The 48 Laws of Power

[munenori2]

What is going on here:

http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/cg/Cours...s_of_power.htm

Excerpt:

Law 13

When Asking for Help, Appeal to People’s Self-Interest,

Never to their Mercy or Gratitude

If you need to turn to an ally for help, do not bother to remind him of your past assistance and good deeds. He will find a way to ignore you. Instead, uncover something in your request, or in your alliance with him, that will benefit him, and emphasize it out of all proportion. He will respond enthusiastically when he sees something to be gained for himself.

Law 14

Pose as a Friend, Work as a Spy

Knowing about your rival is critical. Use spies to gather valuable information that will keep you a step ahead. Better still: Play the spy yourself. In polite social encounters, learn to probe. Ask indirect questions to get people to reveal their weaknesses and intentions. There is no occasion that is not an opportunity for artful spying.

Law 15

Crush your Enemy Totally

All great leaders since Moses have known that a feared enemy must be crushed completely. (Sometimes they have learned this the hard way.) If one ember is left alight, no matter how dimly it smolders, a fire will eventually break out. More is lost through stopping halfway than through total annihilation: The enemy will recover, and will seek revenge. Crush him, not only in body but in spirit.

Law 16

Use Absence to Increase Respect and Honor

Too much circulation makes the price go down: The more you are seen and heard from, the more common you appear. If you are already established in a group, temporary withdrawal from it will make you more talked about, even more admired. You must learn when to leave. Create value through scarcity.

Law 17

Keep Others in Suspended Terror: Cultivate an Air of Unpredictability

Humans are creatures of habit with an insatiable need to see familiarity in other people’s actions. Your predictability gives them a sense of control. Turn the tables: Be deliberately unpredictable. Behavior that seems to have no consistency or purpose will keep them off-balance, and they will wear themselves out trying to explain your moves. Taken to an extreme, this strategy can intimidate and terrorize.

Law 18

Do Not Build Fortresses to Protect Yourself – Isolation is Dangerous

The world is dangerous and enemies are everywhere – everyone has to protect themselves. A fortress seems the safest. But isolation exposes you to more dangers than it protects you from – it cuts you off from valuable information, it makes you conspicuous and an easy target. Better to circulate among people find allies, mingle. You are shielded from your enemies by the crowd.

[implied]

something i find very gross. we discussed this. were you there when we were discussing it?

[strrrng]

lol, the good old laws of power. I think the author is ISTj.

[implied]

lol, the good old laws of power. I think the author is ISTj.

i kind of would have thought ENFj as it's a bit like a new machiavelli. this is a bit like reading "the prince" only with a completely different author.

[munenori2]

something i find very gross. we discussed this. were you there when we were discussing it?

When was that? But no, someone just brought it up to me and I was like, eff the guy who wrote this!

[implied]

When was that? But no, someone just brought it up to me and I was like, eff the guy who wrote this!

udp sent it to me and we discussed it briefly at niffweed's house. i actually do not think you were there at the time that we were discussing this. well, my thoughts are generally the same on the 48 laws of power. oddly, i understand that he is sort of attempting to get at this like, "laws of supply and demand" sort of thing. but he's going about it in a really rotten sort of way. i mean, all of that applies to money/goods and not to people. that's actually, imo, what makes it rotten.

anyhow, my personal opinion is that these people generally die alone or their whole existence is so miserable and paranoid that whatever they profess is ultimately just going to kick them in the ass. basically i feel like if you walk in, attempting to treat people like objects, you can't run crying when they give you the same treatment. this is how i deal with the existence of such people.

[strrrng]

i kind of would have thought ENFj as it's a bit like a new machiavelli. this is a bit like reading "the prince" only with a completely different author.

Yeah. I see what you're referring to, and I'm not sure of machiavelli's type anyway. I'm just going off of pics and interviews.

anyhow, my personal opinion is that these people generally die alone or their whole existence is so miserable and paranoid that whatever they profess is ultimately just going to kick them in the ass. basically i feel like if you walk in, attempting to treat people like objects, you can't run crying when they give you the same treatment. this is how i deal with the existence of such people.

Many people can die alone, and I doubt someone who confidently believes in an idea will be miserable as a result; they wouldn't espouse it otherwise. The existence might be one that you would find miserable if in their position, but to make a claim about theirs seems presumptuous. But I definitely agree that they deserve whatever they get in return for their actions.

