"Authoritarian"

[DaveFoster]

But on the other hand, serotonin is supposed to cause helplessness:

> In this state, animals that would normally swim for hours will stop swimming after a few minutes and allow themselves to drown.

That doesn't sound like an authoritarian to me.

Serotonin promotes excessive reactivity, not in the sense of productive behavior, but of erratic impulse.

Think of a giggly girl; serotonin. It causes compulsion, rather than goal-oriented drive.

You have no idea what you are talking about. One of the primary concerns of the founding fathers' was limiting the power of private wealth and to use state directed industrial and protectionist trade policy to develop the country. That is why the US is no longer a resource colony.

Source. You sound like a Federalist.

 

[tara]

But yes, I think of autoritarian as dominating, or at least trying to dominate. No?

Me too. Seems consistent with the dictionary definition, too.

As my health has improved by raising my metabolism I still feel a heavy feeling of...what can I now do with this great health?

Tackle the real problem - the bigger cage. Get together with others who are trying to make the social changes you want. :)
I think this is one reason why Peat does what he does - he said something like that doing something about the irrationality helps relieve the stress of it.

 

[tara]

Authoritarian is just someone else who try's to influence your behavior. Really simple.

By bullying, not by attractive invitation, right?

 

[Tarmander]

By bullying, not by attractive invitation, right?

Sure, bullying. But also manipulation, or guilting/shaming, or even love. I think of it as starting with a thought that something/someone needs to be a certain way, and then acting on that thought. Could be for the best of all reasons, like "safety," but it ends the same.

One thing I notice a lot on Facebook and elsewhere is like this positive authoritarianism. Lots of people saying there needs to be this or that law to prevent some bad behavior. They can get really aggressive about it too. Kind of scary when someone says people who are racists need to be round up and shot. Insane right?

 

[DaveFoster]

One thing I notice a lot on Facebook and elsewhere is like this positive authoritarianism. Lots of people saying there needs to be this or that law to prevent some bad behavior. They can get really aggressive about it too. Kind of scary when someone says people who are racists need to be round up and shot. Insane right?

The intent is to help, and the harm done is unconscious. Still inexcusable.

 

[tara]

Sure, bullying. But also manipulation, or guilting/shaming, or even love.

I agree that guilting and shaming can be too - but that's kind of bullying.
Manipulation often arises when someone with less power attempts to influence someone with more power, and they know they can't negotiate directly, because the more powerful party is too dominant. It might not be good, but I'm not sure that it's authoritarian.
I don't think love itself is authoritarian, though sometimes people do authoritarian behaviour in the name of love.

As a parent, I routinely make requirements on my children's behaviour. I guess some of it is probably authoritarian, and not ideal. But requiring them to check before crossing the road, and to contribute to the running of the household, etc, increases their freedom a lot more than it restricts it - it is love, and at least some of it is a necessary part of the job. I don't think it all counts as authoritarian.

They can get really aggressive about it too. Kind of scary when someone says people who are racists need to be round up and shot. Insane right?

Yeah, insane. Not as common as the actual racism, though, and it's the racism that has the record of being really deadly. I agree that there need to be laws to address it.

I don't think an attempt to influence behaviour defines authoritarianism. It's much too broad. One could say that the human advantage is our ability to cooperate, and that relies on a lot of negotiation and a lot of influencing each other's behaviour. Leadership inevitably requires influencing people's behaviour, and leadership is necessary to make just about anything good happen.
I think there really is such a thing as authoritarianism, and it's a problem.

I see it as at least a step further - forcing people to do things against their will by threat of violence or other punishment, esp. without good cause or democratic mandate. Also insisting on people to accepting whatever one says as true without providing good reasons.
"Do what I say or you will be killed."
"Believe what I say cos I said so. "

All sorts of debate over the centuries discusses what constitutes good government - and a lot of it is about what constitutes good grounds for restricting or compelling people's behaviour.

I don't think requiring people to pay tax is necessarily authoritarian, at least if there is a functioning democratic process. Or requiring employers to take measures to prevent their employees from being killed at work.
It also seems necessary for a functioning society to proscribe many behaviours. I don't think laws against violence count as authoritarian.
Or preventing people from harmful environmental destruction.
You know, my freedom to swing my fist does not reach to your nose. And my freedom to dump my rubbish doesn't extend to your back yard, or to the commons.
The absence of such contraints tends to favour the bullies, who can then more easitly set up truly authoritarian relations.

I guess I don't like the concept being diluted so far as to be trivial.

 

[Tarmander]

I agree that guilting and shaming can be too - but that's kind of bullying.
Manipulation often arises when someone with less power attempts to influence someone with more power, and they know they can't negotiate directly, because the more powerful party is too dominant. It might not be good, but I'm not sure that it's authoritarian.
I don't think love itself is authoritarian, though sometimes people do authoritarian behaviour in the name of love.

As a parent, I routinely make requirements on my children's behaviour. I guess some of it is probably authoritarian, and not ideal. But requiring them to check before crossing the road, and to contribute to the running of the household, etc, increases their freedom a lot more than it restricts it - it is love, and at least some of it is a necessary part of the job. I don't think it all counts as authoritarian.


