Hacker News Reader

Comment by quotemstr | Hacker News Reader

I am tired of this worldview in which every personal behavior that we don't like is actually a secret manifestation of power dynamics. Nothing ever means anything except as endless jockeying for social position. Nothing is good or bad or true or false or beautiful or hideous: only advantageous or disadvantageous. It's a terrible way of thinking about the world.

This nonsense is not conducive to building or maintaining a civilization. It doesn't create shared understanding: instead, it supposes that any shared understanding is actually some kind of ploy to reinforce privilege or something. It's an endless grievance machine that magnifies our worst mental impulses: suspicion, ingroup-outgroup double standards, and of course fundamental attribution error. This crap shouldn't be part of respectable discourse.

View on HN

Basically every personal behavior is a manifestation of power dynamics. Whether you like it or not. It's just that we tend not to notice or complain about power dynamics that we like.

The tricky thing about power dynamics is that whenever you talk about them, people get uncomfortable - both the people with power (who either feel guilty or subconsciously fearful that that power may be taken away from them) and the people without it (who are reminded of their lack of power). And so you're right, it is an endless grievance machine that magnifies our worst mental impulses. This is why people usually shut up about power (think about it: the last guy who wrote a treatise on it - Machiavelli - got his name synonymized with "evil"), and it's only in times of shifts in the power balance that it comes out into the open.

I'm not claiming that the "dominance behavior" frame is "wrong" per se: I acknowledge that people in positions of authority or who have a positive social credit balance can get away with behaviors that others can't. That's a fact of life.

The trouble is that the article is worse than wrong: it's unnecessary and divisive. It promotes a worldview based on hostility and resentment by emphasizing worst-case explanations and ignoring benevolent ones. It encourages the reader to twist his or her worldview into one that jumps immediately to evil when looking at the world. That's what makes it an awful piece of writing.

"think about it: the last guy who wrote a treatise on it - Machiavelli - got his name synonymized with 'evil'"

Machiavelli was not the last to write about power. Foucault was famous for doing so, and Nietzsche before him.

To the extent that Machiavelli's name has a negative connotation it is it not merely because he wrote about power, but because people think he advocated a ruthless, self-serving wielding of power and, famously, that "it is better to be feared than loved".

If you look at what "machiavellianism" means, it is:

"the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct... In modern psychology, Machiavellianism is one of the dark triad personalities, characterized by a duplicitous interpersonal style, a cynical disregard for morality, and a focus on self-interest and personal gain."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellianism

Machiavelli is one of the most wrongly maligned thinkers in history. Reading all of his works, especially if read in the order he wrote them, and with an understanding of the context in which he wrote them, makes it obvious (at least to me) that he thought the best sort of government was the republic.

The damage done to his reputation by foreign writers (especially the English) is probably irreparable, though. It makes for a sad case study in intellectual prejudice.

I mean, the fact that in the Prince, he encourages the Prince to create a Republic as it's the best way to maintain the strength of the city (aka a good prince needs to put the body politic over his own desires, even the desire for power)...and the fact that Machiavelli's other great work (The Discourses on Livy) openly and fervently talks about how republicanism is the best form of government...yeah, I think you might be on to something there.

I'm a big fan of Foucault's conception of power.

I think Machiavelli is commonly misunderstood by most people alive today, though. The bulk of The Prince consists of positive statements, not normative ones. In other words, Machiavelli is describing his conclusions from observing a number of powerful families. He makes few value judgments of his own, but rather the book is framed as a set of tactical advice: "If you seek power, these are a set of strategies that will help you attain it." At the time he wrote The Prince, Machiavelli was not particularly powerful - in fact, he'd just been stripped of office, imprisoned, and tortured, and the book was an attempt to curry favor with the Medicis, the new Florentine elites. It was largely successful in this regard, in that Machiavelli was allowed to live out the rest of his life on his estate without further interference.

"It is better to be feared than loved", as a factual statement, appears to be true. Take a look at the approval ratings for U.S. Congress, President Trump, Putin, Xi Jinping, Mugabe, or any other powerful figure and then tell me, with a straight face, that they are loved. People take offense because Machiavelli is describing true statements that we wish were not true, i.e. they judge the work on normative grounds when evidence from the framing & history of The Prince suggests that it was written as a set of positive statements.

