chemist Christian Friedrich Schönbein, who had tried to dissolve cotton in a mixture of nitric and sulfuric acids. Of course, the cotton had refused to dissolve and Schönbein, writing off the experiment as a failure, had gone home for supper, after putting the still wet strands on top of the hot stove to dry. Schönbein lost his laboratory, but discovered guncotton in the process.

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Geminids Tonight

The peak of the Geminid meteor shower will be tonight, December 13/14. According to NASA’s Fluxtimator, it promises to be a very good show, peaking at a rate of 66.7 meteors per hour in countryside viewing conditions at 12:16 AM CST. Even as early as 9 PM, which is as early as the Fluxtimator will predict, there should be 46.8 meteors per hour. The only problem around here is the weather, which doesn't look very promising.

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Weekend Links

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Weekend Links Unclogged

Saturday, June 27, 2009

Attacking Disease with Your Computer - Stanford's Folding@Home

Stanford University is operating the "Folding@Home" distributed computing system to try to develop a better understanding of how proteins fold, or misfold. This may sound extremely esoteric, but as their disease FAQ points-out, this understanding is relevant to Alzheimer's, Huntington's, cancers associated with malfunctions of the p53 protein, Osteogenesis imperfecta, and the development of antibiotics.

The existence of this project is old news to a lot of us—it's been going on since 2001 at least—but it stands to reason that most of the Internet community is still unaware of it, so I wanted to give it a plug in case it happens to be news to anyone reading this. Having lost one friend to cancer this year, and watching another one fighting it, the cancer-related work of this project has acquired new meaning for me.

Anyone with a Macintosh, Linux, or Windows machine can download and run the Folding@Home software, as can owners of PlayStation 3 game consoles, and begin contributing your computer's spare time to shed light on the aforementioned diseases, and many other problems.

As a technological aside, here's hoping that they produce a client that will use the OpenCL technology in Apple's forthcoming Snow Leopard operating system (Mac OS X 10.6) to harness the power of the GPUs in Macintoshes (something that the project has thus far neglected, as, indeed, they neglected to ever take advantage of the multi-CPU PowerPC Macs).

Saturday, June 13, 2009

Weekend Links

Sunday, June 7, 2009

Weekend Links

Sunday, May 24, 2009

Weekend Links

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Weekend Links