Scan barcode
A review by rotorguy64
The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer
2.0
Before I start, I would like to say that I really, really wanted to like this book. At first, it held up to my expectations: Altemeyer seems like a nice, honest and fun guy to me, even now, and his research is innovative, enlightening and appears to have some seriously strong backing. I looked for refutations, I couldn't find any, so I can assume he's mostly spot-on with his observations on the right-wing authoritarian mindset, the personality of the social dominator and the double highs, who combine the worst traits of these two types. Altemeyer is very aware of the limitations of his research (and psychology in general), and consistently points out that you cannot reduce individual personalities to one of his idealtypes even if they get a certain score on a test. That was nice of him. If there's one thing I value, it's scientists that don't suffer from methodological blindness.
What surprises me, then, is that Altemeyer, who is so innovative and self-aware, becomes the complete opposite when he turns to politics - and there's a lot of that in here. While he makes some pretenses earlier in this book about how he's not talking of specific political ideologies, but of a general mindset, this gradually flies out the window until it's all gone by the end of the book. To name one example of his bias, here are two items from one of his tests:
The idea is that these two items (among others), when answered in the affirmative, are an indicator that you're a narrow-minded, paranoid right-wing authoritarian (this term is less political than it sounds). The problem with the first question is that it's likely to be affirmed by even the most authoritarian, most insular empiricist, while a rationalist like me who values logic higher than scientific evidence in the positivistic sense will have his reservations, simply because of how the question is phrased. The second question, meanwhile, is worded in such a way that a nonrelativist fallibilist might answer in the affirmative, but a relativist dogmatist wouldn't. So a more philosophical type who is open to question his beliefs, but is convinced of them as long as they are not disproven, would be graded as more authoritarian than a radical positivist or relativist, or [b:a certain interrogator from 1984|5470|1984|George Orwell|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1348990566i/5470._SY75_.jpg|153313]. Remember when I said that Altemeyer is just mostly spot-on? This is why.
It goes on like that, really. To name another example, after being skeptical of his own scientific field for most of the book, Altemeyer then goes on, on page 122, to drop the following bomb on the difference between faith and science:
As someone studying Austrian economics, I can say that scientific progress does not work that way. Both intellectuals themselves as well as policymakers are invested in specific results. They don't want to embarassed, they don't want to lose their status as the foremost authority on the phlogiston-theory or whatever you have, and they don't want to cut their projects off while they're right in the middle of it. The essay [b:Ludwig von Mises and the Paradigm for our Age|168946|Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, and Other Essays|Murray N. Rothbard|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1387746510i/168946._SY75_.jpg|163149] (the link includes a source) describes the process of paradigm-change quite nicely. As I said, Altemeyer seemed to have a healthy skepticism about his own scientific field earlier, so why is that completely gone once he starts talking about creationists?
At this point, the book rapidly went down. By page 124, he presents the zealot-scale, which basically describes how much people care about their own life philosophy, and while I don't take issue with the scale itself, this passage reads like another crusade against people who have an opinion, a sense of right and wrong and who actually care about it. His attacks against specific American politicians also increase, and they just aren't a good read. They are the same crap liberals always spout, and while liberals are mostly right about how much Bush sucks, it's no fun to listen to them rant about it when their own politicians have become almost as bad. I would mind neither the zealot-scale and the writing surrounding it nor the snarky "Who am I?"-games that Altemeyer plays with Bush and co., if he hadn't crossed so hard into pop-politics territory already.
Another highlight that I remember from this book is Altemeyer being absolutely astonished that anyone would be against the welfare state and still have the audacity to pretend to care about fairness! Nevermind the [b:large|1268994|For a New Liberty The Libertarian Manifesto|Murray N. Rothbard|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1184280797i/1268994.jpg|1696120] [b:amount|82102|Why Government Doesn't Work|Harry Browne|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1386923747i/82102._SY75_.jpg|79274] of [b:literature|81912|Human Action A Treatise on Economics|Ludwig von Mises|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1328775326i/81912._SX50_.jpg|1747054] on the topic which proves that the welfare state is actively harmful. Nevermind that the ideals of egalitarianism and fairness are [b:themselves|662|Atlas Shrugged|Ayn Rand|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1405868167i/662._SY75_.jpg|817219] [b:not|168946|Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, and Other Essays|Murray N. Rothbard|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1387746510i/168946._SY75_.jpg|163149] [b:undisputed|1815009|What Social Classes Owe to Each Other|William Graham Sumner|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1328775864i/1815009._SY75_.jpg|1814497]. What, exactly, does Altemeyer think he's doing here? I would really like to know that. Has he simply not done a lot of research on economics? Is he unaware of libertarian ideas? Does he think that debates and interviews with politicians are the be-all and end-all of ethical controversies? Either way, his hit-and-run comment really isn't worth much.
