The Acceptance of Aggression Quiz: Why I asked
First, if you're curious, my score was 7.
Unfortunately, the informal experiment I was hoping to conduct was hampered by a lack of participation by anyone on my Facebook page, which I was hoping to use as the control group. So my comments will be less interesting than I'd hoped. I'll have to speculate about how people who don't define themselves as "conservative" would have replied.
The quiz comes from this 1972 article in The Australian Quarterly:
Abstract
The explanation of conservative ideology in terms of "authoritarianism" having fallen into disrepute, other psychological variables need to be sought to explain voting preferences. The belief that people are naturally aggressive and untrustworthy may help to explain much conservative ideology if it can be shown to underlie other conservative beliefs and if it does spring from childhood experience. On a door-to-door sample taken in Sydney, Australia, it was found that belief in man's innate aggressiveness did predict other forms of conservatism. This supported the view that childhood experience leading the person to believe that interpersonal aggression was inevitable in man generalized to the belief that international aggression was also inevitable unless carefully guarded against -- hence the "tough" foreign policy and military preparedness favoured by conservatives. It is concluded that the wariness of the conservative and the trust of the radical were both justifiable in terms of the individual's own experience and were hence relatively impermeable to dissuasion.
The authors go on to speculate that this is connected to child-rearing practices:
If this relationship is established we can then go on to argue that perhaps there are differences in child rearing practices which give rise to opposing views of man and it is to these that we may trace later political orientation. In particular, it might be argued that the physically restrained middle class who punish primarily by way of love-deprivation might produce children who expect as a matter of course that aggression will always be subject to such restraint. Working-class children, an the other hand, would probably see more reasonable and unreasonable physical aggression both directed towards them and directed towards others in the environment. That is, a "rougher" early environment might lead to more wary and hence more conservative children.
Anyway, the thoughts that occurred to me were threefold:
First, I wonder if this is particularly relevant at all to "conservatism" as its understood in America today. I'd be very curious to see how self-defined American conservatives score compared to self-defined American radicals. Alas, my inability to get my control group interested in the question leaves me unable to say much about the answer, even anecdotally. What would you guess? I'd guess that the difference between Americans of any political persuasion would be much less than the difference between Americans and, say, Danes on the one hand, Iraqis on the other.
Second, as a product of the "physically restrained middle class," I do indeed score fairly low on the test. But had I taken it ten years ago, I would have scored much lower. Attitudes about this are not "impermeable to dissuasion." All you need to do to dissuade someone is to drop them in Istanbul and leave them there for a few years. I was hoping that some of my Turkish friends would take the test. Unfortunately they didn't, so I have no evidence at all, but I'd strongly guess that people here would score, on average, twice as high as Americans--all Americans, of any self-described political affiliation.
Third, the test, and the authors' discussion of its significance, shows the astonishing solipsism of academia, generally. The underlying assumption is that the key thing to understand is why some Australians are so darned aggressive and conservative--grasp that, fix their child-rearing problems, and the problem is solved! No more war!
It seems to have evaded them that there are two questions that have to be asked: "Do our child-rearing practices make us aggressive?" and, "Do their child-rearing practices make them aggressive?" The researchers' lack of curiosity about the second question is noteworthy. Apparently, the Vietnamese are just a foil--Vietnamese, Tibetans, Canadians, Hannibal and his elephants, whatever: As long as Australians aren't aggressive, there won't be a problem.
And finally: You guys generally scored quite low. That's sweet.
- Comment (49)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: The Acceptance of Aggression Quiz: Why I asked
All I care about is: did I pass?
Re: The Acceptance of Aggression Quiz: Why I asked
I scored relatively high (+10) compared to others. And I would have scored higher if not for my Christian beliefs and values. For example, on the statement "Do you believe in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth?" I really wanted to answer yes/true. But as a Christian, I aspire to answer "no/false" and to believe it. I'm not quite there in my heart of hearts, but I answered "no/false" regardless.
Jun '10
Re: The Acceptance of Aggression Quiz: Why I asked
Then there's the Straw Dogs principle. Hold on a sec, was Sam Peckinpah Australian?
Dec '10
Re: The Acceptance of Aggression Quiz: Why I asked
Most people are good and kind and trustworthy - most of the time. But most people are capable of evil, even very great evil, some of the time. Liberals think that people capable of evil are rare and are the product of social dysfunction and disorder. They refuse to accept the manifest evidence that ordinary people in almost every stratum of every society have demonstrated the capacity for evil. And they ignore the fact that our genetic heritage includes a propensity for aggression, even war: chimpanzees wage wars and kill members of rival troops, even eating their fallen enemies.
Mar '11
Re: The Acceptance of Aggression Quiz: Why I asked
The mere fact that the quiz came from 1972 tells you how far conservative thought has come in 39 years. Vietnam, Nixon and all the other bromides of that era have given way to a new and optimistic style of conservatism which those people would scarcely recognize. We have Buckley, Goldwater, Reagan, Kemp and the rest to thank for that. Seeing where this quiz came from and the slant from which it was obviously constructed, I'm proud of my -4.
From a modern American conservative's viewpoint, the measure of conservatism is the willingness to let a person to use his God given abilities to the maximum extent possible without interfering with the similar rights of others.
I took the quiz from the standpoint of a 2011 conservative, and I'm more secure in the comment I made in your first post: "I think that those of us in negative territory (of score) are more apt to be positive, upbeat, more likely to think better of our fellow man and of a generally sunny disposition." That's the measure of a contemporary conservative.
