Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
My Journey to Power
@transitioned: to be clear thanks a lot! I’m still thinking about it as without the secrecy it would be more neutral and better to have an executive assistant for the minutes. I could also use it to my advantage as you said.
It’s a resource so I would have to ask for a resource. It would be better for the meetings and remove the power moves as you said.
Something I learned with my therapist: when one is different in any shape of form one can learn to over-adapt and show overly “I’m friendly and not a threat” body language. Lots of smiles, open-hands gestures, high pitched voice, etc.
In our vocabulary this is low-power/low status/submissive body language.
It’s an adaptive way to avoid ostracism from the majoritarian group.
It applies to different skin colour and of course different brain functioning. For instance being highly sensitive/gifted person.
Since we are many here of the cerebral/sensitive kind here I thought this would be of interest to you.
I think it’s helpful to understand the cause of a behavior in order to better change it. Awareness first as usual.
Listening to the “wisdom of psychopaths” I have a few thoughts.
There is definitely some overlap between takers, manipulators, narcissists and psychopathy in some people.
However it does not have to be.
The strength of the psychopath are:
1. To turn off their emotions. It all depends how high they are on the scale. As I say elsewhere when I do a suture on a child I definitely turn off my emotions. The thing is that being all the time emotionless is pathological. However not being able to go in full analytical mode is costly in terms of rewards. We lose sometimes because we listen to our feelings.
2. To think in terms of gain/loss only. That is to remove morality. This is the amorality. This is really powerful. How to use it for a normal person ? It allows us to go in the win-lose territory when needed. When needed! Morality is doing good. That is not hurting other people. As we now know it’s important to be able to be bad. That is to be able hurt people who are evil as a stable characteristic. The allies killing nazis was not good for the nazis. They took from them. But it was necessary to take from the takers. It is also important to be able to take when it’s not hurting anyone.
So if we are only “good” there is a whole range of behaviors that are not available to us. It feels a bit strange to write this. As these are new thoughts to me. I realize that I am at the same time growing in the light I’m also growing in the dark. The connections I have with people and the inner feelings of love are better than ever. At the same time I feel that my ability and my threshold to inflict damage has never been lower. I have a moral code: that is certain things I would never do. But I’m revising it. I think there are a few select cases that warrant to break our moral code.
That’s the freedom of the psychopaths: he does pretty much what he wants as long as it’s beneficial to him/her. The difference is that one does not have to hurt other people. It’s an option but does not have to be.
We can learn from the freedom of action of the psychopaths to extend our choices. One of the key aspects of power.
So I’m exploring a new shade of grey in terms of morality.
I know it might not sound good and could paint me in a bad light writing it here. But that’s the truth.
I’m moving towards the anti-hero archetype.
I still serve a cause. This new mindset will help me to not stay stuck in the service of a cause (naivety) and in sacrifice mode.
Wow, John. I think this is definetely good food for thoughts.
You've made me remember about "grand scale social manipulation" in "prosocial" behaviour or as I think Nietzsche refers to it: slave morality (I have the feeling that you know more about Nietzsche than I do)
Often we are told that we should be "good" for the sake of: society/god/ourselves/ideals/world. But when one thinks about it, some pro social behaviours that culture promotes are simply framed in a way that will make one a victim of manipulation:
- Violence is never the solution.
- Everything can be solved with dialogue.
- Treat others as you want others to treat you.
- Always be respectful, even if others aren't with you. That way you show others that you aren't as nasty as them.
- Always put others needs before yours after all they may need those things more than you.
I think we are all familiarized with this, nothing new. However it's precisely because there are lots of covert frames we have accepted (and that we accepted in the past till we started thinking critically) that I believe it's worth revisiting all those behaviours we haven't questioned yet, as you point out.
So if we are only “good” there is a whole range of behaviors that are not available to us. It feels a bit strange to write this.
Yeah man, I agree. I would say that's the reason for the fact that most people at the top are takers/amoral, they have way more room to maneuver and from the top they promote "naive prosocial behaviour" so they keep the status quo and that's what I believe we should avoid. Funnily I initially came across this realization when I saw how easy it's to attract women/get respect when you act as a jerk rather than when you act as a high quality and high power guy. The later is harder I suppose although that's the only way we have to create good value adding relationships.
Those are my thoughts on some things you point out, of course feel free to comment about it.
Thank you Power Duck for your answer. I’ll answer you when I’m in front of my computer.
Travelling is great for inspiring new thoughts. At least it is to me.
I now think that open-mindedness is not only openness to new ideas and experiences. It’s also openness/interest in other people’s perspectives.
This allows us to develop our empathy and makes it easier to connect with other people even though we have not lived their experiences. It’s our best attempt at putting ourselves in their shoes. It’s the opposite of judging. Due to the law of balance there can be too much of it of course.
The problem arises when we refuse or are not interested in other people’s perspective. If we don’t intend to exist in our group of reference it has less negative implication. But still we will always be in contact with people with different experiences than ours. So putting ourselves in their shoes enriches our humanity and brings us closer.
Thinking about what the pregnant woman is going through even though we’re not a woman or not pregnant. Thinking about how tired the night shift Uber/taxi driver must be. And when we think it gives us the opportunity to imagine how it feels. And allows us to connect.
Human suffering is part of the shared human experience. It just happens that we experiment with different shape and colours of it or sometimes the same.
Quote from Power Duck on August 26, 2023, 11:27 pmWow, John. I think this is definetely good food for thoughts.
Thanks!
