Did that question explain what is meant by "fluid leadership"? I had no idea what you meant by the term until you explained it, so I doubt if the people surveyed would understand what it means.
Yes, it did. You have to realise that I have to walk a thin line here in talking about this research, which is proprietary. If a particular item wording has been released to the public, as the question on the father being the master of the house has been, then I can quote it exactly. Michael has not, AFAIR, specified the wording on the leadership item in his public writings, so I’m limited to using his language when discussing the issue in public. The actual question wording is precise with respect to the meaning of what Michael calls fluid leadership in the book.
BTW, I would suggest that one problem that all too many left intellectuals suffer from is an addiction to polysyllabic words and convoluted, turgid syntax. I'm not innocent of it myself -- and reading your post, Morgan, neither are you.
To quote Neil Young, “It’s my sound, man.” Even when I’m being colloquial, I tend to convoluted syntax and endless qualifications and disclaimers. ;-) The more important the topic is to me, the more academic, polysylIabic and convoluted I tend to become in my discourse, because while it may be difficult, academic language can also define more precisely (of course, whether I succeed in using it precisely is another question, but that's my goal, at least). Colloquial language is often vague, and direct language, for me at least, often lacks nuance, and I live for nuance. Plus, I figure that if I can’t use my own natural styles in my own Live Journal, then I’m really in trouble. I can’t speak to why other left intellectuals use high-falutin’ language.
One other thing we need to be aware of, though, is one appeal of the "strict father" model, at least to men: the fact that they will have the chance to become the strict father, the rulemaker, the authority figure, themselves. That's the big motivation for putting up with the punishment -- well, that and the hope of winning the approval of the authority figure.
A very good point. That would indeed be part of the reasoning behind any argument that – again assuming that this link between authoritarian family structure and right-wing political positioning is valid – opposition at a political level to right-wing administrations in the U.S. would benefit from revitalised progressive social movements such as feminism.
no subject
Yes, it did. You have to realise that I have to walk a thin line here in talking about this research, which is proprietary. If a particular item wording has been released to the public, as the question on the father being the master of the house has been, then I can quote it exactly. Michael has not, AFAIR, specified the wording on the leadership item in his public writings, so I’m limited to using his language when discussing the issue in public. The actual question wording is precise with respect to the meaning of what Michael calls fluid leadership in the book.
BTW, I would suggest that one problem that all too many left intellectuals suffer from is an addiction to polysyllabic words and convoluted, turgid syntax. I'm not innocent of it myself -- and reading your post, Morgan, neither are you.
To quote Neil Young, “It’s my sound, man.” Even when I’m being colloquial, I tend to convoluted syntax and endless qualifications and disclaimers. ;-) The more important the topic is to me, the more academic, polysylIabic and convoluted I tend to become in my discourse, because while it may be difficult, academic language can also define more precisely (of course, whether I succeed in using it precisely is another question, but that's my goal, at least). Colloquial language is often vague, and direct language, for me at least, often lacks nuance, and I live for nuance. Plus, I figure that if I can’t use my own natural styles in my own Live Journal, then I’m really in trouble. I can’t speak to why other left intellectuals use high-falutin’ language.
One other thing we need to be aware of, though, is one appeal of the "strict father" model, at least to men: the fact that they will have the chance to become the strict father, the rulemaker, the authority figure, themselves. That's the big motivation for putting up with the punishment -- well, that and the hope of winning the approval of the authority figure.
A very good point. That would indeed be part of the reasoning behind any argument that – again assuming that this link between authoritarian family structure and right-wing political positioning is valid – opposition at a political level to right-wing administrations in the U.S. would benefit from revitalised progressive social movements such as feminism.