
Power Is Overrated - tlb
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/21/opinion/power-is-overrated.html
======
whack
In order to understand why power is coveted, we need to understand human
motivation. The best theory I've read on human motivation, comes from Drive.
As described by scientific research, once you go beyond our primal need for
food, safety and companionship, there are 3 primary factors that motivate us.
Mastery, autonomy, and purpose.

Mastery is the ability to master and perfect a craft you care about. This can
most likely be achieved without having power over others. No problems here.

Autonomy is exactly what is described in the article. The freedom to avoid
being micromanaged. On the face of it, you don't need power over others to be
autonomous either.

Purpose, however, is a lot trickier. If like the author, your purpose in life
is simply to engage in the arts, you're all set. You don't need power over
others, and you won't understand why anyone would want that.

But suppose your purpose in life is to save millions of lives, like what Bill
Gates has done with his foundation. Or to help all Americans get universal
healthcare, like what Sanders wants to do. Or to help mankind become an
interplanetary species, like what Musk is aiming for.

It is near impossible to fulfill such purposes without wielding power. Either
political or economic or cultural. There are some purposes, even the noble
kind, which can only ever be accomplished by shoring up a lot of power.

To go one step further, a lot of people try to fulfill their life purposes
through their jobs. They want to help people, and so they work at a non-
profit. Or they want to further scientific progress, so they work in a
research lab. Which is great, except that by becoming a cog in a powerful
machine, they are surrendering their autonomy in the process. They find
themselves having to choose between autonomy and purpose. Regardless of what
they choose, they fantasize about having enough power so that they can have
both. They dream of being rich enough to start their own non-profit, not just
work in one. They dream of heading a research lab, not just being a cog in
someone else's.

People like the author are in an enviable position, of having their cake and
eating it too. For others with a different purpose in life, power is the only
way of having the best of both worlds.

~~~
c3534l
I think it's simpler than that. Humans desire political power because there's
an evolutionary advantage to being in charge of your tribe. Primates care
about the politics of their tribes, so do we. No need to delve into secondary,
non-specific human needs. It's a direct, intrinsic motivation.

~~~
JauntyHatAngle
No, people desire power (political or not) for more than one singular reason.

Outside the realms of true global (or even country, or state level...) power,
I've been driven to "power" before because I felt that my part of the
community was being wronged and I had the attributes to fix it. When I fixed
that wrong, I relinquished that power and went back to my place of relative
obscurity (the way I like it).

Was I motivated by some basic thirst towards being the leader of my community?
Nope. I was driven by anger and injustice for my community.

Are there are basic instincts at play? Probably, maybe, I don't know, but the
simple point I'm making here is that you can't reduce it to evolutionary
advantage of being in charge, otherwise people would never relinquish the
power.

Humans are social creatures, and wildly vary in what they offer the group, and
when they feel the need to.

~~~
A8F58D31
> I relinquished that power and went back to my place

Sulla resigned the dictatorship -- as he said he would -- and that was a
surprise to many.

------
aphextron
The freedom to do what you want is entirely predicated upon those with power.
It so follows that in order to truly secure the freedom to "do what you want",
the only real long term viable solution is to attain power. Try telling those
living under an autocracy that they should give up any hope for power and just
be happy doing whatever they want. Nietzsche describes this perfectly in _On
the Genealogy of Morality_ and _Beyond Good and Evil_. The only way to truly
be master of ones destiny is in creating the circumstances under which one
will exist, not simply living at the whims of another. Those who think they
are achieving true actualization through the shunning of power are simply
deluded, or lucky enough that their local circumstances have provided a
modicum of stability and freedom.

~~~
esoterica
You’re confusing power over other people and power over your own
circumstances.

~~~
TeMPOraL
The very beginning of the article asserts that they're essentially the same.
In a world with more than one person alive and interacting, it's true.

