The 48 Laws Of Power

Post Reply New Topic

I read a study once showing that people with good leadership qualities get elevated levels of serotonin when they are leading a group of people, and the higher serotonin levels futher emphasize those kind of behaviors (giving people instructions, having a dominant personality, etc.). But when they injected non-leaders with serotonin, it did not cause any of those kinds of effects. So the evidence suggests that leaders really are "born that way"--they are hard-wired to lead others and their brain chemistry is set up to reinforce that behavior. It also makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint-- a society full of followers with nobody to lead the way wouldn't work, nor would one full of individual leaders who each want to do their own thing without participating in a group. Both need to exist.

My former boss started out as a programmer, and after being with the company for several years he was pushed into a managerial position because of his seniority. He really tried to gain managerial skills-- he had a shelf full of books on being a manager, learning how to be a leader, influencing people, being assertive, etc. His CD player was always loaded up with lectures on those topics. But he had NO leadership skills whatsoever. When he'd introduce me to others, he was too timid to say he was my boss--he'd say he was my coworker instead. He could not handle stress at all--one time when a lot of servers went down, he put me in charge of getting them back online. Not because he was good at delegating and thought I needed to be in charge--he wasn't able to work on it because the stress made him physically ill to the point of throwing up. He had a hard time assigning tasks to me and the other two people under him, leaving us to prioritize tasks and such on our own. I'm not very good at reading body language, but even I would see his timidity when I'd bring up a problem with the company or something along those lines-- very little eye contact, stuttering, speaking in an uncertain tone of voice, etc. He was a great person and one of the few people I enjoyed being around, but he was not a strong leader, and I don't think any number of books or CD's or anything would change that.

On the other hand, I've known a few amazingly good leaders. They seemed to have an innate ability to organize a group of people, learn each person's skills, and get everyone to work together to complete a project. And to my knowledge none of those people I've known have ever touched any of those self-help books.

I'm not saying it's impossible for any non-powerful person to become powerful, but I do believe the cards are stacked against them because they would be going against how their brains are "wired up" to behave.

I see: so the absolute truth is that there's no absolute truth to anything. Glad we cleared that up!

Stalin slept with a copy of Machiavelli under his pillow. Hitler read books on propaganda and leadership constantly. And both men were famous for having a natural presence that enthralled people.

So ... I think your right: some people have talent in aligning the group. Some of those talented people develop their talent and become forces to be reckoned with.

What's fascinating to see, though, is that power can come in many flavors. Ability to align a group is just one flavor. That's what's helpful about having rules and books to look at: they are principles that apply to many sorts of power.

Last edited by GroovyDruid on 22 Dec 2005, 3:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think you know how I mean.

Okay. Fine:

I disagree with your reading of Sun Tzu. I believe what he meant was that, if you are pushed to fight, you are the reactive element, not the proactive. You risk losing when you don't need to. It is far better to maneuver without fighting and defeat your opponent with what you could do to him at any moment, rather than being rushed into a fight that could turn against you. If you can do this with polical maneuvering, all the better. The farther one's victory is from the battlefield, the more complete it is. I think he would have embraced the 48 Rules of Power as a way to achieve victory and dominance without risking loss.

I don't think Sun Tzu would say war and violence are negative in any sense except when one loses. He made his living that way. He was a general and a pragmatist, not a pacifist. Some say he was one of the most evil men who ever lived. I think you're giving him credit for writing philosophical truths that aren't present in his writing.

Some people are naturally of the leader or 'alpha' type, but it is possible through study and pratice to emulate their behaviour. If an Aspie can feign NT behaviour (in spite of the social deficits and resultant stress), its not hard to envisage a beta-NT learning how to emulate an alpha-NT.

As for the temporal vs spiritual debate, i do not view them as mutually exclusive. Rather, that a complete and fulfilled person would be balanced. For instance, in mystical terms (qabalah) mercy/compassion(4) is balanced against strength/severity(5). The spirit must co-exist with the flesh, this seems to be particularly well expressed in some aspects of oriental culture.

