Forums | MacLife

isaly wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Leaders are not members of what I term the herd, the herd follows without thinking. Leaders are the thinkers and risk takers. They aren't better than the herd but they are different. They and not the herd are responsible for everything good and bad in this world. All of our progress in every field.

The "herd" does NOT follow without thinking. Some members of the herd follow without thinking.

Define "different". Is it somehow mysterious? Are they better, smarter, stronger, faster, better looking, better at math, science, rhetoric?

They are able to attend better schools because of their wealth. They and their families live in much better homes. Some of them have a different psychological attitude about life by virtue of not having to worry about money.

. . . but, Kev. . . I think I'm doing your philosophy for you.

How are leaders "different" from "the herd" other than I've explained?

Other than asking a question I've already answered, I think you need to define what you term a leader.
MLK and Lincoln had some of the qualities you mentioned, but they were more and obviously didn't have others you list. I also reject the notion that differentiating yourself from the herd means you are better than the herd. It simply means you are different. You're the one trying to assign some good/bad metric when that's not what it's about. I also don't think anyone is claiming all leaders are worthy (for lack of a better term) of their position.

Farmerkev wrote:

I also reject the notion that differentiating yourself from the herd means you are better than the herd. It simply means you are different.

That is so unbelieveably ill thought out it begs for someone to start a thread concerning whether people who actually debate this way should be allowed within 100 yards of a voting booth.

Oh. . . I get it. . . "different" is some mystical etherial quality. . .

Define it, for chrissakes ! ! If you can't define it, perhaps you ought to consider whether even mentioning it is a good idea.

*cue music from "Dark Shadows"*

yeah. . . the more things change. . . .

. . . point is, I think relying on mythology to substantiate philosophical reasoning is a huge mistake.

I'm telling you to define those qualities that make leaders "different" and explain "how" they specifically make leaders different.

You're giving nothing except mythological vaguery and claiming it as history because you're naming names.

isaly wrote:

I'm telling you to define those qualities that make leaders "different" and explain "how" they specifically make leaders different.

You're giving nothing except mythological vaguery and claiming it as history because you're naming names.

Because it's not the same one factor or combination of factors in every case as you well know.
Perhaps I demand from you something equally stupid.
Prove there is no such thing as what we commonly call a leader.

Farmerkev wrote:

isaly wrote:

I'm telling you to define those qualities that make leaders "different" and explain "how" they specifically make leaders different.

You're giving nothing except mythological vaguery and claiming it as history because you're naming names.

Because it's not the same one factor or combination of factors in every case as you well know.
Perhaps I demand from you something equally stupid.
Prove there is no such thing as what we commonly call a leader.

I never made the claim that there are no such things as leaders. In fact, I agree that there ARE leaders.

You, however, made the claim that leaders are different.

Your attempt to relieve yourself of the responsibility of having to actually back up your ill-conceived attempt at an argument is really quite childish.

isaly wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

isaly wrote:

I'm telling you to define those qualities that make leaders "different" and explain "how" they specifically make leaders different.

You're giving nothing except mythological vaguery and claiming it as history because you're naming names.

Because it's not the same one factor or combination of factors in every case as you well know.
Perhaps I demand from you something equally stupid.
Prove there is no such thing as what we commonly call a leader.

I never made the claim that there are no such things as leaders. In fact, I agree that there ARE leaders.

You, however, made the claim that leaders are different.

Your attempt to relieve yourself of the responsibility of having to actually back up your ill-conceived attempt at an argument is really quite childish.

I will leave it to a public vote if you wish on who has behaved childishly this entire thread.

Farmerkev wrote:

isaly wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Because it's not the same one factor or combination of factors in every case as you well know.
Perhaps I demand from you something equally stupid.
Prove there is no such thing as what we commonly call a leader.

I never made the claim that there are no such things as leaders. In fact, I agree that there ARE leaders.

You, however, made the claim that leaders are different.