The last concrete issue I want to touch on is the Global Change Game, a simulation of global politics in which the third world colllectively starves to death unless the rich westerners send them endless amounts of money and legalize contraceptives. We're talking about a massive famine that would cause hundreds of millions of deaths. You know, like the ones we saw in socialist countries, no matter how much foreign aid they got. Predictably, the right-wing authoritarians ended up with half the world dead from famine. I'm not surprised, considering that Altemeyer decided that all their economic policies would lead to death on a global scale. He rigged the game, then gloated about its results. And I know, the right-wing authoritarians were also dumb enough to start a nuclear war, but that was not the sole reason for their failure. If they had not been authoritarian at all, just libertarian, they would still have fared very badly. This one experiment exemplifies perfectly everything that's good and bad about this book: Good, the innovative and strong research; bad, this research (or rather its interpretation) being so heavily politically tainted. If Altemeyer had cut down on the unqualified moralizing, The Authoritarians could've been a four-star or maybe even five-star book. But no, he absolutely had to pretend to be the next Bill Maher, when we already have one Bill Maher too much.
Addendum: Revised Rating
After some deliberation, I have decided to lower my rating to two stars. There are two main reasons for that.
The first reason is that, now that I am religious myself, I realize just how unfairly Altemeyer treated them. His questionaire was pretty much designed to make Christians fail, and his "credential" of having heard or read most of the Bible, probably, at some point in his life, is really not that impressive. There are thousands of cradle Catholics who apostatize. It's nothing special, and it doesn't qualify you as a theologian.
The second reason, and actually the more important one, is that I have never, in my life, found any of the lessons in this book applicable. I never had to consult it, I never had a realization it contained the missing puzzle piece to some question I just stumbled upon, nothing. His questionaires are even worse in hindsight, they rate how liberal you are and nothing more, and his Global Change Game, one of the stars of this book, is set up to make conservatives and libertarians fail. The psychology behind The Authoritarians just isn't that good, and without it, you have another simplistic liberal pop-politics book.
What surprises me, then, is that Altemeyer, who is so innovative and self-aware, becomes the complete opposite when he turns to politics - and there's a lot of that in here. While he makes some pretenses earlier in this book about how he's not talking of specific political ideologies, but of a general mindset, this gradually flies out the window until it's all gone by the end of the book. To name one example of his bias, here are two items from one of his tests:
There are no discoveries or facts that could possibly make me change my mind about the things that matter most in life.
I am absolutely certain that my ideas about the fundamental issues in life are correct.
The idea is that these two items (among others), when answered in the affirmative, are an indicator that you're a narrow-minded, paranoid right-wing authoritarian (this term is less political than it sounds). The problem with the first question is that it's likely to be affirmed by even the most authoritarian, most insular empiricist, while a rationalist like me who values logic higher than scientific evidence in the positivistic sense will have his reservations, simply because of how the question is phrased. The second question, meanwhile, is worded in such a way that a nonrelativist fallibilist might answer in the affirmative, but a relativist dogmatist wouldn't. So a more philosophical type who is open to question his beliefs, but is convinced of them as long as they are not disproven, would be graded as more authoritarian than a radical positivist or relativist, or [b:a certain interrogator from 1984|5470|1984|George Orwell|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1348990566i/5470._SY75_.jpg|153313]. Remember when I said that Altemeyer is just mostly spot-on? This is why.
It goes on like that, really. To name another example, after being skeptical of his own scientific field for most of the book, Altemeyer then goes on, on page 122, to drop the following bomb on the difference between faith and science:
This view is three players short of a trio. First, it does not grasp that future theories in science will be accepted because they make superior explanations and predictions--which is progress you could not make if you insisted the old theory was perfect. As well, science energetically corrects itself. If a finding is misleading, say due to methodological error, other scientists will discover that and set things straight. Every year a new batch of scientists graduates, and many of them take dead aim--as they were trained to do--on the scientific Establishment. In religion you might get branded a heretic, or worse, for challenging dogma. In science you’ll get promoted and gather research grants as ye may if you knock an established explanation off its perch. Orthodoxy has a big bulls-eye painted on it in science. A scientist who can come up with a better account of things than evolution will become immortal.
