48 Laws of Power

[TheHumanist]

I know there's a thread somewhere about this book, but I want to give a fresh start rather than revive the old thread with thoughts from a year ago.

After Jophill made an interesting viewpoint and made a little sore point for RT. I want to have a healthy discussion on the book and thoughts on it.

I have read and own the book. I also actually made a journal on a word document with my analysis of each law with my interpretation, applications, and relations to other laws. I can see why many people follow it very closely. It list some very good guidelines to deal with people, once it is analyzed enough to be able to apply it directly to everyday world.

However, for discussion, I'm going to focus on the more issues I noticed. I noticed there was several historical flaws that simply did not happen the way he wrote or was bent far too much to conform to the law (I can't recall and the word document is on my Laptop which since I'm at work now as an IT (so much easier and pay is much better than what I had before), I have no access to it to give examples though I recall one historical example was Louis Napoleon acting too much like a common man instead of acting like royalty and led to being treated with too much contempt, but there was many other relevant reasons he lost power such as failing economy, nationalism, and losing wars...).

The biggest problem is simply the insistance on having an amoral tone. I do not think there was such a need to be that amoral. Greene reasoning was that he wants to lay it out without bias and let the reader think of how to apply it but several of the laws I noticed have a much more common wording but it seems that it is reworded just to give a much more amoral tone. I suspect it is to create more controversy which would brings more attention (which is following one of the laws in the book, but it lowers clarity and simplicity). For example, the book How to Win Friends and Influence People, I noticed utilizes many of the laws (like taking interest in people and working to their self-interest) as it lists it own "laws", but it didn't have to take as much a negative stance. I think even The Prince had more positivity in many areas, it may stated some very amoral things, but it seems Greene was trying to in areas that had no need to except to be amoral.

So those are my thoughts (I have more, but that is what I can think of). What do you guys think of the book? Noticed any patterns? Made any applications? Have any criticism? How neccessary to life do you think of the book or do you think there are better books even though one can arguably say it is just a derivative from the core laws? How should character or ethics be applied and its importance?

 

[DarthAngel707]

You're right, it has a very amoral tone and even though the principles in theory are very sound, it is not practical in the modern world. People can smell unethical techniques from a mile away and if you try to act like a king, people will either call you on it or believe that you are delusional.

The techniques layed out in Greene's book is useful for court politics, but we are living in different times now where status and respect is based on merit and must be earned instead of sucking up to a "Sun King" or anyone who can bestow power upon you by divine right.

However I do like some techniques like being a mystery, using silence, feigning weakness, etc... but if you've ever seen the author on camera or in pictures he looks like a total armchair intellectual LOL.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Before I start, this link will probably help:
48 Laws of Power Synopsis

The key to what uninitiated people will interpret as an amoral (immoral) tone of the book is our conditioned response to the word "power". We're taught from an early age that use of power is synonymous with tyranny, or manipulation, or a means of selfishly promoting our own interests for our own benefit. In other words, "power" has a connotation of being inherently negative or evil. So needless to say getting around this association is the first obstacle most people run into when reading the book. And actually, if you read the introduction, Robert Greene masterfully addresses this from the outset.

Most people confuse the use of Power with it's application in a Moral or Amoral context. Power, in and of itself isn't right or wrong, it's simply a means to an end; it's your intent that makes it so. Your refusal to use Power or attempt to understand it doesn't make it moral or immoral. In fact, you really have no choice but to be subject to the influence of Power (even when you're ignorant of it) - you can either manipulate it or you can be manipulated by it.

It's like fire. I can cook my food and warm myself with it or I can set my neighbors house on fire with it. Power isn't moral or immoral, it's the application of it, and the behaviors that follow that defines an outcome in a set of conditions. It's the outcome of it's use that you're questioning.