~~~
esoterica
The beginning of the article says the exact opposite.

~~~
newfangle
Yes and its wrong

------
allenu
Sure, more power than what you have is overrated if you have enough power to
control your own destiny. For those who don't have the privilege to fully
control their own destinies, power is not overrated at all.

The older I get, the more that I see power is incredibly underrated. When you
are young you think that the world is fair and that if you do the right thing,
you will be fairly rewarded. When I got older I realized that power and the
ability to obtain it is vastly more important in your ability to make the
change you wish to see on the world.

Those with power and the ability to use it and gain more of it will always
effect greater change than those who focus on doing the "right" thing.

~~~
taneq
Exactly. Power is like money or sex or oxygen: it's only important when you
don't have enough of it.

------
jlnthws
Ask any French kid about "Les Animaux Malades de la Peste"[1] (in English
[2]). You need power to survive / for a better life, freedom is not enough.
When times are good, be happy and forgetful. But when times turn bad (plague,
war, financial crisis, family problems), it might be too late to struggle for
power.

[1] [https://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poems/les-animaux-malades-
de...](https://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poems/les-animaux-malades-de-la-peste)

[2] [https://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poems/animals-sick-
plague](https://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poems/animals-sick-plague)

------
jhbadger
The point of being a boss isn't just to have power over others (although I'm
sure some do enjoy that) but to get more stuff you want done by delegating it.
Of course a danger is eventually you don't get to do any of the stuff you want
to do yourself because you are spending all your time supervising the people
who are actually doing it.

~~~
tlb
The other way of looking at it: The point of being a boss is to help your
people get more done by organizing them and coordinating their efforts.

~~~
TeMPOraL
That's the point of view where the thing being done is a free variable;
"whatever it is they're doing, my job is to help them be better at it". It
makes sense at the low-tier management level, but someone somewhere has to
have a goal, or the whole enterprise is a colossal waste of time and
resources. This kind of thinking infecting top-executive level is IMO one of
the problems with a lot of big companies.

~~~
Barrin92
>but someone somewhere has to have a goal, or the whole enterprise is a
colossal waste of time and resources.

free economies overall perform very well without having anybody setting goals.
In healthy environments productive activity can very well be emergent without
any sort of dictat.

In fact long plans and visions at big companies are often exactly what makes
them slow, they operate like old tankers that set course on some pre-planned
direction and aren't flexible enough to switch course simply _because they
organise decisions top-down._

~~~
tbrownaw
_free economies overall perform very well without having anybody setting
goals. In healthy environments productive activity can very well be emergent
without any sort of dictat_

My understanding is that internal corporate stuff tends to not be subject to
the same market forces that are what _make_ free economies work well.

------
bigred100
Pretty much any time I hear discussion of power I think of Jesus’ famous
exchange with Pilate in John 19

When the chief priests and the guards saw him they cried out, “Crucify him,
crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and crucify him. I
find no guilt in him.”

7 * The Jews answered, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to
die, because he made himself the Son of God.”

8 Now when Pilate heard this statement, he became even more afraid,

9 and went back into the praetorium and said to Jesus, “Where are you from?”
Jesus did not answer him.

10 So Pilate said to him, “Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have
power to release you and I have power to crucify you?”

11 Jesus answered [him], “You would have no power over me if it had not been
given to you from above. For this reason the one who handed me over to you has
the greater sin.”

~~~
mac01021
I've contemplated this exchange a few times over the years, but I never feel
like I really understand the point that Jesus is making.

~~~
opportune
Pontius pilate has the power to choose yes or no, but he also must choose yes
or no, and this is enforced by the people with power over Pilate. His job to
act as the justice system. The people who handed over Jesus forced pontius
pilate to make that decision, but could have just as easily not done anything.

Think about it this way: suppose you know someone who smokes a lot of weed at
home in an illegal state, and their neighbor rats them out, and police
discover an ounce in the person's house. That person goes to jail for a month
and gets a felony. Who has been more unethical: the person who snitched for
adversarial reasons, or the people in the justice system which did their job
enforcing the rules given to them?

~~~
mLuby
This may be a trick of translation, but couldn't " _The one_ who handed me
over to you has the greater sin" refers to God (the Father)?

~~~
meddlepal
I'm no theologian, but I'm pretty sure the Judeo-Christian God is "perfect"
and without sin so no. To sin is to go against God's will or nature. Only
humans and I guess the devil can do that because of implied free will.