[Park]

http://174.132.148.217/~petrolfl/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=3931&highlight=laws+power

[implied]

http://174.132.148.217/~petrolfl/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=3931&highlight=laws+power

the author himself may have been ISTj, but i swear i see beta NFs utilizing this crap a lot. the whole thing is a complete lack of Fi, focus on Fe and Se, Ni, etc. i don't know, it just smells very beta hah.

[07490]

udp sent it to me and we discussed it briefly at niffweed's house. i actually do not think you were there at the time that we were discussing this. well, my thoughts are generally the same on the 48 laws of power. oddly, i understand that he is sort of attempting to get at this like, "laws of supply and demand" sort of thing. but he's going about it in a really rotten sort of way. i mean, all of that applies to money/goods and not to people. that's actually, imo, what makes it rotten.

anyhow, my personal opinion is that these people generally die alone or their whole existence is so miserable and paranoid that whatever they profess is ultimately just going to kick them in the ass. basically i feel like if you walk in, attempting to treat people like objects, you can't run crying when they give you the same treatment. this is how i deal with the existence of such people.

YES, I agree that the author's view on how to achieve power and influence are somewhat going to bit him back in the ass. I asumme that the author may have seen how other highly influencial people might have gotten their power in that sort of way, and may attempt to Mimic it's behavior the same way as them. I, Happen to think that through it all the cycle of how you are suspose to behave to get respect in this world, is by Deep understand of others in their own shoes. This can come quite diffculty to do and overwhelming, But I think having the right view, motive and a good heart are the start to really getting the power and respect, by really helping people as the true underlying motive deep inside, and not a motive to be powerful.

[Park]

the author himself may have been ISTj, but i swear i see beta NFs utilizing this crap a lot. the whole thing is a complete lack of Fi, focus on Fe and Se, Ni, etc. i don't know, it just smells very beta hah.

It's total crap. I remember feeling disgust after reading few lines the first time I got my hands on it. I think someone recommended it to me but I'm not sure. As for the author's type, I don't know, I still think ISTj, but I'm not sure. At least Se/Ni and Fe/Ti are obvious I think.

[UDP]

It's something that is good to know of. You'll more likely than not encounter them being used against you/etc at some point in your life. Much more, depending on your situation.

[07490]

It's total crap. I remember feeling disgust after reading few lines the first time I got my hands on it. I think someone recommended it to me but I'm not sure. As for the author's type, I don't know, I still think ISTj, but I'm not sure. At least Se/Ni and Fe/Ti are obvious I think.

I am really disgusted how some Betas in this world use their power like that, I have met a fair share of them in real life. I have to say 1,000,000,000 dumps down for these people, But I would also like to add that in all fairness that a few selective Beta soul can use their power for good. It goes both side in EXtreme.

[strrrng]

the author himself may have been ISTj, but i swear i see beta NFs utilizing this crap a lot. the whole thing is a complete lack of Fi, focus on Fe and Se, Ni, etc. i don't know, it just smells very beta hah.

I know what you mean, lol. Beta functions do in a way seem to lend themselves to a more socially strategic mindset, in comparison to other quadras. NiFe essentially coming down to internal causal processes conceptualized through a broad-ranging context, and SeTi pertaining to general rules with little room for variation but ample potential for application... well there's a reason why so many betas were into politics and social warfare and such, I suppose.

[strrrng]

It's something that is good to know of. You'll more likely than not encounter them being used against you/etc at some point in your life. Much more, depending on your situation.

I agree. I don't find the book to be some guideline to manipulation, really; if anything, it's an aggregation of stimulating historical examples which illustrate more general principles of human nature. Stuff like that is much cooler than reading some philosophy manual on how people are supposed to act. So, ultimately I think the knowledge itself is pragmatically useful on a sociological level, if nothing else.

[Park]

YES, I agree that the author's view on how to achieve power and influence are somewhat going to bit him back in the ass. I asumme that the author may have seen how other highly influencial people might have gotten their power in that sort of way, and may attempt to Mimic it's behavior the same way as them. I, Happen to think that through it all the cycle of how you are suspose to behave to get respect in this world, is by Deep understand of others in their own shoes. This can come quite diffculty to do and overwhelming, But I think having the right view, motive and a good heart are the start to really getting the power and respect, by really helping people as the true underlying motive deep inside, and not a motive to be powerful.

