Is there something to the idea of monarchies after all?

Pretty staunch egalitarian, meself, but I found the this Science Daily article pretty interesting from a plot-bunny perspective. It provides some evidence that the there is a gene complex that is associated with people in leadership roles.

Whether they are any good at leadership is another matter.

I wonder if the association between the gene complex is caused by installing a drive toward power in the individual or if there is something about them that makes them more seem to be more acceptable as or a better candidate for power management, thus more often selected for leadership.

Does this relate to the old saw that "it's not that power corrupts, but that power attracts the corruptible"?

Hmm. Maybe the gene complex is linked to corruptibility, instead.

I would agree that monarchies have the possitive effect of taking ceremonial power away from the actual power holder and thus making them more mundane and thus more accountable.

But this whole genetic thing seems like nonsense.

edited 15th Jan '13 10:11:11 AM by Baff

The only benefit seems to be nurture, not nature. As in, raise people from birth to be incorruptible, sane, well-balanced, compassionate, and capable of making hard long-term decisions. And I dunno if you could reasonably set such a system in place.

Well, evidence would suggest that you can't, at least, not 100% reliably. And morals differ between people, another problem. If we raised someone to rule, whose values would we instill in them?

We know what good leaders need. Compassion, selflessness, noblesse oblige and all that. The problem tends to arise in that royalty have difficulty comprehending the problems everyone else faces. The old "if they have no bread, let them eat cake" thing.

edited 15th Jan '13 12:26:54 PM by Discar

Solution: raise more royals than you need, the ones that don't make the cut by late adolescence wash out of the program.

Solution: raise them undercover in low-income households under anonymous conditions to conceal their status. In fact, adopting orphans from the poorest and most disenfranchised minorities into the program would be a good way to maintain royal diversity and fight discrimination.

How are you sure our corporate overloards arent doing that already?

Well they a) remain rather nepotistic, and b) are training for ruthless opportunism and unfettered self-interest rather than good leadership qualities.

Our corporate overlords are more than happy with a feudalistic economic structure with a loose oligarchy running it, and politicians who do what they want for sufficient compensation. It's a plutocracy, not a monarchy.

edited 15th Jan '13 12:58:53 PM by Fighteer

So many theoretical forms of societal organization remain theoretical because it's so much cheaper to make do with the status quo. Screw the Models, I've Got Money!

This is precisely how the Kulu Kingdom works in Peter F Hamilton's Nights Dawn trilogy works, by the way. Though it is of course a fictional monarchy, I find the idea of a genetically designed monarchy to be fascinating.

The ability to grow good leaders from scratch is the only thing it has going for it over democracy, and it would be better to have a democratic government that provided such education and early child care that everyone received this capacity.

Oh, it's not something I would necessarily want in practice, but as a system it would probably do wonders for stability. I'll note that the Kingdom still has a democratic parliament:

(From the same setting, the egalitarian and atheistic Edenists are a far superior utopian society in my opinion, and one I'd definitely choose ten times out of ten over the Kulu Kingdom).

The Culture is the absolute best.

It's easier to get excited about a single person, rather than a group.

More people know who the president is than those that know even half the members of congress.

The problem with monarchies isn't bad Kings or Queens. It's improper risk distribution. If a King makes a mistake, everyone suffers for it. If a Queen gets stressed and takes shortcuts, everyone suffers for it. If a King forgets something important, everyone suffers. If a Queen gets sick, everyone suffers. If a King or Queen is bad, everyone suffers even more than if the King or Queen merely makes mistakes. In a representative democracy, at least half of the representatives need to make a mistake or do something wrong or be bad for people to suffer, which is much better managed risk distribution. With direct democracy, over half of everyone needs to make a mistake or be bad people for everyone to suffer.

It's a similar reason to why joint-stock companies were formed. If you own one ship which you send out and that ship sinks, you loose everything. If you own 1/10 of 10 ships, and one ship sinks, you loose 1/10th of what you own. In a monarchy, one person screwing up is a big deal, but, in more democratic forms of government, 1 person screwing up isn't that bad. Many more people need to screw up before adverse affects are felt.

just to clarify, I wasnt really being serious in my last post...

That should be enough to get you off the hook with our Benevolent Corporate Overlords, vast and pure being the quality of Their mercy.

While there may be genetics linked to leadership, that doesn't necessarily mean it's good leadership. The charismatic and clever have led people down bad roads before. Or that anyone in line to inherit a throne has that gene active, or is incorruptible. Ultimately, all leadership positions work best when held accountable through checks and balances.

Plus, this idea that some people are just "born to lead" needs to be handled with care. Or it could end up with the same exact situation as the idea of Divine Right to Rule.

DOWN WITH MONARCHS!

THROW THE TEA INTO THE HARBOR!

VIVA LA REVOLUTION!

Edit: Sorry, my 'Patriotism' sees to be acting up again.

edited 18th Jan '13 7:18:02 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Maybe not in Matriarchy. Keep in mind things like inbreeding caused more then a few problems in the leadership.

Interesting that genetics may play a role in leadership along side skill and other traits. The article points out it is a tendency not a gurantee. They still need training and some drive to achieve the leadership position.

Good leaders are more then born they are trained, educated, instructed, etc.

A good leader always knows when to reject power and step down. It's something of a philosophy that I believe in, as a good leader should know when they themselves are no longer needed for the good of whatever they are leading.

I suppose what would be useful would be to hammer out a definition of what good leadership might be, then see if there are associated gene complexes. Meaning that people who are not good leaders, by that definition, would not have these gene complexes.

Clearly, there is some sort of phenotype associated with leadership. As with the "42/Long" phenomenon.