Machiavelli is massively misunderstood. 'It is better to be feared than loved' is not the real message to be taken from that chapter.

A different phrasing would be "you are better to have a promise from another for which you can compel fulfilment, than a promise for which you can't compel fulfilment".

If someone promises you something out of love, and they do not deliver, you have no power to compel them to fulfil their obligation, and so you are left with an empty promise.

If someone promises you something out of fear, and they don't deliver, you can use the thing they fear to compel fulfilment, and receive that which was promised.

It's by no means saying that in all circumstances you should aim to be feared - and it explicitly distinguishes being feared from being hated.

"Returning to the question of being feared or loved, I come to the conclusion that, men loving according to their own will and fearing according to that of the prince, a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others; he must endeavour only to avoid hatred, as is noted."

> Take a look at the approval ratings for U.S. Congress, President Trump, Putin, Xi Jinping, Mugabe, or any other powerful figure and then tell me, with a straight face, that they are loved.

Trump is demonstrably a historical aberration in approval terms in the US (and has been stunningly ineffective at implementing legislation); I doubt meaningful polling can be done in China or Zimbabwe, and Congress isn't a figure, while individual members of Congress tend, generally, to have fairly high approval in their own districts. So even though I agree that there is at least a sense in which Machiavelli’s statement is true, I don't think the specific thing you’ve asked people to look at does much to make the case for it.

FYI, Putin has great approval ratings.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/06/10/2-russian-public-opinion...

"Basically every personal behavior is a manifestation of power dynamics."

Would you mind expanding on this? I think I disagree, but I would like to know what you mean.

I should probably revise that to "every personal behavior involving 2 or more humans is a manifestation of power dynamics".

Power, at its most basic, is simply the question of "Who gets their way? Whose will is reflected in reality?" When you have non-interacting people or people whose interests are aligned, then this isn't a very interesting question, because they can both get their way (subject to constraints of the natural world).

You'll almost never have two interacting humans whose will is completely aligned, though - that describes a sycophant or automaton, not a person. And so in practice, one or both sides will have to compromise: they'll get some of what they want, but give up other stuff that they'd like to see enacted in reality but presumably don't care as much about. And power dynamics is just about who compromises - when reality can't satisfy everyone's desires at once, whose desire is actually reflected? Who can assume that when they want something, they'll get it, and who will assume that their desires are normally thwarted?

If this were true, human relationships would be a perpetual nightmare. Your fundamental mistake is assuming that what humans want (or "will") is independent (except in the perverse cases of sycophants and automatons). In fact we constantly mirror each other's desires and emotions, and this is what makes harmonious social life possible.

Yes, I have been in relationships that were "power competitions" and those relationships are dysfunctional. Fortunately those are the exception, not the rule.

I think this analysis vastly understates the quantity and magnitude of common interests that people often have, and thus reaches the flawed conclusion that everything is about power dynamics.

Power dynamics are very important, but they don't dwarf _all_ other dynamics in human relations.

I don't want to minimize the importance of common interests or the ability to find positive-sum interactions that make everyone better off. They're certainly abundant, and when possible, people should take advantage of them (I certainly try to).

But as a topic for discussion, they aren't particularly interesting, because usually your course of action is pretty obvious when you've found something that benefits both you and others and has no known drawbacks. Do it. Duh. The interesting dynamics happen when peoples' interests are either non-aligned or only partially aligned, or when two parties find something that benefits both their common interests but harms a third party who isn't present. Then there are trade-offs involved, and big questions about whose will is enacted and who is ultimately harmed.

(Besides, aren't the vast majority of complaints - both here, on the Internet, and within the developed world in general - of that form? Two parties colluding to further their common interests, at the expense of a third party who isn't privy to the discussions? That's the bulk of entrepreneurial complaints about investors, of investor complaints about other investors, of employee complaints of favoritism, of minority complaints about discrimination, of citizen complaints about politicians, of citizen complaints about corporations, and so on.)

To clarify, you recognize the existence and significance of other dynamics in human relations, but you just find them far less interesting? This seems alright, as I can't fault you too much for what you find interesting.

But this does directly contradict your earlier statement:

"Basically every personal behavior is a manifestation of power dynamics."

It would probably save you some trouble if you would have said the other thing from the outset :)

Edit: Regarding complaints, I think by definition they are going to be about some form of human conflict! Textbook selection bias. It doesn't directly tell us anything about other human interactions.

