4 ms·

No one holds power by accident. While some people may initially rise purely by chance, there are countless people actively trying to take their place, and thus

by jjk166 4y ago

No one holds power by accident. While some people may initially rise purely by chance, there are countless people actively trying to take their place, and thus the ability to remain in that desirable position implies sufficient competence to fend off all challengers. Obviously victory won't necessarily go to the smartest, there are many other important qualities like charisma and risk tolerance that tip the scales, but those in power still need to be smart enough to use their other skills and connections to overcome smarter competitors. If you see a grand master with a long history of success make what appears to you to be a blunder, perhaps they are indeed off their game, but it is wise to look to see how it may be a gambit.

rdtwo 4y ago
They have skills to rise to the top for sure. The problem is those may not be the same skills you would need to govern effectively. Donald Trump is my favorite recent example of that but there are many others
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  Trump's a sobering case, isn't he? He's a multiple bankrupt. He has a talent for destruction. It seems to me that he lacks insight; he seems to be a loudmouthed blowhard, just like many people I've met that aren't well-educated, and aren't property magnates. I don't really get how he got people to vote for him; I suspect it's that he appealed specifically to an anti-intellectual constituency - the same constituency that rejected Al Gore for being too intellectual. That is: being clever seems to be unhelpful, if you want to get ahead in US politics.
  - adolph 4y ago
    > I don't really get how he got people to vote for him; I suspect it's that he appealled specifically to an anti-intellectual constituency - the same constituency that rejected Al Gore for being too intellectual. Since it was the same constituency (in the margin) that voted Obama and Trump in, maybe the question is how Obama appealed to that "anti-intellectual" group more successfully than the succeeding candidate.
  - jjk166 4y ago
    Trump (or someone Trump was smart enough to listen to) realized that the same strategies that work for celebrity PR also work for political PR. Dogma in political circles had long been that you want to try to piss off as few people as possible and be palatable to as wide an audience as possible. But in hollywood gossip you want to be constantly involved in some scandal or feud - it doesn't matter what absurd position you take, people will still join your side. It's the exact same mental pathway that makes people very invested in their local sports team - sure you've never met these people and victory has no practical value to you whatsoever, but they are your team, your tribe, so you care. Trump spent years using these tactics to maintain his standing as a C-tier celebrity and eventually applied them to politics where they worked spectacularly. He plays the part of a buffoon, but if you pay attention to his oratory there are numerous clever strategies employed - he always focusses on one opponent at a time; he always gives his opponents simple, diminutive monikers that always use the first name which make him come off as simultaneously informal and superior; technical questions are met with machismo. In general all of his efforts work towards painting himself as an extremely confident individual who is stronger and more virile than his opponents and his policy positions are irrelevant. This might seem like a dumb strategy, but if you consider how a gorilla becomes leader of its troop, it does not make a well reasoned argument that it has the best policies and will improve the economy, it makes itself appear too formidable for any other contender to challenge. Our ape brains have evolved to join the side of the strongest and most virile alpha male. Trump's strategy exploits this pathway. That is not to say that he deliberately developed a strategy based on how apes compete for dominance, but rather he happened to adopt a strategy that just happened to be effective, and he executed it well. Trump's apparent lack of intelligence also served him well as the political establishment not only did not understand how to counter his strategy, but didn't even recognize the strategy until it was too late. They played right into his hands, frequently lampooning his positions and thus inadvertently giving him a far bigger audience. They tried to paint him as divisive and brash, not realizing that's exactly what people wanted. They debated him with traditional political rhetoric which came off as impotent and disingenuous. They pounced on every scandal which desensitized people to outrage. While I personally believe that Corey Lewandowski was the real brains behind the operation and as stated the other contenders made serious blunders, the fact that in a few years a man with the catchphrase "You're fired!" could completely submit half the country's political spectrum to his will and retain that influence after two impeachment attempts and a lost election indicates an exceptional ability to play the game.
Barrin92 4y ago
>thus the ability to remain in that desirable position implies sufficient competence to fend off all challengers In the modern world there are very few individual people with a lot of power. Power today is highly distributed among institutions and elites and managers and bureaucrats and so on. Just ask any recent US president when they ran headfirst into the machinery that is the entire government how that went. No deep state necessary, just sheer inertia of systems much larger than them. What all the examples in the article should tell people isn't that powerful people are stupid or smart, it's that nobody's in charge any more. Elon failing to tame twitter, SBF going broke on crypto isn't about intelligence, it's about people trying to speculate on or control systems that are much too complex and autonomous to be ordered around by one guy.
- jjk166 4y ago
  But the fact remains that someone is president and gets all the prestige and other perks of that position, and there are lots of other people who would like to be in that position yet aren't. Running things has never meant absolute ability to control systems, it has always been a relative measure of position within the hierarchy compared to others.

