The neurobiology of authoritarianism

[aurum]

51 minutes ago, Emerald said:

While I'm positive that it's true that some people have a more authoritarian physiology... I don't see that as the primary cause of the current situation we're in.

Is that the correct conclusion of your anecdote though?

If your friend who previously supported progressive causes got flipped by a demagogue, that would suggest authoritarian physiology has a lot to with our current situation. There are probably many others just like your family member.

[aurum]

11 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

There is a fundamental difference: in a tribe, the chief is the leader by tacit agreement of the members, who can depose him at any time. In a kingdom, the king is an institution; it is not the person who holds the power, but the institution "king," which is why he is lifelong and hereditary.

Another meaningless distinction.

A king ALWAYS has support of the people. If they lose a sufficient amount of that support, they will either be assassinated, overthrown or exiled. Which is why kings and other authoritarians are often so paranoid.

It's badly incorrect to assume authoritarians rule without support from the people. This is populist, progressive nonsense.

[Breakingthewall]

2 hours ago, aurum said:

Another meaningless distinction.

A king ALWAYS has support of the people. If they lose a sufficient amount of that support, they will either be assassinated, overthrown or exiled. Which is why kings and other authoritarians are often so paranoid.

It's badly incorrect to assume authoritarians rule without support from the people. This is populist, progressive nonsense.

2 hours ago, aurum said:

 

Almost no European king was ever deposed, because the institution was sacred. And royal blood was sacred. A king had to be from a royal dynasty. This was also the case in ancient African kingdoms.

By the way, your way of expressing yourself is very arrogant. Perhaps you have some insecurity you need to compensate for? Do you need a hug?

Edited Sunday at 05:52 PM by Breakingthewall

[Joshe]

15 hours ago, aurum said:

Clever rebuttal but it still has a lot of problems.

TBH, I'm not equipped to accurately parse studies like this, but the only problem I see is I failed to realize the study generalizes the 40% biological influence across the whole population, not just twins.

My error was just meant to supplement the main point, so it doesn't change anything. The study found that biology is not the most influential factor. 

And the 40% figure doesn't mean biology determines 40% of someone's actual ideology. It means biology influences around 40% of emotional-political leanings and attitude biases.

If we swapped out "emotional leanings" for "full ideological subscription," that number would drop significantly, because ideologies require scaffolding built around those emotional biases. Without the scaffolding—no ideology—no authoritarianism. Biology clearly doesn't erect that scaffolding.

The whole point was: Identical wiring can’t even duplicate ideologies. So it should spring from common sense that if identical brains develop different ideologies, biology isn't doing the heavy lifting.

If you take 100 kids and put them into an isolated Christian cult, every single one of them, despite their predispositions, will subscribe to the cult ideology. Despite some being more or less enthusiastic about it than others, all will adhere via the mechanism of external scaffolding. Same principle applies to everyone else, just with less forced indoctrination. 

15 hours ago, aurum said:

In fact, the study you actually referenced is extremely clear that there is profound link between biology and political ideology.

Seems you're blurring the line of predisposition to ideology and ideological construction. The study found a "profound link" between genetics and political predispositions, not deterministic causation of ideological subscription. And just to be clear, "profound" just means significant. As in, "40%". Again, that's talking about political predispositions, not 40% causal of ideological construction.

I never disagreed that biology plays a significant role in predisposition to certain tendencies. That's basic understanding of humans. My position was that biology doesn't even come close to being the deciding factor in determining one's ideological destiny, but external influence reliably and predictably does. This is what the study is actually extremely clear on. Plain and simple. 

15 hours ago, aurum said:

Heritability is likely to be underestimated when it comes to measuring a downstream disposition like authoritarianism. So the full extent of biological influence on political cognition is still being uncovered, and it is likely stronger than early estimates suggest, not weaker.

Even if we grant this and go extreme, to say, 80% heritability, this would still not support the idea that biology is the most influential factor in ideological construction. It would just mean emotional needs are even more biologically driven. How and what those emotional needs manifest as depends on the external environment. 

