Most people aren't taught to think critically... to analyze. I think everyone can to some degree. I was fortunate to be trained in it from an early age, and then more formally in school. I have a knack for it I think, so it wasn't hard.
Honestly, it has many benefits. So I want to describe just a bit of the process. But I doubt you'll actually take the time to see if it works because discipline is another thing most people lack.
Given any question or situation, you simply think to the next logical conclusion, then go back and identify as many other possible conclusions you could come to. Then you weigh the liklihood of each. Followed by the positives and negatives of the most likely.
See, not that complicated. The hard part is stepping outside of yourself (your own opinions, programming from school and culture, etc) to see other possibilities. Of course it will be slow at first, but you'll get faster as you get used to it.
From there, you can expand into longer chains of conclusions, learn to work backward to causes, and even play with variables. It truly turns the world into an erector set of constructs to play with.
But it isn't just mental gymnastics. The goal is real world application. The best illustration of it I've seen is in the Robert Downey, Jude Law Sherlock Holmes movies. They freeze the film at pivotal moments and play through Holmes' thoughts. Then once he's decided, speed up and watch it play out. It's just like that. It happens in milliseconds if you get used to it, but can also be used on longer range things. It's a type of systems thinking. It allows you to predict many futures with reasonable accuracy and understand causes from mechanical things to emotions. And it instills a desire to learn more. Tools for the toolbox, so to speak. Anything that helps us better process the massive overload of data our brains are constantly receiving. Most people just let their brains parse it out and it never enters consciousness.
This fact actually allowed me to disappear...to become invisible on several occasions. If I can process what people are noticing and place myself outside of that, I very truly cease to be there in their minds. I once walked right up to a friend I happened to see in a mall and took his bags. I walked full in front of his view and he only saw me once the bags moved from his feet. Another time, I appeared "magically" in front of a friend who was actually looking for me at a crowded movie theater. I saw him, but he didn't see me until I stepped into his consciousness. And I frequently used it to walk right past teachers in school, even as other kids would get stopped.
It's useful in driving because I can lay out a path through shifting traffic. I have used it at work when I noticed that a certain terrible boss would always issue pointless orders (even though the work was done) as he blew through, but only if we were wearing the teal uniform shirts. That was his unconscious cue. So I'd casually slip mine off when I saw him roll in and he'd pass me by every time. People even commented on it. I told them, and it worked for them too. Currently, I often leave a few "easter eggs", let's say, in a document or image I send for review. This lessens the number of comments I get back because reviewers want to find things. If they don't, they get pickier. A few subtle but catchable mistakes, results in less needless overhaul. Of course it's not perfect. Sometimes unpredictable happens, but that's part of the game.
Of course, there's a downside, if you get really into it. It tends to make the world far less stable. In the long run, this is probably a more truthful view, and therefore better, but it makes security an utter illusion. At best, our most protective systems only account for the few most obvious scenarios. So if you take this to heart, get ready to swim in deep water forever. Dry-ground is going bye-bye in this world. Also, get prepared for the vast majority of people to not understand you at all. You'll be labelled as negative, critical, manipulative, weird. And you will be. Or at least you'll be perfectly capable of it. So be prepared to hold a tight moral and ethical compass.
Showing posts with label manipulation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label manipulation. Show all posts
Friday, October 10, 2014
Friday, December 20, 2013
Power
Power can never be taken. It can only be given. This is absolutely true. To understand it, though, we have to understand power.
Merriam-Webster defines it as 1. ability to act or produce an effect. 2. possession of control, influence, or authority over others. 3. physical might.
I'm obviously talking about definition 2, but in a less direct way, my statement also applies to 1 and 3.
So regarding power over others, this power can only be given with the consent of those over whom it is exercised. We don't like to think of it that way because too many of us lay down and roll over to let people have power over us. We want to feel excused, that there was nothing we could do. But this is false because no one can physically make you do anything you do not choose to do.
Actually, there's two exceptions. They can make you hurt and they can make you die. But they still can't make you do anything they want you to do. What we call oppression is really just strong coercion. An oppressor finds something we want and attempts to control our receipt of it contingent upon us doing what they want. This doesn't always have to be negative. Many rulers know that positive reinforcement is better than negative in many cases. In this case we don't tend to call it oppression, but the principle is the same. We want the reward, so we comply. Parents use this all the time.
Another side of this coercion complex involves vilifying those who don't comply and making negative examples of them. This plays on the human tendency to conform and really just greases the wheels of the coercive process.
But it doesn't always work. If a person or people lose the fear of the consequences, the power is gone. Unfortunately in our society, one of the largest coercive factors is the idea that death is the ultimate evil. If life is to be preserved at all costs, the power is handed over. It simply becomes a matter of the degree to which it is exercised. But if death is not feared, the ruler is grasping at straws because even pain is not so effective a coercion simply because no ruler can hurt enough people. sure it may work one on one, but usually this occurs only after someone has already given over too much power in the first place.
