
The Role of Personality, Authoritarianism and Cognition in Brexit - bryanrasmussen
https://www.onlineprivacyfoundation.org/opf-research/psychological-biases/personality-authoritarianism-and-cognition-in-brexit/
======
User23
I believe the real distinction is susceptibility to different types of
persuasion. It’s easily observable that the vast majority of people don’t have
their own opinion on any subject that receives significant media attention,
because their opinion is exactly that espoused by said media (this includes
entertainment as well as news).

Since the remain faction had almost complete media support, we must conclude
that brexit voters were persuaded by other factors.

I believe this approach of looking at biddability rather than whatever the
arbitry set of opinions being pushed at present will lead to better models.

~~~
pjc50
> Since the remain faction had almost complete media support

Leave was (still is!) supported by the Sun, Mail, Express, Telegraph, some of
the Times columnists, and arguably whoever in the BBC was responsible for UKIP
being on BBCQT far beyond their electoral success would merit.

~~~
guelo
No, that doesn't count. That's why we need a separate term for evil lying
propaganda media: MSM. The "conservative" media is just a small light of
sanity in a sea of MSM darkness.

~~~
colanderman
Unsupported hyperbolic opinions add nothing to rational discourse. Please
dispense with them here.

------
ithilglin909
Considering that this is a politically charged topic and psychological studies
in general seem to have low reproducibility rates, this is the kind of
research that, without any disrespect to scientific research in general, is
worth taking with a large grain of salt.

------
sonnyblarney
This really does need to be broken down by demographic because given the tilts
in age, immigration status, social status, urban/rural among voters, all of
this just might be a measure of one group vs another.

'Londoners more neurotic, Villagers more conscientious and authoritarian'

Also - I don't like the term 'authoritarian' in this context as it's ill
defined.

~~~
pjc50
"RWA authoritarian" is pretty well defined as "someone who scores highly on
this test": [http://www.panojohnson.com/automatons/rwa-
scale.xhtml](http://www.panojohnson.com/automatons/rwa-scale.xhtml)

If you scroll down a bit in the original article there's a breakdown of
subject RWA scores by age and gender. It even has error bars.

~~~
rayiner
> It is always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in
> government and religion than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our
> society who are trying to create doubt in people’s minds.

I have no idea what this is supposed to measure, but it sounds like garbage to
me. It’s literally a test of how people identify themselves (either as
establishment or as a “rabble rouser”). Then arbitrarily labeling the
earablishment supporters as “autboritarian.”

To see why thia question is ridiculous: Imagine asking this question to people
in Tehran during the Shah. In that case, the “proper authorities” were the
western-aligned Shah government, while the “rabble rousers” would be the
Islamists. But it was the rabble rousers’ view that was authoritarian.

~~~
throwawayjava
_> I have no idea what this is supposed to measure_

On its own, it's not supposed to measure anything. There's more than 1
question in the survey for a reason. And incidentally, the questions that
people are most likely to criticize -- the first two -- _aren 't even used in
the assessment_; they're throw-aways.

 _> To see why thia question is ridiculous: Imagine asking this question to
people in Tehran during the Shah. In that case, the “proper authorities” were
the western-aligned Shah government, while the “rabble rousers” would be the
Islamists. But it was the rabble rousers’ view that was authoritarian._

From chapter 1 of the book in which this scale was introduced: _the test,
which was designed to measure right-wing authoritarianism in North America,
will probably fall apart in markedly different cultures._

That same chapter goes on to directly address almost all of the criticisms I'm
seeing in this thread.

I think it's wrong to construe one measure of "right-wing" (explicitly _not_
"conservative") authoritarianism with "authoritarianism" generally, as the
title of this piece does. But there's nothing wrong with designing assessments
that are intended to work only in one particular culture.

~~~
rayiner
The question I quoted was not one of the two throw-aways. Even with the
caveats you mentioned, this survey does not actually measure authoritarianism
in any meaningful way. Take three of the things addressed in the questioning:
animal rights, abortion, and LGBT rights. You can frame any of these things to
make both sides seem “authoritarian” or anti-authoritarian. For example,
public accomodation laws can be viewed as an impingement on the right to
freedom of association, or a vindication of the right to participate in the
economy free of discrimination. Abortion restrictions can be viewed as
vindiction of the fetus’s right to life, or an impingement on the mother’s
bodily autonomy. The article simply picks a framing for each issue, and labels
the conservative point of view “authoritarian.”

But in reality, these disputes aren’t about authoritariansm versus non-
authoritariansim. Both sides believe that the government may restrict the
natural freedom people would have in the state of nature to protect certain
things that society recognizes as “rights.” These disputes are about what
rights society is willing to recognize and enforce, and what to do when those
rights conflict.

