Rise to Victory: No Holds Barred Improvement
Friday 14th October - Evening
Machiavellian dispositions: I have gone through my whole life without a shred of Machiavellian behaviour in me. In the past, I've felt like it was a mindset, perspective and behaviours so not like me, that even putting myself in a machiavellian's boots for a minute made me recoil mentally and just not stay there, like it felt weird, unnatural and like I didn't fit into that mould.
I am seeing that I need Machiavellianism in me. And weirdly enough, based on the Machiavellian post on this website about how to become more Machiavellian... I actually agree in alot of the Machiavellianism's beliefs, I just act differently on it.
Examples & Comparisons
There's only one law of nature: power - This is a big truth. Look around and you will see that might is right alot of the time in the animal kingdom, and in our human civilization, the might (power) of wealth, status, power dynamics, influence and fame can walk all over and have their way with people on a lesser scale unaware of power dynamics.
Victors write history as propaganda - Undoubtedly true.
The world isn't fair. And neither it should be - The world definetely isn't fair, but I believe that it SHOULD be and will fight for it to be fair through empowering people which is the only real solution. This website obviously does that. That's the good in me, and the non mach in me (I guess).
Big Takeaway: At the moment, the biggest thing I see here that I should internalise and focus on is WIIFM.
It's shocking to think right now that I'm giving value to people, and have given value to people simply because I want to help in area's I excel at, and I have not once thought about what I can get back, aka, what's in it for me.
I'm thinking it's because of my personality profile to give without asking back, and also that alot of value I'm giving isn't direct monetary value. The value I give alot of the time is teaching/knowledge that people DO however give monetary for, it's just that I haven't asked for money from them (which I definitely can btw), as these people I'm giving value to are associates, but not really "friends".
If you gave direct monetary value to someone, say you lent them £200, you bet that your damn WIIFM radar will turn on. But when you give different types of value, it's like you might not notice it as much.
I definitely need to keep my WIIFM radar on, as part of Value Accountancy.
I also understand value can be more valuable to some people, and less valuable to others as they might value it differently based on their goals and interests etc. these examples I give value in are however on their value radar to a high degree.
Quote from underdogexceptional on October 14, 2022, 11:40 pmThe world isn't fair. And neither it should be - The world definetely isn't fair, but I believe that it SHOULD be and will fight for it to be fair through empowering people which is the only real solution. This website obviously does that. That's the good in me, and the non mach in me (I guess).
Thank you for sahring this, man.
Yeah, that might be one of the main differences between the "clinical Machiavellian" and the "good Machiavellian", such as, to have a drive and preference for fairness.
As for the rest of your post, being a giver is good, but being a "random giver" is not very effective for self-advancement.
One can remain a giver, but tweak it into a more "strategic giver", so to speak. The first step being, to not give freely to takers :).
A good read on the topic is "give and take", and since it's a long summary, the summary may be enough.
---
(Book a call) for personalized & private feedback
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on October 14, 2022, 11:50 pm
As for the rest of your post, being a giver is good, but being a "random giver" is not very effective for self-advancement.
One can remain a giver, but tweak it into a more "strategic giver", so to speak. The first step being, to not give freely to takers :).
Thankyou Lucio, I appreciate your top insights.
You can see right into me, I am definetely a "random giver" alot of the time.
I will be a strategic giver from now on, WIIFM aware, and not give freely to takers. But I'm wondering what this means.
1) Can I be a strategic giver through always aiming to get something for myself in return after I've given value to someone?
I've learned in PU how to make people aware of the value you give to them, and that that's important for win-win relationships. But what I'm thinking here is that if I should always have in mind for every interaction with someone period, to always aim to get something in return after I've given value to them.
2) Can someone be considered a taker if they don't consciously aim to give value back after I have given value to them?
This also related to being a "random giver". If I were to walk up to someone on the street and randomly give value, then I wouldn't neccessarily expect them to return value. But these examples from my life are situations where I am an experienced person with results in an area that they are interested in, and in an environment they have gone to, and these people have even came back to me to give them value again after I'd given them value the first time.
Cheers Lucio
Hmm, great question, albeit not easy to answer briefly.
Trying though:
- Can I be a strategic giver through always aiming to get something for myself in return after I've given value to someone?
I don't think you should always have in mind what you can get back, no.
Actually, that would make you way too calculative and turn you into a worst person. however, you may want to adopt that mindset for the goals that are relevant and important to you in your life, or in specific environments that are more business-like, such as the workplace - Can someone be considered a taker if they don't consciously aim to give value back after I have given value to them?
I agree with your own interpretation: only if there's an explicit or implicit agreement and/or expectations that the relationship and the giving are part of a give and take. And that is hardly the case with random people, since meeting again is a precondition to giving/taking exchanges
---
(Book a call) for personalized & private feedback
I agree with Lucio and just wish to add to the discussion this principle that I got from Foonberg’s books about lawyering:
one can definitely decide to sometimes give without getting back: the important thing is that the person choosing when to give freely should be the giver, and not the other person.
The choice on whether to give freely or not should be made by the person who gives, and not imposed under the manipulation of others.
Yes, great point Bel, and a powerful reminder.