Last edited by psych on 22 Dec 2005, 4:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.

btw, i mentioned 'the art of seduction' by the same author. It is stuffed full of historical case studies to drive the points home, which make for very entertaining reading. Catherine the great, Disraeli, Gaulle, Warhol, Napolean's mistress... - its a great way to learn some history if nothing else! I imagine the '48 laws..' is written in a similar format.

Actually I don't think those are two different arguments. Mine is the consequence of that. If every fight is a phyrric victory since you have to waste energy then obviously you don't want to be pushed into a fight as you say.

And I knew he was a war general and I've read the book so I certainly don't think he was a pacifist, no. It would be hard to think that having even heard some of his messages imo.

Yes. The world is a disturbing place.

Well, I did a quick search, and found the list.

There is a lot to be said for some of those. But then, there's something to be said for not treating everyone else as a means to an end.

Many people are convinced that the entire universe operates on a predator-prey relationship. In any action, one can only draw as much as the other party suffers. And they generally believe that this is an absolutely wonderful way of living.

The idea of a mutually beneficial arrangement is something of a Unicorn under that belief system.

Too bad they happen all the time.

And too bad they can often work better.


If you have to destroy everyone to get power, chances are it's going to do a serious number on yourself too. Somehow I don't see that as worth it.


And while I don't neccesarily believe in 'Spiritual' power, often what is associated with it is power. Empathy is not a weakness.


Don't get me wrong, I still see that there is something to be said for Sun Tzu, Nietzsche and the like. Just not that they're everything.

I rather like this quote:


"Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon 'em"
From Shakespeare's Twelfth Night.


Power and greatness can easily be interchanged in that quote.

Let me share an experience.

I have been very fortunate to have the opportunity to be a well educated and technically well qualified (but recently diagnosed) AS. I have suffered a depressive breakdown with several months off work.

The reason the large company I work for has, and continues to be, commercially successful is that the 'actual' ascendent culture revolves around application of these 48 laws of power, even though there is a PC mantra of company values to treat others as you would yourself. (I bought the book to try to get an insight)

Like poor David Kelly (see Hutton Report), when a logical straight forward competent technical professional with a well developed sense of integrity and truth interacts with a culture of obnoxious lying two faced backstabbing, 'I'm all right Jack' 'politicians', you can guess who always comes out on top - and who ends up - in this case - dead. (Not that I'm bitter )

I have come to a turning point - I have nearly recovered from depression - I think that I will have to bale out of this rat race and find a job where the environment can accommodate my AS.

I'm sure AS is the reason why I'm technically talented. I wish this condition was accepted in the NT majority culture so we could all have more content and rewarding lives (rant).

Mental nonconformity is one of the last social taboos - I now have to consider coming out of the closet to my family and collegues (I don't have to worry about any friends! )

Is anyone with me on this?

Scary. I only think two are good though.
#20 Commit to noone. This actually goes with my warrior vs. soldier thing. A warrior decides with whom he takes his stand. He is not nessacarily allied to that side, he has chosen to fight with them for a reason. And perhaps the next day he will be fighting against those he was with today.
#48 Be formless. That is the best one on there. It reminds you: keep adapting, continually change. I do this with what I believe. As new information comes, it changes, and adapts.

The rest of them require charisma or use of subterfuge, which I am not good at. Most of them sink to a level that I'm not willing to go to.

I wonder how many politicans have used these...

It strikes me that we have more than adequately reviewed the topic, at least for the nonce. What now I recomend to follow, is to ask: why? What are our reasons, concerns, benefit, purpose or motive behind this inquiry? That is where I propose that move our discourse next: To discover our agenda, forthrightly.

I use a lot of those rules myself actually, and yes it is for my own benefit, but not necessarily at the expense of others to get to the top, but more to ensure that I retain independence from those who seek to gain power over me. I like to control my own destiny and you need to retain a certain amount of power to ensure that, think of something like Switzerland in ww2, not taking any specific sides and doing enough to help all sides to ensure it wasn't attacked (much).

Power is not always a bad thing, it is how you use your power that is important.

Then I needn't ask you what you hope ever to achieve by this inquiry, seeing as how you already have. But does that go for everyone here?