You've made me remember about "grand scale social manipulation" in "prosocial" behaviour or as I think Nietzsche refers to it: slave morality (I have the feeling that you know more about Nietzsche than I do)
Definitely slave morality.
Often we are told that we should be "good" for the sake of: society/god/ourselves/ideals/world. But when one thinks about it, some pro social behaviours that culture promotes are simply framed in a way that will make one a victim of manipulation:
- Violence is never the solution.
- Everything can be solved with dialogue.
- Treat others as you want others to treat you.
- Always be respectful, even if others aren't with you. That way you show others that you aren't as nasty as them.
- Always put others needs before yours after all they may need those things more than you.
I think we are all familiarized with this, nothing new. However it's precisely because there are lots of covert frames we have accepted (and that we accepted in the past till we started thinking critically) that I believe it's worth revisiting all those behaviours we haven't questioned yet, as you point out.
Exactly, of the covert frames being: the interest of the group comes before yours. That is good for the group: if you let yourself be disrespected you keep the peace within the group but you feel like shit. We would have not survived if the interest of the group came after the interest of the individual.
So if we are only “good” there is a whole range of behaviors that are not available to us. It feels a bit strange to write this.
Yeah man, I agree. I would say that's the reason for the fact that most people at the top are takers/amoral, they have way more room to maneuver and from the top they promote "naive prosocial behaviour" so they keep the status quo and that's what I believe we should avoid.
Definitely. Being a smart taker can lead you to the top.
Funnily I initially came across this realization when I saw how easy it's to attract women/get respect when you act as a jerk rather than when you act as a high quality and high power guy. The later is harder I suppose although that's the only way we have to create good value adding relationships.
To me there are 2 different scenarios. Either it's because one is high power so has other options so does not need to put the effort (the case you propose) or is being dominant. Women respond to dominance so acting like a jerk can also be dominant behaviour. To me it also comes down to: "do we really want to be jerk with women?" I personally not. Especially since there are other options: "dark side is easier, quicker but not more powerful".
Thanks for the response John.
Your response actually made me remember a very important gap in my power skills that I have to fix, so thanks for that. I agree with everything you commented by the way.
Cheers.
I understand I was naive about competition at work listening to « the corner office » and with the recent events with my peer.
Much to learn I still have.
So Yesterday I was in a pub in Newcastle.
A fight erupts: punches in the face and all.
I did what I learned on self-defense YT channels: I moved out of the danger zone.
I end up being close to a guy who’s GF has been checking me out when I entered and he saw her checking me out. When he addressed me I knew beforehand he was going to up me due to the situation and me looking like a foreigner. An easy target for him to feel superior or so he thought.
Him: you’re sneaking here. (Implying that I was hiding behind him: attack on masculinity I was expecting it from this guy lol it’s a classic from low class males. Who’s a real man who’s not bla-bla-bla that’s how status is often achieved: dominance game.
Me: I don’t want to be involved in this
Him (touching my shoulder with a smile): oh you’re not the doorman? (Implying that I’m not strong and muscular, not much imagination still attack on masculinity)
Me (touching his shoulder, he’s more muscular): No, you’re the doorman. (Implying that he’s working here and doorman is low status and maybe working for me as a customer: one-up back).
And I went back to where the fight started: it had ended and I ordered a beer.
I felt proud because it reminded me Lucio’s awesome answer: “there isn’t a single drop left”.
He attacked me on my masculinity I attacked him on his status. I won and moved on. Not the easy target he expected. Small victory but still. In the past I would have probably submitted in order to be nice or be afraid because of him being stronger and taller than me and me being a tourist (I respect the locals, I’m a guest so I usually let them get away with being an asshole.). Not this time.
A thought about cancel culture:
I think it exists because it’s driven by women. I heard some time ago that men tend to push people up or down in a hierarchy and women tend to push in or out of a group.
So I think ostracism (cancel culture) is a technique more often used by females. And since the people being cancelled are often cancelled for different political views or sexual misconducts it makes sense. So I think current radical feminism (playing the victim as a power move) goes hand in hand with cancel culture.
Same for wokism. When a group tries to silence an individual or a group or a school of thoughts it’s not good for democracy.
But this point is not considered as (per a conversation I had with someone who thinks it’s a good thing) it is considered morally good to cancel somebody morally bad.
I would take it into consideration if it was done from an individual. But from a group it feels like mobbing. So yes this technique is only possible thanks to a group.
For me if the person has done something bad repeatedly (her argument) and people continue to go see their show. Then I don’t see what’s the problem is. People have a choice.
So it really comes down to freedom vs equality. And of course if someone is in a lower position equality sounds better as one person moves up with equality. If you’re in a higher position not so good for you. So it really is slave morality as we talked recently (Power Duck).
Cancel culture does not believe in freedom of thought. So in essence it is a natural enemy of free thinkers. Like any dogma actually.
And if one reveals these contradiction the agression goes up one level. Because these ideas often come from a personal history of an emotional wound. Then some people justify their projections of what happened to them on other people with virtue signaling. To me it’s quite sad. But at least now that I’m aware of it I can better listen and empathize and ask questions to understand.
Actually I think in those conversation to get to the bottom of the issue it’s possible to ask if it happened to the person: “you seem really angry about this. Has it ever happened to you?”
The risk is that the person can take the moral higher ground as it’s a change of topic: “it’s not about me it’s about all these women…”
The thing is I don’t believe in mob justice. There’s a justice system. Albeit imperfect it’s not up to the mob to do justice.
