10 ms·
Strategy 101: An introduction to power
- pryelluw 4y agoOT: The OPs newsletter is one for the few I actually subscribe and read. I met him IRL at a conference in Atlanta. Changed my life. We spoke for about 5 minutes and his words continue to resonate. Thank you, Tasshin!
- punkspider 4y agoThanks for mentioning he has a newsletter; I had no idea. I frequently refer to his article on how to use Twitter [1] and immediately got excited when I saw his blog on the front page. [1] https://tasshin.com/blog/a-guide-to-twitter/
- germinalphrase 4y agohttps://tasshin.com/join/ https://tasshin.com/join/
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- kbrkbr 4y ago„One of the most fundamental lessons I learned from my training at the Monastic Academy was that wise and loving people should have power. Power is morally neutral—used by people who lack wisdom and love, it causes tremendous harm. Used by those who are wise and loving, it can be of tremendous benefit.“ This is one of these assertions that seem to make complete sense, until you realize that there is no agreed upon definition of “wise” and “loving“, and thus we cannot even start to assess if it is wrong or right. Any assessment not starting with sorting this out will likely end up in circular reasoning („that guy is wise and loving, because he implements policies I like“, „He implements policies I like, because he is wise and loving“). I do not intend to hate, and I do not know the author (seems respected judging by the comments), still if someone says a thing like this is the most fundamental lesson he learned, I fail to understand what he could mean. How could you learn this? It also seems a very simplistic model.
- mym1990 4y agoMy interpretation of that bit is that seeking power does not make you a good or a bad person, just through the act alone. There is definitely an agreed upon definition of 'wise' and 'loving', look it up in any dictionary...what differs is how different people project those definitions onto other people. The thing about power is that it seems to be a corrupting force more often than not. If I had to take a guess, more people have started out with good intentions and gone to the dark side than the other way around. I think for this reason a lot of "wise" people avoid power like the plague.
- zmgsabst 4y agoAdding a few thoughts, largely agreeing; Power is just the ability to effect change — energy over time. Growing rice is power; and considerably more people have obtained power, as defined by imposing their will on their immediate environment, in the pursuit of feeding their families than any other use of power I can think of. I think that’s the point here: In associating power with bad things, you’re narrowing your perception of what power is, and hence limiting your ability to accrue it towards positive ends — eg, feeding a lot of people. I think power itself is neutral; kind, manner, and use matter. To put it in a fantasy context: - Gandalf in Lord of the Rings is considered wise for refusing the One Ring and seeking to destroy it; - but there’s no doubt that Gandalf is powerful — he beats both a balrog and the Witch King in 1v1 personal combat; - and he’s okay with accepting more power — he accepted a ring of power from the elves. Personally, I think you can’t be virtuous unless you’re dangerous. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE0VM61O0XA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE0VM61O0XA
- mym1990 4y agoSocial power is also somewhat logarithmic due to social structures and also things like economies of scale. The president of Monsanto has vastly more power than a single farmhand. With things like relationships, one can impact more than just the physical space around them as well. To the point about side effects, varying degrees of power bring other things with it...admiration, jealousy, competition, responsibility, etc...and most people can't and won't perform well under such pressure. While Gandalf is a good 'perfect' example, Frodo exemplifies the struggles of everyday people a bit better. We can see through the storyline how Frodo constantly struggles with the ring, and how close he comes to succumbing to it(Sam too!).
- pphysch 4y agoWhere are "power" and "strategy" defined in this 101?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- recuter 4y agoWilliam Dttmer defines strategy as “the means and methods required to satisfy the conditions necessary to achieving a system’s ultimate goal.” Alright. Well that's a very long winded way of saying 'general plan' with a useless pet definition that adds nothing by some dude. Similarly, if you are interested in strategy, you will inevitably encounter military and business strategy. That doesn’t mean you need to enlist in the military, or sprout pointy hair. No kidding? This is promptly followed by 'Conjoined Triangles of Success' type graphics. This insight, that strategy is iterative, is the core of John Boyd’s OODA loop. OODA is an acronym for Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act. This insight, throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks, is the core of Robert Matthew Van Winkle's SCALE loop. SCALE is an acronym for Stop, Collaborate, and Listen.
- daniel-cussen 4y ago
- ouid 4y agoI dont care what the business majors come up with, as long as they do it in their own building.
- herval 4y agoA BIG component of "strategy" is learning to confuse & obfuscate. That's why these kinds of empty phrases and jargon are so common.
- checkyoursudo 4y ago> is the core of Robert Matthew Van Winkle's SCALE loop. SCALE is an acronym for Stop, Collaborate, and Listen Makes sense. How else you gonna come back with a brand new invention?
- hungryforcodes 4y agoExactly! I just have one up vote for you :/
- orsenthil 4y agoThe core is twofold. Recognize power is an important thing. For good reasons, embrace and seek power.