Talk:Authoritarian personality

message: All of the references are outdated, except for Myles (2016) which has only marginal relevance. We need a discussion of duckitt and sibley's important research about right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation 
130.225.93.42 (talk) 08:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated references 

message: I have updated the section on current reinterpretations with three later theoretical ideas, right wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and regality theory. Most of the article still describes obsolete theories. There should be more weight on the newer theories and on criticism of the older theories. The problem with political bias also needs more discussion.Agnerf (talk) 09:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current reinterpretations 

message: The inititial study of Erich Fromm in Berlin should be cited correctly and explained in detail. Adorno and others caputered Fromm's work and pretended to be the authors. Additionally they tried to make some important aspects vanish e. g. the high amount of people that matched the criteria but were "leftist", such as persons voting for SPD and KPD in the late 20s and early 30s.139.139.67.69 (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role of Erich Fromm 

message: This article could definitely use more references as John Ray is in no way unbiased. See his blog which says that Hitler was a leftist, and that fascists are actually leftists, "greenies" are actually motivated by hate for human beings, etc.  (User:Transhumanist)
:I don't think we needed to go, ad hominem, into the details of Ray's beliefs ... just pointing out that he is biased - and in the opposite direction to many other researchers in social psychology, no less - would have been enough. FYI, note that Ray added those references himself. Incidentally, isn't it true that the National Socialist party proclaimed themselves to be, well, socialists?  Ppe42 08:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They mainly used it in the name of the party, because it was originally supposedly labour-oriented. At the same time they considered Bolshevists to be their enemies - Skysmith 09:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many left-of-centre movements saw the Bolsheviks as an enemy (trotskyists, social democrats, anarcho-syndicatists), especially after their authoritarian nature was revealed in the Spanish Civil War. Early on at least, the Nazis considered pretty much everyone to be their enemy, even Fascist Austria and Italy.66.133.180.60 11:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: J. J. Ray

message: Reading this article, you would never know that this work is widely discredited today.
:Erm, following up on your links, I'm not really convinced it is discredited. The first ref is a synopsis/precis of an article I can't really evaluate. The description assumes that everyone knows the original book is flawed in many ways but without specifics, I'm not willing to give the paper's author the benefit of the doubt. The tone of his CV and page do not inspire confidence in the rigor of his analysis. The second ref doesn't appear to say anything to discredit the book. My impression is the theory/findings in the book have continued to be developed over the last 50 years. While that doesn't bear directly on this piece about the original book, I think it says something about continuing relevance of the work. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 03:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Wikipedia is not about truth. The only way you can assert that the work is not discredited, is by reference to another (recent) scholarly work that says it's not. It is as simple as that. Intangible 03:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err... Where is the proof that it's discredited again? Unless we have proof that it isn't, it has been discredited by default? Is that your idea of a joke?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.240.182 (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: In the book Mass Hate (N. J. Kressel, 2002), which is not exactly a scholarly article, but instead a book that tries to understand why a country's citizens are influenced to commit genocides (the relationship to Authoritarianism and the Authoritarian personality should be obvious).  Regarding The Authoritarian Personality's history, he says in sum, "the theory presented in the 1950 volume was not 'objectively and impartially subjected to the rigorous demands of scientific method' (Sahakian 259).  Still, this does not imply that the theory is false" (190).  Thus, while the studies might have had flaws, the theory may still be correct.  Any other published scholarly views on the idea would be appreciated. --MyOwnLittlWorld 00:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It's quite true that that major flaws have been found in the work and it's no longer thought adequate to identify authoritarian behaviour today. However that's not unusual for scientific theories. They tend to remain in use until they are replaced by something better. That is what has happened here. The theory, which was unsatisfactory for numerous reasons including its Freudian basis and poor design of its "questionnaire", has been replaced by Robert Altemeyer's work which is not based on Freud and avoids the methodological bias of the F-Scale work by far better "questionnaire" design. The current article needs updating to reflect this. Anyone reading it would think that Altemeyer has just extended the Berkeley work a bit, whereas he has recreated the foundations, putting them on a much sounder footing. The fact is that two authoritarian personality types can be identified -- a follower type and a leader type -- and while the 1950 method of identifying each may have been discredited, the 2010 method has not. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: Say, could someone put up the basic facts about the F-Scale, research in both Germany and the U.S., the findings, etc.  I'd do it if I knew it (I came here to find it out). Regardless of all of the intricate details discussed here, this article has absolutely no context and is missing really basic information.  It just reads like I opened to a random page in the middle of some jargony academic book about the Authoritarian Personality.  76.168.162.85 (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Relevance 

message: Psychohistory is a very controversial science, see Psychohistory#Criticisms. Is it relevant at all to include accusations of authoritarianism in historical persons? The reference to the Bible should definitely be removed.
130.225.93.42 (talk) 09:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is psychohistory too controversial? 

