Vox: Psychologists surveyed hundreds of alt-right supporters. The results are unsettling.

[Underseer]

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/8/15/16144070/psychology-alt-right-unite-the-right

But it’s the degree to which the alt-righters differed from the comparison sample that’s most striking — especially when it came to measures of dehumanization, support for collective white action, and admitting to harassing others online. That surprised even Forscher, the lead author and a professor at the University of Arkansas, who typically doesn’t find such large group difference in his work.

There was a time when psychologists feared that “social desirability bias” — people unwilling to admit they’re prejudiced, for fear of being shamed — would prevent people from answering such questions about prejudice truthfully. But this survey shows people will readily admit to believing all sorts of vile things. And researchers don’t need to use implicit or subliminal measures to suss it all out.

Conservatives and libertarians are no longer ashamed of expressing openly racist sentiments.

 

[repoman]

What would they find in China or Japan?

 

[zorq]

Fascinating, but mostly for the questions they chose. We already know that the country is getting progressively more polarized and that the fringe segments of society are growing ever more extreme and influential. We understand that this is partly a symptom of the internet which has allowed people to find and grow their niche extreme communities.


But consider this question they asked their survey participants.
"Using the sliders below indicate how evolved you consider each of the following individuals or groups to be. Arabs. Russians. Muslims. Australians. Americans. Sweeds."
And then there is an image representing a (false) progression of human ancestry from what looks like a silhouette of a chimpanzee to one of a homo sapien.

Show

The median Alt-Right folks ranked most people they stereotypically consider to be their enemies as being somewhere between what I think might be Austrolopithicus and Homo Erectus. Apparently that includes, Democrats, Feminists, Muslims, Black People, and journalists. The medians for all of those categories of people scored between 55 and 65 out of 100 in that scale.

The journalist one kind of surprised me despite all the lip service journalists got from Trump and his lickspittles during the election. These people have so much cognitive dissonance that they have convinced themselves that journalists telling them facts that they don't like are really doing it partially because they are pre-human stone age cave dwellers.

Personally, unless orangutans was one of the sliders, all of my sliders on this question would have been at the furthest right on that scale. But of course the question itself perpetuates the scientifically ignorant presumption that humans are "more" evolved than a chimpanzee. So the whole thing is ridiculous. ...But, whatever.

 

[barbos]

I don't think they were ashamed before. Maybe afraid a little but not ashamed.
What changed is that they managed to unite and get loud.

 

[Patooka]

What would they find in China or Japan?

Fewer white supremacists and nazis, I suspect. Really, you need someone to tell you that?

 

[Underseer]

Fascinating, but mostly for the questions they chose. We already know that the country is getting progressively more polarized and that the fringe segments of society are growing ever more extreme and influential. We understand that this is partly a symptom of the internet which has allowed people to find and grow their niche extreme communities.


But consider this question they asked their survey participants.
"Using the sliders below indicate how evolved you consider each of the following individuals or groups to be. Arabs. Russians. Muslims. Australians. Americans. Sweeds."
And then there is an image representing a (false) progression of human ancestry from what looks like a silhouette of a chimpanzee to one of a homo sapien.

Show

View attachment 17043

The median Alt-Right folks ranked most people they stereotypically consider to be their enemies as being somewhere between what I think might be Austrolopithicus and Homo Erectus. Apparently that includes, Democrats, Feminists, Muslims, Black People, and journalists. The medians for all of those categories of people scored between 55 and 65 out of 100 in that scale.

The journalist one kind of surprised me despite all the lip service journalists got from Trump and his lickspittles during the election. These people have so much cognitive dissonance that they have convinced themselves that journalists telling them facts that they don't like are really doing it partially because they are pre-human stone age cave dwellers.

Personally, unless orangutans was one of the sliders, all of my sliders on this question would have been at the furthest right on that scale. But of course the question itself perpetuates the scientifically ignorant presumption that humans are "more" evolved than a chimpanzee. So the whole thing is ridiculous. ...But, whatever.

It's normal for authoritarian movements to hate the fact-checkers be they intellectuals or the media.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/8/15/16144070/psychology-alt-right-unite-the-right

But it’s the degree to which the alt-righters differed from the comparison sample that’s most striking — especially when it came to measures of dehumanization, support for collective white action, and admitting to harassing others online. That surprised even Forscher, the lead author and a professor at the University of Arkansas, who typically doesn’t find such large group difference in his work.

There was a time when psychologists feared that “social desirability bias” — people unwilling to admit they’re prejudiced, for fear of being shamed — would prevent people from answering such questions about prejudice truthfully. But this survey shows people will readily admit to believing all sorts of vile things. And researchers don’t need to use implicit or subliminal measures to suss it all out.

Conservatives and libertarians are no longer ashamed of expressing openly racist sentiments.

I don't know why you keep trying to gather libertarians under your banner.

 

[ronburgundy]

Personally, unless orangutans was one of the sliders, all of my sliders on this question would have been at the furthest right on that scale. But of course the question itself perpetuates the scientifically ignorant presumption that humans are "more" evolved than a chimpanzee. So the whole thing is ridiculous. ...But, whatever.

I don't think this is that big of a research flaw. Non-racists would put every human group at the far right indicating they are all modern humans. Only a racist would view modern human groups as being more or less evolved.
Pretty much by definition, racists don't accurately understand evolution. Those that generally accept some notion of evolution believe there is a directional progression to it and view humans as "more" evolved" and some humans more than others. That is kinda the whole premise of racism. The other type of racists are those that reject evolution all together and believe that God just made some humans inferior to others. But even most of those people would just interpret the question as talking about a hierarchy and not treat the "evolve" part as critical. Besides, it isn't clear the left figure is a modern chimp. It is basically just depicting a stages of change from pre-human primates to modern humans, and the "more evolved" can be interpreted as simply "which group is more different than pre-human primates" rather than some notion of directional progression of "better than".

