Not every person drawn to authority is drawn by the same thing. Some want the responsibility: the actual work of deciding, the accountability that comes with it, and the competence required to do it well. Others want the deference. The title, the treatment, the assumption of superiority that position confers. These are very different motivations, and they produce very different people in the same seat.
Certain roles attract the second type disproportionately. Judgeships. Police work. Political office. Any position where the uniform, the title, or the institutional backing produces automatic deference from others. The role itself is not the problem. Many people in each of these positions are exactly who you would want there. But the selection pressure is different than in fields where competence is more directly measurable, where the market or the outcome gives immediate feedback on whether you are actually good at the thing.
This dynamic was brilliantly illustrated when psychologists revisited the famous Stanford Prison Experiment. For decades, the narrative was that giving normal people the title and uniform of a "guard" turned them cruel. But a 2007 study looked closer at how those guards were recruited. The original advertisement asked for volunteers for "a psychological study of prison life." When researchers ran that exact ad alongside a generic control ad that omitted the words "prison life," the results were staggering. The people who volunteered specifically for the "prison" study scored significantly higher in aggression, authoritarianism, narcissism, and social dominance, and much lower in empathy. The situation did not just corrupt them. The role itself served as a magnet, attracting the exact people who wanted the dominance the title promised.
In its most extreme manifestation, this selection pressure produces horrifying results. In Man's Search for Meaning, Viktor Frankl detailed the phenomenon of the Capos in Auschwitz—prisoners who were elevated by the SS to oversee and police their fellow inmates. Frankl observed that these positions were systematically filled by individuals willing to be entirely brutal. The system demanded cruelty to maintain order, and the Capos, desperate for the privileges and extra rations the position offered, frequently proved more vicious than the SS guards themselves. The position did not create the cruelty; it identified the people willing to trade their humanity for the benefits of the title, and then handed them a whip.
Deference Is Not the Same as Respect
This distinction matters practically. Deference is what you give someone because of what they represent: the badge, the robe, the office. Respect is what you extend based on what they have actually demonstrated: consistency, fairness, competence, the willingness to be accountable. Most people conflate the two, and the people who exploit that conflation know it.
Someone who demands instant deference by status alone is telling you something. What they are telling you is that they believe the position confers something they have not earned through their conduct. That belief, in a person with authority, is not a minor character flaw. It is a reliable predictor of how they will use that authority when it is not convenient to be fair.
"Courtesy costs nothing and signals nothing about character. Respect has to be built, and it can be lost."
What to Teach, What to Model
Children who are taught that certain titles automatically deserve reverence are being equipped poorly. They will encounter people in positions of authority whose conduct does not warrant deference. If they have not been taught the distinction, they will either extend deference anyway (which rewards bad behavior) or feel confused and unmoored when the authority figure disappoints them.
What you actually want to teach and model is more granular: courtesy is the baseline extended to everyone, regardless of position. It costs nothing and communicates nothing about your assessment of the person. Respect is a separate thing. It is earned through specific, observable behavior over time. A judge who is fair and careful deserves respect for that. A judge who uses the courtroom as a stage for personal authority deserves nothing beyond the minimum courtesy you extend to any human being.
Evaluating the Person, Not the Role
When you encounter someone in a position of authority, the relevant question is not what the position says about them. The relevant question is what they do with it. Do they apply their authority consistently, or selectively? Do they demonstrate accountability when they are wrong? Do they treat people with less power the same way they treat people with more? These are not difficult observations to make if you are paying attention.
Be skeptical of anyone who mistakes the office for the person. Be equally skeptical of anyone who makes that mistake about themselves, believing that the title is doing something their conduct has not. Positions exist to organize the delivery of function. They do not manufacture the character required to perform that function well. That part is still entirely up to the person holding the title.