Letters to the Editor
-
If you really want an insight into how people like "joe" and "daleyrocks" think
Then read _The Authoritarians_ by Dr Bob Altemeyer.
The Authoritarians is an online book written by Dr Bob (as he calls himself) setting out his many years of psychological research into what he calls the "Authoritarian Follower" or "Right Wing Authoritarian" although RWAs don't necessarily have to be on the political right.
RWAs do not want or seek power for themselves, rather they wish to have a strong leader who will tell them what and how to think. RWAs are almost impervious to facts and logic once they have an idea in their head. Dr Bob lays out all the research that shows why arguing with an RWA is like arguing with a Turing machine that is programmed with only one set of responses.
The book is free of charge to read online or download and print if you wish. I strongly urge anyone who wishes to understand the 30% of the American public who still support Bush to read this remarkable tome. Dr Bob has done a wonderful job of making an academic work both easy to read and easy to understand.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
-
daleyrocks
The fear here is palpable, that of hearing conservative or dissenting voices. Why do you think there is talk of resurrecting the fairness doctrine if not to stifle conservative speech.
But the media is *liberal*, daleyrocks. If the fairness doctrine were to be put into effect then the liberal media would have to let conservatives have their say, since those conservative voices are being so unfairly shut out of the public discourse now.
Given the fact of a liberal media then it would be to the conservatives great advantage to push for the reenactment of the fairness doctrine. How else can conservatives regain the voice that they have been so sorely denied in the liberal media?
-
A breath of fresh air
I have to commend Salon for bringing in Mr. Greenwald. In my mind he does more than balance out the inanities of Camille Paglia. I have to wonder why they gave such a fanfare for her and not him. He's far more cogent and effective in his writing than CP. Plus, he's actually responded to some of the letters here. Now THAT'S what I call being interactive, and truly progressive.
--Ron Robertson
-
Altemeyer
From Chapter 3. This quote explains A LOT!
"Deductive logic aside, authoritarians also have trouble deciding whether empirical evidence proves, or does not prove, something. They will often think some thoroughly ambiguous fact verifies something they already believe in. So if you tell them that archaeologists have discovered a fallen wall at ancient Jericho, they are more likely than most people to infer that this proves the Biblical story of Joshua and the horns is true--when the wall could have been knocked over by lots of other groups, or an earthquake, and be from an entirely different era (which it is).
High RWAs similarly think the fact that many religions in the world have accounts of a big flood proves that the story of Noah is true--when the accounts vary enormously, big floods hardly mean the story of the ark, etcetera also occurred, and the tale of Noah was likely adapted from an earlier Sumerian myth. They are sure that accounts of near-death experiences in which people say they traveled through a dark tunnel toward a Being of Light prove the teachings of Christianity are true--even though these stories also vary enormously, the "Being" is usually interpreted according to whom one expects to meet at death, and the vision could just be an hallucination produced by an oxygen-depleted brain.
Not only do authoritarian followers uncritically accept conclusions that support their religious beliefs, they have a problem with evidence in general…. They think that any time science cannot explain something, this proves mysterious supernatural forces are at work. "
-
Could You Be Wrong?
Only small quibble: At the very end, where Hewitt asks Odom if he could be wrong and Odom sensibly replies, "Of course," I wish Odom had thrown the same question right back at Hewitt. Otherwise very good.
-
Odom '08?
Can we draft Odom for president?
-
V
Great article, and really fun to read Odom tearing apart the pro-war stance.
The "V" associations and images are evocative, but do we really want to start attaching emotions to basic shapes? (a downward pointing arrow, in essence).
Didn't Dan Brown attach male and female aspects to the "V" and inverted "V?"
Science of mind (N.B. NOT scientology!) has long used the "V" as an emblem of spirit creating within the material realm. (Well, through the spirit/mind/body continuum, to be precise). Most people I've met who are into the SOM belief system are pretty liberal.
The SOM 'V'-inside-a-circle emblem used to be quite prevalent, but now seems harder to find online. I found it (oddly) on a jewelry site by googling "science of mind emblem"
It's unfortunate that idiots like L.Ron ripped off the genuine heartfelt message of SOM, by redefining its terminology for his own ends (i.e. greed); and now it looks like the right wing is (probably without knowing it) doing something similar.
-
Idiots delight
Thank You General Odom. It is refreshing to hear what the truth sounds like. Isn't that a sad thing to say in America.
Thank You Glenn, your work is important, and more to the point, necessary.