I said I'd start this thread in another one that was deleted so here it goes. I'm posting it here because it is more Philosophical and scientific than political.

Every human trait has a evolutionary reasoning behind it, otherwise it would mostly die off. So the question specifically here is does a certain trait that is found in every country, mostly in a group of men, have more genetic driving forces or is it something more from how they were raised.

That trait being authoritarianism or the desire to have a central authority that enforces strict morality upon the populace.

Obviously we see evolutionary forces at play in normal observed group behaviors at young ages, such a bullying and teasing, where a certain type of "normality" is enforced. This behavior can be observed from children with both very strict and very lenient parents. It is something inherent in many children and can be seen throughout the animal kingdom.

Is the authoritarian trait simply an extension of this? Are these people that have these desires simply an evolutionary tool that was used to keep tribes in check and prevent them from destruction within?

Or does the authoritarian adult come from environmental factors, whereby they were taught by authoritative parents to appreciate rule and order and severe consequences for being different or immoral? Or could it also be a result of a very laxed environment growing up and a resentment for lack of structure and authoritative control over their lives?

What complicates matters is that the same authoritarian sentiments can be shared by those on completely different sides of the political spectrum. We all know this from looking at that often used political leanings test results matrix that has 2 axis, one for economically right or left and the other for authoritarianism or libertarianism. This also applies to right and left morality ideals. So you can have both an authoritarian rightist who wants to enforce their own version of religious morality and an authoritarian leftist who wants to enforce acceptance of all types of behavior and cultures and punishment for those intolerant of other beliefs and behaviors.

The reason this complicates the question is because if indeed right wing authoritarianism is primarily driven by genetic evolutionary factors, then it would seem that it would focus on very evolutionary centric things. Sexual reproduction obviously is just about the most evolutionary centric you can get, so the authoritarian right would fit that mold since one of their most desired things to control with the government is sexual behavior, however where in the authoritarian left is the evolutionary centric factors?

So perhaps right wing authoritarianism is a genetically driven trait while left wing authoritarianism is not? Or is it more of an evolutional feminine trait that is being expressed through authoritarianism. That being a more nurturing, motherly type protection of those seen to be a part of your tribe.


Your thoughts?

Obviously I believe that both variances of this would be evolutionary vestigial behaviors that have lived past their use.

Not sure I agree with your final statement. I will post some thoughts later, but I think moral foundations theory has something to say about the source of moral reasoning in the left vs. right authoritarian.

Your thread DOES deal with the constraints offered through faith. The Proverbs are full of moral advice as are the laws given through Moses and affirmed through Jesus. Do not oppress the poor; do not steal, do not murder, do not bear false witness, do not have false gods but rather worship the true God. If you have the Holy Spirit in you it will change you; it WILL convict you of sin and of trespass against others and will give you peace. Those who are in the ruling elites and who remain there have another morality altogether. They must, in order to maintain their positions and wealth. I think a related question is this: does brain chemistry change depending on one's life choices? And does that brain chemistry determine our ultimate eternal reward or destruction? Choices matter, and the choice to be "wise as serpents and harmless as doves" rather than to be a brutal exploiter of others is a choice we must face with eternity in mind. Can I face Jesus one day and be at peace with my actions? That is something which I doubt ruling elites consider. BTW, a good read to start this philosophically is the old 1950s political classic from C Wright Mills---The Power Elite.

I'm not really dealing with the elite in my OP. This is focused at the far left and far right movements. Unfortunately, the elite and powerful people usually don't really care that much about being authoritarian for any particular morality, but rather for the sake of their own power and wealth.

There is too much corruption at the top to really look at anything about this topic. The focus must be on the ground level supporters.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

I'm not really dealing with the elite in my OP. This is focused at the far left and far right movements. Unfortunately, the elite and powerful people usually don't really care that much about being authoritarian for any particular morality, but rather for the sake of their own power and wealth.

There is too much corruption at the top to really look at anything about this topic. The focus must be on the ground level supporters.

