"Throughout history, many people seek out and support "strong man" leaders (and 'man' is intentional, given that the vast majority are indeed men). Part of this might be our evolutionary history, where alpha males were chosen to lead the clan because they could provide physical protection. But why, many millennia later, would so many people support a leader who has the potential to become a tyrant,"
"Protection From Harm Clearly, the appeal of strong man leaders is rooted in the perception that they can protect us from harm. It is a well-established principle in social psychology that when a group is threatened by an outside group, the in-group members become more cohesive to fend off any threat. As group cohesiveness increases under conditions of threat (or potential threat), support for the leader typically increases,"
Many people historically and presently support strong-man leaders, often male, partly due to evolutionary preferences for protectors who offer physical safety. Perceived external threats increase group cohesion and amplify support for leaders seen as capable fighters. In-group versus out-group bias leads to moralized blaming of outsiders, which deepens partisan political divides. Unquestioning loyalty to a political party or leader permits consolidation of power and authority, increasing the risk of tyranny. Such leaders frequently fail to act in the best interests of their supporters, leading individuals to choose leaders contrary to their own material or political interests.
Read at Psychology Today
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]