Yeah, insane. Not as common as the actual racism, though, and it's the racism that has the record of being really deadly. I agree that there need to be laws to address it.

I don't think an attempt to influence behaviour defines authoritarianism. It's much too broad. One could say that the human advantage is our ability to cooperate, and that relies on a lot of negotiation and a lot of influencing each other's behaviour. Leadership inevitably requires influencing people's behaviour, and leadership is necessary to make just about anything good happen.
I think there really is such a thing as authoritarianism, and it's a problem.

I see it as at least a step further - forcing people to do things against their will by threat of violence or other punishment, esp. without good cause or democratic mandate. Also insisting on people to accepting whatever one says as true without providing good reasons.
"Do what I say or you will be killed."
"Believe what I say "

All sorts of debate over the centuries discusses what constitutes good government - and a lot of it is about what constitutes good grounds for restricting or compelling people's behaviour.

I don't think requiring people to pay tax is necessarily authoritarian, at least if there is a functioning democratic process. Or requiring employers to take measures to prevent their employees from being killed at work.
It also seems necessary for a functioning society to proscribe many behaviours. I don't think laws against violence count as authoritarian.
Or preventing people from harmful environmental destruction.
You know, my freedom to swing my fist does not reach to your nose. And my freedom to dump my rubbish doesn't extend to your back yard, or to the commons.
The absence of such contraints tends to favour the bullies, who can then more easitly set up truly authoritarian relations.

I guess I don't like the concept being diluted so far as to be trivial.

I like what you have written here. I guess with me is that I see most of what you talked about as authoritarian, but I don't really think authoritarianism is always bad in every way. Like you said, sometimes as a parent you have to be authoritarian if your kids want another shot at crossing the street safely.

It is tough where to draw that line. Like if you have a teenager, they could be begging for freedom to make choices for themselves but in your opinion they might just need a couple more years of the structure you can provide. According to them you are probably as bad as most dictators. Perhaps it's tough to define because it is like indecency...you know it when you see it but it's tough to put a concrete answer down and a lot of it is tied up in intention and character and the situation at that very moment.

My broad definition is my attempt to put it all under one umbrella and then from there make the call on the ground. I know sometimes my loved ones are authoritarian with me, but if I go 100% anti authoritarian I'll just trash some relationships that are really not worth trashing. But Knowing it is authoritarian lets me make the call.

 

[tara]

It is tough where to draw that line.

Yes.

a lot of it is tied up in intention and character and the situation at that very moment.

Yeah.

I think there are some boundaries and requirements that kind of have be there to make a society, or probably any group, function.
I think the more restricted meaning of autoritarianism does involve an attempt to systematically dominate, and that maybe isn't really compatible with good sustainable peer relationships.

 

[goodandevil]

Here in wlWisconsin there's a "healthy relationships" bill in legislation. The state will define health6 relationships for teens. If teens say anything sexual, touch, and of course the actual things for which there are already laws (viz. Harassment, violence) are inckuded as well. Also "homophobia" in teens falls under this bill and will now be illegal .. hard to comprehend how that would be a problem in relatjonships, but anyways it's there in black and whitehttp://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2015/proposals/ab692

We are what we hated.

Enhanced ReCast - WAWWH 18 - We Are What We Hated series : mediamode, vyzygoth, Larry the Contractor Guy : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Love is the complete opposite of control or manipulation. Love is tolerance and a respect for boundries, a yielding ane giving up of control. Tbese days we're all expected to be perfect. We are told to look for the perfect mate. We are encouraged to dominate and supress our own emotional life. Love is not that, love is the discipline and tolerance to respect people and allow them to guide themselves. It's the faith that if we trust ourselves completelty, we have nothing to fear, and that if we support others, they will learn tontrust themselves.

 

[James_001]

Can you clarify your point @James_001? I'm not going to read a 261 page pdf to understand what you are trying to say.

But yes, I think of autoritarian as dominating, or at least trying to dominate. No?

authoritarians want to follow

I agree that guilting and shaming can be too - but that's kind of bullying.
Manipulation often arises when someone with less power attempts to influence someone with more power, and they know they can't negotiate directly, because the more powerful party is too dominant. It might not be good, but I'm not sure that it's authoritarian.
I don't think love itself is authoritarian, though sometimes people do authoritarian behaviour in the name of love.

As a parent, I routinely make requirements on my children's behaviour. I guess some of it is probably authoritarian, and not ideal. But requiring them to check before crossing the road, and to contribute to the running of the household, etc, increases their freedom a lot more than it restricts it - it is love, and at least some of it is a necessary part of the job. I don't think it all counts as authoritarian.


Yeah, insane. Not as common as the actual racism, though, and it's the racism that has the record of being really deadly. I agree that there need to be laws to address it.

I don't think an attempt to influence behaviour defines authoritarianism. It's much too broad. One could say that the human advantage is our ability to cooperate, and that relies on a lot of negotiation and a lot of influencing each other's behaviour. Leadership inevitably requires influencing people's behaviour, and leadership is necessary to make just about anything good happen.
I think there really is such a thing as authoritarianism, and it's a problem.