---

Oh, OK. I thought from your post that the most authoritarian types might well be found among those in the elites, but I think I get your point.

http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/02/24/first-worldism-part-3-the-heritability-of-political-views/

The key point that should be obvious to anyone who know even slightest bit about behavioral genetics is that all human characteristics are heritable.

According to a study in 2004:

http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/dmessinger/c_c/rsrcs/rdgs/temperament/bouchard.04.curdir.pdf

Right wing authoritarianism has a heritability rate of 0.5 to 0.64, which is pretty high.

Here is another study detailing the heritability of political views:

https://www.cell.com/trends/genetics/fulltext/S0168-9525(12)00111-4?switch=standard



So absolutely without question, there is a genetic component associated with a lean towards authoritarianism.

There may be some authoritarian leftist elites who would be happy to have people who don't bake gay people cakes locked up, however I would bet a large sum of money that there are not currently any elites in power that would want gay people locked up.

Socially liberal NPC 888 said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

There may be some authoritarian leftist elites who would be happy to have people who don't bake gay people cakes locked up, however I would bet a large sum of money that there are not currently any elites in power that would want gay people locked up.

---

You would be wrong. Authoritarianism among the elite is a different scenario than authoritarianism among the average person. The elite across the board are more alike country to country than they are with the average people living in their country of origin.

You should think of the elites as a specific globalist tribe of their own at this point. They care nothing in general social issues, they will use them in whichever way gives them the most power and control so that they can protect their own interests.

---

That's pretty much what I said in the post above the one you quoted.

Now if we can agree it is more of a genetic drive than one of sound logic and reason, what exactly do you think was the function of it in evolution and what evolutionary benefit did it play in tribes?

I would guess that in smaller tribes, the question of survival often depended upon having a very solid reproduction rate. Anything varying from reproductive sex that would hinder the rate of reproduction in a tribe could be quite costly.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Socially liberal NPC 888 said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

There may be some authoritarian leftist elites who would be happy to have people who don't bake gay people cakes locked up, however I would bet a large sum of money that there are not currently any elites in power that would want gay people locked up.

---

You would be wrong. Authoritarianism among the elite is a different scenario than authoritarianism among the average person. The elite across the board are more alike country to country than they are with the average people living in their country of origin.

You should think of the elites as a specific globalist tribe of their own at this point. They care nothing in general social issues, they will use them in whichever way gives them the most power and control so that they can protect their own interests.

---

That's pretty much what I said in the post above the one you quoted.

Now if we can agree it is more of a genetic drive than one of sound logic and reason, what exactly do you think was the function of it in evolution and what evolutionary benefit did it play in tribes?

I would guess that in smaller tribes, the question of survival often depended upon having a very solid reproduction rate. Anything varying from reproductive sex that would hinder the rate of reproduction in a tribe could be quite costly.

---

Authoritarianism isn't a human specific trait nor even a primate specific one. Mammalian animals tend to be orient around the entire idea of a hierarchy. Go look at any large herbivore herd or carnivore pack/pride to see numerous examples of authoritarianism among mammals.

All primates share this trait. This was not something that developed in humans during our hunter/gatherer days, it's something that came about long before homo sapiens even existed and it's clearly an extremely successful method of organization given how often it is seen in the animal world.

First off, humans no longer live in anything like the animal world. Very little of the humans in the western world are concerned with whether they will be alive for another day or not. Saying something is successful in the animal world doesn't mean much when dealing with highly civilized human society.

Secondly, general authoritarianism is a shared trait with the animal world, but the more specific kinds of ones that are very reproducible among humans such as the ones this thread is addressing, are not really of the animal world.

There are not any animals that I am aware of that attack and kill members of their own group for having the wrong type of sex unless it has to do with competition over mates. I don't know of any monkey species that when they see another monkey having homosexuals sex or acting the wrong sex, the group attacks and kills them.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

First off, humans no longer live in anything like the animal world. Very little of the humans in the western world are concerned with whether they will be alive for another day or not. Saying something is successful in the animal world doesn't mean much when dealing with highly civilized human society.