Once again, not a theologian.

~~~
mLuby
Haha IANAT either, but they have at best a tenuous claim to authority in an
discipline that's unfalsifiable.

I thought the idea is that everything is or at least was created by God, so
that would include Sin. It's same as that "could God create a rock so heavy
even He couldn't move it" paradox.

Anyway, to me the quote indicates Jesus's loyalty despite knowing the torture
and death He's about to experience, as well as indicating Pontius Pilate's
relative insignificance in the whole thing. As the parent says, PP is mostly a
gear in the machine.

------
madmax96
>I would define power as the ability to make other people do what you want

I don't think anyone agrees or uses the word 'power' that way, instead, power
ought to be defined as:

>the ability to do something or act in a particular way, especially as a
faculty or quality.

Getting this definition wrong confuses the author throughout the article:

>So freedom is a kind of power; but a certain kind freedom also comes with
powerlessness

Okay, the definition the author provided literally stated power is the ability
to make other people do what you want and freedom is the ability to do what
you want. I fail to see how in that mode freedom is a kind of power. I think
the author doesn't really believe their own definition.

The author goes on to question if great leaders (e.g. Alexander the Great)
have freedom, comparing him to the homeless philosopher Diogenes. That's
ultimately a personal question; if Freedom is indeed the ability to do what
you like, you have to ask "could I do more of what I like as Alexander the
Great or Diogenes?"

>Underlying the pathetic quest for all power is fear: the fear of death.

Underlying the pathetic quest for mediocrity is fear: the fear of failure. We
can sit here speculating about the psychology of the average and the ambitious
all day, but it provides nothing useful other than additional zings for
$ECHO_CHAMBER to enjoy.

>The sanest people, I think, are those happily unafflicted with ambition

Cattle are pretty happy, sure. Expounding on the mental health of "the
ambitious" (whatever that means to the author) seems pretty disingenuous and
like an attempt to control the creative expressions of others.

It's frightening that people actually think this way.

------
andybak
> Doing what I want, and not being made to do things I don’t want to do

I'm beginning to think the complete opposite (at least to some degree). I'm
terrible at making choices that make me happy whilst I'm pretty good at
finding value in serendipity. Generally nowadays I'm trying to make meta-
choices if that makes sense - committing to things that remove the number of
options I face whilst having a reasonable chance of providing fruitful
activity.

------
willart4food
We, humans, are social animals. Which it also means that we organize in
hierarchies. Ideally, these hierarchies are competence-based hierarchies; but
the reality is that at times these hierarchies are hacked by a few to
establish power-based hierarchies, which are not stable.

Be it a PTA, or a social group, or a team, or a start-up, or a HOA, or a
government entity, from a small town to a huge country; competence-based
hierarchies and hence power lead to prosperity and to the greater good, while
the arrogance of a pure-power based hierarchies lead to continuous issues.

We've all seen those.

------
szemy2
Couldn't boredom be a reason for people chasing power?

Blaise Pascal had interesting thoughts on it: "All of humanity's problems stem
from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone.” ― Blaise Pascal, Pensées
([https://amzn.to/2I6kTpv](https://amzn.to/2I6kTpv))

We have an inherent desire to engage with the world and other people, to reach
out for new stimuli. Often the most interesting path is the one where you
influence people and that is by nature a form of power.

Reminds me of the video that was recently posted:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcBzOesw7sc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcBzOesw7sc)
This is truly a man without ambition. For me, that way of living seems like
the definition of hell.

------
loup-vaillant
> _Underlying the pathetic quest for all power is fear: the fear of death.
> Some billionaires are building posh survival compounds and funding
> Frankensteinian research programs to defeat genetic decline and death._

Where the hell did that come from? Is the author saying we shouldn't even
_try_? Why, because trying to reverse ageing (and its consequences) is
_unnatural_? Because corpses in a fridge are _disgusting_? Because our
fictions are full of tyrants and supervillain trying to achieve immortality?
Because there's some natural "balance" that would require the many to die so
the few could be immortal?

I sense a cognitive dissonance here. As far as I can guess, most people living
now will die in less than 120 years. Possibly everyone. If we do achieve
significant life extension, there's a good chance it will only be accessible
to rich people, at least for a time. And the longer we live, the wider
inequalities may rise. That's unfair, so it's better if _everyone_ dies,
right?

Wait a minute, you'd solve inequalities by _killing everyone_?

I'm tired of those stabs at transhumanism that don't even try to justify
themselves. Yes, many post humanists scenarios are a hell even Lovecraft
couldn't comprehend. See Robin Hanson's speculations on mind uploading to get
a taste. But assuming that _all_ such scenarios are bad is a failure of the
imagination, I think.

\---

To the author's credit, the paragraph ends with a Woody Allen quote about
"living on in [his] apartment" that is spot on. Almost contradicts what I've
quoted, so I'm not sure what the author actually thinks.