To simplify:
- Giver who hasn't decided to give: sucker
- Giver who freely decided to give: magnanimous
---
(Book a call) for personalized & private feedback
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on October 15, 2022, 11:18 pm
- Can I be a strategic giver through always aiming to get something for myself in return after I've given value to someone?
I don't think you should always have in mind what you can get back, no.
Actually, that would make you way too calculative and turn you into a worst person. however, you may want to adopt that mindset for the goals that are relevant and important to you in your life, or in specific environments that are more business-like, such as the workplace
Thankyou Lucio, I understand.
This mindset is productive in forging relationships with people that are beneficial to my goals, and in those environments you mentioned, but as you say, carrying this mindset into %100 of my daily life would be extremely calculative.
Can someone be considered a taker if they don't consciously aim to give value back after I have given value to them?
I agree with your own interpretation: only if there's an explicit or implicit agreement and/or expectations that the relationship and the giving are part of a give and take. And that is hardly the case with random people, since meeting again is a precondition to giving/taking exchanges
I can see the dynamic here. There are also some people who don't understand that implicit agreement, whether it's out of complete lack of social awareness (social exchange) or just entitlement mentality in certain situations. Really interesting in of itself.
Quote from Bel on October 16, 2022, 1:18 amone can definitely decide to sometimes give without getting back: the important thing is that the person choosing when to give freely should be the giver, and not the other person.
The choice on whether to give freely or not should be made by the person who gives, and not imposed under the manipulation of others.
Totally, that's a powerful principle you just gave Bel.
The one who gives consistently without intention to give, but out of value being "sucked" from them is a "sucker", as Lucio explained. And this can subcommunicate a lack of power-intelligence, naivety, self respect, boundaries and assertiveness, or all of the previous qualities.
Phenomenal learning today that is unearthing a part of my personality that has stoked my engines and excited me. I read through How to Learn: The Three Pillars of Mastery | Power Dynamics
Learning what effective learning is will be one of the most important investments you will ever make. It is immensely empowering to understand these dynamics, and speaking for myself here, three pillar learning is most definitely very enjoyable rather than "learning" through an approach based solely on one pillar as tons of people do.
The Pillars Fighting Eachother VS Collaborating Together (Win-Win)
Look around you in your life and observe the sometimes good-intentioned but misguided and even zealous attitude of people in their power struggles and frame battles.
Heavy Experience Guy - "Yeah man, well, I did this and that (certain technique) and you gotta be this certain way (only his approach works apparently) and then you get results. Don't listen to those other people, they're full of shit"
Heavy Science Guy - "They're a bunch of a braindead idiots (insults heavy experience guy), if you look at all these studies published in these journals, the studies show (quotes scientific findings) that these results occur"
The Breakdown
Well experienced people with results have visible SKIN IN THE GAME. Let me repeat that, VISIBLE skin in the game, as well as demonstrable results.
These people have put in the damn work, thousands of hours on their grind in the battle to obtain results and they've actually achieved that for everyone to see. This person speaks from a frame of results, achievements, credibility and having put in the work with their authority & frame battle stemming from these points on top of the finalising point and judge frame that people see and look up to them exactly because of their results. (I classify myself as high experience and results however I stand on all three pillars in proportion (science is amazing) so I'm not an experience-only person).
Heavy experience people detest science-only people because they have no skin in the game which is perceived as weakness and smart-alec vibes.
Heavy science people can be accepted, embraced and loved by a lot of people out there (more-so if they have personal results and skin in the game alongside their scientific discourses).
However, heavy science people who don't have personal results, and don't have skin in the game can be less accepted by some people and even resented by alot of people if they speak from a smart-alec and condescending frame which some of them do towards the heavy-experience and no science guys.
Some heavy science people purposefully speak from a smart-alec frame and browbeat the heavy-experience and no science people in an intellectually dominant and condescending way. However it's important to remember here,
There are bountiful people out there who are proportionally experienced, scientific and analytic. The former examples are cases, not everyone.
And the final point to remember here.
The Most Effective Answer (Win-Win)
Experience, science and analysis are undoubtedly most effective when they work together.
Science can provide a massive lift to experience-only approaches based on anecdotal evidence and big stories, even a person who thinks they've obtained big results through the anecdotal evidence they've applied can receive a lift to their success, embrace new levels and understand their own experiences and success-factors better.
Experience is massively invaluable and necessary for the scientific method, through observations of peoples experiences or your own, it can be added and put through the scientific method to uncover effective systems that provide results for everyone.
It almost seems like they are freaking meant to work together, so just hug already 🙂
What's the meaning of life if it's not to Love, to feel deep emotions and help people.
Nothing else matters. People acquiring status, power and wealth without helping people and making this their life's purpose is shallow, empty and meaningless.
The acquisition of power, wealth and status only matters when coupled with wanting to do good in the world and help people. The two are strongest with eachother, the former is meaningless without the latter, and the latter is neccessary for the former.
If you were put in an NDE, a near death experience, and you came face to face with death and you knew everything was gone and your life was over, what the fuck would it mean if you hadn't done good and shifted the world.
When you're at the lowest, you conceive and are enlightened with the highest truth. Love.