Secondly, general authoritarianism is a shared trait with the animal world, but the more specific kinds of ones that are very reproducible among humans such as the ones this thread is addressing, are not really of the animal world.

There are not any animals that I am aware of that attack and kill members of their own group for having the wrong type of sex unless it has to do with competition over mates. I don't know of any monkey species that when they see another monkey having homosexuals sex or acting the wrong sex, the group attacks and kills them.

---

Monkeys regularly have tribal conflicts that often result in cannibalism. The only reason they don't have tribal conflicts about the issues that we have them over is because they aren't smart enough to know what those things are not because they are incapable of fighting over differences or disagreements.

You're trying to setup a debate scenario in which you de facto eliminate all other possibilities in order to declare yourself the winner. In reality that's not how genetics works nor is that how evolution works.

Humans are no different from animals in regards to how our DNA affects us, assuming otherwise means you probably don't understand genetics enough to comment on the issue. Sapience is a function of our DNA just as our desire to reproduce. Stop assuming that we are different from animals because we really aren't. DNA affects us all just the same.

DNA affects us as it does animals sure. But it varies among species. I'm sorry but that's just a fact.

Do you have a heritable desire to build dams with objects? Why not? Beavers do. Beavers are animals. So are you....

We have existed as something resembling a human for millions and millions of years. Of course there will be speciated evolutionary traits that do not exist in other species.

Sexual behavior is just a proxy war against Christianity, and the Protestant work ethic. It's the only topic in Christianity that non thiests can point to as a place where they believe Christians are wrong about moral conduct of humans.

Focusing on sexuality when discussing right wing versus left wing authoritarianism and evolution is the tail wagging the dog.

What about free market? What about nationalism? What about any other left versus right wing issue.

Make your case without squishing together sexuality and right wing authority, and it might be more interesting.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

DNA affects us as it does animals sure. But it varies among species. I'm sorry but that's just a fact.

Do you have a heritable desire to build dams with objects? Why not? Beavers do. Beavers are animals. So are you....

We have existed as something resembling a human for millions and millions of years. Of course there will be speciated evolutionary traits that do not exist in other species.

---

It's like you don't read anything I write and just respond to what you want. You have no understanding of genetics or evolution. I don't even know where to begin responding to the above because it's so laughably juvenile that it renders further discussion about behavioral genetics pointless since one side doesn't even understand basic biology.

I didn't make it about sexuality. The right authoritarians did.

It is something that seems to be naturally driven rather than intellectually. It appears in many cultures beyond christianity so I dont see how you can say it's a war against it.

Socially liberal NPC 888 said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

DNA affects us as it does animals sure. But it varies among species. I'm sorry but that's just a fact.

Do you have a heritable desire to build dams with objects? Why not? Beavers do. Beavers are animals. So are you....

We have existed as something resembling a human for millions and millions of years. Of course there will be speciated evolutionary traits that do not exist in other species.

---

It's like you don't read anything I write and just respond to what you want. You have no understanding of genetics or evolution. I don't even know where to begin responding to the above because it's so laughably juvenile that it renders further discussion about behavioral genetics pointless since one side doesn't even understand basic biology.

---

I think I've learned that this is the approach you take whenever you dont grasp what is being discussed. You seem to fall on it frequently.

You cannot dispute what I say so you just fall back on, well I just dont understand.

I'm not making the arguments you seem to think I am.

americathegreat1492 said:

---

So this thread is going in the wrong direction. Let me see if I can steer it in a better one.