~~~
throwawayjava
_> The survey falsely portrays these disputes as being about
“authoritarianism” versus (presumably), “non-authoritarianism.”_

You seem to feel that this survey is a _definition_ about _individuals_?
That's not how the survey is intended to be used, and the fist chapter of the
book that introduces it is _full_ of caveats that the survey is _not_ intended
to be treated as a definition about individuals.

The author of the survey is very explicitly NOT providing a definition of
authoritarianism or a litmus test for individuals. He is providing a _survey_
whose scores _correlate_ with right-wing authoritarianism in North America in
the late 20th century.

The survey is a tool, the author of the tool is very explicit about what that
tool is and is not for. I, for one, don't get angry when my hammers don't work
as screw drivers. And also don't get angry at the inventor of the hammer when
some random third party messes up my stuff by using a hammer on my screws...

 _> Take three of the things addressed in the questioning: animal rights,
abortion, and LGBT rights_

The survey is designed to measure RIGHT-WING Authoritarianism. That is, the
_conjunct_ of being _both_ authoritarian _and also_ right-wing in that
authoritarianism.

If we asked 20 questions about authoritarianism but never mentioned anything
about being right-wing, we might have a good test for authoritarianism but not
a good test for RIGHT-WING authoritarianism...

~~~
rayiner
I’m not assuming this survey is a definition about individuals. The survey
takes the beliefs of a group (conservative christians) and simply labels them
“authoritarian.”

As to your point about right-wing versus left-wing authoritarianism: you’re
missing the point. Imagine a counter-part to this test that labeled support
for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as “left-wing authoritarianism.” Technically,
yes, that law restricts the freedom of individuals to conduct their business
and associate with people according to their own choices. But labeling that
“authoritarianism” would (I think rightly) be perceived as biased by most
liberals. The article makes exactly the same mistake. It takes a lot of views
and unfairly labels them “authoritarian.”

~~~
throwawayjava
_> The article makes exactly the same mistake. It takes a lot of views and
unfairly labels them “authoritarian.”_

And as I said in my original post:

"I think it's wrong to construe one measure of "right-wing" (explicitly not
"conservative") authoritarianism with "authoritarianism" generally, as the
title of this piece does. But there's nothing wrong with designing assessments
that are intended to work only in one particular culture."

 _> The survey takes the beliefs of a group (conservative Christians) and
simply labels them “authoritarian."_

No, it doesn't, and I think that's an unfair characterization of conservative
Christians.

1\. I only count 11 items that say anything at all about conservative
Christian beliefs. The other 9 are totally orthogonal. Even if we score those
items -4 (which most conservative Christians wouldn't; see item 2) and the
other items +4, we end up in the low 100s. And more realistic answers typical
of non-authoritarian conservative Christians in the midwest end up with scores
in the 90s (again, see item 2).

2\. of those 11 items that make reference to "Christian/family/traditional
values", many would not elicit a "strong" score from all or even most
conservative Christians following the survey's instructions.

Example 1: _" Everyone should have their own lifestyle, religious beliefs, and
sexual preferences, even if it makes them different from everyone else."_

Most conservative Christians will strong-disagree with "sexual preferences".

But what about "lifestyle" and "religious beliefs"? Many conservative
Christians support different lifestyles; e.g., homeschooling. And a STRONG
majority support religious freedom.

According to the survey's instructions, which tell use to average the -4 re:
homosexuality with +N for the other two items, this question would elicit a
weak disagree or maybe even a weak agree from many conservative Christians.

Example 2: _" God's laws about abortion, pornography and marriage must be
strictly followed before it is too late, and those who break them must be
strongly punished."_

Many conservative Christians believe that divorce should be legal and
pornography, though damaging, should not be outlawed. So using the survey's
averaging rule, this might even end up as a "weak disagree".

And there are many questions that ask for moral comparisons between
"traditional" and "non-traditional" people, but the bible is very clear on
exactly this question: we are not justified by our acts.

It is true that there is a certain brand of conservative Christian who believe
we should have a "strong leader" who uses the state to forcibly impose their
personal conservative values on the rest of society. Those people would score
highly on this test. But that set of people is definitely not the same as the
set of "conservative Christians", because many "conservative Christians" have
non-authoritarian values (and many right-wing authoritarians are not
Christian.)

 _> As to your point about right-wing versus left-wing authoritarianism:
you’re missing the point. Imagine a counter-part to this test that labeled
support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as “left-wing authoritarianism.”_

Exactly zero questions in this survey mention a piece of legislation, and not
a single question on this test automatically labels RWA for agreeing with a
given piece of legislation. There are multiple types of questions for a
reason.

There exist left-wing authoritarian tests. And yes, they do ask questions
about typical left-wing issues. And yes, they should. Because measuring LEFT-
WING authoritarianism without even bothering to ask if someone's beliefs are
consistently left-wing would be silly and would miss the point...

