A human society that values equality benefits more than one that values hierarchy alone.

You asked me to use a scientific article, so I shall. The article I choose to use is the one you presented. In the battle they explicitly express that extraverts are more likely to be born leaders over introverts. http://www.psychologytoday.com... "Research has shown clearly that extraverts have greater leadership potential than introverts, and so did participants in our study. Except, when we looked at social skills (which we assume is a learned skill), only the socially skilled extraverts emerged as leaders. Extraversion is only an in-born leadership advantage if one also learns and develops effective communication skills." As we can see, research has already shown that there is a pattern of extraverts having "greater leadership potential than introverts". Now, yes out of all the extraverts, some have greater leadership skills than other extraverts such as the socially skilled extraverts. As I said in my previous post that their are different types of human beings born with different skills/gifts their adept in than other humans. There are those extraverts who are socially skilled and there are those who are not. This cuts down the chances of a good leader being born, raising the value of their rarity. Also I said before that if there are two different types of people, one being the natural leader over the other who rather have someone lead and they were both trained to be leaders, the natural leader is already a step ahead with their natural adept abilities. Talking about leadership we almost need to take into account the different types of leadership. You have military leaders, you have leaders of school districts, you have leaders in businesses, you have national leaders. Each of these leadership categories demands for a specific skill, just because you're a great military leader doesn't necessarily mean you'll be a great math teacher which is a leader in the sense of being the one who guides the classroom. I would easily choose the natural born mathematician to lead a math class over the military leader who may or may not have an intelligence in math. Even if they did, the principles of leading a class is clearly different from the principles of leading a military unit which is quite different from leading a military organization. Hierarchy is about setting up a social construct discriminating people by setting them up in classes that limits those in specific classes to receive the same opportunities of those in a different class. This isn't essentially a negative thing but great for society. In our modern day western society we spend government money so each individual has the equal opportunity to achieve the same goals. The problem is we dogmatically force everyone to go through these programs that aren't good for everyone. We spend countless amounts of money to support those to pursue a goal we as a society created for everyone to follow a set standard that we as a whole uphold, but we have many of those who don't get to shine in what their good at because they are forced to learn things that they aren't naturally adept at. In the long run, we create failures and honor the ones that are great at following these set standards. This goes into setting up the classes naturally by hurting some while embracing others. This hurts our society even more in the long run by creating the poor class, who lower our economy and have a harder time getting out of the class because we aren't giving them the chance to excel in the gifts nature has given them. This equal society also includes we pay for certain necessities such as health care and education. The poor class gets inhibited because they don't have the money to pay for their health care, harming more of them than the ones in the rich class. The education also gets harmed, because the rich class has the money to out into their schools for a higher education while the poor class gets the bare minimum of education. This separates the classes even more because the rich class has more opportunities to excel while then poor class has to struggle, all because society wants to set a standard of equality and demand every one follow suit. In other words "the rich keep getting richer while the poor get even poorer. Talking about setting up classes that inhibit specific classes while other classes excel in this "equal society" sounds much more of a society which hierarchy is in place with just a sugar coated title to prevent harming ones ego while creating an illusion of equality. Looking at history and the world around us, there isn't a true equal society, its just different ways of creating hierarchy, except now we are doing made harm than good. We are destroying our society and harming those who could benefit society as a whole by limiting what they can do instead of giving them the opportunity to help them excel at what they can do. If we were to create a hierarchy society in which we let the people pursue what they are naturally adept at over others we can further expand the creativity, efficiency, and push the limits of those skills than what we have seen so far currently. This illusion of an equal society is damaging the evolution of the human nature. We can give everyone the opportunity to make a career out of their skills instead of the skills we tell them they should need. This would further create more jobs, less government spending on programs which favor specific groups of people, and help people be who they are naturally suppose to be, which would create a higher peace in society and help everyone work in the system to enhance society. A true hierarchal society would create happiness throughout the people, a more stable economy, and help the human evolution keep evolving at a higher pace than slow it down as this illusion of a equal society that we have created. One could say that these current societies have created a success quicker than those ancient societies, but this current society is failing at a much quicker rate than those ancient societies. This failure will holds back the evolution of humans, while those ancients helped keep human evolution for a longer period of time. So what truly is this success? I would say that the current American society has only succeeded in failing much quicker than those societies, and in that case I wouldn't want to be bragging about how successful we are because we are only failing at a much higher rate than the ancients before us. Also talking about success, the Egyptians made pyramids that our modern machines can't handle doing yet, I would claim the Egyptians have succeeded in doing what we still can't do, that is a success I would be proud to claim.