5 ms·

This is true. It is also true that dispensing this particular advice is self-serving for people in power. In a revolution, things get worse before they get be

This is true. It is also true that dispensing this particular advice is self-serving for people in power. In a revolution, things get worse before they get better if they get better. Revolutions come at huge negative expected value. However, appeasing powerful forces can also have hugely negative expected value. Sometimes the calculus makes sense, and when it does, you should hope that people are appropriately discounting the self-serving advice from the powerful.

BirAdam 3y ago
Eh, a revolution happens when people take responsibility and do something. Tyranny happens when people behave as and think like victims.
SoftTalker 3y ago
I think it's more self-serving for those in power to encourage a culture of victimhood, where they set themselves up as the saviors. This is a standard political gambit: create or identify a group of victims, and declare that you will get "payback" for them and make their situation better. Of course you don't, but that's OK, you got their votes and you just recycle and amplify that play next time.
- jjoonathan 3y ago
  Sure, co-opting a revolution is a common and effective tactic, but so is "fall in line" (or "don't worry about it" or "focus on yourself" -- all identical from a political action perspective). Revolutions can be actually revolutionary. Often they are not, but they can be. "Fall in line" can never be revolutionary.
- somesortofthing 3y ago
  If this was the universal(or even most common) outcome of people organizing against sources of suffering in their lives, we'd still be living in stone age city states. The process you describe has time and again led to net-positive outcomes. "It has to work 100% of the time or it's not worth doing" isn't a standard we apply anywhere else.
  - zozbot234 3y ago
    If by "the process you describe" you mean widespread violence and upheaval, then that is pretty much backwards. The Yanomamo are merely one among countless examples of societies that are "stuck in the stone age" due to recurring violence, with tribesfolk fighting to gain control over resources and women. Human development has occurred historically via gradual change, working to subtly shift existing social arrangements over time rather than fighting them outright.
- didntknowya 3y ago
  those exploiting power have no interest in becoming "saviors". trying to appear as one does not last long as victims as in human nature soon looks for someone to blame- often the most visible
  - yetihehe 3y ago
    Becoming saviors is not a perfect strategy (is there one). It's still used by a lot of those exploiting power. Not all of them are perfect or know the perfect way to exploit power. They make mistakes and sometimes when their mistakes in strategy accumulate, they end up on pitchforks.
nostrademons 3y ago
I always interpreted this statement as "Don't feel like a victim", not "Don't feel like a victim." It's not an exhortation to suck it up and ignore everything wrong with your life, it's an exhortation to go do something about it. If you feel like conditions are honestly bad enough that a revolution is necessary, go revolt, don't sit there on Hacker News or Reddit complaining about how bad conditions are. If Coke is making you fat and being fat is making you unhappy, stop drinking Coke. This framing isn't self-serving at all; if more people took it, there'd be a lot fewer folks that the rich and powerful could take advantage of, and a lot more power centers. But curiously, I've noticed that many people who are powerful and ruthless also have a certain respect for people who will put up clear boundaries and take action to not be taken advantage of by them. It's like they're reluctant sociopaths. "As long as stupid and helpless people exist, they will be taken advantage of by someone, so that someone might as well but me." But it's almost like many of them wish there weren't so many stupid and helpless people, and respect folks who go after what they want even if what they want isn't aligned with their own vision.
xg15 3y ago
Ironically, revolutionaries and unionists would perfectly follow Munger's advice here: Don't wallow in misery, organise to change the circumstances that lead to it. Though I'm pretty certain the he didn't have that kind of change in mind when giving this advice.
ericmcer 3y ago
So you shouldn’t work hard because it benefits the people in power? That mentality seems pretty self-destructive. It’s dumb to not at least try to impress the people who pay you. That doesn’t mean you can’t also take it easy and strike a healthy balance, but just outright saying society and work are bullshit seems insane when we have such a wealth of resources readily available to us.
zozbot234 3y ago
> It is also true that dispensing this particular advice is self-serving for people in power. Most people in power will go out of power via something other than violent revolution. In fact, the whole notion of "elite overproduction" is basically about pointing out the fact that a lot more people aspire to be in power than are actually in power at any given moment. It's an endless game of musical chairs, and if you can avoid playing that particular game you'll be a lot better off on average.
happytiger 3y ago
Well I’ve thought about this as a theoretically measurable point after learning about it through sociology texts. The 'Outrage Factor' is like a measure of how strongly people feel about something and whether they will move into action because of it. Imagine if you heard news about a big problem – how mad or upset it makes you and others is the 'Outrage Factor.' It's like when you find out someone did something really unfair, and it makes you really angry, especially if it feels unfair, arbitrary or imposed by an unpopular central power, etc. While it’s certainly true that people in charge generally only say things that keep them in charge, a la the status quo always moves to reinforce its own existence, individuals in power vary a lot in their strategies for staying in power. Some may prioritize transparency and addressing concerns directly, while others may navigate communication or be blatantly manipulating to maintain ‘stability.’ The relationship between power, communication, and outrage factors is complex and influenced by various factors such as societal expectations, political climates, and individual leadership styles. A ‘revolution’ isn’t one thing — it’s all of those things combined and more. I mean to raise the point that things are frequently much more complicated and simply discounting the advice doesn’t take into account the person saying it, their history of speaking the truth, and what room it was said in. Obviously the modern world is filled with examples of what you are talking about, so please don’t think I’m trying to counterpoint you — that’s not my intention. I’m trying to add to the discussion the idea of the ‘outrage factor’ as well as the various styles and politics of who is speaking, because its so very difficult to discern anyone speaking in your best interest (assuming they exist) from the sea of those who most certainly are not and that’s worth considering. It is also interesting that psychology, sociology and other sciences all have this measurement concept for when people will get pissed off enough to actually take action — with the presumption being that the vast majority of the time, until the tipping point that is an ‘outrage factor,’ they will not. I wonder how well studied and engineered that factor is in modern societies, because I assume it’s very studied, and I also wonder what the impact of broadly deployed AI will be for leadership groups will look like give the obvious benefit of learning to manage this measurement.
faeriechangling 3y ago
The Nazis and Bolshevik’s both swept into power and cemented their power by expertly portraying themselves and their supporters as victims. Somebody convincing themselves and those around them that they are victims can be utterly and totally disconnected from actual victimhood. Victimhood can even be manufactured to create a Casus Belli. Throw a rock in any hall of power and you won’t be able to help but hit several victims before it hits the floor. Powerful people who accept responsibility for the bad things that happen in the world and blame themselves? Just about the rarest sight one will ever see. For this reason, I see victimhood as the friend of power, not the foe, as victimhood is basically a universal all purpose justification to do whatever you wanted to do with your power anyways. Actual victims who are powerless usually get fuck all benefit from portraying themselves as victims because they’re actually victims so they’re socially disadvantaged.

