Reading the comments is a form of self-harm
Full article if you're willing to hurt yourself from it's liberalism
I just read the entire psych article and they base their entire thesis off of online polling from websites like yourmorals.org and political compass websites and some shitty wonk site called "Prolific, an online participant recruitment service" that only shitlib political junkies would know about.
Of the 836 people chosen to participate, 49.0% of participants identified with the Democratic party, 24.0% identified with Republicans, 13.6% did not identify with a political party, 5.5% identified with a party not listed in the survey, 3.4% identified with the Socialist party, 2.6% identified with the Libertarian party, and 1.6% identified with the Green party.
Thats right motherfuckers, they're basic their entire fucking thesis off of the opinion of 28 FUCKING PEOPLE
"Left-wing authoritarianism exists, is a strong predictor for participation in political violence, and shares personality traits, cognitive features, beliefs, and motivational values with right-wing authoritarianism. Differences between LW and RW authoritarians observed in dogmatism and emotionality."
From the article opening paragraph
Authoritarianism has been the subject of scientific inquiry for nearly a century, yet the vast majority of authoritarianism research has focused on right-wing authoritarianism. In the present studies, we inves-tigate the nature, structure, and nomological network of left-wing authoritarianism (LWA), a construct famously known as “the Loch Ness Monster” of political psychology. We iteratively construct a meas-ure and data-driven conceptualization of LWA across six samples (N = 7,258) and conduct quantitative tests of LWA’s relations with over 60 authoritarianism-related variables. We find that LWA, right-wing authoritarianism, and social dominance orientationreflect a shared constellation of personality traits, cognitive features, beliefs, and motivational values that might be considered the “heart” of au-thoritarianism. Still, relative to right-wing authoritarians, left-wing authoritarians were lower in dog-matism and cognitive rigidity, higher in negative emotionality, and expressed stronger support for apolitical system with substantial centralized state control. Our results also indicate that LWA power-fully predicts behavioral aggression and is strongly correlated with participation inpolitical violence.We conclude that a movement away from exclusively right-wing conceptualizations of authoritarian-ism may be required to illuminate authoritarianism’s central features, conceptual breadth, and psycho-logical appeal.
Again, authoritarianism is a useless buzzword. It just means exercising power. Power can be exercised for both good and bad things. Wish liberals would shut the fuck up and open a history book for once in their lives
There's nothing authoritarian about droning hospitals or dropping bombs on weddings in other countries 💅
There is actual literature on the authoritarian personality, but this study adds nothing to that literature. In common political contexts, I agree though
There are anthropological studies of how people prevent the exercise of power within their societies. I think it makes sense to talk about how much power people are allowed to wield as well as what they weild it for
i fucking hate these "studies" where they basically say hey, let's do some statistical fuckery to dunk on whichever political faction we don't like. ooh yeah you proved that chuds have lower emotional intelligence, good job, nobody could have known that before you purported to have rigorously proven an entirely subjective statement with facts and logic.
liberals always eat it up too because they're obsessed with "science". it's caliper shit.
a shared constellation of personality traits, cognitive features,
redditors eating up PMC eugenics :epstein:
Our results also indicate that LWA power-fully predicts behavioral aggression and is strongly correlated with participation inpolitical violence
"being a wage slaves predicts guillotines" no shit
the dogma of critically applying the scientific method to stuff
for all the bleating they do about TruStINg sCiEnCe, you'd think the libs would be more interested in a genuinely scientific way of viewing the world we live in
There’s like ten typos just in that opening paragraph. Was this paper even proof read, let alone peer reviewed?
I dunno if the article doesn't like getting copy pasted, or if it's just a shit-smearing piece. I'd say a mix of column A and column B
The methodology is pretty bad too. The data collected is flawed from the beginning. All just to attain enlightened centrism.
:surprised-pika:
and shares personality traits, cognitive features, beliefs, and motivational values with right-wing authoritarianism
This is objectively false, and if anything describes the relationship between liberals and the far-right way better
Like "motivational values" are you fuckin serious, just wtf do they think "right" and "left" means?
A scientific study? I dunno... sounds authoritarian. :blob-no-thoughts:
some shitty wonk site called “Prolific, an online participant recruitment service” that only shitlib political junkies would know about
i've made a few hundred bucks total on prolific over the years by answering studies on it. it's helped me out a bit in bad times. it's not just for political studies or anything
I took a survey on there and it showed me a bunch of nasty photos to test my disgust response, lol
Had to quit doing that shit for mental health
In case any other comrades saw this post, and decided they also need some cash to help out with their dire financial situation: do not access Prolific through a VPN. They'll automatically flag your account to be ineligible to participate in any studies, and give you no indication as to why. And it will take a week or two for support to get back to you to unblock you. In the end I set up a Firefox installation that I use just for surveys, and whitelisted it so it just connects normally.
i’ve made a few hundred bucks total on prolific over the years by answering studies on it. it’s helped me out a bit in bad times. i
yeah, me too. I was surprised to find such a site that isn't a complete scam...
I started loosing my eyesight when I got to the section comparing "LWA vs RWA" across 60 "datapoints"
No, that paper hasn't been peer reviewed yet. FFS reddit, science is a tool not dogma, a journal is not simply 'a journal' and simply because something is online doesn't mean its credible. I'm honestly surprised the antivax movement isn't stronger there. Reddit science subs used to be a lot better (certain specialists ones are really bad now, like super bad saying shit that's been unscientific since at least the 70s, won't say sub names cuz dox myself), now they've been invaded by laymen who simply because they can read think they know all background and jargon.
No matter how hard the bioscis and other soft sciences try to flee from diamat it is on the road to good science (fuck, it is the way no matter what it gets called as part of the sci method). Else you get pop culture papers that are hard to reproduce since they don't reflect the conditions in reality or even their study.
"Loch Ness Monster" of psychology? WTF does that mean? That it's bullshit like the story?