~~~
rytill
A rare gem of an opinion to find on HN. There are a sea of unjustified and
incomplete stabs at transhumanism and anything in that realm.

------
baybal2
The key quote:

> Ambition has led me to spend 20 years of my life in a clamorous, filthy city
> I cannot afford, and to devote far too much attention to the soul-shriveling
> business of self-promotion.

------
rsync
This article, and it's sentiment, reminds me a lot of the very current "zero
waste" movement.

Bear with me ...

When you are sufficiently detached from every mode of production and delivery
and generation (like growing food, or building houses or working in the back
of a kitchen) then it's very easy to look around your (modern, remodeled,
beautifully appointed, first world) kitchen and ... stop buying plastic
baggies or only use reusable containers, etc.[1]

But in reality, several levels below your level of life and consumption, _an
enormous amount of waste_ is being produced just to maintain the very modern
life you lead. It's really not that interesting or impactful that you cut out
most of the 1% that you actually touch inside the walls of your house.

This article sounds like the same kind of self-delusion ...

After violently conquering a continent, enslaving or killing or (otherwise
subjugating) the indigenous population, and maintaining a political and
economic lock on more than half the world (through direct and indirect
warfare, economic colonization, and otherwise), the author, who holds an equal
share with all of us on whose behalf this was done, opines (possibly from that
same kind of kitchen) that he can't think of any use for power over others.

In reality, an _enormous amount of power and violence_ has been, and continues
to be, wielded on the author's behalf. It's really not that interesting or
impactful that he doesn't want to "boss other people around".

[1] All very positive actions and not to be impeached.

~~~
theturtletalks
I remember my friend arguing with my other friend that he is not responsible
for what the US does as far as intervening in other countries' affairs. My
friend clapped back and said are you not reaping the rewards of cheap oil and
low-cost labor?

~~~
strken
There's something that always tugs at the back of my mind about these
arguments, and I think I've worked it out. It's the difference between
responsibility and blame.

Say your parents went deeply into debt in an excessive and unnecessary way to
raise you, but they genuinely thought they were doing the right thing, and
you've found yourself needing to pay their debt off. You may or may not be
_responsible_ for the debt, but you're definitely not to _blame_ for it. It's
an imposed and somewhat unfair duty rather than the consequence of your own
actions.

To me it intuitively feels like some responsibility is demanded by profiting
from an outcome, while blame is only transferred by intent. A lot of arguments
don't make it clear that there's a difference between the two. Your friend
might be responsible for making US foreign policy less belligerent, but he's
not to blame for it: his responsibility is a moral weight that's been unfairly
foist upon him by other people, and it doesn't mean that he, personally,
caused every death in the middle east since he was born.

~~~
chillfox
I have always believed that in a democracy every citizen bears some
responsibility for what the state does.

If you didn't vote then you basically supported the winner. Inaction is a kind
of action when someone must win and a decision must be made.

And if you did vote and your "side" didn't win, then did you try to convince
anyone? Not getting involved is a decision of some kind.

The way I see it, if you fail in that basic of responsibility (voting and
trying to convince people to support your view) then you share some blame for
whatever the state does. If you support what the state does or the outcome
then you definitely own a share in the blame.

------
_bxg1
Whenever I watch shows like House of Cards or Narcos, the thought that I keep
having is, "why? why do you want this so badly? what's the point?"

My theory is that seeking power is very evolutionarily satisfying, and it has
no ceiling. This means that, even for people smart enough to see its
diminishing returns as a means to actual happiness, it can provide an
everlasting narrative for one's life, which can create a kind of happiness. It
can fill an existential void for certain people who a) choose to ignore the
question of what it's all for, and b) are sociopathic enough to not care what
effect it has on others. You always have something to work towards. Satisfying
existential quandaries is a highly desirable goal in itself.