Come to Delta, Numbers.

[07490]

I agree. I don't find the book to be some guideline to manipulation, really; if anything, it's an aggregation of stimulating historical examples which illustrate more general principles of human nature. Stuff like that is much cooler than reading some philosophy manual on how people are supposed to act. So, ultimately I think the knowledge itself is pragmatically useful on a sociological level, if nothing else.

NICK it might sound cool, but there are people who actually will follow these straiegies to get ahead in real life. So i think it will pose a significance danger, philiosophy manual? they can just sound like this one. But maybe with less TI.

[07490]

Come to Delta, Numbers.

Maybe I will want to be your activator, If by any means I come to delta. I can't see myself like the other three.

[Park]

It's something that is good to know of. You'll more likely than not encounter them being used against you/etc at some point in your life. Much more, depending on your situation.

For me it's like reading about sick people's motives and ways of reasoning. Reading about them won't teach me how to recognize or handle them better as I'm already aware of their existence and I'm pretty avoidant and immune to them. I see them as things described as seen by some guy's narrow and twisted mind perspective which I have no reason to accept or agree with. He turns his own narrow-minded perceptions into facts-like or wisdom-sounding statements, which I find ridiculously lame.

[Park]

Maybe I will want to be your activator, If by any means I come to delta. I can't see myself like the other three.

Yeah, I can see you having a positive motivational influence over me.

[Park]

So, ultimately I think the knowledge itself is pragmatically useful on a sociological level, if nothing else.

It would be useful only if you accept and identify with the author's point of view.

Take me, for instance, even if I learned all 48 "laws" by heart they'd still be of no use for me because I see things very differently from the author. I can find more value in my nephew's grade school poems than in this shitbook.

[Simon Ssmall]

I find that people who are prone to seeking power/manipulating are that in their nature and its not something they read up from the books. I think most of those books are more or less useless for anyone, even for those seeking such knowledge. It is more or less something everyone knows and even those guidelines are only one way of looking at things, in real life you can use different strategies and achieve similar or better results (worse of course too). I put such things on the same level as self-help books, they might help you to arrange your thoughts but wont really help you find out something new.

With that said I try to stay away as possible from books like that as I have no interest or need for things like that in my life.

[strrrng]

NICK it might sound cool, but there are people who actually will follow these straiegies to get ahead in real life. So i think it will pose a significance danger, philiosophy manual? they can just sound like this one. But maybe with less TI.

Ok, I didn't mean that it sounded cool; I just used the word cool to mean interesting. And look, just because people people utilize those strategies in real life, does not mean that they read about them in the book; nor does it mean that reading a book will inevitably compel one to implement its ideas. It comes down to the person's character. We can't blame our environments and other people for our lack of willpower and shitty decision making. I don't think it's a philosophy manual. It's concise as hell: each chapter contains an example of a transgression and observance of the law (sometimes more, with sub-set), an interpretation and a summary, with short fables/sayings and pithy adages stapled throughout.

For me it's like reading about sick people's motives and ways of reasoning. Reading about them won't teach me how to recognize or handle them better as I'm already aware of their existence and I'm pretty avoidant and immune to them.

Why do they have to be sick? What do you even mean by that? Or are you just labeling a cluster of individuals who exhibited behaviors which have been expounded upon by sociologists, political scientists and psychologists for decades, as a means to write them off and not waste the effort necessary to understand them. Am I defending real-world sociopaths who fuck people over wantonly? No. This has nothing to do with that. It's about the book and it's meaning. Did you even read it? These motives aren't sick; they are recurring patterns in human nature. To ignore them is to close one's eyes to reality, and to denounce them is to criticize an intrinsic facet of every person. Heh, I'd be willing to bet you've exhibited at least a few of those "sick tendencies" in real life, without even knowing it.

[strrrng]

It would be useful only if you accept and identify with the author's point of view.

Absurd. Veracity of information is not in any way contingent on who says it. The knowledge in that book is useful because it gives the reader a very saturated glimpse into human affairs throughout the course of history, and subtly evinces latent themes that are, upon close examination, universal patterns of human behavior. If nothing else, it is a very stimulating discourse on the real-world manifestations of archetypes (on the social level).