 

[ronburgundy]

I don't think they were ashamed before. Maybe afraid a little but not ashamed.
What changed is that they managed to unite and get loud.

The level of shame would clearly decrease as they find more and more people who share their views, and those views would become more extreme. This is especially the case when their views become echoed by people with wealth, fame, and/or power. If their view is objectively incorrect, then it is immoral, because it would clearly cause unjust harm to others. Even when people espouse a view confidently, they often have some level of insecurity about it. The more people you find who agree, especially people with "authority" (however, illegitimate), the more confident they become in their view, and that confidence would shield them from the shame caused by any doubts that they might be wrong and thus harming others unjustly.

It would be foolish to assume that even racists do not have a moral code where they shouldn't harm others unjustly. They simply form and ideology that allows them to thing that racism and racist acts don't qualify as such.

And like the researcher said, racist used to respond to the same surveys differently, by trying to mask their racism. Yet these surveys have always been completely anonymous, with no possible consequences to the person no matter how they respond. Thus, it is more likely that was some form of shame rather than "fear" that was making them hide their views.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't think they were ashamed before. Maybe afraid a little but not ashamed.
What changed is that they managed to unite and get loud.

The level of shame would clearly decrease as they find more and more people who share their views, and those views would become more extreme. This is especially the case when their views become echoed by people with wealth, fame, and/or power. If their view is objectively incorrect, then it is immoral, because it would clearly cause unjust harm to others. Even when people espouse a view confidently, they often have some level of insecurity about it. The more people you find who agree, especially people with "authority" (however, illegitimate), the more confident they become in their view, and that confidence would shield them from the shame caused by any doubts that they might be wrong and thus harming others unjustly.

It would be foolish to assume that even racists do not have a moral code where they shouldn't harm others unjustly. They simply form and ideology that allows them to thing that racism and racist acts don't qualify as such.

And like the researcher said, racist used to respond to the same surveys differently, by trying to mask their racism. Yet these surveys have always been completely anonymous, with no possible consequences to the person no matter how they respond. Thus, it is more likely that was some form of shame rather than "fear" that was making them hide their views.

Racism is getting normalized now.

Sure, we aren’t eastern Europe, but that is the goal it seems.

 

[barbos]

There could be bias present. Before Trump these people were hard to find for researchers, but now they are easy to find and maybe researchers have these wackos overrepresented in their sample now. So there could be no change in their shame level.

 

[BH]

The Ameircan people are not innocent sheep. The prosperous ones know that their prosperity is caused by someone else being hurt and they just do not care.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Racism is getting normalized now.

That is the OP's goal.

 

[Bomb#20]

The Ameircan people are not innocent sheep. The prosperous ones know that their prosperity is caused by someone else being hurt and they just do not care.

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened."

Romans 1:19-21​

I feel you should be aware of the company you're keeping. When a person's doctrine is rejected by infidels, but he can't present a logical case for his doctrine and refute their counterarguments, it's very common for him to give himself permission to dismiss those counterarguments without ever coming to grips with them, by the expedient of telling himself the infidels already agree with him and are just being dicks about it. That way he awards himself a pleasant feeling of moral superiority to add to his unearned pleasant feeling of intellectual superiority, while mentally shouting down any unpleasant cognitive dissonance threatening to arise from his inability to refute the infidels' counterarguments.

 

[Trausti]

The Ameircan people are not innocent sheep. The prosperous ones know that their prosperity is caused by someone else being hurt and they just do not care.

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened."

Romans 1:19-21​

I feel you should be aware of the company you're keeping. When a person's doctrine is rejected by infidels, but he can't present a logical case for his doctrine and refute their counterarguments, it's very common for him to give himself permission to dismiss those counterarguments without ever coming to grips with them, by the expedient of telling himself the infidels already agree with him and are just being dicks about it. That way he awards himself a pleasant feeling of moral superiority to add to his unearned pleasant feeling of intellectual superiority, while mentally shouting down any unpleasant cognitive dissonance threatening to arise from his inability to refute the infidels' counterarguments.

 

[zorq]

I love how this quote describes people who look down dismissively at others who have a different opinion as stupid and uncharitable. How deliciously ironic.

 

[RVonse]

Human beings in general are basically flawed individuals but it is not just the alt right. For example, I saw some pretty deplorable stuff watching the pussy marchers on tv right after Trump's inauguration.

But we notice more problems with identity politics right now though, that is true. Mostly because of all the immigration and emigration which is taking place pretty much everywhere in the world. You just can not change evolution over night and people simply aren't comfortable living with members of other tribes.

I blame the globalists for this. It was their military complex and their mercenary warhawks like John Mc Cain who have brought all of this courtesy of their fake wars.

 

[untermensche]

people simply aren't comfortable living with members of other tribes

Holy shit!

Some people actually believe this.

A person becomes uncomfortable with others, there are no tribes, based on peer interactions.

If you interact with ignorant racists you may begin thinking like one after a while.

It is an ignorance that grows only in some circumstances. Nothing innate.

 

[zorq]

Why can't humanity be one tribe?

 

[DBT]

Why can't humanity be one tribe?

Hopefully that will eventuate. Currently, we are nowhere near achieving that goal.