~~~
xiphias2
Whatever powerful attribute you are aiming for (money, looks, fame, pure
power), it's much easier to get more of the same than to extend to other
attributes.

The CEO of Alibaba tried to make a movie, but it was crap, he didn't become a
famous movie star.

Kim dot com tried DJing, he failed, he's just a rich guy as well.

Famous people can easily fail in their business as well: Jamie Oliver just
closed a lot of restaurants, even though he had loads of play money and his
name on them.

Of course there are exceptions, for example investing is easy if you are
famous enough to personal get help from great investors.

------
kstenerud
Just because you don't understand the desire for power doesn't make it
"pathetic" or a "fear response" as the author puts it. This sounds more like
post-rationalization than actual introspection.

Success in large scale projects always goes to the better organized. Without a
unifying, guiding plan, confusion reigns, and projects fail. And that plan
needs to come from someone not only with vision, but also the ability to
enlist the labor of his fellow man. In other words: power.

"Underlying the pathetic quest for all power is fear: the fear of death." \-
This is a very narrow point of view, and completely discounts the useful and
good ways in which power is used.

"funding Frankensteinian research programs to defeat genetic decline and
death." \- Notice the use of loaded words to dismiss attempts at dealing with
the oldest affliction known to man: aging. Even if it doesn't lead to
immortality, imagine living to 80 in the body of a 20 year old! Imagine the
improvement in the quality of life for everyone! We're learning how the
cellular degradation process works, and how to fix it. Why would you want to
disparage that? Because you want someone to blame for your ennui, and the
"billionaire tycoons" and by extension anything they like makes for an easy
target.

"The sanest people, I think, are those happily unafflicted with ambition —
whether for power, wealth, fame or achievement — who want only to work at some
useful job, to love someone and to live in a nice place with some wind chimes
on the porch."

This is beginning to sound like the Communist Manifesto.

~~~
gerbilly
> The sanest people, I think, are those happily unafflicted with ambition —
> whether for power, wealth, fame or achievement — who want only to work at
> some useful job, to love someone and to live in a nice place with some wind
> chimes on the porch.

The passage above reminded me of this:

I have lived through much, and now I think I have found what is needed for
happiness. A quiet secluded life in the country, with the possibility of being
useful to people to whom it is easy to do good, and who are not accustomed to
have it done to them; then work which one hopes may be of some use; then rest,
nature, books, music, love for one's neighbour -- such is my idea of
happiness. And then, on the top of all that, you for a mate, and children
perhaps -- what more can the heart of man desire?¹

1: Leo Tolstoy, Family Happiness (1859)

~~~
selimthegrim
>A quiet secluded life in the country, with the possibility of being useful to
people to whom it is easy to do good, and who are not accustomed to have it
done to them

“If you have come here to help me, you are wasting your time. But if you have
come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work
together.” [2]

2:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilla_Watson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilla_Watson)

------
Synaesthesia
Actually I think power is underrated and poorly understood, you have to
understand how power functions to understand a lot of society. A lot of how it
operates is shrouded in secrecy and deception.

------
jcroll
How much life advice do people want to take from NYTimes journalists?
Seriously, I'm sure if you met one at a party you wouldn't be prioritizing
their advice over anyone else's

~~~
sintaxi
If you met one at a party you'd be slamming your drink so you have an excuse
to exit the conversation.

~~~
wavefunction
I might find them interesting and engaging enough to talk to at a party. I
won't speak for you.

