3 ms·

I think this analysis vastly understates the quantity and magnitude of common interests that people often have, and thus reaches the flawed conclusion that ever

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.)
- dwaltrip 9y ago
  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.
  - nostrademons 9y ago
    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.
    - dwaltrip 9y ago
      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.
- sharemywin 9y ago
  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

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.)

dwaltrip 9y ago
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.
- nostrademons 9y ago
  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.
  - dwaltrip 9y ago
    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.
sharemywin 9y ago
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