3 ms·

this doesn't answer the question, or at least not the whole question. Why do most people seem to really like people with "leadership" traits even when they se

by lsc 10y ago

this doesn't answer the question, or at least not the whole question. Why do most people seem to really like people with "leadership" traits even when they seem obviously disingenuous? on a more personal level, I find this question even more confusing, because I seem to have a fairly strong negative emotional response to people with "leadership" traits. "Why would you follow that slimebag?" is usually my response.

agumonkey 10y ago
Or more why isn't that bug tamed in some way. It seems that people let it happen, then forget, or move on. Then a new set of people will elect a moron. Etc etc .. There's no memory or structure to control or avoid that "more effectively".
pm90 10y ago
Most people today are brought up in education systems that encourage conformity and obedience to authority. To some degree, some amount of conformity is required to prevent total anarchy. But that system of encouraging obedience is indoctrinated early and is very very strong. A leader simply emulates the same traits as a person of authority and thus is able to "hijack" that neurological response. Personally, coming from an education system that places an even stronger emphasis on conformity than the American one, it took me a long time to figure out just how much it affects me and my friends. I don't know if it can be reversed but I'm glad to be aware of it at least.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mindslight 10y ago
I think this question inverts the causality. The slimeballs are playing a meta strategy, developing the traits that engender trust etc in the majority of people. It doesn't matter that a few see through this (and gradually develop a strong aversion to them), as long as the majority continues to be tricked. It's an evolutionary game - if the majority start to get wise, the slimeballs up their game, change messages (/faces), or in the worst case back off slightly. Therefore it's not a matter of trying to keep "these people" out of positions of power, but reducing the centralization of power that inherently attracts and enables metagamers.
grkvlt 10y ago
wow, that's pretty fucked up. i could understand having a negative reaction to someone lying or being disingenuous, but to react that way to people that are charismatic and assertive suggests more that there is a problem with you, not them?
- lsc 10y ago
  >suggests more that there is a problem with you, not them Hm, I see we have another confident and charismatic person here! but seriously, I am told that what is wrong with me is that I understand confidence as "The level of aggression appropriate to the social station one is emulating" I don't understand how anyone finds that a pleasant quality, aside from the fact that it indicates you don't have too much aggression for your social station. Of course, all of the "socially skilled" people I talk to tell me that I'm missing the true meaning of confidence, but then they describe something that has nothing to do with the observable qualities of the leaders who are described as confident.

by lsc 10y ago

agumonkey 10y ago

Or more why isn't that bug tamed in some way. It seems that people let it happen, then forget, or move on. Then a new set of people will elect a moron. Etc etc .. There's no memory or structure to control or avoid that "more effectively".

pm90 10y ago

Most people today are brought up in education systems that encourage conformity and obedience to authority. To some degree, some amount of conformity is required to prevent total anarchy. But that system of encouraging obedience is indoctrinated early and is very very strong. A leader simply emulates the same traits as a person of authority and thus is able to "hijack" that neurological response. Personally, coming from an education system that places an even stronger emphasis on conformity than the American one, it took me a long time to figure out just how much it affects me and my friends. I don't know if it can be reversed but I'm glad to be aware of it at least.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

mindslight 10y ago

I think this question inverts the causality. The slimeballs are playing a meta strategy, developing the traits that engender trust etc in the majority of people. It doesn't matter that a few see through this (and gradually develop a strong aversion to them), as long as the majority continues to be tricked. It's an evolutionary game - if the majority start to get wise, the slimeballs up their game, change messages (/faces), or in the worst case back off slightly. Therefore it's not a matter of trying to keep "these people" out of positions of power, but reducing the centralization of power that inherently attracts and enables metagamers.

grkvlt 10y ago

wow, that's pretty fucked up. i could understand having a negative reaction to someone lying or being disingenuous, but to react that way to people that are charismatic and assertive suggests more that there is a problem with you, not them?

lsc 10y ago
>suggests more that there is a problem with you, not them Hm, I see we have another confident and charismatic person here! but seriously, I am told that what is wrong with me is that I understand confidence as "The level of aggression appropriate to the social station one is emulating" I don't understand how anyone finds that a pleasant quality, aside from the fact that it indicates you don't have too much aggression for your social station. Of course, all of the "socially skilled" people I talk to tell me that I'm missing the true meaning of confidence, but then they describe something that has nothing to do with the observable qualities of the leaders who are described as confident.