------
w3gv
As much as parts of the article resonate with me, what isn't addressed is that
freedom from external forces doesn't necessarily include freedom from one's
own impulses -- which can be as, if not more, restrictive.

True freedom not only remove external restrictions but also requires purpose
beyond ones self.

------
asveikau
The form of freedom he describes is just another form of what he's calling
power, and he even admits to that in the article, when he writes: _Freedom is
the defensive, or pre-emptive, form of power_.

I have recently come to the realization that a lot of people seek or defend
"freedom" as another form of power, and that is a very egotistical definition
of freedom that has a lot of the same anxiety-inducing side-effects as the
most vain power-seeking behaviors. Being free doesn't mean that you can't also
yield to others and get over your selfishness. We should all have times, maybe
lots of them, in which we yield to others and admit that many instances of our
own personal notions of "freedom" are basically a whiny temper-tantrum when we
fear not getting what we want.

~~~
icebraining
Why should one get over one's selfishness?

~~~
asveikau
Selfishness will cause you anxiety and guilt. It will cause pain to others. It
will make you a jerk.

A society of jerks inflicting pain thrives less than one where we are
appropriately empathetic and charitable to others.

If you're going to argue against selfless empathy, etc. I suggest we have
different axioms and this is not a discussion that will go well.

------
neonate
_Where love rules, there is no will to power, and where power predominates,
love is lacking. The one is the shadow of the other._

Carl Gustav Jung

~~~
rofo1
He says that, but he married the richest girl in Switzerland. So, yeah, I
guess watch what people do and not what they say?

~~~
neonate
That's irrelevant; Jung is making no claim about himself there.

It's also a cheap shot, unless you have some special ability to read the inner
state of another person.

------
jeffdavis
An important topic that warrants a lot more discussion, but the article is a
bit shallow.

Ambition is connected to power but not identical. Power is often about power
over people, but not always. Some people want to be free and some don't (at
least in some contexts).

Freedom is closely tied to understanding, but the world is so complex now, how
can we understand? We are all like an 8-year-old king surrounded by a bunch of
people who also don't really understand the world.

Freedom is also a source of identity in the US. Could it be used to bring
people back together here?

------
aiisjustanif
"You know, 'cause like, people say money's not everything, But money, you need
money to do what you wanna do, like money is power, honesty is power, truth is
power, but at the same time they tell you like Ain't nothin' more important
than the mula You ain't really eatin' boy, you gotta get your food up" \-
Donald Glover

Maybe the "Rat Race" is inevitable and is main cause for strive of power, but
maybe we too narrowly define power in this discussion.

------
ak39
Is this writer, much like myself, a representation of what Dr Calhoun's
experiment revealed as "the beautiful ones"?

"During his studies, Calhoun coined the term "behavioral sink" to describe
aberrant behaviors in overcrowded population density situations and "beautiful
ones" to describe passive individuals who withdrew from all social
interaction."
[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Calhoun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Calhoun)]

I too have little if no desire to lord over anyone. Is this passivity?
Withdrawal? But what I lack in that ambition for power I magnify in my desire
for autonomy. Yeah, I have my usual moments of feeble aggression which can be
mistaken for a deeper and more permanent desire for power (eg. stuck on the
road, impatient in a queue, wanting a prospective sale to go through etc)
where I fantasize power to influence outcomes - but the moments pass just as
quickly when I realise the absurdity of that sort of wish.

Autonomy OTOH is sacred for me. Absurdly, I will fight till starvation than be
co-opted into someone else's creative ideals (especially when I do not agree).
I'd rather go hungry than submit to power dynamics in this regard.

