re: Apparatchiks’ willingness to degrade themselves will hurt their reputation with other people. But for exactly that reason, it serves as proof of loyalty to the one man who counts
I think this is only partially, and sometimes the reason. I could introduce you to some dangerous violent gang leaders from our jails for whom this is exactly the state of affairs. And they are also the ones who believe the nonsense that their subordinates flatter them with. You can find corporate business leaders who share the same deluded self-conceptions and who are flattered precisely this way. But the rest of the business leaders, depots, and gang leaders aren't fooled. They know that they are being lied to, and this is often seen as a terrible problem for them. You need accurate information to run most enterprises, and various leaders are constantly complaining about the yes-men who surround them, and how they isolate them from information they badly want and need to hear.
So why do we still get such competition in outrageous flattery? I think that the target of such speeches and flattery is not the leader at the top, but rather the other members of his (or her, and it is very often her) clique. Many, many women's groups are held together by insincere flattering compliments (lies) told by various members about each other. The willingness to tell lies is a form of reputation management, and if unchecked turns into purity spirals where everybody is competing to be the most toadiest. People who aren't sufficiently toady are ostracised, not by the great leader, but by the other members of their social group who badly want to stab people in the back but need to know who is a legitimate target.
See: Dan Williams latest which discusses this (and does a better job of explaining it than I do.)
The National Shakespeare Theatre did a version of King Lear in which Lear was just this kind of personality cult dictator. And suddenly Regan and Goneril's fawning made perfect sense, and Cordelia's refusal became not just true filial loyalty but knowing and courageous - and much-needed - resistance.
re: Apparatchiks’ willingness to degrade themselves will hurt their reputation with other people. But for exactly that reason, it serves as proof of loyalty to the one man who counts
I think this is only partially, and sometimes the reason. I could introduce you to some dangerous violent gang leaders from our jails for whom this is exactly the state of affairs. And they are also the ones who believe the nonsense that their subordinates flatter them with. You can find corporate business leaders who share the same deluded self-conceptions and who are flattered precisely this way. But the rest of the business leaders, depots, and gang leaders aren't fooled. They know that they are being lied to, and this is often seen as a terrible problem for them. You need accurate information to run most enterprises, and various leaders are constantly complaining about the yes-men who surround them, and how they isolate them from information they badly want and need to hear.
So why do we still get such competition in outrageous flattery? I think that the target of such speeches and flattery is not the leader at the top, but rather the other members of his (or her, and it is very often her) clique. Many, many women's groups are held together by insincere flattering compliments (lies) told by various members about each other. The willingness to tell lies is a form of reputation management, and if unchecked turns into purity spirals where everybody is competing to be the most toadiest. People who aren't sufficiently toady are ostracised, not by the great leader, but by the other members of their social group who badly want to stab people in the back but need to know who is a legitimate target.
See: Dan Williams latest which discusses this (and does a better job of explaining it than I do.)
https://www.conspicuouscognition.com/p/domination-and-reputation-management
Today I learned a new word - catchfart.
yes indeed, only 7 months in....
Not sure why your first link (Xavier Marquez) doesn't work, but here is what I think you meant:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3650704
The National Shakespeare Theatre did a version of King Lear in which Lear was just this kind of personality cult dictator. And suddenly Regan and Goneril's fawning made perfect sense, and Cordelia's refusal became not just true filial loyalty but knowing and courageous - and much-needed - resistance.
Unfortunately, he's merely reflecting Trump's own opinion of himself. What other figure has stopped/prevented 6 or 7 or 10 wars in eight months?