Yeah. Except I don't find anything contradictory around the idea that people can cooperate to achieve common interests, AND there can be power dynamics at play within the cooperation. Few ventures concern just one issue: it's possible to both feel that the venture as a whole is highly beneficial for both of you, while being non-aligned on specific points within the venture. Mutual cooperation can govern the relationship as a whole, while power dynamics come into play for certain situations within the relationship.

Think of a startup taking venture capital: you both want the startup to succeed, and the startup is much more likely to succeed if it has money than if it doesn't. However, the investor may want you to spend that money quickly to grab market share, while the founder may want to shore up customer satisfaction first. You can do both, but they can't both be the #1 priority. Which activity takes precedence? That's dependent on the relative power dynamics between founder and investor, notably things like board control, personal relationships, trust, need for future financing, existing revenue, etc.

Fair enough, although interactions that occur in the professional sphere are only one slice of human life. It does seem likely that slice has a higher prevalence of power dynamics. I think interactions with family and friends are significantly less characterized by such dynamics.

Also, in both broad categories, I would imagine there is rather high variance in the extent and particularities of the power dynamics.

wonder how many of those could be transformed into the prisoners dilemma? and of the one's that can't if they can be abstracted.

3 actors each with a binary choice.

1 payout table

rules allow/require actors to continue playing.

actors know or don't previous choices

can the actor declare an intention

is one of the actors a rule maker

could the actors place bets instead of make a choice

what if one of the actors is a resource(ie has no choice)

what if the actors have different payout tables

Except in the article when the author's Dad forgot is keys he was mostly screwing himself.

Every interaction is a value proposition.

Think about being at a party that you hosted and 15 people are talking to you. You intrinsically will only hear those with the highest value proposition, a cute girl, an investor you invited, your friend. You might not be making a concious effort but your brain is.

Now if most interactions are value propositions from one party to another then it makes sense that your personal behavior will reflect your own power dynamics in order to increase your own value proposition to the other party. This includes things such as body language.

For years and years no one cared about this stuff, now its all coming out of the woodwork as a terrible thing to practice when its been practiced for years and written about by Machiavelli and Robert Greene.

You are pathetically capitalist. What if I believe that the best power in the world - is our society, and I would do anything in the world to make it a more powerful one? Even if that puts me in a less advantageous position?

Your “power dynamics” arument is now flawed - since I could argue both for the strengthening of my position or against (or even both, depending on the shape of the question).

What Machiavelly got right, on the other hand - was the fact that everyone is flawed. You could either take advantage of that or you could work with it.

He has nothing to do with the “winner takes it all” or “eat or be eaten” philosophy.

Saying nothing of this comment's contents, its tone is unnecessarily belligerent. For example, even something like, "This view is pathetically capitalist" is more of a discussion and less of a personal attack.

There are 0 humans who can fully comprehend taking he entirety of society into account. Way to many people and subgroups and conflicting opinions.

If you seek to lower your positioning temporarily for long term gain that falls under increasing your value prop. In fact, many Machiavellian writers recommend this strategy.

> think about it: the last guy who wrote a treatise on it - Machiavelli - got his name synonymized with "evil"

(1) Machiavelli isn't the “last guy” to write a treatise on power (even, specifically, political power.) In fact much of the field of political science is just such works (which are also found in other fields.)

(2) Machiavellian is basically used to mean putting the pursuit of power ahead of other (including moral) concerns; it's not synonymous with evil, though clearly lots of people see such an orientation as evil or at least amoral. OTOH, it's exactly what the advice in The Prince is directed at.

No, the advice in The Prince is directed at the fact that at political scales morals need to be reexamined.

For example: just the way our immune system would give up the antibodies in order to get rid of bacteria. We don’t ask the morality of it since we know our body is probably a higher being - and so is a society.

For all it is Machiavelianism is just a term having a very specific meaning; but which is not directly linked to what the author was writing about.

For example - we say “Platonic love” - but we rarely mean it in the same way Plato meant it, where he was speaking of divinity; rather than just the absence of sex.

Massive agreement. This kind of stuff is a total dead-end for your bran and your soul in my opinion. You're going to start getting mad at completely mundane things because you think everyone is trying to dominate you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com