I constantly reference 48 Laws of Power and when I first began reading the book my wife accused me of "lusting after power" and that it was 'evil to learn how to be powerful' (not her exact words). I had to convince her that this was never my intent, becuase throughout my professional career I've worked with men that popular concensus would term as "powerful" and I have no desire to emmulate these men. Most were (are) so self-consumed that they made themselves all the more easily manipulated by those who genuinely understood how to effectively play the chess game of Power. In fact, the most wealthy and powerful men I've ever worked for generally understood it the least. They'd subscribe to a handfull of Laws that came to them (and most) naturally and held onto them selfishly and tenaciously. This of course only opens them up to a world of manipulation and strategy by those who know and can put into practice other Laws to counter the ones they cling to. I most definitely don't aspire to that sort of life.

Rather I like to think of myself as a Leonardo Da Vinci. That may seem a bit grandiose and I certainly can't put my talents up to that comparison, but in principle I'd rather emmulate Leonardo. He understood the nature of power and how to deal with powerful people while putting it to use for himself and ensuring his own well being. I have no desire to run the company I work for, or replace the owner, but I play his game better than him and think several moves ahead to make sure that I'm indespensible and in the right place at the right time to profit from either his successes or his mistakes, while advancing my own ambitions and the well being of myself and my family.

The reason for my wife's trepedation about reading 48 Laws is because the word 'Power' gets associated with negative connotations.What do you think of someone uses the word power? A popular perception of someone with power is a person (usually male) who controls others either personally or financially, maybe even emotionally, but this is almost always looked upon as a negative situation. People who desire power are usually cast in the role of being aggressive, controlling or manipulative. I think this is a bad rap for Power, because it's really all in the definition.

Power isn't about controlling others. Power is the degree to which you have control over your own life and your own direction. Sometimes this involves directing other people to act in accordance with what you want, but real power comes from being able to freely make your own decisions without being constrained by others.

Now think for a minute about how you have power now. Using this idea of power, what can you do for yourself and what options do you have that aren't influenced by other people or outside needs? I have to live by certain rules and certain convictions for me to be able to do the thing I find important. As a married man, I have options closed off to me that others don't. As a father, as an employee, as a supervisor ect. there are certain areas I'm completely powerless in. On the other hand I have complete control over my actions and I have to own the responsibility of their consequences.

There are those who seek power by changing the game - by lowering the basketball hoops in order to better shoot a basket - but in 'leveling the playing field' they only succeed in changing the nature of the competition to better suit their individual abilities, neither improving the game nor themselves.

Then there are those who accept the game for what it is, they understand it and they master it (or at least attempt to do so). They understand the need for adversity and the benefits it gives them when they reach the next level of mastering the game - not only in technique, but from the confidence this genuinely and verifiably confers.

 

[02hero]

I lent my copy of this book out to a so called friend a couple of months ago, guess what? He still hasn't given it back to me.......I'm an idiot

 

[immrtlwun]

Where's Kontroller on this topic. He preaches that book like its his version of the bible.

It is a great book though. I read it and picked up a lot of great information. The morality of it all depends on how you use the "laws."

 

[KontrollerX]

I'm right here.

Law 48 is probably my favorite and I believe this is also one of Bruce Lee's teachings...

Assume Formlessness

By taking a shape, by having a visible plan, you open yourself to attack. Instead of taking a form for your enemy to grasp, keep yourself adaptable and on the move. Accept the fact that nothing is certain and no law is fixed. The best way to protect yourself is to be as fluid and formless as water; never bet on stability or lasting order. Everything changes.

"if you try to act like a king, people will either call you on it or believe that you are delusional."

I think you misunderstood what that law was getting at.

It doesn't mean act like Henry the VIII so far as ordering people around but rather adopting a king's way of carrying himself as in other words how we teach it here carrying oneself like a man of worth with confidence and self assurance. People can and do respond to that. You get respect from men and attraction from women. A win win.

 

[STR8UP]

Bring up anything that has to do with money or power in most circles and you run the risk of being chastised.

It's sad that people are ignorant to the facts that Rollo pointed out. Power and money are neither good nor bad. They can both be used for either purpose, but they both get a bad rap due to people's ignorance.