Here's some examples. Ever wonder why Native Americans were not enslaved by the Europeans? Why would they go to the trouble and expense to catch and ship over Africans when there was an ample supply of primitive people right in their own backyard? The answer is that they tried. The problem was that Native Americans were (and still are) an independent and defiant people who do not hand over their power. Even if one could be taken alive, he or she would not work. Give them a tool and they'd put it through your head. Slack the chain and they'd wrap it around your neck. Pen them up and try to break them, and they'd simply starve to death or take their own life before giving in. Where do you think that fierce independent streak of American culture came from? Indians weren't destroyed. They were absorbed. The distinct cultures were largely lost, but I am a living example of the assimilated, but not conquered people who have left an indelible mark on American culture. Truly, modern American culture IS a hybrid of Native and European and African influences. But I digress.
Secondly, the Christian martyrs, both ancient and modern. They came from the dominant cultures in which they were found, but lost their fear of death and even pain because of their faith. While they didn't often resort to violent resistance, they were never conquered and thousands have refused to submit to countless regimes that violated their beliefs.
Third, Muslim martyrs. The reason Islamic terrorism is so scary is that it can occur anywhere and from anyone. A people who are not afraid to die do not need to submit.
But I also mentioned torture as often the result of having given up power and attempting to take it back too late. The best example I know are the Nazi concentration camp victims. Countless people sat by and watched as they gave up more and more power to the Nazi regime. Then even when they were being hauled away, few resisted. Some did. But not most.
The Christian martyrs are not exactly in this state because they willingly submitted to the torture because of their beliefs in nonviolence. Since it was willing, they weren't technically abdicating their power, but choosing not to exercise their power out of deference to God, whom they believed to be in control even in that time. Some were miraculously rescued, others weren't. But before you go trying to say this proves God doesn't exist or didn't favor them, remember what I said about death not being the ultimate evil.
I want to be clear, that I'm not downplaying the strength of the coercion. I'm not judging anyone for acting or not acting in any way. Until we're there, we can't say how we'd react either. I'm simply pointing out that these were indeed cases where power was given and not taken.
I'm not even saying it is wrong to always allow someone power over you. Certainly there are cases where it is wise, prudent, beneficial, and even good to submit. The difference is the understanding of what we're doing. It is voluntary submission. No human has power over another by innate right. It is ALWAYS by the consent of the governed.
This understanding should color our views of those over us. It should also color our views of those under us. Doubtless someone will quote the Bible passage about submitting to those in authority because God placed them there. Yes. I agree. What does this have to do with my point? I still have the choice to submit or not, for good or ill. I still can't be compelled to do what a ruler says. And if you are citing this passage, I'd like to also point out the many others about leaders whom God also took down...many through the violent and bloody hands of His people. So it cuts both ways, pastor. Are you so certain of which type of leader you are?
So where does this leave us? Is there a way to act in society? Yes, I think a mutual respect among all people, a servant leadership that understands it is just that, paired with a diverse and necessary body of others who are no less necessary and no less favored. While this is an ideal that may be hard to reach (at least in the US), I suggest we at least reclaim the mannered equipoise of many cultures past and present: Know you have less power than you think you do, and there's always a chance I could be more coercive than you, or at least willing to put you to the ultimate test of defending your power (i.e. I might kill you.) So let's just be polite and we'll get along fine.
As for a better way, I think we have that as well. God, being the prime source and beyond our influence altogether, has established that goodness and love flow from Him to us. Goodness and love draw the recipient toward the giver. Thus we comply not from coercion, but as a gift back. It works in the human realm, we've all seen it. Betrayal is universally denounced. Good deserves good. Love deserves love. It sidesteps the whole power dynamic altogether. This is how Jesus operated. This is how many Christians operate. It just had to start somewhere, and God took care of that for us. Or rather, He established the universe that way, so we really have no other choice. To defy it simply negates our own being. A self-perpetuating system, no punishment necessary.
So I'll leave you with this. If you are having to manipulate and strive to get people to do what you think they should, you're doing something wrong. If you have to beg for money or tell people God won't bless them. If you have to make lighthearted threats to get them to sign up for your program. You are slipping into the power dynamic, which means you don't have the power in the first place. Forcing that will be your undoing.
The only winning move is not to play.
Merriam-Webster defines it as 1. ability to act or produce an effect. 2. possession of control, influence, or authority over others. 3. physical might.
I'm obviously talking about definition 2, but in a less direct way, my statement also applies to 1 and 3.
So regarding power over others, this power can only be given with the consent of those over whom it is exercised. We don't like to think of it that way because too many of us lay down and roll over to let people have power over us. We want to feel excused, that there was nothing we could do. But this is false because no one can physically make you do anything you do not choose to do.
Actually, there's two exceptions. They can make you hurt and they can make you die. But they still can't make you do anything they want you to do. What we call oppression is really just strong coercion. An oppressor finds something we want and attempts to control our receipt of it contingent upon us doing what they want. This doesn't always have to be negative. Many rulers know that positive reinforcement is better than negative in many cases. In this case we don't tend to call it oppression, but the principle is the same. We want the reward, so we comply. Parents use this all the time.