As someone studying Austrian economics, I can say that scientific progress does not work that way. Both intellectuals themselves as well as policymakers are invested in specific results. They don't want to embarassed, they don't want to lose their status as the foremost authority on the phlogiston-theory or whatever you have, and they don't want to cut their projects off while they're right in the middle of it. The essay [b:Ludwig von Mises and the Paradigm for our Age|168946|Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, and Other Essays|Murray N. Rothbard|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1387746510i/168946._SY75_.jpg|163149] (the link includes a source) describes the process of paradigm-change quite nicely. As I said, Altemeyer seemed to have a healthy skepticism about his own scientific field earlier, so why is that completely gone once he starts talking about creationists?
At this point, the book rapidly went down. By page 124, he presents the zealot-scale, which basically describes how much people care about their own life philosophy, and while I don't take issue with the scale itself, this passage reads like another crusade against people who have an opinion, a sense of right and wrong and who actually care about it. His attacks against specific American politicians also increase, and they just aren't a good read. They are the same crap liberals always spout, and while liberals are mostly right about how much Bush sucks, it's no fun to listen to them rant about it when their own politicians have become almost as bad. I would mind neither the zealot-scale and the writing surrounding it nor the snarky "Who am I?"-games that Altemeyer plays with Bush and co., if he hadn't crossed so hard into pop-politics territory already.
Another highlight that I remember from this book is Altemeyer being absolutely astonished that anyone would be against the welfare state and still have the audacity to pretend to care about fairness! Nevermind the [b:large|1268994|For a New Liberty The Libertarian Manifesto|Murray N. Rothbard|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1184280797i/1268994.jpg|1696120] [b:amount|82102|Why Government Doesn't Work|Harry Browne|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1386923747i/82102._SY75_.jpg|79274] of [b:literature|81912|Human Action A Treatise on Economics|Ludwig von Mises|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1328775326i/81912._SX50_.jpg|1747054] on the topic which proves that the welfare state is actively harmful. Nevermind that the ideals of egalitarianism and fairness are [b:themselves|662|Atlas Shrugged|Ayn Rand|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1405868167i/662._SY75_.jpg|817219] [b:not|168946|Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, and Other Essays|Murray N. Rothbard|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1387746510i/168946._SY75_.jpg|163149] [b:undisputed|1815009|What Social Classes Owe to Each Other|William Graham Sumner|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1328775864i/1815009._SY75_.jpg|1814497]. What, exactly, does Altemeyer think he's doing here? I would really like to know that. Has he simply not done a lot of research on economics? Is he unaware of libertarian ideas? Does he think that debates and interviews with politicians are the be-all and end-all of ethical controversies? Either way, his hit-and-run comment really isn't worth much.
The last concrete issue I want to touch on is the Global Change Game, a simulation of global politics in which the third world colllectively starves to death unless the rich westerners send them endless amounts of money and legalize contraceptives. We're talking about a massive famine that would cause hundreds of millions of deaths. You know, like the ones we saw in socialist countries, no matter how much foreign aid they got. Predictably, the right-wing authoritarians ended up with half the world dead from famine. I'm not surprised, considering that Altemeyer decided that all their economic policies would lead to death on a global scale. He rigged the game, then gloated about its results. And I know, the right-wing authoritarians were also dumb enough to start a nuclear war, but that was not the sole reason for their failure. If they had not been authoritarian at all, just libertarian, they would still have fared very badly. This one experiment exemplifies perfectly everything that's good and bad about this book: Good, the innovative and strong research; bad, this research (or rather its interpretation) being so heavily politically tainted. If Altemeyer had cut down on the unqualified moralizing, The Authoritarians could've been a four-star or maybe even five-star book. But no, he absolutely had to pretend to be the next Bill Maher, when we already have one Bill Maher too much.
Addendum: Revised Rating
After some deliberation, I have decided to lower my rating to two stars. There are two main reasons for that.
The first reason is that, now that I am religious myself, I realize just how unfairly Altemeyer treated them. His questionaire was pretty much designed to make Christians fail, and his "credential" of having heard or read most of the Bible, probably, at some point in his life, is really not that impressive. There are thousands of cradle Catholics who apostatize. It's nothing special, and it doesn't qualify you as a theologian.
The second reason, and actually the more important one, is that I have never, in my life, found any of the lessons in this book applicable. I never had to consult it, I never had a realization it contained the missing puzzle piece to some question I just stumbled upon, nothing. His questionaires are even worse in hindsight, they rate how liberal you are and nothing more, and his Global Change Game, one of the stars of this book, is set up to make conservatives and libertarians fail. The psychology behind The Authoritarians just isn't that good, and without it, you have another simplistic liberal pop-politics book.