It's pretty easy to read the 48 Laws and take things literally. If you read something that says "Crush your enemy completely" it sounds pretty harsh. And some of the laws might have more application in a war than in the workplace, but it doesn't take too much common sense to be able to figure out that some of the laws will only apply to certain things, and that if you think a little bit before you interpret the law literally, you might find that it has more of a use in your life than you at first realized.

 

[DarthAngel707]

Yes, I prefer Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People. This book is much more practical and even Obama's grandfather read it and applied it to gain a lot of friends. I would recommend this book over Greene's 48 Laws of Power.

However, careful when applying the principles laid out in Carnegie's book since it only works with the people you aren't sarging. Applying it too much can be kiss-ass.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Power and money are neither good nor bad. They can both be used for either purpose, but they both get a bad rap due to people's ignorance.

Ignorance, or by design? You see it's always been in the best interest of the people with power to discourage others from pursuing it, thus preserving their own. What better way is there to achieve this than to demonize even the desire to learn more about how power functions at the psychological level? Condition others not only to see power as an inherent negative, but to make an understanding of power diabolic.

The social elite have always objected to knowledge being given to the masses. The demonization of power is a social convention with the latent function of discouraging those without power (or those ignorant of it's applications) from pursuing an understanding of it. Denying the influence, marginalizing and denouncing power as inherently negative, is in itself an application of power. Pair this with the risk of having one's character becoming personally associated with that negativity and you can just begin to see how this very application goes beyond any of the 48 Laws themselves. It's actually the 49th Law - the unspoken Law - Always discourage the pursuit of Power.

 

[azanon]

Ignorance, or by design? You see it's always been in the best interest of the people with power to discourage others from pursuing it, thus preserving their own.

Just to add something you left off that might not be inherently obvious to everyone. One preserves their power in this way because power (like a lot of things) is relative. Everyone has some degree of power. That being the case, you can only truly make sense of, and estimate your power when you compare it to everyone else's in whatever environment you find yourself in, whether its your workplace, at a bar, in your family, or just in general/overall.

So in short, one can increase their net power by becoming more powerful themselves, or minimizing/limiting everyone else's power.

Rules/limitations have their place. I only caution that they inherently decrease your power. So when you follow one, at the very least, be mindful of this. I follow rules only when I estimate that doing so will benefit me overall in some way more than the loss I incur from not bending the rules.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Power isn't about controlling others. Power is the degree to which you have control over your own life and your own direction.

My trainer told me the same thing about martial arts, which is a type of power. It is about mastery over self, not mastery over other people.

 

[TheHumanist]

Ignorance, or by design? You see it's always been in the best interest of the people with power to discourage others from pursuing it, thus preserving their own. What better way is there to achieve this than to demonize even the desire to learn more about how power functions at the psychological level? Condition others not only to see power as an inherent negative, but to make an understanding of power diabolic.

The social elite have always objected to knowledge being given to the masses. The demonization of power is a social convention with the latent function of discouraging those without power (or those ignorant of it's applications) from pursuing an understanding of it. Denying the influence, marginalizing and denouncing power as inherently negative, is in itself an application of power. Pair this with the risk of having one's character becoming personally associated with that negativity and you can just begin to see how this very application goes beyond any of the 48 Laws themselves. It's actually the 49th Law - the unspoken Law - Always discourage the pursuit of Power.

Correct me if I misunderstand, are you saying social engineering? I have to be skeptical about that it's possible I guess today with mass media and so on, but hasn't cultural disdain of power existed long into ancient times? It sounds like you are stating that there's is a conscious and deliberate effort to keep others from getting power in society.

There are reasonable reason to why people are wary. If we are not, then we risk giving someone the ability to do much damage. It is said that whatever power we give the to the government, we have to consider that are we willing to let them abuse it too. Of course, that line of thinking can also spill over to power in general as the usually thought is not power on oneself.

What you speaking of power to control you own destiny, I don't think anyone have an issue with that. If you said that to a crowd, I wouldn't imagine such boos that you want to be the master of your own destiny, to be a person of action, to make your own luck. Self-empowerment. There are many people doing stuff saying to become self-empowered and so on. "Strength" is another word similar to power without the issue of the bad connotations too. Makes me doubt the active pursuit of power is so hated, people still try to go up their career latter right? People still try to organize group for politics.

