42 replies to this topic

[DeathDude]

Think it can depend on choice at times, sometimes the ones who don't want to lead can do good and others not so much. Actually interesting story Stephen Harper our current Prime Minister, wasn't interested at first at leading the Alliance Party (Back before the Conservatives were a united party) eventually he was pursuaded to do so, at first he did okay went into his first election and lost all his popularity on the last week, with the idea of a hidden agenda, this last year's election though he learned from his mistakes, got all his ideas out in the open and thus eliminated the issues voters had, whether he'll be a good leader for the country though remains to be seen.

[taikara]

Blood-Pigggy, on Jul 6 2006, 05:10 PM, said:

But that makes no sense. You have to WANT to do things in order to do things, you've got to want to take responsibility, and you've got to want to lead in that chain, you can't not want to do things and do them, you may not wish to do thinks, but you can want to, there's a difference between wishing to do things and wanting.

Not necessarily true. In high school, I never WANTED to be assigned lead roles in our musicals, because I have tremendous stage fright, and don't like performing unless I'm doing so with a group, or alone. I never even tried out, but our musical directors would contact me about parts they wanted me to play, and I'd end up taking the role.

I wouldn't argue that this makes me a good leader, so I'm not sure which side of the argument this falls on (and in fact, I would probably argue that I'm not, because I'm not very confident, and I tend to just want to make people happy). I'm just one of those people who will do things if asked, and I view them more as duties than as accomplishments.

I'm just saying that just because people don't necessarily want to do things doesn't mean they don't end up doing them.

[Juni Ori]

Well, in FDF we had a squad leader, who never wanted to get promoted and hated what he had to do. And still he made superb job, he was one of the most respected squad leaders we had. And he even got promoted to sergeant. He did not want that position, but he did want to do his best. So in a sense, yes, he wanted to lead, if he had to. But in truth he wanted to be private, and specialize to sniper.

[Sean]

Juni Ori, on Jul 7 2006, 03:05 PM, said:

Well, in FDF we had a squad leader, who never wanted to get promoted and hated what he had to do. And still he made superb job, he was one of the most respected squad leaders we had. And he even got promoted to sergeant. He did not want that position, but he did want to do his best. So in a sense, yes, he wanted to lead, if he had to. But in truth he wanted to be private, and specialize to sniper.

You're a sniper?  

Juni for leader, he can pick off any problems with the twitch of a finger. That's a damn good quality right there.

[Juni Ori]

He wanted to be... So no, I wasn't talking of myself, but that one squad leader. I'm carrying lmg.

[A. J. Raffles]

Lmg as in "lovely medium-sized gun"?

[Juni Ori]

Leichtes maschinengewehr / light machinegun. Kvkk in Finnish, short from kevyt konekivääri.

[DannyMc252]

So THATS what Kvkk means in FDF mod...

[Sebatianos]

Juni Ori, on Jul 6 2006, 10:45 AM, said:

Fruit Pie Jones, on Jul 6 2006, 05:55 AM, said:

Also, knowing that you got married somewhat recently, I have to wonder if your opinion on leadership will change if you should ever have children of your own.

And if his opinion doesn't change, I'm afraid we have more irresponsible and totally out of control children...

I would have replied to this earlier, but there'd be no point in you understanding what I'd try to say anyway. And just so you would know - I'm trained to educate and socialize children and have been doing a really good job of it as a teacher.

And your arguments only prove my point anyway. The best way to upbring children is by being a strong and positive role model. Leading them has nothing to do with it. If you lead them, they'll never be able to have independent thoughts, or they'd simply rebel at a point in time.

I think Tom's example of the Norvegian royal family is almost excellent, with one simple flaw... Do they really lead the people? Doesn't the elected members of the parlament do that?

[Tom Henrik]

The parlament governs the people. The royal family leads the people. So yes, they do.

[taikara]

This happens rarely, but I kind of agree with Seb

On this point, anyway:

Sebastianos said:

The best way to upbring children is by being a strong and positive role model. Leading them has nothing to do with it.

I don't mean to take that out of context, but it's the part I agree the most with. The rest, I'm not sure I could agree, exactly.

But this is an interesting point - I think it would be difficult to "lead" your children, or anyone you are close to. The reason being that leadership (or some types, I think - such as political leadership), I think, requires a certain image of perfection, and that is only possible when people don't really know you.

I mean, nobody is perfect, and flaws are just that more obvious when you're close up. The best you really can do in that situation is be a strong and positive role model, and do your best to foster the same ideals in your children without attempting to force anything on them.

But where I disagree with Seb is that I think that what he is describing (the strong, positive role model) is just another kind of leadership, rather than being completely separate from "leader" roles - it's non-interfering, and leading by example rather than imposition, as it were.

[Sebatianos]

taikara, on Jul 16 2006, 05:07 AM, said:

But where I disagree with Seb is that I think that what he is describing (the strong, positive role model) is just another kind of leadership, rather than being completely separate from "leader" roles - it's non-interfering, and leading by example rather than imposition, as it were.

I guess that's because you haven't read how I deffined leader.

A leader needs someone to follow.
Now leaders too can be and usually are role models to at least a part of the population. If they're a positive or negative role model - that depends. But a leader has certain powers that allow him to influence the people into doing what he says - not by teaching by example.

A role model doesn't need anyone (sounds strange right).
The thing is, that if you're a role model, you should really be that kind of a person. If you're only pretending to have some vertuous because you'd like to teach them to a child - then you're not a role model, then you're an upbringer, who's trying to do something and is walking on thin ice any sign of you not believing in the stuff you teach - and you're out of there.

[taikara]

Actually, Seb, I didn't disagree because I didn't read what you said, I disagreed with what you said because I did not agree.

And I still don't agree. You make little sense on at least half of that point, and you're twisting definitions of words to suit your argument.

Let's try this:

Role model.

You would think that if a certain behavior can be deemed imitatable (positive or negative), there would need to be someone other than the originator of that behavior to imitate it. Imitation of behavior, in any form, definitely requires more than one person - and one person will be the "leader" who originates the behavior, while the other person will be the  "follower" who imitates the behavior.

Children are natural imitators, and do mimic behaviors they see. Role models can be positive or negative (which is why I qualified the term with the words "strong, positive"), and it doesn't matter if they're "faking" it, it only matters that the behavior is imitated (and just to be clear, "faked" behavior is often imitated as well - children can learn to "fake" virtues just as much as they can learn to actually be virtuous). Parents really are role models by default - whether they're good ones or bad ones is up to them.

And because imitation (necessary to achieving role model status) requires one person to "lead" the behavior and another person to "follow" the behavior, your own definition of leadership would qualify role models as just another type of leader... if you were going by the actual definition, anyway. Maybe you should find a more appropriate term to use for whatever it is you're describing.