I actually had Dr. von Rueden for my leadership 102 class and we discussed a lot of these ideas (our “textbook” was Van Vugt). Perhaps the idea that I have always found most interesting is evolutionary mismatch, or the mismatch hypothesis, which centers around the idea that we sometimes carry over values and leadership traits from small scale societies and apply them to our large scale societies. But this does not always make sense. In the reading, Dr. von Rueden describes how we see stronger, more physically dominant people as leaders of the military and wars. Another example we talked about in my 102 class is the focus that we place of political leaders’ personal lives. For example, in a small scale society, it makes sense to value and pay attention to a leader’s personal life. However, why does that carry over to a large scale society? Does it matter if Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky? If he is a good leader, why does his personal life matter to us? Another example of the mismatch hypothesis is fear. For example, evolutionary mismatch explains why we still fear spiders and insects but not cars, which have killed and harmed thousands more than spiders.
I found his evolutionary explanation about gender very interesting. In class, we discussed how men have evolved to take on more leadership roles in SSS and why they are viewed as leaders. Women tend to build a smaller social network with people that they trust. This is mainly due to the idea that they take care of offspring and need trustworthy individuals to help them with these tasks (mutual aid). Men, on the other hand, tend to build bigger social networks in order to compete for resources, mates, and more. On page 981 of the reading, it states that “emergent leaders tend to be hubs of social networks.” This is one train of reasoning that can explain why men tend to emerge more as leaders in SSS than women; pairing this idea with the idea that physical size signals leadership in SSS also strengthens this idea.
The questions you pose in your first paragraph are rather interesting. In response to knowing about the personal lives of leaders, I think there are a few potential reasons behind this. In my LDST 101 class, we learned that followers want a leader they can relate to and inspire them. If they feel that their leader is relatable and a person just like them, they are more likely to listen and support them. It build trust and loyalty. For example, Oprah’s theme song is “I’m Every Woman”. Another reason for wanting to know more about our leaders is because their decisions in all aspects of life can reflect their integrity. I would want to know about Bill Clinton’s affair because if he does not honor values of marriage, loyalty and respect, what does this say about his other values? If he could abuse power in a personal manner, has he abused his power professionally? Learning more about leader’s personal lives allow for a deeper examination of the person and the type of leader they will be.
That is so interesting that you had Dr. von Rueden for your leadership 102 ! The mismatch hypothesis is one that I find very intreging aswell and the reason why is clearly displayed in your clinton affair example. Cheater in his personal life and ones ability to be a great leader? I think this is very interesting and touches on the “human error” side of judgements and is based deeply in our own beliefs and expereinces and the emotions that we feel causeing a response even if it doesnt make flawless sence. My initial understanding is that if one is a cheater than they have poor charater and i wouldnt want a person like that to make decitions for me… but then you learn more about the personal lives of beloved leaders in history and it makes you question where your judgements originate… interesting!