BirAdam 3y ago

Eh, a revolution happens when people take responsibility and do something. Tyranny happens when people behave as and think like victims.

SoftTalker 3y ago

I think it's more self-serving for those in power to encourage a culture of victimhood, where they set themselves up as the saviors. This is a standard political gambit: create or identify a group of victims, and declare that you will get "payback" for them and make their situation better. Of course you don't, but that's OK, you got their votes and you just recycle and amplify that play next time.

jjoonathan 3y ago
Sure, co-opting a revolution is a common and effective tactic, but so is "fall in line" (or "don't worry about it" or "focus on yourself" -- all identical from a political action perspective). Revolutions can be actually revolutionary. Often they are not, but they can be. "Fall in line" can never be revolutionary.
somesortofthing 3y ago
If this was the universal(or even most common) outcome of people organizing against sources of suffering in their lives, we'd still be living in stone age city states. The process you describe has time and again led to net-positive outcomes. "It has to work 100% of the time or it's not worth doing" isn't a standard we apply anywhere else.
- zozbot234 3y ago
  If by "the process you describe" you mean widespread violence and upheaval, then that is pretty much backwards. The Yanomamo are merely one among countless examples of societies that are "stuck in the stone age" due to recurring violence, with tribesfolk fighting to gain control over resources and women. Human development has occurred historically via gradual change, working to subtly shift existing social arrangements over time rather than fighting them outright.
didntknowya 3y ago
those exploiting power have no interest in becoming "saviors". trying to appear as one does not last long as victims as in human nature soon looks for someone to blame- often the most visible
- yetihehe 3y ago
  Becoming saviors is not a perfect strategy (is there one). It's still used by a lot of those exploiting power. Not all of them are perfect or know the perfect way to exploit power. They make mistakes and sometimes when their mistakes in strategy accumulate, they end up on pitchforks.

