• Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    15 hours ago

    I mean, what do you think is causing this? I don’t really agree with the premise, but more than the premise, an underlying reason is necessary.

    • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      It’s kinda down to evolutionary psychology. I’ve read it sometime ago that some people are happy to be followers because they gain access to the resources that could be given by the leader. Also, the follower or the second in command has the benefits of access to resource, but without the responsibility of running the group, while also being privy to the private information relating to the leader which could be leveraged.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        12 hours ago

        I don’t like the implication that some people are genetically predisposed to accepting authority. This seems to be a eugenecist explanation for why organizational structures form, not actual science.

        • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          I’m not saying genetics is end all be all but nature is still a dominant influence whether we like to admit it or not. It’s why cults of personality persist. That’s why there are plenty of bootlickers for the wealthy, especially on social media (assuming they’re not shills and/or bots).

            • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              Even before the capitalist system, there are those who already fawn hierarchy. The French revolution, for example, wasn’t an overnight success because there are still those from the peasant and working class who support the Royalists.