I see it as at least a step further - forcing people to do things against their will by threat of violence or other punishment, esp. without good cause or democratic mandate. Also insisting on people to accepting whatever one says as true without providing good reasons.
"Do what I say or you will be killed."
"Believe what I say cos I said so. "

All sorts of debate over the centuries discusses what constitutes good government - and a lot of it is about what constitutes good grounds for restricting or compelling people's behaviour.

I don't think requiring people to pay tax is necessarily authoritarian, at least if there is a functioning democratic process. Or requiring employers to take measures to prevent their employees from being killed at work.
It also seems necessary for a functioning society to proscribe many behaviours. I don't think laws against violence count as authoritarian.
Or preventing people from harmful environmental destruction.
You know, my freedom to swing my fist does not reach to your nose. And my freedom to dump my rubbish doesn't extend to your back yard, or to the commons.
The absence of such contraints tends to favour the bullies, who can then more easitly set up truly authoritarian relations.

I guess I don't like the concept being diluted so far as to be trivial.

Socialism is 100% authoritarian, as a socialist yourself you probably don't understand authoritarianism

 

[narouz]

Sorry if already posted--Peat on the subject:
Academic authoritarians, language, metaphor, animals, & science:
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/au ... ians.shtml

 

[narouz]

Socialism is 100% authoritarian, as a socialist yourself you probably don't understand authoritarianism

Libertarian mind-vise in full force.

 

[Giraffe]

I can't get over what a stupid and lazy slur "authoritarian" is. It gets thrown around all the time around here. Please define exactly what it means.

Of the definitions my thesaurus offers, the one I like best is "expecting unquestioning obedience".

Authoritarian teachers just avoid "stupid" questions which would put their "knowledge" to the test.

What I don't understand about this authoritarian thing, is that people are saying that it is caused by serotonin.

But on the other hand, serotonin is supposed to cause helplessness:

> In this state, animals that would normally swim for hours will stop swimming after a few minutes and allow themselves to drown.

That doesn't sound like an authoritarian to me.

Increased serotonin is also associated with increased aggressiveness, and - if I understand it right - an inability to break out of a certain train of thought, obsessive behavior. I guess that high serotonin can manifest in different ways: open authoritarian ("you are stupid if you disagree"), subtle manipulation ("you are selfish if you disagree") or helplessness.

For learned helplessness to develop inescapable stress, a situation of hopelessness is required: the experiences you make shape you. (The rats who watch one rat being saved by the experimenter would go on swimming.)

 

[cantstoppeating]

An authoritarian wants you to:

1) Accept what they say without question and,
2) Do what they say without question.

They want your compliance at the expense of your autonomy.

I agree with what @bobbybobbob wrote; it's used as catch-all slur that doesn't add anything to a conversation.

 

[bobbybobbob]

Jonathan Haidt has done some ground breaking work on moral psychology in recent years. He identifies five different moral dimensions.

Moral foundations and Loyalty

1) Harm/care, related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. This foundation underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.
2) Fairness/reciprocity, related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. This foundation generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulate the theory in 2010 based on new data, we are likely to include several forms of fairness, and to emphasize proportionality, which is more strongly endorsed by conservatives]
3) Ingroup/loyalty, related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. This foundation underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it’s “one for all, and all for one.”
4) Authority/respect, shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. This foundation underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.
5) Purity/sanctity, shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. This foundation underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).
​

Haidt discovered that the kind of people who self-identify as liberal are essentially morally blind on #3, #4, and #5 above. They literally cannot understand the issues. When they see people getting worked up with these values, they tend to completely misunderstand it, or even feel repulsed. When you present them with role-play scenarios involving these matters and ask them to articulate how a conservative would judge the situation, they completely fail. The inverse is not true, however, and conservatives asked to articulate how a liberal would respond to various scenarios usually gets it right.

I think what's really going on with the weak-sauce "authoritarian" slur is people who are morally incapable of grasping #3 and #4 are looking for a label to slap on groups of people that confuse them. It's a way to brush off a set of people and ideas that makes them uncomfortable.

 

[Nicholas]

authoritarianism is sometimes other people but it is mostly authoritarian thoughts in our head that we have to battle the most with.

 

[goodandevil]

authoritarianism is sometimes other people but it is mostly authoritarian thoughts in our head that we have to battle the most with.

Exactly. The never-ending battle.

 

[bobbybobbob]

Exactly. The never-ending battle.

I have never once seen people talk about dealing with their inner authoritarian. The term is always used as a smear. If it's not used as a way to say "these people are stupid-heads and I hate them," then it's sometimes a vague and useless complaint about society. In the latter case it's particularly bad because it shuts down further thought on why certain things might be that way. There are no causal factors or history to consider, instead like a zombie infection somehow "authoritarians" moved in. Zombies, of course, have high serotonin and it's all that simple.

 

[DaveFoster]

Libertarian mind-vise in full force.

If James doesn't endorse your model, and you still force him to operate on your jurisdictions, then you're exercising authority over James.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Duude stop saying a*******arian, it's harām