nostrademons 3y ago

I always interpreted this statement as "Don't feel like a victim", not "Don't feel like a victim." It's not an exhortation to suck it up and ignore everything wrong with your life, it's an exhortation to go do something about it. If you feel like conditions are honestly bad enough that a revolution is necessary, go revolt, don't sit there on Hacker News or Reddit complaining about how bad conditions are. If Coke is making you fat and being fat is making you unhappy, stop drinking Coke. This framing isn't self-serving at all; if more people took it, there'd be a lot fewer folks that the rich and powerful could take advantage of, and a lot more power centers. But curiously, I've noticed that many people who are powerful and ruthless also have a certain respect for people who will put up clear boundaries and take action to not be taken advantage of by them. It's like they're reluctant sociopaths. "As long as stupid and helpless people exist, they will be taken advantage of by someone, so that someone might as well but me." But it's almost like many of them wish there weren't so many stupid and helpless people, and respect folks who go after what they want even if what they want isn't aligned with their own vision.

xg15 3y ago

Ironically, revolutionaries and unionists would perfectly follow Munger's advice here: Don't wallow in misery, organise to change the circumstances that lead to it. Though I'm pretty certain the he didn't have that kind of change in mind when giving this advice.

ericmcer 3y ago

So you shouldn’t work hard because it benefits the people in power? That mentality seems pretty self-destructive. It’s dumb to not at least try to impress the people who pay you. That doesn’t mean you can’t also take it easy and strike a healthy balance, but just outright saying society and work are bullshit seems insane when we have such a wealth of resources readily available to us.

zozbot234 3y ago

> It is also true that dispensing this particular advice is self-serving for people in power. Most people in power will go out of power via something other than violent revolution. In fact, the whole notion of "elite overproduction" is basically about pointing out the fact that a lot more people aspire to be in power than are actually in power at any given moment. It's an endless game of musical chairs, and if you can avoid playing that particular game you'll be a lot better off on average.

happytiger 3y ago

Well I’ve thought about this as a theoretically measurable point after learning about it through sociology texts. The 'Outrage Factor' is like a measure of how strongly people feel about something and whether they will move into action because of it. Imagine if you heard news about a big problem – how mad or upset it makes you and others is the 'Outrage Factor.' It's like when you find out someone did something really unfair, and it makes you really angry, especially if it feels unfair, arbitrary or imposed by an unpopular central power, etc. While it’s certainly true that people in charge generally only say things that keep them in charge, a la the status quo always moves to reinforce its own existence, individuals in power vary a lot in their strategies for staying in power. Some may prioritize transparency and addressing concerns directly, while others may navigate communication or be blatantly manipulating to maintain ‘stability.’ The relationship between power, communication, and outrage factors is complex and influenced by various factors such as societal expectations, political climates, and individual leadership styles. A ‘revolution’ isn’t one thing — it’s all of those things combined and more. I mean to raise the point that things are frequently much more complicated and simply discounting the advice doesn’t take into account the person saying it, their history of speaking the truth, and what room it was said in. Obviously the modern world is filled with examples of what you are talking about, so please don’t think I’m trying to counterpoint you — that’s not my intention. I’m trying to add to the discussion the idea of the ‘outrage factor’ as well as the various styles and politics of who is speaking, because its so very difficult to discern anyone speaking in your best interest (assuming they exist) from the sea of those who most certainly are not and that’s worth considering. It is also interesting that psychology, sociology and other sciences all have this measurement concept for when people will get pissed off enough to actually take action — with the presumption being that the vast majority of the time, until the tipping point that is an ‘outrage factor,’ they will not. I wonder how well studied and engineered that factor is in modern societies, because I assume it’s very studied, and I also wonder what the impact of broadly deployed AI will be for leadership groups will look like give the obvious benefit of learning to manage this measurement.

faeriechangling 3y ago

The Nazis and Bolshevik’s both swept into power and cemented their power by expertly portraying themselves and their supporters as victims. Somebody convincing themselves and those around them that they are victims can be utterly and totally disconnected from actual victimhood. Victimhood can even be manufactured to create a Casus Belli. Throw a rock in any hall of power and you won’t be able to help but hit several victims before it hits the floor. Powerful people who accept responsibility for the bad things that happen in the world and blame themselves? Just about the rarest sight one will ever see. For this reason, I see victimhood as the friend of power, not the foe, as victimhood is basically a universal all purpose justification to do whatever you wanted to do with your power anyways. Actual victims who are powerless usually get fuck all benefit from portraying themselves as victims because they’re actually victims so they’re socially disadvantaged.