"Basically every personal behavior is a manifestation of power dynamics."
Would you mind expanding on this? I think I disagree, but I would like to know what you mean.
Would you mind expanding on this? I think I disagree, but I would like to know what you mean.
Power, at its most basic, is simply the question of "Who gets their way? Whose will is reflected in reality?" When you have non-interacting people or people whose interests are aligned, then this isn't a very interesting question, because they can both get their way (subject to constraints of the natural world).
You'll almost never have two interacting humans whose will is completely aligned, though - that describes a sycophant or automaton, not a person. And so in practice, one or both sides will have to compromise: they'll get some of what they want, but give up other stuff that they'd like to see enacted in reality but presumably don't care as much about. And power dynamics is just about who compromises - when reality can't satisfy everyone's desires at once, whose desire is actually reflected? Who can assume that when they want something, they'll get it, and who will assume that their desires are normally thwarted?
Power dynamics are very important, but they don't dwarf _all_ other dynamics in human relations.
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.)
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.
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.
Also, in both broad categories, I would imagine there is rather high variance in the extent and particularities of the power dynamics.
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
Yes, I have been in relationships that were "power competitions" and those relationships are dysfunctional. Fortunately those are the exception, not the rule.
Think about being at a party that you hosted and 15 people are talking to you. You intrinsically will only hear those with the highest value proposition, a cute girl, an investor you invited, your friend. You might not be making a concious effort but your brain is.
Now if most interactions are value propositions from one party to another then it makes sense that your personal behavior will reflect your own power dynamics in order to increase your own value proposition to the other party. This includes things such as body language.
For years and years no one cared about this stuff, now its all coming out of the woodwork as a terrible thing to practice when its been practiced for years and written about by Machiavelli and Robert Greene.
Your “power dynamics” arument is now flawed - since I could argue both for the strengthening of my position or against (or even both, depending on the shape of the question).
What Machiavelly got right, on the other hand - was the fact that everyone is flawed. You could either take advantage of that or you could work with it.
He has nothing to do with the “winner takes it all” or “eat or be eaten” philosophy.
If you seek to lower your positioning temporarily for long term gain that falls under increasing your value prop. In fact, many Machiavellian writers recommend this strategy.