Hello lovely readers,
Did you miss me? Due to my odd week and temporary amnesia-like symptoms, I am posting today instead of yesterday. Now, it would boost my image to say that I was out doing some heartbreaking, but honestly speaking, I don't think there was as much heartbreaking as there were heartattacks. What can I say, its the effect. In all honesty though, I was doing quite a bit of interesting reading and writing, and the lightbulb clicked over my head for today's topic: leadership.
What does it take to be the alpha? (Being quite a feminist myself, I will not say alpha male. Woman power, people.) In animal societies, it is the biggest, strongest and fiercest member of the group. Of course, being sophisticated, complex human beings, we prefer to think that we have some higher standards for leadership. But taking a look at societies in the past and today, how different are we really?
It took centuries for us to reach the stage where citizens can elect their own leaders in democratic governments. But dictators still exist. And these dictators are living proof that our society still ends up being dominated by leaders who are bigger, stronger and fiercer than we are. The technicals of those terms have changed though. Years ago, might in dictators or authoritative leaders came from aggression of personality and brute strength and intellect, but today, the definition of mighty has changed, based on ownership of one thing: weapons. The "natural" leaders that emerge today are the strongest, biggest and fiercest because they have the naturally aggressive/persuasive and bloodthirsty personality necessary to get control thousands of armed minions and 10 football fields of nukes and bombs. This is human nature in its crude form, or, a concept that we can relate back to Social Darwinism; the idea that some humans are superior to others, and therefore have the divine right to oppress the inferior beings. It's a nauseating idea. I was okay with animal and plant Darwinism, but when you begin applying these concepts of animal competition and the triumph of might in human society, you eerily take down every argument that humans are evolved enough to make leadership decisions based on deeper factors. (Like what a person's intellect, competence, morality and intention, maybe?) So what is it, fellow humans? Is the leadership of the world based on animal instinct, like a leader's aggression or charisma, or do we make informed, rational decisions about who we choose to lead us?
Another important thing about leadership: how does it emerge? How do you pick out the genius future president 5-year-olds from the wailing 30 kids that are dumped into the room to do coloring together? Tell-tale signs of innate leadership. Even these 5-year-olds have leaders among them; children who are brave enough to take the reins and make decisions for the best interests of the group. Ideally in a civilized society, this is who we want to be our leaders. But then the kids grow up and they go to elementary school. The same kindergarteners who were admired for leading the group and taking charge become the bossy, bespectacled know-it-alls that nobody wants to sit next to on the bus, let alone listen to. So the ability to lead and make rational decisions isn't everything; there needs to be, to some degree, a charismatic personality in a leader. So the kids naturally gravitate toward the likable, cute-looking little hell-raising kids, who can't even decide whether they should throw water balloons at the principal or the custodian. (Not to say that these kids can't make good leaders though- some of them have what it takes.) But in the adult world, we like to think that our choice of leaders is logical, based on our estimation of a leaders true capabilities. However, this "logical" process is dependent on our opinion of a person's abilities, which (various studies have shown) is VERY dependent on our opinion of his or her personality. So in the end, how different are we from the elementary school kids? And the bigger question: is our democratic system of "logically" choosing the most charismatic leaders over the capable wallflower leaders from elementary school eliminating the good leaders in our society?
Well, you know the drill people. Question marks mean that you get to talk. And the best part of blogging is, you don't even have to interrupt my monologue- just comment! I love to hear people's thoughts. The ability to think coherently is the jewel of human capability. Use it. And let me know what all of you jewels have to say. So type away! Next week, let's take a look at something personal, a cliff that we all stand on at one point in our lives. Good lord, its the middle of February next week. Anyone want to be my Valentine? Actually, don't bother- too stingy to give you candy hearts. Love you too.
Your wonderful Antisocial Heartbreaker.
Did you miss me? Due to my odd week and temporary amnesia-like symptoms, I am posting today instead of yesterday. Now, it would boost my image to say that I was out doing some heartbreaking, but honestly speaking, I don't think there was as much heartbreaking as there were heartattacks. What can I say, its the effect. In all honesty though, I was doing quite a bit of interesting reading and writing, and the lightbulb clicked over my head for today's topic: leadership.
What does it take to be the alpha? (Being quite a feminist myself, I will not say alpha male. Woman power, people.) In animal societies, it is the biggest, strongest and fiercest member of the group. Of course, being sophisticated, complex human beings, we prefer to think that we have some higher standards for leadership. But taking a look at societies in the past and today, how different are we really?
It took centuries for us to reach the stage where citizens can elect their own leaders in democratic governments. But dictators still exist. And these dictators are living proof that our society still ends up being dominated by leaders who are bigger, stronger and fiercer than we are. The technicals of those terms have changed though. Years ago, might in dictators or authoritative leaders came from aggression of personality and brute strength and intellect, but today, the definition of mighty has changed, based on ownership of one thing: weapons. The "natural" leaders that emerge today are the strongest, biggest and fiercest because they have the naturally aggressive/persuasive and bloodthirsty personality necessary to get control thousands of armed minions and 10 football fields of nukes and bombs. This is human nature in its crude form, or, a concept that we can relate back to Social Darwinism; the idea that some humans are superior to others, and therefore have the divine right to oppress the inferior beings. It's a nauseating idea. I was okay with animal and plant Darwinism, but when you begin applying these concepts of animal competition and the triumph of might in human society, you eerily take down every argument that humans are evolved enough to make leadership decisions based on deeper factors. (Like what a person's intellect, competence, morality and intention, maybe?) So what is it, fellow humans? Is the leadership of the world based on animal instinct, like a leader's aggression or charisma, or do we make informed, rational decisions about who we choose to lead us?
Another important thing about leadership: how does it emerge? How do you pick out the genius future president 5-year-olds from the wailing 30 kids that are dumped into the room to do coloring together? Tell-tale signs of innate leadership. Even these 5-year-olds have leaders among them; children who are brave enough to take the reins and make decisions for the best interests of the group. Ideally in a civilized society, this is who we want to be our leaders. But then the kids grow up and they go to elementary school. The same kindergarteners who were admired for leading the group and taking charge become the bossy, bespectacled know-it-alls that nobody wants to sit next to on the bus, let alone listen to. So the ability to lead and make rational decisions isn't everything; there needs to be, to some degree, a charismatic personality in a leader. So the kids naturally gravitate toward the likable, cute-looking little hell-raising kids, who can't even decide whether they should throw water balloons at the principal or the custodian. (Not to say that these kids can't make good leaders though- some of them have what it takes.) But in the adult world, we like to think that our choice of leaders is logical, based on our estimation of a leaders true capabilities. However, this "logical" process is dependent on our opinion of a person's abilities, which (various studies have shown) is VERY dependent on our opinion of his or her personality. So in the end, how different are we from the elementary school kids? And the bigger question: is our democratic system of "logically" choosing the most charismatic leaders over the capable wallflower leaders from elementary school eliminating the good leaders in our society?
Well, you know the drill people. Question marks mean that you get to talk. And the best part of blogging is, you don't even have to interrupt my monologue- just comment! I love to hear people's thoughts. The ability to think coherently is the jewel of human capability. Use it. And let me know what all of you jewels have to say. So type away! Next week, let's take a look at something personal, a cliff that we all stand on at one point in our lives. Good lord, its the middle of February next week. Anyone want to be my Valentine? Actually, don't bother- too stingy to give you candy hearts. Love you too.
Your wonderful Antisocial Heartbreaker.
No comments:
Post a Comment