Something related to political ideology is the values involved in moral thinking. This has been spelled out in moral foundations theory

Quickly, there are five sets of values that people use to make moral decisions, particularly within a social context. Those values are:

Care/Protection
Fairness/Proportionality
Loyalty/Ingroup
Authority/Respect
Sanctity/Purity

Liberty (possibly)


These values are used differently to inform political thinking by people aligned with the left or the right. Individuals on the left seem to be most sensitive to care/protection and fairness/proportionality, and infrequently use the other 3 (4) to inform their thinking. Individuals on the right are relatively sensitive to all 5, but are most sensitive to loyalty/ingroup, authority/respect, and sanctity/purity. I think these will be instructive in thinking about what extreme forms of right and left wing thinking look like, which we'll do below.



I think it's reasonable to say that extreme right wing thinking is thinking that takes the most used of the three foundations to the extreme. We can see this demonstrated in an example such as Nazi Germany. This was a nation obsessed with putting it's group (Germans/Aryans) over others. It was a nation that commanded it's people to respect their superiors and insubordination was not tolerated. All it's people submitted to the one leader in full. It was also a nation that prized the purity of Aryans over other races. To try and resolve the above dispute, it is not that right wing extremists are obsessed with sexual mores, but that they are obsessed with purity. Sexual purity is one way in which that can be expressed, but racial purity is another example.

I think it's reasonable to say that extreme left wing thinking is thinking that takes the most used of the two foundations to the extreme. We can see this demonstrated in an example today like the radical left. Viewpoints like universal basic income, open borders, and gun prohibition are couched in terms of care/protection and fairness/proportionality. UBI is the right thing to do because of income inequality. We should have open borders because there are many poor people and they deserve the right to live free of violence and to pursue the same wealth that we have. Guns are bad because they kill people and if we could just get rid of guns it's worth the sacrifice because of all the lives that would be saved.


The above examples are not to say that right or left wing extremism would never use the other values, but that they would use them less often, or perhaps interpret them through the lens of the more preeminent ones.



To summarize, right wing extremism takes the form of extreme group loyalty, purity, and authority. Left wing extremism takes the form of extreme fairness, care, and protection from harm.

You might have noticed that authority is included in the right's moral values, but not the left's. I would argue that the left uses authority to enforce care and fairness, and it is through that lens that authority is interpreted.

---

Great post.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Socially liberal NPC 888 said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

DNA affects us as it does animals sure. But it varies among species. I'm sorry but that's just a fact.

Do you have a heritable desire to build dams with objects? Why not? Beavers do. Beavers are animals. So are you....

We have existed as something resembling a human for millions and millions of years. Of course there will be speciated evolutionary traits that do not exist in other species.

---

It's like you don't read anything I write and just respond to what you want. You have no understanding of genetics or evolution. I don't even know where to begin responding to the above because it's so laughably juvenile that it renders further discussion about behavioral genetics pointless since one side doesn't even understand basic biology.

---

I think I've learned that this is the approach you take whenever you dont grasp what is being discussed. You seem to fall on it frequently.

You cannot dispute what I say so you just fall back on, well I just dont understand.

I'm not making the arguments you seem to think I am.

---

So your response is literally "no u?" How old are you? 5? It's impossible to discuss behavioral genetics with you because you do not even understand basic biology lingo. I threw up my hands on this thread because it's futile. You setup a priori situations where only your viewpoint is correct and dismiss all other arguments despite them being actual studies.

You asked for data, I provided it and then as usual you went off the rails. As usual I fell for the bait thinking you might actually want a discussion this time. I'll debate this topic until the end of time with people who actually care about it, but you are not one of them.

americathegreat1492 said:

---

So this thread is going in the wrong direction. Let me see if I can steer it in a better one.

Something related to political ideology is the values involved in moral thinking. This has been spelled out in moral foundations theory

Quickly, there are five sets of values that people use to make moral decisions, particularly within a social context. Those values are:

Care/Protection
Fairness/Proportionality
Loyalty/Ingroup
Authority/Respect
Sanctity/Purity

Liberty (possibly)


These values are used differently to inform political thinking by people aligned with the left or the right. Individuals on the left seem to be most sensitive to care/protection and fairness/proportionality, and infrequently use the other 3 (4) to inform their thinking. Individuals on the right are relatively sensitive to all 5, but are most sensitive to loyalty/ingroup, authority/respect, and sanctity/purity. I think these will be instructive in thinking about what extreme forms of right and left wing thinking look like, which we'll do below.



