Padriag
Posts: 2633
Joined: 3/30/2005 Status: offline
|
I suppose I should explain my remark about there being no natural leaders or dominants. It goes back to the work of Alfred Adler and my own theories about the origins of human behavior. Adler essentially states that all our various personality traits are learned behaviors. This is what he collectively calls "style of life". This would include leardership qualities, dominance or submissiveness, degree of social interest, degree of mental activity, and so on. Adler asserts however that in most cases the style of life of an individual is established by the age of five or six. Our mental, emotional and social development after that is governed by that style of life which acts as a template. Adler didn't believe the style of life could be changed in adulthood, I disagree. In either case, it indicates that whatever our inclinations toward leadership and/or dominance was set down early in life, but it was learned. Just learned at so early an age most aren't consciously aware of it an then make the assumption they must have been "born that way". My contention is, since I disagree that the style of life cannot be changed, is that any learned behavior can be altered, unlearned or relearned. If that is true, then the traits which creates dominance or leadership can thus be learned, developed, etc. I'm not alone in this, take a look at the amount of money the US military spends on researching and developing leadership training for its officers. The catch is that those "natural leaders' are as you say still better than "trained leaders" because what really makes a good leader is still being understood. Hard to teach someone how to be something if you don't fully understand how that something works. But, the more that is learned the closer we get to it. Part of my personal theory on the origins of dominance is based on Adler's work and observations regarding organ inferiority and the process of compensation and over-compensation. More directly, my belief is that dominance arrises in an individual due to personal inferiorities or environmental inferiorities during that formative period when the style of life is organized. After this period, dominance emerges as a compensation and sometimes over-compensation for those inferiorities. The crux of this being that we are dominant not because we are better... but in fact because we began as inferior and through our struggles to overcome that inferiority we rose from below to above... rose to a adopt a dominant position socially. If thats true, then one might conversely argue that a submissive is such because they began with a superior position, and lacking the necessity to strive created by inferiorities never developed the same drive to rise to a dominant position. I'm not conclusive about that yet and am still giving it quite a bit of thought. Keep in mind this is all theory on my part which I am still developing. An yes, I do this stuff as a hobby... I was never a normal child
_____________________________
Padriag A stern discipline pervades all nature, which is a little cruel so that it may be very kind - Edmund Spencer
|