If a brain were a fertile field:

• Biology determines how fertile the soil is for certain kinds of plants (emotional tendencies).
• Culture provides the seeds and decides what gets planted.
• No matter how fertile the field, if no seeds are planted, no ideology grows.

Therefore, biology is AT BEST, 50% causal since the seed must come from outside the biology. But if you apply a little bit of thinking, you can realize that even with the best soil, and the seed, it's not a given that the ideology will take root, due to the malleability of the psyche and inconsistent conditions across the field, thus moving to much higher than 50%. 

Edited Sunday at 06:24 PM by Joshe

[Emerald]

9 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

When Nazism was in Germany, people were starving, they were subjected to the French, and in neighboring Russia, people were being killed like cattle.

It doesn't need to be that intense for people to turn into Nazis. 

That collective economic scarcity dynamic and oppression from outside forces is certainly fertile ground for a demagogue to take power. But it doesn't necessarily need to be something like that for a demagogue to light the fires of authoritarianism within people... as many people are dealing with chronic feelings of powerlessness and difficult scenarios.

Even just the stresses of existing in a way that's disconnected from one's own sovereignty is enough for people to go searching for some charismatic leader to take the lead and for them to follow orders... so they don't have to feel responsible for their own actions anymore.

And it's a very common human dynamic for people to look for scapegoats to blame who they can personally wield power over... and that's especially true if people are being screwed over by the powerful and untouchable.

Like, the 8 year old son who's being beaten by his father might feel powerless to fight back against his father. But he will be able to recoup some illusion of his own power if he beats up his 5 year old little brother.

So... people who feel powerless will look for a powerful leader to take the responsibility from them and to save them from what they feel powerless against.

And they will look for those who are less powerful to scapegoat and externalize their responsibility onto... and to bully into submission so that they feel the illusion of relative power in the face of their own powerlessness and loss of sovereignty.

So, people don't need to be starving to turn into Nazis.

And there are people who are dealing with economic scarcity that might be swayed by the populist messages that hide the true agendas of authoritarian demagogues. Or someone could be feeling powerless for some other reason, and put their hopes for power in the idea that a big strong authoritarian Daddy will come in and hurt the bad guys.

 

Edited Monday at 12:26 AM by Emerald

[Emerald]

8 hours ago, aurum said:

Is that the correct conclusion of your anecdote though?

If your friend who previously supported progressive causes got flipped by a demagogue, that would suggest authoritarian physiology has a lot to with our current situation. There are probably many others just like your family member.

My point is that there are other factors that must be in play for those authoritarian patterns to become activated in a way that leads to dictatorship.

So, I don't see authoritarian physiology as the primary reason for authoritarianism as that authoritarian driver is fairly inert until a demagogue takes power. 

And it's also fairly inert in an economically stable situation.

But once a demagogue does take power and the economic circumstances are right, it's like they strike a match where there was already kerosene. And it awakens, organizes, and weaponizes the more authoritarian potentials in people who are fairly harmless in other contexts.

They're like cute and fuzzy Gremlins who happened to have been fed after midnight.

[Twentyfirst]

Democracy is narcissism because it makes high school students from lower and middle class suburbs or even ghettos think they are on the same level as thousand year old elite royal banking and military dynasties 

[Breakingthewall]

7 hours ago, Emerald said:

It doesn't need to be that intense for people to turn into Nazis. 

That collective economic scarcity dynamic and oppression from outside forces is certainly fertile ground for a demagogue to take power. But it doesn't necessarily need to be something like that for a demagogue to light the fires of authoritarianism within people... as many people are dealing with chronic feelings of powerlessness and difficult scenarios.

Even just the stresses of existing in a way that's disconnected from one's own sovereignty is enough for people to go searching for some charismatic leader to take the lead and for them to follow orders... so they don't have to feel responsible for their own actions anymore.

And it's a very common human dynamic for people to look for scapegoats to blame who they can personally wield power over... and that's especially true if people are being screwed over by the powerful and untouchable.

Like, the 8 year old son who's being beaten by his father might feel powerless to fight back against his father. But he will be able to recoup some illusion of his own power if he beats up his 5 year old little brother.

