Former Community – We Moved

🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.

ForumPublic Forum: Power DynamicsDoes having more power mean less …

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Does having more power mean less freedom?

#1 · June 8, 2020, 4:16 am

Quote from JP on June 8, 2020, 4:16 am
I was thinking about this earlier today, while I was regrettably spending a little too much time on social media about the BLM movement. Then it kind of hit me. Does the act of disagreeing with people that I would like influence over erode whatever influence I had with them?
For example, if you have a friend and it's pretty obvious that you have more influence on them than vice versa and they say something but you disagree with them, do you lose even a little bit of power over them? I think so, and the more harsh you disagree with them (especially in front of other friends), the more you highlight the differences. The more that you highlight the differences, the less likely they are to be persuaded by you. Although, being tactful will minimize the damage for sure, you still lose some power, if even a little bit.
Another example that comes to mind is Cassie Jaye. She was an influential feminist who started questioning and disagreeing with her feminist friends at the time, which lead her to become ostracized from the group. Although she is no longer a feminist, she was welcomed by MRAs.
So in a way, becoming more powerful means that you'll need to refrain from doing things that the person or people you're trying to influence don't like. If Donald Trump pisses off his supporters too much, he'll get voted out. But it also depends how loyal his supporters are, the die-hard loyalists give him the power to do whatever he wants.
Now then, how do these politicians/influencers actually have any power if all they're doing is agreeing with their followers and censoring some of their true opinions? I think that as long as he satisfies his followers' main issues (putting America first, lower income taxes, etc) he is free to do what he wants. Some examples:
Not revealing his tax returns (the first of any US president)
Berating the news media constantly
Making up false statements
As long as his supporters believe that they get a positive net benefit in supporting him, they will continue to. The other thing is that, the more committed they are to him, the more they will fall prey to the "sunk cost fallacy".
If for example I wanted to become an influencer of BLM, I would need to silence my own critical thinking, and only concentrate on activities that fight racism and police brutality and make sure it is advertised as much as possible. Although I wouldn't be able to question the opinions on racism and police brutality, my followers probably wouldn't care if I was anti-abortion or anti-gay (As long as I do more good than bad of course). But if I wanted to encourage BLM to think more critically, it would have to be really slow, especially if the number of supporters is large.
How would we apply this to our own relationships? Find out what is important to the other person, and either agree or stay impartial about it (philosopher frame) and focus on influencing them on other things that aren't important to them. I like to think of power as a bank account, when you agree or stay impartial, you're putting money into that bank account, and when you disagree, you're making a withdrawal. The size of the withdrawal would be dictated by how tactful you are. It's ok to disagree, but make sure that your bank account doesn't go to zero unless it was worth it.

I was thinking about this earlier today, while I was regrettably spending a little too much time on social media about the BLM movement. Then it kind of hit me. Does the act of disagreeing with people that I would like influence over erode whatever influence I had with them?

For example, if you have a friend and it's pretty obvious that you have more influence on them than vice versa and they say something but you disagree with them, do you lose even a little bit of power over them? I think so, and the more harsh you disagree with them (especially in front of other friends), the more you highlight the differences. The more that you highlight the differences, the less likely they are to be persuaded by you. Although, being tactful will minimize the damage for sure, you still lose some power, if even a little bit.

Another example that comes to mind is Cassie Jaye. She was an influential feminist who started questioning and disagreeing with her feminist friends at the time, which lead her to become ostracized from the group. Although she is no longer a feminist, she was welcomed by MRAs.

So in a way, becoming more powerful means that you'll need to refrain from doing things that the person or people you're trying to influence don't like. If Donald Trump pisses off his supporters too much, he'll get voted out. But it also depends how loyal his supporters are, the die-hard loyalists give him the power to do whatever he wants.

Now then, how do these politicians/influencers actually have any power if all they're doing is agreeing with their followers and censoring some of their true opinions? I think that as long as he satisfies his followers' main issues (putting America first, lower income taxes, etc) he is free to do what he wants. Some examples:

Not revealing his tax returns (the first of any US president)
Berating the news media constantly
Making up false statements

As long as his supporters believe that they get a positive net benefit in supporting him, they will continue to. The other thing is that, the more committed they are to him, the more they will fall prey to the "sunk cost fallacy".

If for example I wanted to become an influencer of BLM, I would need to silence my own critical thinking, and only concentrate on activities that fight racism and police brutality and make sure it is advertised as much as possible. Although I wouldn't be able to question the opinions on racism and police brutality, my followers probably wouldn't care if I was anti-abortion or anti-gay (As long as I do more good than bad of course). But if I wanted to encourage BLM to think more critically, it would have to be really slow, especially if the number of supporters is large.

How would we apply this to our own relationships? Find out what is important to the other person, and either agree or stay impartial about it (philosopher frame) and focus on influencing them on other things that aren't important to them. I like to think of power as a bank account, when you agree or stay impartial, you're putting money into that bank account, and when you disagree, you're making a withdrawal. The size of the withdrawal would be dictated by how tactful you are. It's ok to disagree, but make sure that your bank account doesn't go to zero unless it was worth it.