Edited on Oct 24, 2011 at 9:28pmDec '10
Re: The Acceptance of Aggression Quiz: Why I asked
Cas, Straw Dogs is a good analogue for Obama's foreign policy. The mild academic Obama tried to make nice with our Nation's enemies, but his efforts to be conciliatory earned him contempt and invited our enemies to try to take advantage. Ultimately the academic has to resort to raw killing aggression to counter the damage done by his prior weakness. Like Dustin Hoffman's character, Obama came to this aggressive posture initially to reclaim respect but kept with it as a matter of sheer survival (electoral, in Obama's case).
Re: The Acceptance of Aggression Quiz: Why I asked
"On a door-to-door sample taken in Sydney, Australia, it was found that belief in man's innate aggressiveness did predict other forms of conservatism. This supported the view that childhood experience leading the person to believe that interpersonal aggression was inevitable in man generalized to the belief that international aggression was also inevitable unless carefully guarded against -- hence the "tough" foreign policy and military preparedness favoured by conservatives."
Or could it be that conservatives favor a robust national defense in order to protect the freedom of academics to reach sweeping conclusions based on surveys that are composed of absurd absolutes? And what sort of childhood produces people who fancy conservatives as being sympathetic to the authoritarian impulse, yet who themselves conspire to manage our diet, our homes, our cars, our plumbing, our children's education, our health care, and every other conceivable facet of our lives. They worry over the "innate aggressiveness" of a conservative, while they would cheerfully leave the individual helpless to both domestic and international authoritarianism? I need a drink.
Dec '10
Re: The Acceptance of Aggression Quiz: Why I asked
Ditto.
Aug '10
Re: The Acceptance of Aggression Quiz: Why I asked
This work seems to be a descendant of Adorno's Authoritarian Personality disorder stuff. The underlying assumptions of the model are highly suspect and while there is a correlation with the "Authoritarian Personality" and some kinds of conservatism, there isn't always a correlation between supporters of authoritarianism and the "Authoritarian Personality."
It should also be noted that these questions are typically asked in a "how much do you agree" format rather than in a strict yes/no format.
Jul '10
Re: The Acceptance of Aggression Quiz: Why I asked
I like to think that those of us scoring higher are simply realists. Life is nasty, brutish, and short...like a ticked off oompa-loompa.
Edited on Oct 24, 2011 at 9:55pmOct '10
Re: The Acceptance of Aggression Quiz: Why I asked
To be a realist has its upside. The oompah loompah thing is an odd comparison
Not a fond visual memory, does that make me a bigot or racist ? Seems popular today.
Dec '10
Re: The Acceptance of Aggression Quiz: Why I asked
I never liked Social Science. It is neither social not scientific. It produces ideas that only an insurance actuarial could love. It is blind to anything moral. Surely you would think after the 20th century's scientific amoral cold blooded mass-killers people would have had enough.
There is Just Force. If you stop believing this then you expose the world to every crime with no hope of ordinary protection much less eventual Justice.
Jan '11
Re: The Acceptance of Aggression Quiz: Why I asked
The results of a door-to-door survey of this sort in Sydney in 1972 (less than 30 years from WW2) would be significantly different in 2011 (nearly 70 years from WW2) - including the demographic of those asked (e.g. lots of housewives vs lots of part-time young adults). Not sure if the methodology is robust enough to cope with this massive change. My result was also similar to Diane's.
And, Dave - "...yet who themselves conspire to manage our diet, our homes, our cars, our plumbing, our children's education, our health care, and every other conceivable facet of our lives...", like, perhaps, our trucking options? Just sayin...
Oct '10
Re: The Acceptance of Aggression Quiz: Why I asked
It's certainly possible that you've got the second sunniest disposition in this self-selected band of 123, but I'm curious as to why your -4 would be source of pride -- as opposed to, say, a score of +4?
(I was a +3, myself)
May '10
Re: The Acceptance of Aggression Quiz: Why I asked
Claire Berlinski, Ed.:
It seems to have evaded them that there are two questions that have to be asked: "Do our child-rearing practices make us aggressive?" and, "Do their child-rearing practices make them aggressive?" The researchers' lack of curiosity about the second question is noteworthy.
How about a third question: Does either worldview/child-rearing practice reflect the truth about human nature and its aggression compoenent?
Jan '11
Re: The Acceptance of Aggression Quiz: Why I asked
I'm sharing my Excel computed descriptive statistics findings of the data found in the other original thread (as of the time of this post). I only included scores where contributors made a clear entry -- this included two people who said that there score was probably between two consecutive numbers...in which case I used the middle score (ex: 7.5 for "between 7 and 8") Here it is:
Mean: 4.7
Median: 5
Mode: 6
St. Dev.: 4.2
Min: -5
Max: 15
Conclusion: I think this person might want to get new rotors, too; or, at the very least, get them resurfaced.
Oct '10
Re: The Acceptance of Aggression Quiz: Why I asked
I'm always amused at the studies which regularly emerge from the human laboratory that is Berkeley. "Proof" that conservative cognition is a manifestation of primitive brain function is like the liberal Holy Grail.
Jul '10
Re: The Acceptance of Aggression Quiz: Why I asked
Jul '10
Re: The Acceptance of Aggression Quiz: Why I asked
Jul '10
Re: The Acceptance of Aggression Quiz: Why I asked