Your attempt to relieve yourself of the responsibility of having to actually back up your ill-conceived attempt at an argument is really quite childish.

I will leave it to a public vote if you wish on who has behaved childishly this entire thread.

I dumped on charon. I apologized. I'm sorry if that's the best you can offer to extricate yourself from a corner into which YOU painted YOURSELF.

You are avoiding the issue YOU brought up. . . and now you want to reframe the issue and try to place the responsibility on ME to defend a point you falsely imply I made.

That is childish in that it is immature, unworthy of someone educated.  that is not intended as an epithet.

Last edited by isaly (2006-03-23 1:07 pm)

Farmerkev wrote:

isaly wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

I will leave it to a public vote if you wish on who has behaved childishly this entire thread.

I dumped on charon. I apologized. I'm sorry if that's the best you can offer to extricate yourself from a corner into whicy YOU painted YOURSELF.

This is crazy. The only corner is a fictional one in your mind.

Perhaps this IS crazy. . . to you? Perhaps you're not used to being asked to actually substantiate vague appeals to mythological qualities? Perhaps, like many people, you are unable to actually understand the ramifications of fundamental assumptions about social structure and simply default to acceptance because "that's just how it is"? Perhaps, for you, the mere existence of a situation justifies its continuance?

You claimed "leaders" are "different from the herd". Explain specifically how and why. You've been very vague.

Perhaps you think you're being clever?

Last edited by isaly (2006-03-23 1:15 pm)

radarman wrote:

isaly wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

This is crazy. The only corner is a fictional one in your mind.

Perhaps this IS crazy. . . to you? Perhaps you're not used to being asked to actually substantiate vague appeals to mythological qualities?

You claimed "leaders" are "different from the herd". Explain specifically how and why. You've been very vague.

Perhaps you think you're being clever?

I'll bite. The difference between a leader, and the herd, is that the leader is willing to step up to the challenge and take a stand. Some people are more willing to do this than others, hence they have more leadership opportunities than others. Thus, they are "leaders"

Perhaps there is a partial biological basis for this, perhaps a partial socialization basis - it doesn't really matter. The fact is, some people are more willing to lead than others, while others are less willing to lead, and thus follow.

Perhaps an engineer who works for several leaders who are willing to step up and manage a company and make a stand is the only one who can step up to the challenge of finding a solution to a complex problem.

Some people are indeed willing to step up to a challenge. Some are leaders. Some are not. Some people are willing and likely able to lead but not chosen to for one or more of a number of reasons.

Let's make a list, then. Qualities which are present in leaders.

Remember, though, Kev has been asked to explain how leaders are "different"; what qualities make them "different" than others. I'm willing to accept that some or all qualities which may be evident in leaders are also present in others who are not leaders. What this seem to point to, for me, is that leaders are really not all that different from others.

I believe Kev has indicated that he feels differently.

list-

1. Willingness to lead
2. Willingness to step up to a challenge

Last edited by isaly (2006-03-23 1:34 pm)

OK, another quick break and then I have to finish up a project before I come back.

I think what Isaly is actually on about is people with power, power does not necessarily equal leader when it comes to abuse but that's not the way the discussion got framed somehow so we'll stick to leader.

Leaders have different qualities depending on what situation we're talking about, leader itself is a very broad term encompassing everything from innovators to managers, elected officials to royalty. A leader in the medical field isn't the same as a leader in business or the battlefield yet all are different from the majority. A leader isn't someone cut from a cookie cutter. The most common trait for those that change the world in fundamental ways (innovators) I think would be someone who thinks differently and has the courage to act on those different ideas. In another situation a leader might be one that possess cold blooded ruthlessness.
What Isaly is asking is for me to re-write what several books have been written about and it's dishonest to demand a novel length answer in a chat forum and declare superiority when someone refuses to take the bait.
The Earth rotates around the Sun.
Leaders are different from the masses.

It finally dawned on me, you're XYZ aren't you.