Loved the article.

~~~
IggleSniggle
The ability to withdraw is an expression of power in and of itself. Autonomy
is the power that many (most?) are looking for. It’s just that many are
incapable (or believe they are incapable) of achieving autonomy without
getting others to do work for them.

Programmers try to find the best of both worlds: they try to get machines to
do work for them, so that they don’t need to impose on people to do so.

------
spencerwgreene
There are sentiments in this article that I think will mislead people into
doing nothing with their lives. For example,

> "Ambition for the more obvious and boring forms of power — political,
> financial — may not always be inherently evil, but it does tend to have
> unfortunate side effects in the form of poverty, slave labor, pogroms and
> unwelcome territorial advances."

This is how ambition works in a zero-sum world. It doesn't mention technology
improving the lives of people. There's a related essay by Paul Graham, "How to
Make Wealth" [1]. The "Wealth and Power" section is relevant.

[1] [http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html](http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html)

------
dnprock
"With great power comes great responsibility." I heard that in Spiderman. It
still resonates with me. I think it applies to any level of power. Whenever we
are responsible for something, we have some power over it.

I'm responsible for my children. I have some power over them, whether I want
it or not. Responsibility is skin in the game. If we aren't responsible, we
will eventually be disposed of power.

When some want power, but not the responsibility, that's a red flag.

~~~
faceplanted
Everyone wants power but not responsibility, nobody _wants_ to accept that
their actions have consequences, they just accept them, sometimes.

------
alexandercrohde
> Underlying the pathetic quest for all power is fear: the fear of death. Some
> billionaires are building posh survival compounds and funding
> Frankensteinian research programs to defeat genetic decline

Yes. I think it's important to understand the M.O. of the people who quest
after power, and what types of systematic errors come along with that.

------
hoseja
For most of history, and I suspect for a lot of future too, you could only be
free if you had the power to make others not fuck with you. Even with the best
intentions, if you are not powerful you will be crushed anywhere but in the
fraction of developed, civilized countries which may go poof at any time.

------
ttarabula
Does anyone have a list of smart career options and career advice for people
that fall in to this camp (or resources that help navigate)? It's really
really hard to chart courses that don't seem to eventually bump up against the
accumulate power or falter hurdle.

~~~
tomcam
Humility

------
38543821223
the author of this article fundamentally misunderstands what power is. Power
is not just the ability to get other people to do what you want. Anything that
allows you to achieve a desire is "power". To say "I don't want power" is like
saying "I don't want to ever fulfill my goals."

------
orasis
Power isn’t zero sum. Through complexity, power can be manifest along new
dimensions.

------
thiago_fm
Power is important. The author himself writes about how he has spent X years
trying to get more power/money when he can now just move to the countryside
and enjoy life. And write when he wants. This is power.

Which to me, is not something an Intern would right, as you have student loans
to pay, perhaps dreams to build. When you are successful and write for NY
Times, or code for Google for a few years, it is easy to write "Ah, fuck this
shit! I can now move to the country side and do whatever I want, but I don't
do this. Will this be my last year here?", because even though you don't
notice, you are very powerful. You have financial independence to do this,
because you have fought very hard to go big on your career. So essentially,
you have power, even if you don't write for NY Times, or if you aren't POTUS
anymore. You made some big bucks or respect, that enables you do to things
most people can't even dream of.

Then it looks "Overrated". What I think is Overrated is being poor and left
behind. Financial independence is one of the most powerful things one can
have. Sure, most of the people after they have it, they still work and run
after more power and money. But having a little bit of power and money is one
of the most important things in life, without that, you have no leverage in
society to be free.

If after this you will chose to seek more power, that's your choice. Coming
back to my initial example, if you were the intern that can barely eat lunch
with your colleges and your mom is sick and need money... shoveling shit to
become more power seems like a good thing.

~~~
david-gpu
I would differentiate between power and freedom, as the author does.

Power would be the capacity to affect other people's actions, often arising
from having a position of authority over them, but can also occur in the form
of influence over them (soft power).

Freedom would refer to having the means to choose our own actions with fewer
or weaker external constraints.

The author has achieved some degree of financial freedom, but not much power
from what I can see, beyond the limited power that his modest net worth can
buy.

~~~
Retric
Freedom requires power over others. You can't avoid work unless others are
providing you food. You can't get shelter unless you can keep others from
taking it from you.

The real confusion is living in a society where most power is hidden and
records are given meaning.

~~~
hinkley
Freedom requires power over _yourself_ , and a lot of people cede that power.
Including Mr $100M up there.

~~~
apineda
Mind expanding on this? I'm curious as to what you are alluding to.