Now if you just talking about the book itself, its hard for general uninformed people to immediately understand the intention of reading a book that list a law that say "crush enemies completely." It takes strong application of morals (since it "amoral," it is up to use to apply our own ethics, though like I said, some of his laws and historical backup seems to be done more for the sake of controversy than neutrality) and interpretation to understand it can mean that someone who wish ill be given a chance to do it again (or make them a friend as another law said, that's "annihilation" too).

There's a reason why there's a saying that absolute power corrupts absolutely. When power is given to an extreme, power not just over the self, but over others, and many others. They can use it for good, but many as you said tyranny and so on, have used it for less noble means. Your definition of power is controlling your own life, but power have many definitions, and terminology is important. Your definition is valid, but the ability to control others is a type of power too. Extreme is still an extreme, like many things, power on the extreme end is bad as well. There are those who not just want to stay safe, but lust for control and willing to hurt others for it and in use of it.

 

[Deep Dish]

For years I've heard about the book. There was even one time a buddy and I were in a bookstore and sought out the book just to talk about it. So, two days ago I happened to have a "bookstore whim" in me and bought the book, alongside The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less by Barry Schwartz (that's another story). Just thought I'd share, and thank TheHumanist for unwittingly, serendiptiously, prompting me to buy the book.

 

[TheHumanist]

For years I've heard about the book. There was even one time a buddy and I were in a bookstore and sought out the book just to talk about it. So, two days ago I happened to have a "bookstore whim" in me and bought the book, alongside The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less by Barry Schwartz (that's another story). Just thought I'd share, and thank TheHumanist for unwittingly, serendiptiously, prompting me to buy the book.

My pleasure. I hope you will give a strong analysis and review of the book after you read it.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

It sounds like you are stating that there's is a conscious and deliberate effort to keep others from getting power in society.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying - though I wouldn't say it's conscious. As I stated the 49th Law is to deny the influence of power and/or demonize it in order to maintain it. Is it social engineering? Yes, absolutely, but contemporary mass media is only today's vehicle for it. If you want to call it engineering, fine, but the social convention stretches back for centuries. People possessing power, either by virtue of their merits or by chance of their position have historically limited the the access to that power by limiting the understanding of it to the masses. The easiest example is literacy, if you can't read, you are severely limited in your understanding. Hierarchal cultures and religions have always limited the access to power by limiting the distribution of the means to understand it. For example, until the Guttenberg Bible was published through the advent of movable type, only the literate Roman Catholic church had any real access to the core tenets of a religion that spanned Europe and beyond. Wars were fought, Protestant reformers were murdered and witches were burned for allowing this level of understanding to the masses.

That's just one example of the mechanics of it, there are many more. The psychology is what's been emphasized over the course of history. Ever wonder why it's considered impolite to inquire about how much a person's salary is at work? Because that knowledge is empowering, and usually not in the best interest of the employer. So a social convention is instituted that makes asking or discussing salary rude. And again, this is one small illustration of a larger psychology with the latent purpose of limiting access to power. Practiced long enough, these conventions become social norms, or even "common sense". The victory of this psychology and it's latent purpose comes when society takes the convention for granted and makes it a norm.

Heh,..now, with that in mind, why do you think it's considered rude to inquire about a woman's age, but not a man's?

 

[azanon]

Hierarchal cultures and religions have always limited the access to power by limiting the distribution of the means to understand it.

You meant, by limiting the distribution of the means to oppose it.

But I agree with your essential point.

So a social convention is instituted that makes asking or discussing salary rude.

I could be open to an argument that this question is not inherently rude, but I'm not convinced. Inherently, ... meaning beyond social contrivance. But at the very least, it should be considered polite to decline to answer this question.

Heh,..now, with that in mind, why do you think it's considered rude to inquire about a woman's age, but not a man's?