Maybe DeMorgan can help. A low (L or R)WA score just means:

NOT (LR-wing AND authoritarian) == NOT LR-wing OR NOT authoritarian.

A below-average score could mean (LR-wing AND NOT authoritarian).

A below-average score could mean (NOT LR-wing AND authoritarian).

A below-average score could mean (NOT LR-wing AND NOT authoritarian).

A low LR-WA score does not imply "not authoritarian". It implies "not
authoritarian in this particular way". A very high score indicates
"authoritarian in this particular way". Borderline scores could mean
"authoritarian but not in this way" or "this way but not authoritarian".

Survey design is difficult, and interpreting survey results is also difficult.
A survey designed to measure the intersection of two properties will give
higher scores to people who have one of those properties than people who have
zero of those properties. That does not mean the survey is flawed; it means
that the results have to be used with this effect in mind.

------
dan-robertson
As I read it, this article (or rather, its abstract) seems to work as:

1\. The population is divided into leave voters and remain voters (and
undecided)

2\. Some statistics will be different between these sets

3\. Looking at the election campaign and these characteristics can tell us
about how to target an election campaign according to these statistics [of the
people who will eventually/currently plan on voting for your side]

An alternative way to look at this is:

1\. There are several qualities of people that change slowly with time; some
people are inclined to vote leave and some remain and some in between

2\. Some electoral material was produced trying to change how much
leave/remain people are inclined to vote

3\. Here is some statistics about the qualities of the people who were
inclined a certain way.

I think the article seems to have confused these two offerings slightly.

For example suppose you see that leave voters are more RWA. Do you interpret
this as:

(a) leave voters are RWA so to encourage leave voters one should produce
material targeted at RWA people or encouraging RWA ideas

(b) the appeal of election materials for vote leave correlated to how RWA
people were so RWA people voted leave so the style of material for vote leave
is a lesson in appealing to vote leave personalities.

------
fortythirteen
Their authoritarian scale is the RWA, or _Right Wing Authoritarianism_. They
did no test for general authoritarianism, meaning that their summary is
suspect. It's no surprise to anyone that the mostly left-wing remain voters
scored low in _right wing_ authoritarianism.

Edit: thanks for the brigaded downvotes with no rebuttal, proving that you
just don't like your cognitive biases challenged with facts.

~~~
js8
Authoritarianism is inherently right-wing, if you use the original definition
of right and left.

According to original definitions (from French revolution), the left objects
to power inequality between people and consider citizens should be equals;
while the right doesn't have problem with power inequality in society and
accepts things like hereditary nobility.

And the fact is, despite propaganda that sometimes equates leftists and
bolsheviks, large majority of leftists still identifies with this definition.

~~~
yarrel
And how does the left get to that state of affairs in a world of power
inequality?

A large majority of the right may identify with Christian ideas of charity but
look at how that usually turns out.

~~~
js8
I don't understand what you're asking about - what state of affairs?

In many countries today, we have democracy, which is according to the above
definition leftist (and also very anti-authoritarian!) idea.

------
pjc50
See previous work by the late Chris Lightfoot (2005): [http://www.ex-
parrot.com/~chris/wwwitter/20050415-my_country...](http://www.ex-
parrot.com/~chris/wwwitter/20050415-my_country_right_or_left.html)

Main finding of principal components analysis:

"Slightly facetiously we refer to this as the `Axis of UKIP': the extremal
positive views are those of people who are Eurosceptic, believe in capital
punishment and harsh prison régimes, and oppose immigration. At the other end
of the axis people believe in further European integration, the primacy of
international law, the benefits of immigration, and so forth.

This axis is identifiably left/right -- people at large positive positions are
definitely `right wing' \-- but it is not the traditional left/right axis of
economics and class division."

------
Kenji
_In a situation where “In general, political campaign material in the UK is
not regulated, and it is a matter for voters to decide on the basis of such
material whether they consider it accurate or not” (The Electoral Commission,
2018) the research also raises the question of whether existing regulatory
controls need to be amended. Not only do many voters lack the skills to
critically evaluate the information which is being presented, their inherent
beliefs and biases clearly influence the way in which they process this
information._

Yeah, how about outlawing voting against those who are currently in power? We
little people cannot judge the issues anyways. Why not abolish democracy
completely since we're all so stupid?

~~~
xamuel
Not sure why people are down-voting you. That's a very important and dangerous
quotation from the article.

This whole situation sheds a dim light on UK politics: is voting in the UK
nothing more than a ritual to legitimize decisions already blessed by the
powers that be?

~~~
commandlinefan
I see more and more stirrings of similar sentiments here in America every day,
too.