[07490]

I find that people who are prone to seeking power/manipulating are that in their nature and its not something they read up from the books. I think most of those books are more or less useless for anyone, even for those seeking such knowledge. It is more or less something everyone knows and even those guidelines are only one way of looking at things, in real life you can use different strategies and achieve similar or better results (worse of course too). I put such things on the same level as self-help books, they might help you to arrange your thoughts but wont really help you find out something new.

With that said I try to stay away as possible from books like that as I have no interest or need for things like that in my life.

"I find that people who are prone to seeking power/manipulating are that in their nature and its not something they read up from the books."

Yea, I agree. Although I have to say being a three, and seeing other E3 in real life, they can just catch these ideas into them and easily being influenced by them. That is a very sad part about being a three. "The easily changable and adaptive to their enviornment part."

[Park]

I find that people who are prone to seeking power/manipulating are that in their nature and its not something they read up from the books. I think most of those books are more or less useless for anyone, even for those seeking such knowledge. It is more or less something everyone knows and even those guidelines are only one way of looking at things, in real life you can use different strategies and achieve similar or better results (worse of course too). I put such things on the same level as self-help books, they might help you to arrange your thoughts but wont really help you find out something new.

Precisely.

With that said I try to stay away as possible from books like that as I have no interest or need for things like that in my life.

Word.

[Park]

Why do they have to be sick?

They don't. But they are to me.

Or are you just labeling a cluster of individuals who exhibited behaviors which have been expounded upon by sociologists, political scientists and psychologists for decades, as a means to write them off and not waste the effort necessary to understand them. Am I defending real-world sociopaths who fuck people over wantonly? No. This has nothing to do with that. It's about the book and it's meaning. Did you even read it? These motives aren't sick; they are recurring patterns in human nature. To ignore them is to close one's eyes to reality, and to denounce them is to criticize an intrinsic facet of every person. Heh, I'd be willing to bet you've exhibited at least a few of those "sick tendencies" in real life, without even knowing it.

Don't put words into my mouth or throw around baseless insults and speculations, as I have no intention or the patience for responding to such.

[strrrng]

They don't. But they are to me.

Ok. They're sick to you. What does that mean? That hinges on your conception of what constitutes a mentally sick person, your interpretation of them, and general emotional reactions. I don't think they're sick; just different people placed in different circumstances with different strategies (not referring to your office sociopath, but the historical figures).

Don't put words into my mouth and don't throw around baseless insults unnecessarily, as I have no intention or the patience for responding to such.

I wasn't putting words in your mouth, nor was I trying to insult you. Just pointing out that unless you understand something, you shouldn't judge it.

[Park]

Just pointing out that unless you understand something, you shouldn't judge it.

The problem is that you think you need to point out things I already know.

[strrrng]

Take me, for instance, even if I learned all 48 "laws" by heart they'd still be of no use for me because I see things very differently from the author. I can find more value in my nephew's grade school poems than in this shitbook.

It's not about how you see things. I don't care if someone likes or dislikes the laws, if they understand or fail to understand them, and so on. This is solely because the fundamental themes behind them exist whether you see them or not. It's not a matter of one person's perspective on social strategy clashing with another's; it's about acknowledging what has always been and always will be.

[marooned]

I think these rules are when Beta goes too far. It's all about how one appears and how to manipulate to support their own greed. I think they're the rules of power only for appearance sake... the person practicing them would be truly weak inside. They rest upon their "laws" for "strength," but the laws are a precarious house of cards, and if they fell the practitioner would be reduced to the fragile frightened person they really are inside.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[duality is cringe]

After reading the first few laws (13-16), if not sooner, the letters "LSI" immediately popped into my head and stayed there until the end of the original quote.

In terms of achieving power, I agree with pretty much all of these in terms of effectiveness. Though I can't say I necessarily share the sentiment or interest in employing all of these techniques, they definitely seem useful and based on what I believe to be accurate knowledge of human interactions. I am not bothered by these "laws" nor do they repulse me in the way they seem to have others in this thread. Just not my priorities or natural inclinations.

Laws 16 and 18 are particularly interesting to me since I can imagine how many would find a balancing act between the two difficult to maintain.

