Religion, narcissistic family members, social media algorithms, sandwich shops... all tuned to churn out subs.

Stamp on my brain, master

That also happens to be the literal definition. Surprisingly few people know that the political left and right correspond to equality and hierarchy respectively.

Another reason: it's really easy for unimaginative people to sound smart with cynicism. They'd rather be superior than be right.

"Look at that crash! I told you that flying machines can't work."

"It's way easier to fool someone than it is to convince them they've been fooled."

🤫 you gonna summon them lol

Because you have to be intelligent to admit you don't know something.

Stupid and confident is a dangerous combination. Add arrogant, charismatic or attractive, and you get weaponised incompetence.

Weak people love confidence and will tolerate arrogance. Once a confident person starts observing those around them agreeing, following, defending them, they start to believe their own bullshit, and they learn through reward feedback that if they do anything with confidence and arrogance, even when they are wrong, weaker people will agree with them.

theauthoritarians.org

specifically, social dominators end up on top. Authoritarians put them there.

Conservatives do tend to have larger amygdala

https://neurosciencenews.com/brain-structure-political-ideology-27703/

The entire point of religion is to make the insecure feel secure, like the answers to the hard questions exist and Sky Daddy is looking out for them

I wonder how many people think that their place in society would be a lot lower if it was based on competition, so it is better to preserve the system that keeps them where they are at.

Same reasons cults work. They want someone else doing the thinking and leading for them, and surrender responsibility and blame to someone else. It's never their own fault, so they want a system where they don't have to be responsible or feel at fault.

But depending on how you look at it, 25-40% of humans just like heirarchies and want them, despite the misery they cause for both the empowered and disempowered.

Get them into kink.

Seriously though, you can have consensual hierarchical structures that provide an outlet for those desires to the degree that they are innate. Is the desire to force everyone in the world to be a part of your hierarchy really part of that innate desire? Or is it more that some people feel more comfortable when they have a clearly defined status?

And it doesn't have to be confined to kink, for example, in a community for a competitive sport or game, there can be a bit of an implicit social hierarchy based on skill.

Those kinds of hierarchies are a lot closer to the hierarchies that humans evolved with, applying to an immediate social group, within "Dunbar's number." There was never a long period of time (from an evolutionary standpoint) where state-wide or globe-spanning hierarchies were selected for, so it doesn't really make sense that those would be innate and unavoidable desires.

The thing is, tree structures are very good ways to scale interconnected systems. Ask any computer scientist or computer networker about it.

This applies to societal systems as well. A bronze age society that has a feudal structure can manage a much larger area than a flat society. Armies can be coordinated that would be an ineffective mob otherwise.

That doesn't make hierarchies nice for the people living in them, any more than the industrial revolution was actually nice for the people living through it. But they are an enabling technology, and societies that did not have hierarchy were eventually overwhelmed until almost every living human is living that way.

The desire for hierarchy and order isn't an inherently bad one. A highly authoritarian individual will be the first to volunteer when someone needs to run into a burning building to save someone. They will be the first to volunteer to defend the community. They will also be the people that organize trash pickups, because littering is bad.

However, they can also be easily weaponized against others. Just like littering is against the natural order of things, and they will go out of their way to pick up litter, they can be convinced that other people are also against the natural order of things....with significantly more horrific outcomes.

I'd like to see how you got to "hierarchies = fascism". I also think that the people who want hierarchies are much higher than 25-40%.

Definitely.

It seems that populism/fascism is 'ingrained' in our simple minds. But that begs the question, why do some of us reject it? Random chance, empathy, or education?

Yeah, they want a pyramid shape to the world.

They want a single big daddy on top of them, and then an enormous pile of other people below them to be a big daddy to.

As long as they are not at the bottom of the pile, they're happy.

Yep, but uh, it's not just conservatives. There are lots from all sorts that want someone else to make the decisions, for both good and ill

They have been told that their sky daddy will actively judge their lives and they will get what sky daddy thinks they deserve. They have been told this so often and in so many ways that they now worship money. Money becomes the way for them to tell how sky daddy judges their lives. Obviously, this means that those who have more money are more beloved by sky daddy and therefore should be listened to and obeyed.

I think your interpretation is still too cerebral. People don't follow money because it's money. Money has become essential to our individual survival, so success with money is essentially conquering the threats to individual survival, and I think that is why people revere him and other billionaires.

At the end of the day, we're all shit scared of our own end, and we've been tricked into believing that money is our way out of that inevitability. Money is God, so those with lots of money are closer to God, if not a god themselves.

"If he not smart, why he rich?"

This, but unironically. As a sub who is anti-Trump, it becomes a bit uncomfortable when the conversation turns into "Conservatives are just subs who want to be dominated!" Yeah, okay, maybe there's some truth to that. The problem is that there isn't any safeword I can use on Trump.

In theory, a benevolent dictatorship is a good system, that can cut through a lot of bureaucracy and enact good changes in a timely fashion. The obvious problems are who gets to be dictator and how do you keep the dictatorship benevolent.

If I could unilaterally make somebody a dictator and believed they would do what's best, I'd do it. But I don't know if there is such a person. To me it just seems like people believe in and trust certain public figures to agree with them, and enact the same changes they'd want.

people tend dislike authoritarianism, but tend to be afraid of society changement. Everybody got contradiction

Alexander Hamilton

To believe someone is hard-wired a certain way is to deny their humanity. I think you should reconsider your beliefs.

This is the same logic as "If I give the bully some money, then they won't take all of my money". If they can get some, why wouldn't they take the rest? Appeasement doesn't work. They just push for more.

My mother, and one of my nieces, think this way.

They do a ton of work for a man they think should tell them how to live life. Even how to vote. They gladly abdicate their agency as a human so they "don't have to think about silly things like politics."

The irony is my mother is an incredibly strong woman. But it's religion that makes her think this way. My nice is just very much a people pleaser, and her fiance is just the baby of the family, so he makes demands and expects everyone else to clean up after him.