Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Quantifying power: a formula for power
Hey so I've kind of thought of a way to roughly quantify the amount of power someone has, which works out to this:
Power = sum of (each supporter*their loyalty*their influence)
So "each supporter" would be anyone that you know, that knows you
"loyalty" would be a measure of how much influence that YOU have over them. The more loyal they are to you, the more they trust you. Since this is a qualitative measure, we can use all the numbers from 1-100. One being someone that you may know in passing, and 0ne-hundred being someone who's a complete fanatic.
"their influence" would be a measure of how much influence THEY have over others. Since the spectrum varies so much, we can use all whole numbers from 1-100. One being a poor homeless person with little to no friends, and 100 being the President of the US.
Loyalty is given equal weighting with influence, here's why: If you happen to be a few degrees separated from the POTUS, you technically know him and he's obviously going to score high in "influence," even though he barely knows you, it still opens up a lot of doors. Now if we flipped it the other way around, and you have a poor homeless guy that is a complete fanatic for you, and is willing to do "dirty work" for you, I'd say that is worth equal to what the POTUS could give you (if you barely knew him).
Any thoughts?
I love this idea, JP!
We could call it the "quantifying the power of networks / influence", to put it within the context of social relations.
I might add / link something similar to the Power University as a matter of fact, and link here / quote you.
I would also be thinking of how to make that formula work in both the positive and negative.
For example, if loyalty goes so negative that people want to see you fall and fail. In that case, the "supporters" become enenies, and the more influence they have, the more they can damage you.
P.S.: I added to the title "a formula for power" to give more visibility.
Thanks for the props Lucio.
Yes, I think that if we have some sort of formula of how much power we have, it would also make it easy for setting Power goals.
I agree on loyalty. It can be tough since if you make an enemy of someone, you can also gain more followers in return. I'm sure you know that old saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." For sure the formula I made could use some work to account for all this, but definitely open to changes to make it better. Hopefully others can chime in with ideas.
this is an interesting idea, yet I believe power would prove to be hard or even impossible to quantify, and we should not get to comfortable in mathematical formulas: in the social sciences, and this argument was advanced by the economist Ludwig Von Mises, the same method of the other natural sciences (e. g: physics) may not apply, and numbers may give a false sense of precision.
That's certainly a good point, Stef.
And, in large part, I agree with you.
"Power" might be too high-level of a concept to be described by just one formula.
Yet, if we make that concept a bit more specific, and if we add all the caveats you mention, then we might arrive at a formula that, albeit still a big simplification of reality, can give people a good idea on what they need to focus on.
For example, JP's formula might describe "social influence" / "social power", which is a more specific subset of power.
The usefulness of a formula
I think some good use cases for a formula:
- It can function as a "big summary" of a concept
- It helps people focus on the 80% that matters most
So for example, when someone looks at that formula, he realizes that friends empower, while enemies disempower. Sure there are plenty of exceptions, but the general rule still stands despite the exceptions.
And some guys who go through life being rude and not realizing they're doing something wrong, it can be a big wakeup call.
Example of using a formula
Angela Duckworth says this is the formula of achievement:
Talent x Effort = Skill →
Skill x Effort = Achievement
Is it a simplification of reality?
Sure.
Where is the role of "chance", or of making friends who can help you up, or of seeking mentors to help you cut the learning curve?
There is none of that in that formula.
Yet, it's a powerful reminder that developing your skills does matter. And that the work you put in -effort- is a huge determinant of your achievements.
And it's also a powerful reminder of the power you have over your own life success.
I agree, as long as we stay cognizant that we are making a simplification (sometimes very big) of reality, and do not get overconfident because of numbers and mathematical gowns, I see how an equation can be valuable.
Quote from Stef on October 3, 2020, 11:33 pmI agree, as long as we stay cognizant that we are making a simplification (sometimes very big) of reality, and do not get overconfident because of numbers and mathematical gowns, I see how an equation can be valuable.
Yes, this formula was never meant as something precise, but it is a way to roughly measure power/influence of someone. Adding onto what Lucio said, if you've worked in any job that is safety-related, you would have come across a "risk matrix". It is a very simple formula with very arbitrary numbers, but it is used because you'd be able to give someone else a rough idea of how risky or safe something is. Imagine if this risk matrix was not used, the only answers you'd get from other people is "risky" or "not risky". Because everyone has a different threshold for what is "risky", those answers are completely subjective and are highly variable.
JP's formula might describe "social influence" / "social power", which is a more specific subset of power.
If Power is the ability to influence others, couldn't this be used in other contexts as well? If you were CEO of a company, the staff that you directly deal with, would be your "followers", and their "followers" would be those directly under them.
I'd also like to make a bit of a change. I think loyalty should include cases where threats, coercion, or blackmail is used. It is a dark form of Power, but it doesn't make it any less legit. Anyone with a gun to their head would be as willing as the loyal fanatic to go to the ends of the world for you, or at least close to it.
Since "Loyalty" only applies when someone is voluntarily doing things on your behalf, it should be replaced with "obedience" or "submission" since those two terms would also cover cases when some is involuntarily doing things on your behalf.
Quote from JP on October 7, 2020, 4:55 amI'd also like to make a bit of a change. I think loyalty should include cases where threats, coercion, or blackmail is used. It is a dark form of Power, but it doesn't make it any less legit. Anyone with a gun to their head would be as willing as the loyal fanatic to go to the ends of the world for you, or at least close to it.
Since "Loyalty" only applies when someone is voluntarily doing things on your behalf, it should be replaced with "obedience" or "submission" since those two terms would also cover cases when some is involuntarily doing things on your behalf.
Good one, JP.
Yeah, exactly, that's why I was thinking more in terms of influence in the beginning, since it didn't cover coercion, plus all the grey areas between voluntary loyalty and circumstantial loyalty.
For example, the influence of the CEO you talk about, he definitely falls in the grey area.
There is both the threat losing something (firing, missing promotions, berating and losing status, etc.), all forms of coercion, or providing something.
How much coercion is used also depends on the quality of the company and the CEO. The better of a leader he is, the more he will be able to make people want to follow him. The worse / more autocratic he is, the more he will use the coercive power.
