I think this article takes a very interesting and crucial stance regarding leadership. I genuinely enjoy pieces that explore concepts from different approaches, and in this article I think Von Rueden & Van Vugt offer valuable ideas as to the many layering complexities that come with the development and maintenance of effective leadership.

An idea that really stood out to me within the piece is the fact that in smaller groups leadership tends to be more egalitarian. This is particularly interesting to me because both authors make it a point to stress that humans spend most of their lives in smaller groups and yet the equality experienced in these smaller groups gets clouded by the greater inequalities within larger institutions. I believe that too often in leadership, and in life in general, we ascribe a substantial amount of significance to the studies and research conducted on larger institutions, when in actuality we can learn a lot from smaller groups.

Further, I also find it intriguing that women are less likely to have a political voice in smaller groups as opposed to men. Though the studies suggest that this is a result of physical qualities and the performance of women in historical times in activities like hunting, I find it interesting how stature and physical appearance can weigh that heavily in politics as opposed to intellect and leadership skills. I wonder how this genealogy of women in leadership in small groups has impacted  women in small groups in modernity.

What is so intriguing to me is that although there are no preset standards of what is morally correct and what is not, there is still this association with certain terms that imply and help us identify what is considered morally good or bad. Though these words are supposed to be used to help indicate a moral argument, I believe they are also valuable in demonstrating how even though morality is objectionable, there is still a common sense of conventional knowledge surrounding certain ideas. 

Further I also think that the discussion of the murky territory between values and morals is interesting and yet sort of troubling. In the article the authors include the claim that everything an individual does is dependent on moral claims and that when one partakes in a specific action it is because they value some aspect of whatever it is that they are doing. This is significant, and particularly interesting to me, for the simple fact that terms like values are so loosely interpreted and objectionable and are yet still being used in correlation with other relative terms. 

All in all, I think the article is extremely valuable and useful for the indication and interpretation of moral arguments as it pertains to critical thinking.