message: The article currently mentions a "Berkeley Group" without saying what that refers to. 75.48.31.248 (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The first sentence actually tells you if you read it carefully. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Berkeley Group 

message: There's also a Wikipedia article on The Authoritarian Personality.    Surely they should be merged. Norvo (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the merge, though I think it would be important in the article to clearly distinguish between the book and the theory. --Jcbutler (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Norvo (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

text: This would be a good merge. This article only discusses the F-Scale work of the The Authoritarian Personality and says little or nothing about its modern replacement. That is described in the Right-wing authoritarianism article. The best way of handling this would probably be to summarise the old theory and the new one in this article, transferring the more specific material to the other two articles. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

text: It would be a long and unwieldy article that describes both the book, the history of the theory, and the later variants right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. Agnerf (talk) 09:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Why two separate articles?

message: there is no wikipedia page for the big brother concept, and instead it is redirected to this article from the Big Brother disambiguation page.  I think these are two related but separate concepts and there are aspects of the traditional idea of "big brother" that aren't covered well by the  
"authoritarian personality" concept.  I think there should be a separate wikipedia entry for the Big Brother concept!
cheers,
Jamie  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.77.192 (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  big brother article 

message: Love it or hate, TAP is an important piece of intellectual history and has been cited in thousands of articles and books.  Whether such a famous social scientist and political philosopher [sarcasm] as John Dean found a use for it in an intellectually puffed up book of political score settling is utterly irrelevant.  This little factoid should be dropped out, IMO. Ed-Claude (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Altemeyer credits Dean with persuading him to write his latest book.  The Four Deuces (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Dean 

message: Just came upon this article by accident; while the ideas certainly deserve to be encyclopedically covered, I wonder if there isn't a pretty strong POV issue here?  I note that all the external references are to  clearly approving sources; are there no external sources that disapprove?  For that matter, there is a link to "right wing authoritarianism", but there certainly are many left-wing authoritarian societies -- viz. China, North Korea, Cuba -- so ought left-wing authoritarianism not also be mentioned? -- Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  General NPV issues 

message: This article has no lead section. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)  The lead section (also known as the introduction, lead, or lede[1]) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects.  The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences..... --68.127.83.38 (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article has no lead section.  

message: http://www.anesi.com/fscale.htm  It's a good scientific test.  If nobody minds, I'll add it. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 12:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are there any objections to this link? 

message: I think there is a big problem with the next to last paragraph, the one that begins with "Following in the footsteps." I've searched the psychology database PsycINFO and can't find any articles by anyone named "Breeon "Willie" Coolens," including name variations. A search of the Internet doesn't find anyone by that name, especially not as faculty at any college or university. Also, there's a problem with that paragraph's footnote (number 13): it references a source called the Scandinavian Journal of Modern Psychology, but according to WorldCat there is no journal with that name. There are journals with similar names but not that one. I did searching on this issue in PsycINFO and found nothing: I believe the information in this paragraph is fictional.Ron Foster 20:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with next to last paragraph 

message: This article is incoherent. The first two sentences cite two ENTIRELY different things. Being submissive and obedient toward authority is one thing. Imposing authoritarianism on others is quite another thing entirely. Which of the two are we talking about? One or both? Or is each optional? Because the two most certainly need not coincide in any particular individual. I'm lost  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.210.84 (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ever heard of proselytism? You can submit to authority figures and impose their authority upon someone else, like a henchman. 83.9.115.169 (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-sensical 

message: Flagging that I've removed the article-wide templates after addressing the issues. If I've over-removed (including listings of excessive examples that seemed redundant to meta-analyses also referenced) I'm definitely open to reincorporating them if that's the consensus. Superb Owl (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  May 2024 cleanup