At least admit this is a hasty generalization. IMO, it would also be rude to ask an approximately 350 lb man how much he weighs.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

I could be open to an argument that this question is not inherently rude, but I'm not convinced. Inherently, ... meaning beyond social contrivance. But at the very least, it should be considered polite to decline to answer this question.

True, but the very fact that it should even be an issue makes it suspect. In fact many of the social niceties we don't give a second thought to were originally established in order to maintain at least a perceived sense of power by masking a deficit or weakness.

At least admit this is a hasty generalization. IMO, it would also be rude to ask an approximately 350 lb man how much he weighs.

350 lbs. is not an easy condition to hide. There's no Oil of Olay that helps you look thinner. The reason it's rude is that it exposes a failing, but do you even need to ask? Asking a woman her age likewise pulls back her mask and diminishes the power she enjoys so long as you think she's younger than she actually is. Understand, I'm not saying older women can't look good or that there's even anything wrong with trying to hold a youthful look; it's the power dynamic and how social conventions are applied to enact it that I'm on about.

If Machivellie had actually had a Prince to advise, his first rule would be to deny the influence of power. The 49th Law is like the first rule of Fight Club - Never tell anyone about power. Don't draw attention to your means of maintaining power while simultaneously disparaging those who'd aspire to it. What better way to enact this than to instill it in common culture? Peoples negative perception of power today is a direct result of this aculturation.

 

[TheHumanist]

If Machivellie had actually had a Prince to advise, his first rule would be to deny the influence of power. The 49th Law is like the first rule of Fight Club - Never tell anyone about power. Don't draw attention to your means of maintaining power while simultaneously disparaging those who'd aspire to it. What better way to enact this than to instill it in common culture? Peoples negative perception of power today is a direct result of this aculturation.

Then there's is also the distrust to authority and the history of leaders who had too much power that is also a good reason to the negative perception of power. I don't think there's a negative perception if you want to climb up the career ladder, gaining more and better options for one's own life, and even a position of leadership by reason of merit. Your definition of power is different from the majority, their equivalent of your definition is self-empowerment or strength.

As you said, their thinking of power is tyranny or undermining and usurpation of those in authority. I don't think that is a fabricated social convention by our leaders/social elites to keep us down by means of making a culture which shames power. Should people not be wary of abuses of power by our leaders? Should people not try to give a suspicious eye of our watchmen? That negative image of power, is power in government and organized groups, I think that is a valid image and not just a condition response to keep us down. Not to mention that greed and desire for extreme power doesn't exist either, though that is more understandable since it can be more easily confused from the more balanced desire for enough power for security and welfare.

Speak of power, it brings misunderstanding, speak of strength, and they will understand what you are justly aiming.

This is not you said I don't see the logic of the "49th law." It relates to Law 15 of Crushing Enemies Totally in its details. Attacking them before they grow too large and becomes a threat. A good way is to instill a thinking to not even try to grow. However, I think there's a valid reasoning to view power negatively, power is usually synonymous to authority. The other types of power such as power over your own life and destiny is acceptable once explained or used with different language.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

The problem comes with the associations of power in this respect. As I stated earlier, most people associate power negatively, why is that? Because we've been taught to associate power with abuse, manipulations, scheming, etc. As with power in it's meta form - like government, organized religion, corporations - we are discouraged to pursue it in it's micro form, as it applies to us individually. On some level of consciousness we recognize a need of Power for ourselves in some form in order to achieve things for ourselves. So when overtly recognizing Power becomes distasteful, we rename it, and call it something positive like "strength" or "ambition" (and even to call someone ambitious can have negative associations). Or we redefine Power to effect it, but avoid the negative connotations. We say there's power in humility or meekness in an attempt to make others more powerful than ourselves play to our skill level. That's not to say there isn't power in passivity. Ghandi was perhaps the most powerful person of his time, but he avoided the negative associations of power by his application of it.

Power doesn't have to be raw, naked aggression. In fact most of the 48 Laws encourage using it deftly rather than forcefully.

 

[Darth]

I agree that the 48 laws are interesting, but Carnegie's book is a lot more practical in the real world...