Off Topic 
How Power Works - A New Take
1 
Offline
. I'm talking about political power, of course. I made some revelations when I was thinking about it.First off, let's talk about the common perception that power is a zero-sum game. I was thinking about that concept, and I realized it wasn't true in many situations. In fact, I came to realize that the claim that power is a zero-sum game is almost identical in its logic to the idea that the economy is a zero-sum game (a view that is often discouraged by economists) . Here is why:
First, consider a power struggle between two executives within a company. If one gets more power, the other one gets less. It's zero-sum. Now, imagine in another case that, instead of an incentive for the executives to fight for power, there is an incentive for them to collaborate. Both executives can exert power over each other in a way that benifits both, and they have more power as a whole. This is observed in the most basic of communities, which have far more power together than they would as individual units acting alone.
Now picture an economy where there are two companies, both in cutthroat competition with each other. A loss for one company is a gain for the other. Long-term investment is not prioritized because it is not guaranteed to pay off. Additionally, there are far more ads for both companies, format wars play out, and the businesses start getting exploitative and using harmful practices to stay in the game. This, in turn, is bad for the economy and makes people angry at the companies, justifiably.
Now, you could say that the only alternative is a monopoly, and you would be partly correct, but there are other options. For example, the businesses could make a deal with each other to keep the competition fair and not outcompete each other without due warning, so as to make both companies more comfortable with long-term investment. Alternatively, the companies could strategically target areas in the market that their competitor is not in. Basically, they can unite as one single entity, collaborate, or avoid direct contact. These all have one theme: conflict avoidance and collaboration, which is exactly how the same way the maximum overall power can be reached. Thus the net worth, stock price, and long-term profits of both companies are increased overall. The only time it will be an overall gain economically by competition is if the capability of one vastly outmatches the other and it can outcompete it quickly, similar to how conflicts between nations work. If both are about the same, competition is a detriment to both as the amount of resources needed to fight the competition will cripple both. Of course, conflict cannot be avoided in some circumstances, but it is best to keep it as low as possible.
Power, by my usage, is the ability to influence the decisions and perceptions of others. It is common for people to say there are two types of power - soft and hard power, but I like to take a more psychological approach. There are many more psychological categories of power.
These include:
Trust - People believe what you say, and that you have good intentions.
Indebtedness - People believe they owe you something of some sort. Guilt lies in this category. So does debt, which in practice is power of one entity over another. Thus, predatory loans are a method of (unethcally) gaining power.
Solidarity - People can relate to you easily, and can understand you well. Because of that, what you say to them seems more relevant, and they are influenced more by it.
Fear - Best used in moderation or not at all if possible. People fear consequences if they do not do the expected action. Used often in authoritarian regimes.
Passion - You or the things you stand for invokes passion and interest in people.
Agreement - Often people appreciate and listen to those that confirm their own biases. Truth is optional but recommended.
Numbers - The bandwagon effect comes into play if there are enough people in a group.
Image - By and large, people's perception of you will have a great amount of weight where power is concerned. This includes personality and how the media portrays you.
Physical Strength - More strong = More power. Includes military strength.
Ability - The skill to do things should not be overlooked. One must have the competence necessary to maintain support and face challenges.
Involvement - Getting people involved motives people
Promoting Good - Influencing people in a way that benifits them and society as a whole. Power can't be maintained if society collapses.
Anyway, as I said, power is not sum zero-sum. If there is a society run by two competing rulers, using a zero-sum approach, the society itself loses a significant amount of power. If a society is run by two collaborating rulers, the society can actually gain power, and the two rulers hold more power overall when collaborating, and increase their power through innovation and other means.
That is the reason behind the (relative) absence of wars between developed nations in the past century. All the nations involved lose power when they fight.
To make mankind achieve the greatest level of power possible, one would have to maximize the potential of every single person in the world. That would probably mean taking an approach to power that is quite the opposite of current approaches. It would mean giving people more rights, opportunities, and things of significant human value like Healthcare, drinking water, food, and social connections. Far too often the method used to obtain power is to lower the power of other people, notably much more collectively than the power that is gained for that individual.
What do you think about how power shapes our lives?
edited 4×, last 10.04.23 03:04:53 am