~~~
hinkley
This guy has a company doing $100M and I bet you his kids wish he was at home
more. He talks a good talk about cashing out but he has already done enough.
What is he waiting for? Theory: he doesn't know how to stop. Being a captain
of industry is tied into his identity and he can't give it up. It has power
over him.

One definition of addiction is when you engage in a behavior despite its
deleterious effects on other aspects of your life. A lot of things we do to
"feel control" are closer to that end of the spectrum than they are to healthy
behavior.

People live beyond their means and their boss can make them violate their
ethics simply by threatening to fire them. In many, many cases this is a
bluff, and someone who's financially stable can tell their boss no, or take a
risk on a new job.

------
crimsonalucard
>The wish to have power over others is altogether alien to me;

There is experimental evidence that endorphins are released, especially for
males, when dominating or winning. Humans seek endorphins. If the concept is
alien to you, it is not the concept that is foreign... you are the alien.

------
loblollyboy
"Like gravity and acceleration, these are two forces that appear to be
different but are in fact one. " AGGHHH! Had to stop reading.

~~~
silasdavis
It continued to be a pretty tedious article.

------
mrmrcoleman
Lost me at “Like gravity and acceleration, these are two forces that appear to
be different but are in fact one”

~~~
skybrian
That's a reference to general relativity.

------
HNLurker2
Yeah but freedom isn't power. You can lose yourself in possibilities

------
erik_landerholm
Power is very addictive to certain personalities. Give me money, any day.

------
tmilard
Please don't send url where you have to login.

------
mycall
> but if a president accidentally lets slip an authentic, uncensored thought
> it's called a "gaffe" and costs him approval points.

That was true before Trump.

------
rsp1984
Here's a quote by Frank Underwood / House of Cards:

 _Money is the McMansion in Sarasota that starts falling apart after 10 years.
Power is the old stone building that stands for centuries. I cannot respect
someone who doesn’t see the difference_

Amusingly, I find it's the other way round. Power dies with with the people
who have it. Money can last for many generations, especially when put to good
use.

~~~
mieseratte
Royal families make a good counter-point. As do political dynasties, e.g. the
Kennedy and Bush families.

~~~
RickJWagner
The Kennedy and Bush clans wield some power, true.

But nothing compared to those who control the media. (Look at the generations
of families that run Hollywood.) They control the narrative, which controls
the masses, which choose to empower the Bush/Kennedy/Clinton alternatives.

~~~
BlueTemplar
Bushes : Bay of Pigs, prime suspects in Kennedy's assassination (means and
motive), transforming Irak from the most prosperous third-world country into a
hellhole, turning a blind eye to what was brewing just before 9/11 because
their best pals Ben Ladens were involved... are you sure about your statement
?

------
Possiblyheroin
You lost me at not not enjoying Settlers of Catan :p

~~~
sdbryan
That was my reaction as well. How can one's judgment even be worth considering
after such a confession?

------
gizmodo59
Reminds me of this exchange in Game of Thrones:
[https://images.app.goo.gl/AfvQNHv95YhR6L4o7](https://images.app.goo.gl/AfvQNHv95YhR6L4o7)

~~~
MikeLui
...and yet nothing happened to him there...

------
js8
Unfortunately, to want power might be completely unreasonable thing to do, yet
many people might choose to want it.

I mean, dogs still sniff around corners and mark them with piss, even though
it is obvious to anyone that this activity doesn't make any sense and is
completely useless.

~~~
pbourke
Are you judging dogs by the standards of human behavior? It would be
completely useless for a human to piss all over the place, but for a dog with
orders of magnitude better sense of smell than people, that urine odor will
linger and be picked up by other dogs.

A dog’s sense of smell is so good that some studies have demonstrated they can
reliably detect cancer in human urine.

~~~
js8
No. Dog is "programmed" to do it. But it objectively doesn't make sense. (It
might have made sense 1000 years ago, when dogs were not domesticated.)

So it's not unreasonable to expect that some behavior of humans is completely
irrational, yet they do it.

