People are predisposed to be followers by nature.
Debate Rounds (4)
This particular topic is one I have been intrigued to debate.
There are many opinions out there that humans by nature were born to lead. I am on the contending end as I believe that we as individuals are predisposed to be followers. My opponent should be arguing the contrary.
I am not choosy about how my debates are conducted....all I ask for is....
a) Please allow round one to be for acceptance and clarifications ONLY!!
b) Be witty and smart by all means; but keep conduct professional or forfeit your conduct point!
Humans by nature are programmed to be followers. Being a leader is something an individual must strive to achieve. Like many other abilities, leadership may come easy to some and hard for others but never is leadership abilities installed from birth.
POINT 1: From birth many of us have been following our parents religiously. Many of us catch ourselves doing things we remember our parents doing as a child such as crossing your arms a certain way or saying a certain line you picked up from them. This is seldom done on purpose but is more often than not, science. Babies are programmed to copy their parents movements and lifestyles for survival. This is how humans learn to walk, speak, and write. This is evidence that even from early childhood, humans are predisposed to be followers.
POINT 2: There are many examples through-out history (Ex. Nazi Germany, Japanese Internment Camps) where a large number of people committed heinous crimes and tormented their very own human brotherhood, simply because someone ordered them to. There is such thing as Stockholm syndrome where isolation and other factors cause people to become brainwashed by their captors; but this wasn't the case of Nazi Germany, considering thousands of casual citizens signed on to commit terrible atrocities without much incentive or threat of punishment at all. (Not saying this didn't happen of course!)
POINT 3: I would also like to point out two experiments that many people are aware of.
EXPERIMENT 1: The Milgrim experiment, conducted in 1963, demonstrated how people will go against their better judgement, regardless if it inflicted pain on another person, simply because an authority figure ordered it.
EXPERIMENT 2: Another experiment known as the Asch conformity experiment was conducted to show that habitual nature of humans to conform. A group of young gentlemen were gathered together in a room. They were presented with a poster of which a set of lines were drawn of different lengths. All but one of the test subjects were in on the experiment and were told to give a wrong answer when asked a question. When the test administrator asked each individual which of the lines were the longest, each one would intentionally give a wrong answer. Many times, once the administrator asked the real test subject, he would choose the wrong line (knowing it was wrong) to avoid being differentiated or socially out-casted from the group.
Humans by nature are indeed created to follow each other. Whether we like to admit it or not being a leader isn't something any person is born with. It is instead something that is learned through experiences.
All three examples provided suffer from the same deficiency; that is, in both cases of the binary option, it is not only conceivable to imagine both limits of the choice, but more importantly, there is now very strong evidence linking the genetic makeup a child receives to their tendency, or likelihood to be able to achieve what society defines as "leadership" traits. ""We have identified a genotype, called rs4950, which appears to be associated with the passing of leadership ability down through generations," said lead author Dr Jan-Emmanuel De Neve (UCL School of Public Policy). "The conventional wisdom " that leadership is a skill " remains largely true, but we show it is also, in part, a genetic trait" (http://www.ucl.ac.uk...). If you examine the article, it asserts that just because an individual receives the genotype "rs4950," their ability to take advantage of that skill by way of experience is of more importance.
After asserting the prominent scientific doubt surrounding old perceptions on the root of leadership tendencies, I will also present the unequal proportion of "resources" to these leadership skills. Just as a child that is bore to a wealthy family gains significant advantages in a variety of life domains, so too does a child that is born to a mother and a father who are at the top of their respective fields and its "leaders." The two may in fact be strongly correlated, with the total "resources" of the family one is born into being the independent variable, and the resulting leadership "exposure" being the dependent variable. If what I say is true, which I believe it is, then it may make less of a difference what an individuals genetic predisposition to follow or lead, but instead the "resources" he is exposed to. Either way, it appears that the moment a child is born, they have very little to say about how easy or hard one may have it, and thus making it a prior rather than a posteriori.
I look forward to my opponents objections to my observations so I can continue this inspection.
a-little-in-the-middle forfeited this round.
a-little-in-the-middle forfeited this round.
thenewkid forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.