#2 · June 8, 2020, 8:49 am

These topics are polarized and highly charged where it can break rapport and lose influence to disagree or even stay neutral, especially in a leadership position. I think the most important thing is to hold onto one's priorities as a leader and values, taking action on those. It's possible to maintain a collaborative frame, like what you do agree with from the other person.
On activist social media & in politics/trying to change things, the goal is to influence the opinions of others, but in other areas, making connections could be more important than trying to influence oppositional opinions which don't affect the relationship.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.

#3 · June 9, 2020, 5:25 am

Hey JP,

Lots of topics in there, some of them Rachel already gave some good inputs.

To address your topic title question, albeit there might be some situations where more power means less freedom, I would say that no, it doesn't mean less freedom.
As a rule of thumb, more power equals more freedom.

The example you cite are specific, such as:

Politics - where your power does depend on votes, in which case, yes, you need to win those votes, which can limit your freedom (but then again: you chose to get into politics so that probably doesn't bother you)
Woman in an ideology-driven, extremist group - that is one of the reasons why I recommend people to be careful of ideology-driven groups, they (indirectly) seek to police your thoughts and behavior, and do limit your freedom

Changing values and beliefs within extremist and ideology-driven groups is a big task.
People tie their identities to their groups and to some enemies of that group. Even if you reached the top of those groups, if you're not careful and try to change too quickly, you will face a challenger who will be calling for your head for getting too soft.
And the more extreme and identity-based is the group, the more carefully you need to tread.

In comparison to ideology-based groups, changing people's minds 1:1 is far easier.
The rule of thumb is: the more they respect you and admire you, the easier it is to change your mind.
Sometimes you don't even need to change their mind, You just be yourself, and they will seek to be more like you. Which is the best position to be to influence others.

B has reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#4 · June 16, 2020, 5:27 am

Quote from JP on June 16, 2020, 5:27 am
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on June 9, 2020, 5:25 am
Hey JP,
Lots of topics in there, some of them Rachel already gave some good inputs.
To address your topic title question, albeit there might be some situations where more power means less freedom, I would say that no, it doesn't mean less freedom.
As a rule of thumb, more power equals more freedom.
The example you cite are specific, such as:
Politics - where your power does depend on votes, in which case, yes, you need to win those votes, which can limit your freedom (but then again: you chose to get into politics so that probably doesn't bother you)
Woman in an ideology-driven, extremist group - that is one of the reasons why I recommend people to be careful of ideology-driven groups, they (indirectly) seek to police your thoughts and behavior, and do limit your freedom
Changing values and beliefs within extremist and ideology-driven groups is a big task.
People tie their identities to their groups and to some enemies of that group. Even if you reached the top of those groups, if you're not careful and try to change too quickly, you will face a challenger who will be calling for your head for getting too soft.
And the more extreme and identity-based is the group, the more carefully you need to tread.
In comparison to ideology-based groups, changing people's minds 1:1 is far easier.
The rule of thumb is: the more they respect you and admire you, the easier it is to change your mind.
Sometimes you don't even need to change their mind, You just be yourself, and they will seek to be more like you. Which is the best position to be to influence others.

Hey Lucio, it's true that the examples I cited were somewhat extremist and I agree. The people in these groups are so emotionally invested in their values.
However, maybe my question wasn't as clear as it could've been, but what I was trying to get at is this: "Does the act of disagreeing with people reduce your influence on them?"
If it does, then it would mean you'd have to really choose what to disagree on, which would mean less freedom. That's my take, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on June 9, 2020, 5:25 am
Hey JP,
Lots of topics in there, some of them Rachel already gave some good inputs.
To address your topic title question, albeit there might be some situations where more power means less freedom, I would say that no, it doesn't mean less freedom.
As a rule of thumb, more power equals more freedom.
The example you cite are specific, such as:
Politics - where your power does depend on votes, in which case, yes, you need to win those votes, which can limit your freedom (but then again: you chose to get into politics so that probably doesn't bother you)
Woman in an ideology-driven, extremist group - that is one of the reasons why I recommend people to be careful of ideology-driven groups, they (indirectly) seek to police your thoughts and behavior, and do limit your freedom
Changing values and beliefs within extremist and ideology-driven groups is a big task.
People tie their identities to their groups and to some enemies of that group. Even if you reached the top of those groups, if you're not careful and try to change too quickly, you will face a challenger who will be calling for your head for getting too soft.
And the more extreme and identity-based is the group, the more carefully you need to tread.
In comparison to ideology-based groups, changing people's minds 1:1 is far easier.
The rule of thumb is: the more they respect you and admire you, the easier it is to change your mind.
Sometimes you don't even need to change their mind, You just be yourself, and they will seek to be more like you. Which is the best position to be to influence others.

Hey Lucio, it's true that the examples I cited were somewhat extremist and I agree. The people in these groups are so emotionally invested in their values.