Thanks for posting munenori. "Cool" indeed.

[Park]

Diana seems to have touched on some very good points.

[strrrng]

I think these rules are when Beta goes too far. It's all about how one appears and how to manipulate to support their own greed. I think they're the rules of power only for appearance sake... the person practicing them would be truly weak inside. They rest upon their "laws" for "strength," but the laws are a precarious house of cards, and if they fell the practitioner would be reduced to the fragile frightened person they really are inside.

I don't think it's all about appearance; the historical examples in the book prove that there is much more that can be gained than a popular image among your social group. Going based on reading most of the book, and seeing things in others through my experience, I can say that these laws do have effectiveness when utilized, although I have never taken the time to actually attempt to use them. See, people don't think about shit like this when they're competing in the social world and such; they may analyze things and naturally come to understand the dynamics of the situation solely through insight, but applying some general law to a specific situation is most often extremely difficult, if not impossible, due to contextual factors. Now, again, as I told Maria, you are making assumptions about what traits the person does or does not possess. Understanding and possibly using certain ideas that sum up recurring themes of humanity over history does not necessitate an inner weakness; the manner in which said thing is done, does however. I think a truly strong person can utilize effective social strategies without giving up integrity, or personal creativity in thought.

[strrrng]

@Diana: a few comments on your comments.

As far as the situation with law 13 goes, the term "self-interest" is not meant to be taken the same for everyone, as you have seen. In your situation, the "self-interest" for you was a genuine benefit of helping someone else; the selfish connotations of the term mislead people, I think. I suppose what the author intended was such: finding what gives the person gratification, and exploiting it. Oddly, a lot of these laws can seem contradictory, because of contextual subtleties. There is another law, find each man's thumbscrew, or something of the sort. How that could play out with the self-interest one, I don't know.

As for law 14 about being a spy, that seems very general and comes in many forms. The author would not necessarily encourage surreptitious behavior (there is another law about being the "perfect courtier"). In fact, quite the opposite: I would think that he would promote open, generous behavior, more or less, as a means to drop their guard. There is some law about using generosity and honesty to disarm the victim; again, it seems these laws overlap in many ways.

As far as law 15 about crushing the enemy totally goes, what you have described (curtailing contact) can very much be a means to "destroy them completely." The metaphor stands: as long as an ember is left burning, there is always a chance for a fire to start again. If leaving them for good (female runs away from abusive ex-boyfriend, never to be found again) is a means to do this, good. Other times, more direct action seems necessary (she hires a hitman to eliminate his pernicious influence).

As per law 16 about absence, I agree that such continual activity would be unnecessarily strenuous and probably pointless. I think the principle stands though: commonality depletes novelty. If people see that you are scarce, unique or just unattainable, your value naturally goes up. But lol, just imagine how their conception of you would change if they noticed that you were deliberately distancing yourself from them, as a means to look good.

Law 17, unpredictability. I think this sort of goes hand in hand with the aforementioned, and IME is most definitely a legitimate power tactic, used oh-so-commonly by teenage girls in high school social circles. She's a bitch today, she loves you tomorrow, you never know where she really stands. People need that certainty and predictability with others' behavior; the natural "chasing" attitude of men, combined with an attraction to a girl, will render some guys' perception of a girl who behaves in fairly erratic ways amplified, if only because she seems like a stronger "challenge." Other guys will see through a tactic and curtail contact. Just one example.

[unefille]

Given the reactions to these laws across the board, I feel like I'm admitting to Satanism or something, but I don't find any of these laws particularly offensive and to a great extent, they make sense to me. My goal (in general) isn't power, to manipulate or to dominate, but nevertheless I do think I have an instinctive awareness of these laws and often, my behaviour is guided by such an instinctive awareness. If a friend came to me, seeking advice about how to gain a strategic advantage in a particular situation, my advice would follow similar lines to these laws, I think. However, I do think that an LSI (and not an EIE, say) wrote these laws, as they often remind me of things that idolatrie or my father might say: they seem to state what I know intuitively in a much 'balder' and 'defined' way than I percieve; I often agree with them, but qualify or adjust their statements, 'softening' what they see as straight-forward, fundamental truths.