So... people who feel powerless will look for a powerful leader to take the responsibility from them and to save them from what they feel powerless against.

And they will look for those who are less powerful to scapegoat and externalize their responsibility onto... and to bully into submission so that they feel the illusion of relative power in the face of their own powerlessness and loss of sovereignty.

So, people don't need to be starving to turn into Nazis.

And there are people who are dealing with economic scarcity that might be swayed by the populist messages that hide the true agendas of authoritarian demagogues. Or someone could be feeling powerless for some other reason, and put their hopes for power in the idea that a big strong authoritarian Daddy will come in and hurt the bad guys.

 

That perspective is quite real. Powerlessness is what leads to radicalization and scapegoating. It's the vile, anti-noble side that takes the reins. But I think a scenario like Nazi Germany, where they were truly being oppressed and humiliated by a foreign power and had recently experienced the utmost trauma in the First World War, is very different. Almost all of the Nazi leaders had been in the trenches and were filled with hatred. Today's populists are just a facade, IMO. If they started to act with real harshness on a large scale, they would lose support, but who knows, we will see.

[aurum]

On 4/27/2025 at 10:40 AM, Breakingthewall said:

Almost no European king was ever deposed, because the institution was sacred. And royal blood was sacred. A king had to be from a royal dynasty. This was also the case in ancient African kingdoms.

By the way, your way of expressing yourself is very arrogant. Perhaps you have some insecurity you need to compensate for? Do you need a hug?

Royal bloodlines is just a formalization of tribal authoritarianism. It's part of the scaling up.

It's also not historically accurate to say "almost no European king was ever deposed". A quick google / AI search will show you this. You have King Louis XVI during the French Revolution, King Charles I during the English Civil War, King Ferdinand VII in Spain (multiple times), and on and on.

[aurum]

 

On 4/27/2025 at 11:04 AM, Joshe said:

And the 40% figure doesn't mean biology determines 40% of someone's actual ideology. It means biology influences around 40% of emotional-political leanings and attitude biases.

If we swapped out "emotional leanings" for "full ideological subscription," that number would drop significantly, because ideologies require scaffolding built around those emotional biases. Without the scaffolding—no ideology—no authoritarianism. Biology clearly doesn't erect that scaffolding.

But your emotional leanings will dictate what scaffolding you choose to erect and keep in place. So making a clean distinction here doesn't work.

On 4/27/2025 at 11:04 AM, Joshe said:

The whole point was: Identical wiring can’t even duplicate ideologies. So it should spring from common sense that if identical brains develop different ideologies, biology isn't doing the heavy lifting.

The ideologies don't have to be identical in surface-level content, just in structure.

You can have Christian authoritarianism, Islamic authoritarianism, socialist authoritarianism, capitalist authoritarianism, etc.

The point is that they are all authoritarian, and they all have the same structure because they are all coming from the same deeper biological drivers. 

On 4/27/2025 at 11:04 AM, Joshe said:

If you take 100 kids and put them into an isolated Christian cult, every single one of them, despite their predispositions, will subscribe to the cult ideology. Despite some being more or less enthusiastic about it than others, all will adhere via the mechanism of external scaffolding. Same principle applies to everyone else, just with less forced indoctrination.

Many will.

But if they don't have the right biology for it, ultimately they will not subscribe to it.

This takes for granted how significant biology is.

On 4/27/2025 at 11:04 AM, Joshe said:

Seems you're blurring the line of predisposition to ideology and ideological construction. The study found a "profound link" between genetics and political predispositions, not deterministic causation of ideological subscription. And just to be clear, "profound" just means significant. As in, "40%". Again, that's talking about political predispositions, not 40% causal of ideological construction.

I never disagreed that biology plays a significant role in predisposition to certain tendencies. That's basic understanding of humans. My position was that biology doesn't even come close to being the deciding factor in determining one's ideological destiny, but external influence reliably and predictably does. This is what the study is actually extremely clear on. Plain and simple. 

The studies cannot and don't need to predict specific ideology. They just have to show a link to authoritarians structure, and that's exactly what they have done.

