5 ms·

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 anythi

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.

nostrademons 9y ago
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.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > 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.
  - heavenlyblue 9y ago
    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.
- quotemstr 9y ago
  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.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- rendall 9y ago
  "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.
  - nostrademons 9y ago
    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?
    - dwaltrip 9y ago
      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.
      - nostrademons 9y ago
        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.)
- pmoriarty 9y ago
  "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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellianism
  - sverige 9y ago
    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.
    - hguant 9y ago
      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.
  - nostrademons 9y ago
    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.
- AckSyn 9y ago
  > Basically every personal behavior is a manifestation of power dynamics You're going to have to back up that claim, sparky.
draw_down 9y ago
If I claim something is pervasive, then I will tend to claim that it is everywhere, pretty much by definition.
internetman55 9y ago
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.

nostrademons 9y ago

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.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> 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.
- heavenlyblue 9y ago
  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.
quotemstr 9y ago
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.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
rendall 9y ago
"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.
- nostrademons 9y ago
  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?
  - dwaltrip 9y ago
    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.
    - nostrademons 9y ago
      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.)
pmoriarty 9y ago
"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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellianism
- sverige 9y ago
  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.
  - hguant 9y ago
    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.
- nostrademons 9y ago
  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.
AckSyn 9y ago
> Basically every personal behavior is a manifestation of power dynamics You're going to have to back up that claim, sparky.

draw_down 9y ago

If I claim something is pervasive, then I will tend to claim that it is everywhere, pretty much by definition.

internetman55 9y ago

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.