However, maybe my question wasn't as clear as it could've been, but what I was trying to get at is this: "Does the act of disagreeing with people reduce your influence on them?"

If it does, then it would mean you'd have to really choose what to disagree on, which would mean less freedom. That's my take, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

#5 · June 19, 2020, 6:07 pm

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on June 19, 2020, 6:07 pm
Quote from JP on June 16, 2020, 5:27 am
"Does the act of disagreeing with people reduce your influence on them?"
then it would mean you'd have to really choose what to disagree on, which would mean less freedom. That's my take, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

It's possible.
Disagreeing might reduce your influence over them, depending on the circumstances and how you disagree.
But if you do it well, it might also increase your power (keep on reading).
To begin with, if you had lots of influence to start with, such as they really had a high opinion of you, or you related with them through a judge-role, you disagreeing with them might cause an immediate soul-searching on their side, providing fertile terrain for influencing them.
In some cases, even an immediate U-turn is possible, and they'd go back to their initial statement to re-align closer to yours (there is one example in Power University on a such a U-turn, coupled with big apologies).
But with people you don't have such a strong influence over, then disagreeing in the wrong way can easily cause you to lose influence -and power over them, yes-.
So you'd have to pick your battles, in a way.
But there are still a few options: if you disagree strategically, and with good persuasion-techniques, you can disagree and even increase your power.
For example, instead of telling they are wrong, you might be able to show the benefits better way of thinking/living.
Imagine this dialogue:
Friend: Covid-19 screwed us over men, the economies tanked, it's difficult to a job. Life is so hard (proceeds to get negative, while you disagree that "life is hard", and you want want is to show him success is possible, and optimism is better)
You:
1. Yeah, Covid has hammered the economy badly man (agree with at least something in their sentence),
2. but I see differently (redirect),
3. I see a world of opportunity (pre-frames your message)
4. Look at me, I'm not better than you man (double power move: you are building them up while at the same time providing a compelleing reasons that they can do it, too)
5. and yet... (proceed to talk enthusiastically about what you've done, and what you plan on doing)
In grammatical terms, you are disagreeing. But in power-dynamics, you are still pulling, instead of pushing back or arguing.
Now you show him that success is possible with your own experience. And that not only success is possible, but that's it possible to be happier in life, and he can see it from your expression and voice tonality that it is much better.
Now he might be wondering: is it maybe that it's because of his attitude that he is successful?
What did he do to achieve it?
If you can get him to ask those questions, your influence over him grows 100-fold, and is much greater than if you had agreed in the first place.
And unless he's a super-negative dude, he will want to be more like you, which also gives you more long-term power (this formula is what makes many self-help gurus successful and influential, by the way).

Quote from JP on June 16, 2020, 5:27 am
"Does the act of disagreeing with people reduce your influence on them?"
then it would mean you'd have to really choose what to disagree on, which would mean less freedom. That's my take, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

It's possible.
Disagreeing might reduce your influence over them, depending on the circumstances and how you disagree.

But if you do it well, it might also increase your power (keep on reading).

To begin with, if you had lots of influence to start with, such as they really had a high opinion of you, or you related with them through a judge-role, you disagreeing with them might cause an immediate soul-searching on their side, providing fertile terrain for influencing them.
In some cases, even an immediate U-turn is possible, and they'd go back to their initial statement to re-align closer to yours (there is one example in Power University on a such a U-turn, coupled with big apologies).

But with people you don't have such a strong influence over, then disagreeing in the wrong way can easily cause you to lose influence -and power over them, yes-.
So you'd have to pick your battles, in a way.

But there are still a few options: if you disagree strategically, and with good persuasion-techniques, you can disagree and even increase your power.

For example, instead of telling they are wrong, you might be able to show the benefits better way of thinking/living.
Imagine this dialogue:

Friend: Covid-19 screwed us over men, the economies tanked, it's difficult to a job. Life is so hard (proceeds to get negative, while you disagree that "life is hard", and you want want is to show him success is possible, and optimism is better)
You:
1. Yeah, Covid has hammered the economy badly man (agree with at least something in their sentence),
2. but I see differently (redirect),
3. I see a world of opportunity (pre-frames your message)
4. Look at me, I'm not better than you man (double power move: you are building them up while at the same time providing a compelleing reasons that they can do it, too)
5. and yet... (proceed to talk enthusiastically about what you've done, and what you plan on doing)

In grammatical terms, you are disagreeing. But in power-dynamics, you are still pulling, instead of pushing back or arguing.

Now you show him that success is possible with your own experience. And that not only success is possible, but that's it possible to be happier in life, and he can see it from your expression and voice tonality that it is much better.

Now he might be wondering: is it maybe that it's because of his attitude that he is successful?
What did he do to achieve it?
If you can get him to ask those questions, your influence over him grows 100-fold, and is much greater than if you had agreed in the first place.

And unless he's a super-negative dude, he will want to be more like you, which also gives you more long-term power (this formula is what makes many self-help gurus successful and influential, by the way).

JP and B have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.