> Heh, ok then. So when everyone has skin in a real game of existential threats, hierarchy prevails and leaders lead with direct commands and followers follow.

> Heh, ok then. So when everyone has skin in a real game of existential threats, hierarchy prevails and leaders lead with direct commands and followers follow. When they come home and the threat is gone, more relaxed egalitarian structures take over. I think it is more nuanced than that. On the field, the ones who call the shots make tactical/operational decisions. Often these types of decisions are drilled. When they get "home", they make strategical decisions. What to improve, what to work on, where to go from here etc. Those are more complex and social and they have a big mid to long term impact on further tactical decisions and so on. You want the brainpower and the buy in of the whole team here. I think this distinction is very important. Small, tactical decisions should be made efficiently and followed efficiently. You prefer that they are close to automatic, but in some cases you need to improvise. That's not hierarchy, it is clean, efficient, fast communication. It's only hierarchical if the people who execute are not on board up front. Strategical decisions are different, they are planned up front, so you need to consider a ton of possibilities, situations, tactics and you need to consider people's capabilities and needs. The most effective political organizations tend to lean towards this model of strategical decisions being made democratically. You make the rules together and decide the direction together. But when it comes to the day to day, people just execute what is previously discussed in a more automatic manner, with corrections and improvisation where needed.