My problem with Dark Arts is that people who try to teach them to others usually use them on others while teaching. How do you know then if you learned something useful, or you were just manipulated into believing that you learned something useful? Just because someone who is good at manipulation is explaining to me how to manipulate, it does not mean that the part I learned is the part that really works.
I have read the 48 laws of power, and my reactions were, in sequence:
This is so cool, how lucky I am to read this book! I hope I will remember these examples to increase my social skills.
Somehow the more I read the more I am confused. How is it possible that things that made sense at the beginning do not make sense now?
Oh, I have found it! The author is contradicting himself. For example one of the laws is that when there is a conflict around you, you should commit yourself to one side of the conflict, because the side will reward you for your loyalty (and if you stay neutral, both sides will ignore you). Then, fifty pages later, there is another law that when there is a conflict around you, you should stay neutral, because both sides will then compete for your attention (and if you commit to one of them, they already have you, so they focus on the remaining neutral people). So once again, when there is a conflict around me, which strategy do these laws suggest? And there are more such conflicting examples.
Of course, this is just my conclusion. A more humble reader could come to conclusion that the book is great, but they just somehow failed to understand all its teachings properly… and would buy another book from the same author hoping to get it right this time.
Is it a contradiction to claim that both P-K4 and P-Q4 are solid strategies?
Discernment is knowing which strategy a situation calls for, and is difficult to teach through books. Greene’s method of giving examples so you can try to pattern-match is a decent approach, though there is probably a better one.
Is it a contradiction to claim that both P-K4 and P-Q4 are solid strategies?
The contradiction appears when in chapter on P-K4 author suggests that not playing P-K4 is a losing strategy, while in chapter on P-Q4 suggests that not playing P-Q4 is a losing strategy. It seemed to me that this is what author did, because all chapters follow the form: “X is a law of power. Here are examples of people who did X and succeeded, and here are examples of people who didn’t do X and failed.”
Maybe I was reading too much into the text, but it seemed to me that the spirit of the book was “here are 48 laws: if you follow them you succeed, if you ignore them you lose” rather than “there are 48 ways you could react on a situation, and depending on circumstances, any one of them can lead to success or failure.”
The end of every chapter has about a page with the heading of “Reversal,” in which Greene discusses briefly when the law is counterproductive / does not apply. The chapter entitled “Do Not Commit to Anyone” has, in its reversal, “eventually you may find it worthwhile to commit to one side,” with a brief explanation of how occasional commitment increases the value of coyness.
I do agree with you that the reversal section is more of a brief caveat than a full treatment of the weaknesses inherent in every strategy, but it is there (and by pointing out what a thing is not, one makes it clearer).
The Model Thinking class from Coursera has a relevant video on the difference between proverbs and models. Models make their assumptions explicit; so, e.g. you know when to use Fisher’s replicator model (diversity is good) and when to use the Six Sigma model (diversity is bad). Proverbs, like “a stitch in time saves nine” vs. “haste makes waste,” have implicit assumptions; which means they’re generally only useful after you’ve used the wrong one for a particular situation.
My reading of Cialdini showed some attention paid to assumptions, but not much. He seems more on the proverb side than the model side.
Yeah, that’s the thing with the 48 Laws—often you find laws that contradict other laws. The author graduated in classical studies, and really seems to have a rich collection of anecdotes. He definitely does not seem (good for him!) the kind of person who would be an ice-cold black artist. -- see the interview that Eliezer did with him. Still, the few hours spent with this book give some food for thought, and make you a bit more aware of the games real people around you actually play.
My problem with Dark Arts is that people who try to teach them to others usually use them on others while teaching. How do you know then if you learned something useful, or you were just manipulated into believing that you learned something useful? Just because someone who is good at manipulation is explaining to me how to manipulate, it does not mean that the part I learned is the part that really works.
I have read the 48 laws of power, and my reactions were, in sequence:
This is so cool, how lucky I am to read this book! I hope I will remember these examples to increase my social skills.
Somehow the more I read the more I am confused. How is it possible that things that made sense at the beginning do not make sense now?
Oh, I have found it! The author is contradicting himself. For example one of the laws is that when there is a conflict around you, you should commit yourself to one side of the conflict, because the side will reward you for your loyalty (and if you stay neutral, both sides will ignore you). Then, fifty pages later, there is another law that when there is a conflict around you, you should stay neutral, because both sides will then compete for your attention (and if you commit to one of them, they already have you, so they focus on the remaining neutral people). So once again, when there is a conflict around me, which strategy do these laws suggest? And there are more such conflicting examples.
Of course, this is just my conclusion. A more humble reader could come to conclusion that the book is great, but they just somehow failed to understand all its teachings properly… and would buy another book from the same author hoping to get it right this time.
Is it a contradiction to claim that both P-K4 and P-Q4 are solid strategies?
Discernment is knowing which strategy a situation calls for, and is difficult to teach through books. Greene’s method of giving examples so you can try to pattern-match is a decent approach, though there is probably a better one.
The contradiction appears when in chapter on P-K4 author suggests that not playing P-K4 is a losing strategy, while in chapter on P-Q4 suggests that not playing P-Q4 is a losing strategy. It seemed to me that this is what author did, because all chapters follow the form: “X is a law of power. Here are examples of people who did X and succeeded, and here are examples of people who didn’t do X and failed.”
Maybe I was reading too much into the text, but it seemed to me that the spirit of the book was “here are 48 laws: if you follow them you succeed, if you ignore them you lose” rather than “there are 48 ways you could react on a situation, and depending on circumstances, any one of them can lead to success or failure.”
The end of every chapter has about a page with the heading of “Reversal,” in which Greene discusses briefly when the law is counterproductive / does not apply. The chapter entitled “Do Not Commit to Anyone” has, in its reversal, “eventually you may find it worthwhile to commit to one side,” with a brief explanation of how occasional commitment increases the value of coyness.
I do agree with you that the reversal section is more of a brief caveat than a full treatment of the weaknesses inherent in every strategy, but it is there (and by pointing out what a thing is not, one makes it clearer).
The Model Thinking class from Coursera has a relevant video on the difference between proverbs and models. Models make their assumptions explicit; so, e.g. you know when to use Fisher’s replicator model (diversity is good) and when to use the Six Sigma model (diversity is bad). Proverbs, like “a stitch in time saves nine” vs. “haste makes waste,” have implicit assumptions; which means they’re generally only useful after you’ve used the wrong one for a particular situation.
My reading of Cialdini showed some attention paid to assumptions, but not much. He seems more on the proverb side than the model side.
Yeah, that’s the thing with the 48 Laws—often you find laws that contradict other laws. The author graduated in classical studies, and really seems to have a rich collection of anecdotes. He definitely does not seem (good for him!) the kind of person who would be an ice-cold black artist. -- see the interview that Eliezer did with him. Still, the few hours spent with this book give some food for thought, and make you a bit more aware of the games real people around you actually play.