I think it's reasonable to say that extreme right wing thinking is thinking that takes the most used of the three foundations to the extreme. We can see this demonstrated in an example such as Nazi Germany. This was a nation obsessed with putting it's group (Germans/Aryans) over others. It was a nation that commanded it's people to respect their superiors and insubordination was not tolerated. All it's people submitted to the one leader in full. It was also a nation that prized the purity of Aryans over other races. To try and resolve the above dispute, it is not that right wing extremists are obsessed with sexual mores, but that they are obsessed with purity. Sexual purity is one way in which that can be expressed, but racial purity is another example.

I think it's reasonable to say that extreme left wing thinking is thinking that takes the most used of the two foundations to the extreme. We can see this demonstrated in an example today like the radical left. Viewpoints like universal basic income, open borders, and gun prohibition are couched in terms of care/protection and fairness/proportionality. UBI is the right thing to do because of income inequality. We should have open borders because there are many poor people and they deserve the right to live free of violence and to pursue the same wealth that we have. Guns are bad because they kill people and if we could just get rid of guns it's worth the sacrifice because of all the lives that would be saved.


The above examples are not to say that right or left wing extremism would never use the other values, but that they would use them less often, or perhaps interpret them through the lens of the more preeminent ones.



To summarize, right wing extremism takes the form of extreme group loyalty, purity, and authority. Left wing extremism takes the form of extreme fairness, care, and protection from harm.

You might have noticed that authority is included in the right's moral values, but not the left's. I would argue that the left uses authority to enforce care and fairness, and it is through that lens that authority is interpreted.

---

I really like this post. I agree with pretty much all of it. I think though that the sexual aspect is one worth looking into.

It is true that the extreme right does highly value purity in race yes, but I think there is really something in sexuality because it is such a common theme with right authoritarian types, regardless of religious affiliation.

And the religious aspect is worth looking at as well because obviously the most successful religions will entail what resonates the most within groups.

Why is it so many people, especially men find such offense at the thought of other humans in their tribe participating in sexual acts that doesnt correspond with their own desires?

I think there is something to look at in heritability wise. It seems to be much deeper than an environmental learned trait.

It makes sense to look at the evolutionary factors, especially when sex has so much evolutionary impact.

Socially liberal NPC 888 said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Socially liberal NPC 888 said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

DNA affects us as it does animals sure. But it varies among species. I'm sorry but that's just a fact.

Do you have a heritable desire to build dams with objects? Why not? Beavers do. Beavers are animals. So are you....

We have existed as something resembling a human for millions and millions of years. Of course there will be speciated evolutionary traits that do not exist in other species.

---

It's like you don't read anything I write and just respond to what you want. You have no understanding of genetics or evolution. I don't even know where to begin responding to the above because it's so laughably juvenile that it renders further discussion about behavioral genetics pointless since one side doesn't even understand basic biology.

---

I think I've learned that this is the approach you take whenever you dont grasp what is being discussed. You seem to fall on it frequently.

You cannot dispute what I say so you just fall back on, well I just dont understand.

I'm not making the arguments you seem to think I am.

---

So your response is literally "no u?" How old are you? 5? It's impossible to discuss behavioral genetics with you because you do not even understand basic biology lingo. I threw up my hands on this thread because it's futile. You setup a priori situations where only your viewpoint is correct and dismiss all other arguments despite them being actual studies.

You asked for data, I provided it and then as usual you went off the rails. As usual I fell for the bait thinking you might actually want a discussion this time. I'll debate this topic until the end of time with people who actually care about it, but you are not one of them.

---

How could I address anything you said directly? You did not address any singular aspect of what I posted but rather only threw a universal objection.

Try orienting your post at something tangible if you actually have an argument.

No link you posted opposed anything I said.