On 4/27/2025 at 11:04 AM, Joshe said:

Even if we grant this and go extreme, to say, 80% heritability, this would still not support the idea that biology is the most influential factor in ideological construction. It would just mean emotional needs are even more biologically driven. How and what those emotional needs manifest as depends on the external environment. 

If a brain were a fertile field:

Biology determines how fertile the soil is for certain kinds of plants (emotional tendencies).

Culture provides the seeds and decides what gets planted.

No matter how fertile the field, if no seeds are planted, no ideology grows.

Therefore, biology is AT BEST, 50% causal since the seed must come from outside the biology. But if you apply a little bit of thinking, you can realize that even with the best soil, and the seed, it's not a given that the ideology will take root, due to the malleability of the psyche and inconsistent conditions across the field, thus moving to much higher than 50%. 

That conclusion does not follow because culture is rooted in biology. 

The soil is not inert. It is active in shaping what ideologies survive or exist at all.

[Schizophonia]

You have to be an idiot/neurotic to deliberately want a dictator.

 

[aurum]

19 hours ago, Emerald said:

My point is that there are other factors that must be in play for those authoritarian patterns to become activated in a way that leads to dictatorship.

So, I don't see authoritarian physiology as the primary reason for authoritarianism as that authoritarian driver is fairly inert until a demagogue takes power. 

And it's also fairly inert in an economically stable situation.

But once a demagogue does take power and the economic circumstances are right, it's like they strike a match where there was already kerosene. And it awakens, organizes, and weaponizes the more authoritarian potentials in people who are fairly harmless in other contexts.

They're like cute and fuzzy Gremlins who happened to have been fed after midnight.

Those are good points.

The only issue I have is with the framing of physiology as inert. It's not inert, it is active and shaping your experience all times, demogogue or no demagogue.

Physiology is like gravity.

[aurum]

31 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

You have to be an idiot/neurotic to deliberately want a dictator.

If you are living somewhere that hasn't yet developed democracy, someone has to do it.

[Schizophonia]

3 minutes ago, aurum said:

If you are living somewhere that hasn't yet developed democracy, someone has to do it.

Yes, of course, it takes time to become interested in sbversion.

I'm talking about resisting it.

[Joshe]

17 hours ago, aurum said:

That conclusion does not follow because culture is rooted in biology. 

It follows perfectly if you account for the other things culture is rooted in.

17 hours ago, aurum said:

The soil is not inert. It is active in shaping what ideologies survive or exist at all.

The soil can filter what spreads fastest, but it can't grow seeds that don't exist. 

I asked 4 different AIs which is more causal and the highest for biology was 45%. Gemeni 2.5 puts it at 30%. 

Edited Tuesday at 12:56 PM by Joshe

[Emerald]

On 4/28/2025 at 3:48 PM, aurum said:

Those are good points.

The only issue I have is with the framing of physiology as inert. It's not inert, it is active and shaping your experience all times, demogogue or no demagogue.

Physiology is like gravity.

I don't mean that their physiology is inert as that is always there and acting upon them.

I mean that the most negative expressions of their authoritarian physiology is inert/dormant until it's activated under the right conditions... which requires corrupt demagogic leadership and collective instability and trauma (financially and otherwise) to channel that otherwise neutral tendency into scapegoating. (which eventually becomes genocide if it fully takes hold in the collective)

Otherwise, the authoritarian physiology is just an expression of one of the variety of types of human natures that are necessary to make a society with many specialized professions run.

You need people who are able to defer to the leader within hierarchical structures to make certain societal systems run... and who see reality in a more black and white way because it has its function within society. And you need people who can just respect hierarchical structures within the workplace and follow orders without challenging the leadership.

It doesn't become a problem until people with that authoritarian specialization experience traumas and instabilities and have those vulnerabilities exploited, organized, and weaponized by a demagogue that uses them for their own authoritarian political ends.

Plus, you also don't even need authoritarian physiology to become a Nazi... you just need a rationale that fits with your framework.

That's why you see a lot of hippie dippie new age types going Fascist, because the Fascists might share their views on vaccines.... or engage in mythos in a similar way.... or might use anti-status quo contrarian rhetoric that strikes a chord with hippies, etc.