I don't see why my mind is sick for its perception, and such knowledge does not necessarily imply unethical or ruthless behaviour. For instance, Rule 14 describes my behaviour often: when I argue, discuss, or converse people, I am not merely 'talking', nor focusing solely on the topic at hand; I use every means of communication as a method of uncovering information of people. Without any conscious effort on my part, I build dossiers on everyone I meet, continually updated. Information to me is vital; a critical way of 'insuring' myself; it allows me to anticipate potential attacks, as well as more clearly identifying people's motives so that I don't misconstrue their actions. I don't presume that there are all these 'enemies/evil people' out there, about to get me, but I do presume that in the natural course of many people acting in pursuit of their own aims, however harmless, their actions may somehow create a situation counter my own interests. Information about their goals, their mentality, their capabilities, allows me to prepare and adjust so that I can minimise their negative impact on me. I don't see how it's so horrible -- I could use the information against people, but that is clearly not my purpose -- I personally go out of my way to minimise harming other people, but that does not change my mindset, which is very similar to that mind which probably conceived these laws.

[strrrng]

Given the reactions to these laws across the board, I feel like I'm admitting to Satanism or something, but I don't find any of these laws particularly offensive and to a great extent, they make sense to me. My goal (in general) isn't power, to manipulate or to dominate, but nevertheless I do think I have an instinctive awareness of these laws and often, my behaviour is guided by such an instinctive awareness.

Precisely! Any smart person should naturally be able to conceptualize the latent dynamics of human affairs proficiently, and understand simply what benefits him or her. I do not find these laws offensive; IME it is the pseudo-moralists, afraid of having their lofty self-images destroyed, or simply the blind who do not realize that they are in fact engaging in similar behaviors on some level, who decry these ideas. Which is why I said earlier, that ignoring or denouncing them simply betrays either a complete unawareness to, or an unwillingness to accept, an integral facet that is universally pervasive in human nature.

If a friend came to me, seeking advice about how to gain a strategic advantage in a particular situation, my advice would follow similar lines to these laws, I think. However, I do think that an LSI (and not an EIE, say) wrote these laws, as they often remind me of things that idolatrie or my father might say: they seem to state what I know intuitively in a much 'balder' and 'defined' way than I percieve; I often agree with them, but qualify or adjust their statements, 'softening' what they see as straight-forward, fundamental truths.

I completely agree. I think beta NFs are much more likely to focus on the broad-reaching implications of these laws in the social realm, and possibly indulge more in the historical aspect of them, so as to gain knowledge about the psychological components. Beta STs seem to be able to formulate them more succinctly and apply them without as much hesitation, only because they see the boundaries and such more clearly. In comparing this to something like Mein Kampf, which, while not dealing with precisely the same subject, does focus largely on political and social dynamics, it is easy to spot the differences in writing style and methods of illustrating concepts. One focuses on core principles, the other on latent processes, more or less.

I don't see why my mind is sick for its perception, and such knowledge does not necessarily imply unethical or ruthless behaviour.

Precisely. It is simply the weak sheep that are afraid of admitting these inner potentials in themselves, who immediately balk at the notions. The bottom line is: these patterns exist, whether you acknowledge them or not.

For instance, Rule 14 describes my behaviour often: when I argue, discuss, or converse people, I am not merely 'talking', nor focusing solely on the topic at hand; I use every means of communication as a method of uncovering information of people. Without any conscious effort on my part, I build dossiers on everyone I meet, continually updated. Information to me is vital; a critical way of 'insuring' myself; it allows me to anticipate potential attacks, as well as more clearly identifying people's motives so that I don't misconstrue their actions. I don't presume that there are all these 'enemies/evil people' out there, about to get me, but I do presume that in the natural course of many people acting in pursuit of their own aims, however harmless, their actions may somehow create a situation counter my own interests. Information about their goals, their mentality, their capabilities, allows me to prepare and adjust so that I can minimise their negative impact on me. I don't see how it's so horrible -- I could use the information against people, but that is clearly not my purpose -- I personally go out of my way to minimise harming other people, but that does not change my mindset, which is very similar to that mind which probably conceived these laws.

I relate completely, and the bolded part illustrates the difference between understanding something pragmatically beneficial, and wantonly using subversive strategies to one's benefit, at the unnecessary detriment of others.


And it's good to see you around again <33