ALostInquirer

Thanks for the detailed reply! My suspicions were that it may have been related to the complexity of manufacturing (including the materials development that's enabled it within the past several decades), but the costs alongside that had slipped my mind given the scientific reasons that would have been more of a hard block in the past.

Also across the various replies here, TIL a bunch more about what's up with PEX, which I'd not gotten around to researching. Sounds like some wicked stuff all things considering!

Where might hyporetically fall into this? Hyporetically speaking, for the real theothetists that might press the matter.

Someone better versed in Lemmy may correct me, but isn't comment activity more of a factor with some of the sorting algorithms (e.g. Hot/Active) here? In which case your upvotes may help but your comment may be even better!

That's great!

Did LiveJournal so DeathNote?

Thanks, that does read as more balanced, I agree. I opted for what I felt more fitting for a casual community (which is how I see this community), but you're right that in turn it's more charged.

I think I would have been more inclined to write it your way if I were posing the question to a more academically inclined community like askscience or more specifically asksociologists. At the same time, though, I think the nature/nurture framing would lend itself to its own problems as one can readily find across various papers that brush against that sharp splitting vs. a more interwoven assessment (i.e. mixture of the two).

How might you put the question otherwise?

For sure, and I failed to really get at this more in the OP, but it's because of those difficulties that in part made me wonder, "Well, what's an alternative look like?"

Individual leadership in particular seems primed for either abuse from above or below (i.e. a scapegoat for people's avoidance of responsibility).

I’d answer this by saying it is human nature.

I follow where you're coming from, however I'm quoting this little part as I always find arguments to "nature" suspect, especially regarding conscious entities which complicate this observation/thinking. You can probably guess where I'm going with this, that being, "Well, what is human nature?" which as you say isn't a criticism/dig at you, it's more of a personal quibble with the "nature" line of thinking.

Nevertheless, I lean towards agreeing with you in the sense that it may be more related to an unreflective/unconscious social predisposition of humans specifically (possibly other social species as well in their own forms).

A lot of people don’t really understand how things work. Rather than try to understand, they latch on to someone who does understand.

Wouldn't it be more apt to say that a lot of people latch on to someone who appears or acts as if they understand how things work, given the thinking that a lot of people simply don't understand to begin with?

Thanks!

Thanks!