Another side of this coercion complex involves vilifying those who don't comply and making negative examples of them. This plays on the human tendency to conform and really just greases the wheels of the coercive process.
But it doesn't always work. If a person or people lose the fear of the consequences, the power is gone. Unfortunately in our society, one of the largest coercive factors is the idea that death is the ultimate evil. If life is to be preserved at all costs, the power is handed over. It simply becomes a matter of the degree to which it is exercised. But if death is not feared, the ruler is grasping at straws because even pain is not so effective a coercion simply because no ruler can hurt enough people. sure it may work one on one, but usually this occurs only after someone has already given over too much power in the first place.
Here's some examples. Ever wonder why Native Americans were not enslaved by the Europeans? Why would they go to the trouble and expense to catch and ship over Africans when there was an ample supply of primitive people right in their own backyard? The answer is that they tried. The problem was that Native Americans were (and still are) an independent and defiant people who do not hand over their power. Even if one could be taken alive, he or she would not work. Give them a tool and they'd put it through your head. Slack the chain and they'd wrap it around your neck. Pen them up and try to break them, and they'd simply starve to death or take their own life before giving in. Where do you think that fierce independent streak of American culture came from? Indians weren't destroyed. They were absorbed. The distinct cultures were largely lost, but I am a living example of the assimilated, but not conquered people who have left an indelible mark on American culture. Truly, modern American culture IS a hybrid of Native and European and African influences. But I digress.
Secondly, the Christian martyrs, both ancient and modern. They came from the dominant cultures in which they were found, but lost their fear of death and even pain because of their faith. While they didn't often resort to violent resistance, they were never conquered and thousands have refused to submit to countless regimes that violated their beliefs.
Third, Muslim martyrs. The reason Islamic terrorism is so scary is that it can occur anywhere and from anyone. A people who are not afraid to die do not need to submit.
But I also mentioned torture as often the result of having given up power and attempting to take it back too late. The best example I know are the Nazi concentration camp victims. Countless people sat by and watched as they gave up more and more power to the Nazi regime. Then even when they were being hauled away, few resisted. Some did. But not most.
The Christian martyrs are not exactly in this state because they willingly submitted to the torture because of their beliefs in nonviolence. Since it was willing, they weren't technically abdicating their power, but choosing not to exercise their power out of deference to God, whom they believed to be in control even in that time. Some were miraculously rescued, others weren't. But before you go trying to say this proves God doesn't exist or didn't favor them, remember what I said about death not being the ultimate evil.
I want to be clear, that I'm not downplaying the strength of the coercion. I'm not judging anyone for acting or not acting in any way. Until we're there, we can't say how we'd react either. I'm simply pointing out that these were indeed cases where power was given and not taken.
I'm not even saying it is wrong to always allow someone power over you. Certainly there are cases where it is wise, prudent, beneficial, and even good to submit. The difference is the understanding of what we're doing. It is voluntary submission. No human has power over another by innate right. It is ALWAYS by the consent of the governed.
This understanding should color our views of those over us. It should also color our views of those under us. Doubtless someone will quote the Bible passage about submitting to those in authority because God placed them there. Yes. I agree. What does this have to do with my point? I still have the choice to submit or not, for good or ill. I still can't be compelled to do what a ruler says. And if you are citing this passage, I'd like to also point out the many others about leaders whom God also took down...many through the violent and bloody hands of His people. So it cuts both ways, pastor. Are you so certain of which type of leader you are?
So where does this leave us? Is there a way to act in society? Yes, I think a mutual respect among all people, a servant leadership that understands it is just that, paired with a diverse and necessary body of others who are no less necessary and no less favored. While this is an ideal that may be hard to reach (at least in the US), I suggest we at least reclaim the mannered equipoise of many cultures past and present: Know you have less power than you think you do, and there's always a chance I could be more coercive than you, or at least willing to put you to the ultimate test of defending your power (i.e. I might kill you.) So let's just be polite and we'll get along fine.
As for a better way, I think we have that as well. God, being the prime source and beyond our influence altogether, has established that goodness and love flow from Him to us. Goodness and love draw the recipient toward the giver. Thus we comply not from coercion, but as a gift back. It works in the human realm, we've all seen it. Betrayal is universally denounced. Good deserves good. Love deserves love. It sidesteps the whole power dynamic altogether. This is how Jesus operated. This is how many Christians operate. It just had to start somewhere, and God took care of that for us. Or rather, He established the universe that way, so we really have no other choice. To defy it simply negates our own being. A self-perpetuating system, no punishment necessary.
So I'll leave you with this. If you are having to manipulate and strive to get people to do what you think they should, you're doing something wrong. If you have to beg for money or tell people God won't bless them. If you have to make lighthearted threats to get them to sign up for your program. You are slipping into the power dynamic, which means you don't have the power in the first place. Forcing that will be your undoing.
The only winning move is not to play.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