by jjk166 4y ago

rdtwo 4y ago

They have skills to rise to the top for sure. The problem is those may not be the same skills you would need to govern effectively. Donald Trump is my favorite recent example of that but there are many others

denton-scratch 4y ago
Trump's a sobering case, isn't he? He's a multiple bankrupt. He has a talent for destruction. It seems to me that he lacks insight; he seems to be a loudmouthed blowhard, just like many people I've met that aren't well-educated, and aren't property magnates. I don't really get how he got people to vote for him; I suspect it's that he appealed specifically to an anti-intellectual constituency - the same constituency that rejected Al Gore for being too intellectual. That is: being clever seems to be unhelpful, if you want to get ahead in US politics.
- adolph 4y ago
  > I don't really get how he got people to vote for him; I suspect it's that he appealled specifically to an anti-intellectual constituency - the same constituency that rejected Al Gore for being too intellectual. Since it was the same constituency (in the margin) that voted Obama and Trump in, maybe the question is how Obama appealed to that "anti-intellectual" group more successfully than the succeeding candidate.
- jjk166 4y ago
  Trump (or someone Trump was smart enough to listen to) realized that the same strategies that work for celebrity PR also work for political PR. Dogma in political circles had long been that you want to try to piss off as few people as possible and be palatable to as wide an audience as possible. But in hollywood gossip you want to be constantly involved in some scandal or feud - it doesn't matter what absurd position you take, people will still join your side. It's the exact same mental pathway that makes people very invested in their local sports team - sure you've never met these people and victory has no practical value to you whatsoever, but they are your team, your tribe, so you care. Trump spent years using these tactics to maintain his standing as a C-tier celebrity and eventually applied them to politics where they worked spectacularly. He plays the part of a buffoon, but if you pay attention to his oratory there are numerous clever strategies employed - he always focusses on one opponent at a time; he always gives his opponents simple, diminutive monikers that always use the first name which make him come off as simultaneously informal and superior; technical questions are met with machismo. In general all of his efforts work towards painting himself as an extremely confident individual who is stronger and more virile than his opponents and his policy positions are irrelevant. This might seem like a dumb strategy, but if you consider how a gorilla becomes leader of its troop, it does not make a well reasoned argument that it has the best policies and will improve the economy, it makes itself appear too formidable for any other contender to challenge. Our ape brains have evolved to join the side of the strongest and most virile alpha male. Trump's strategy exploits this pathway. That is not to say that he deliberately developed a strategy based on how apes compete for dominance, but rather he happened to adopt a strategy that just happened to be effective, and he executed it well. Trump's apparent lack of intelligence also served him well as the political establishment not only did not understand how to counter his strategy, but didn't even recognize the strategy until it was too late. They played right into his hands, frequently lampooning his positions and thus inadvertently giving him a far bigger audience. They tried to paint him as divisive and brash, not realizing that's exactly what people wanted. They debated him with traditional political rhetoric which came off as impotent and disingenuous. They pounced on every scandal which desensitized people to outrage. While I personally believe that Corey Lewandowski was the real brains behind the operation and as stated the other contenders made serious blunders, the fact that in a few years a man with the catchphrase "You're fired!" could completely submit half the country's political spectrum to his will and retain that influence after two impeachment attempts and a lost election indicates an exceptional ability to play the game.

Barrin92 4y ago

>thus the ability to remain in that desirable position implies sufficient competence to fend off all challengers In the modern world there are very few individual people with a lot of power. Power today is highly distributed among institutions and elites and managers and bureaucrats and so on. Just ask any recent US president when they ran headfirst into the machinery that is the entire government how that went. No deep state necessary, just sheer inertia of systems much larger than them. What all the examples in the article should tell people isn't that powerful people are stupid or smart, it's that nobody's in charge any more. Elon failing to tame twitter, SBF going broke on crypto isn't about intelligence, it's about people trying to speculate on or control systems that are much too complex and autonomous to be ordered around by one guy.

jjk166 4y ago
But the fact remains that someone is president and gets all the prestige and other perks of that position, and there are lots of other people who would like to be in that position yet aren't. Running things has never meant absolute ability to control systems, it has always been a relative measure of position within the hierarchy compared to others.