 

[aurum]

On 4/28/2025 at 5:45 PM, Joshe said:

It follows perfectly if you account for the other things culture is rooted in.

Like what?

On 4/28/2025 at 5:45 PM, Joshe said:

The soil can filter what spreads fastest, but it can't grow seeds that don't exist. 

I asked 4 different AIs which is more causal and the highest for biology was 45%. Gemeni 2.5 puts it at 30%. 

In this case, seeds are not just being passively planted. It's more analogous to say seeds are being generated from the soil itself. 

And the seeds also feedback onto the soil.

I would say the AI estimates are too conservative. It's a good starting point, but the AIs are going to pull from heritability studies to answer that question unless prompted otherwise. And my position is that these studies are going to underestimate the effect for reasons I've already pointed out.

[Joshe]

2 hours ago, aurum said:

Like what?

All the things that go into building a culture. History, transmission of ideas, environmental circumstances like what is or isn't available, survival challenges, the human psyche, etc. All of these sit on top of biology. Together, they create the actual specific thing that can be embraced, the conditions that trigger the embrace, and the means by which it happens.

Biology is most fundamental in that culture wouldn't exist without it, but necessity for existence is not the same as causal dominance of specific constructions. That would be like saying gravity prefers skyscrapers because, thanks to gravity, they're the tallest structures on Earth. 

2 hours ago, aurum said:

In this case, seeds are not just being passively planted. It's more analogous to say seeds are being generated from the soil itself. 

And the seeds also feedback onto the soil.

Saying the soil generates its own seeds is like saying hunger invented lasagna. lol. You've drifted way out there in some wild theoretical bubble bro. I mean, if this was a question on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, and the contestant polled the audience, 90+% would say environment is the main factor in whether someone becomes religious or not. Even people in the 30th percentile would get that one right.

2 hours ago, aurum said:

I would say the AI estimates are too conservative. It's a good starting point, but the AIs are going to pull from heritability studies to answer that question unless prompted otherwise. And my position is that these studies are going to underestimate the effect for reasons I've already pointed out.

My position is that these studies are already likely overstating biology's causal role in ideological subscription because they can't account for realities in which the observed ideologies don't exist. They're only measuring what's there to measure. This is a huge problem. Just because something exists doesn't mean it inevitably exists and it most certainly does not mean it exists because biology called it into existence.

Edited Wednesday at 04:06 AM by Joshe

[aurum]

53 minutes ago, Joshe said:

All the things that go into building a culture. History, transmission of ideas, environmental circumstances like what is or isn't available, survival challenges, the human psyche, etc. All of these sit on top of biology. Together, they create the actual specific thing that can be embraced, the conditions that trigger the embrace, and the means by which it happens.

Biology is most fundamental in that culture wouldn't exist without it, but necessity for existence is not the same as causal dominance of specific constructions. That would be like saying gravity prefers skyscrapers because, thanks to gravity, they're the tallest structures on Earth. 

Saying the soil generates its own seeds is like saying hunger invented lasagna. lol. You've drifted way out there in some wild theoretical bubble bro. I mean, if this was a question on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, and the contestant polled the audience, 90+% would say environment is the main factor in whether someone becomes religious or not. Even people in the 30th percentile would get that one right.

My position is that these studies are already likely overstating biology's causal role in ideological subscription because they can't account for realities in which the observed ideologies don't exist. They're only measuring what's there to measure. This is a huge problem. Just because something exists doesn't mean it inevitably exists and it most certainly does not mean it exists because biology called it into existence.

Alright then. I appreciate this exchange, it has helped me clarify my thinking. But I am going to exit this conversation because I think we are just not going to agree. I may write a summary post later to fully address all the dialogues in this thread.

[Joshe]

5 minutes ago, aurum said:

Alright then. I appreciate this exchange, it has helped me clarify my thinking. But I am going to exit this conversation because I think we are just not going to agree. I may write a summary post later to fully address all the dialogues in this thread.

Cool. Thanks man. Yeah, it's been fun and challenging.