The Art of War 2.

0
Looking at Power games in the 21st Century from the view of a buddhist hacker
Or: A greatly updated of Sun Tzu’s work for the Millenial and Beyond

By
Ben Scherer

29.04.2018
Ever since humans exist, power dynamics permeate our lives, if we want it and are aware of it or not. After all, it
is and remains the ability to understand and master those games that makes and breaks careers, that makes
organizations vulnerable against internal enemies and social engineers that manage to hack a flawed system.
But it also defines how our relationships work – with co-workers, with friends, with our family and partners and
children. Once you understand how power dynamics shape every aspect of our lives and help us or prevent us
from being our best actual selfs, we start to understand that it is ignorant and simply dangerous to not
understand this domain. Schools do not teach the subject, mentors and coaches do not fully teach this subject.
It us up to us to take it serious and study the subject continuously.
What this book tries to do is to give a more comprehensive and high level view on the subject. And to do so in
a modern and contemplatory and contempory way that is accessible to people in business, students in high
school and university, to entrepreneurs. I tried my best to not make it sound like I write as a general to his
strategy specialists. Or a business writer that tells you how to manouvre the work place. Or like a psychologist
that helps you feel good about yourself. I hope I am original and radical in how I interpret and present some
subjects that helps readers to get a new view on the subject and makes them see connections that they otherwise
didn’t. While this is a work in progress and not claiming to be an autoritative text, I hope it satisfies and impresses
by being a bit encyclopedic in some aspects, and overall being educational, inspirational and entertaining.
CHAPTER OVERVIEW

The New Art of War ------------------------------------------------------------ Error! Bookmark not defined.

CHAPTER 1 Motivation and Introduction ----------------------------------------------------------------- 11
Structure of this book / series ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15
BOOK 1 KEY DIMENSIONS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18
CHAPTER 2 Key Dimensions of Social Development -------------------------------------------------- 19
2.1.7. Dimension 7: Sloterdijk’s Socio-Emotional householding, ------------------------------------ 66
CHAPTER 3 Key Dimensions of YOU ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 99
CHAPTER 4 Key Dimensions of THE OTHER ------------------------------------------------------------- 160
BOOK 2 THE BATTLEGROUND OF STRATEGY --------------------------------------------------------- 212
CHAPTER 5 One on One situations with mutual benefit -------------------------------------------- 213
CHAPTER 6 One on One situations with power -------------------------------------------------------- 254
CHAPTER 7 Group dynamics – Short Term -------------------------------------------------------------- 263
CHAPTER 8 Group dynamics – Long Term --------------------------------------------------------------- 264
CHAPTER 9 Organizational Dynamics --------------------------------------------------------------------- 271
CHAPTER 10 Exploiting foreign groups: Hacking and Spying ------------------------------------- 328
CHAPTER 10 Other tools --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 333
BOOK 3 APPLICATIONS AND STRATEGIES ------------------------------------------------------------- 335
CHAPTER 11 Landscapes of modern life ----------------------------------------------------------------- 336
CHAPTER 12 Practical Examples of exploitation ------------------------------------------------------- 350
BOOK 4 Classics ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 354
CHAPTER 13 Classics of Strategy --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 356
CHAPTER 15 Moderns of Strategy -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 366
CHAPTER 15 How does this all relate to investing ---------------------------------------------------- 381
Afterword ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 382
APPENDIX B Psychological Classics -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 385
APPENDIX C Self-Help Classics -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 395
APPENDIX D Classics from Sucess Literature ------------------------------------------------------------- 414
APPENDIX E ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 421
Table of Contents
The New Art of War ------------------------------------------------------------ Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER 1 Motivation and Introduction ----------------------------------------------------------------- 11
How to use this book -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12
Why hacker and buddhist in the subtitle ---------------------------------------------------------------- 13
Structure of this book / series ------------------------------------------------------------------------------15
BOOK 1 KEY DIMENSIONS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18
CHAPTER 2 Key Dimensions of Social Development -------------------------------------------------- 19
2.1. Basic Concepts --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------20
2.1.0. Dimension 0: You, The Other, Want ------------------------------------------------------------21
2.1.1. Dimension 1. Identity and Persona --------------------------------------------------------------23
2.1.2. Dimension 2: Depth - Realists, Idealists, and Sophists -------------------------------------33
2.1.3. Dimension 3. Thinking Balls – Thinking Big ---------------------------------------------------40
2.1.4. Dimension 4. Chess ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------47
2.1.5. Dimension 5: Game Theory -----------------------------------------------------------------------54
2.1.6. Dimension 6: Awareness ---------------------------------------------------------------------------56
2.1.7. Dimension 7: Sloterdijk’s Socio-Emotional householding, -------------------------------- 66
2.1.8. Dimension 8. Projecting, brokering and providing value ----------------------------------68
2.1.9. Dimension 9. Capital and Hustle -----------------------------------------------------------------73
2.1.10. Dimension 10. Happiness and vibe ------------------------------------------------------------75
2.1.11. Dimension 11. Stochastics, Determinism, Rhythms ---------------------------------------78
2.1.12. Dimension 12. Discipline and endurance ----------------------------------------------------80
2.1.13. Dimension 13. Human core dimensions -----------------------------------------------------81
2.1.14. Dimension 14. Machiavellism in Psychology ------------------------------------------------86
2.1.15. Dimension 15. Agendas --------------------------------------------------------------------------89
2.3. Methods ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------93
2.3.1. Methods of Self-Improvements via Method --------------------------------------------------93
2.3.2. Battlegrounds-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------97
2.3.3. Simple Rules ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------98
CHAPTER 3 Key Dimensions of YOU ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 99
3.1. The Basics: building the core and frames around it ------------------------------------------- 100
3.1.1. Looking good and having a golden rolex: situational preparedness ----------------- 100
3.2.3. Core Dimensions of self-control and stability ---------------------------------------------- 115
3.2.4. Habits ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 128
3.1.2. Body Language. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 128
3.1.3. Superior Behaviour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 137
3.1.4. Story Telling ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 146
3.3. First look at leadership theory----------------------------------------------------------------------- 150
3.3. Dimensions of Self Cultivation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 157
Build your core personality ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 157
Build your frames and masks --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 158
Build style and personality around your frames and masks ------------------------------------ 158
Build your habits ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 159
CHAPTER 4 Key Dimensions of THE OTHER ------------------------------------------------------------- 160
 Face to face ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 161
4.1. Pinging and Probing -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 161
4.2. Understanding Errors in Congnition and Emotion ------------------------------------------ 163
4.2. Self Esteem -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 170
4.2. Body Lanugage: Reading it ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 175
4.3. Pattern Recognition I : Micro Expressions ----------------------------------------------------- 182
4.3. Pattern Recognition II : Cause and effect ------------------------------------------------------ 189
4.4. Human Playground: Patterns we can observe in others ----------------------------------- 192
4.5. Stuff that almost nobody changes and is easily observed -------------------------------- 204
Beyond Faces: Context and Space ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 208
4.6. Context and Space Introduction ----------------------------------------------------------------- 208
4.6. Private Places ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 210
4.6. Public Spaces------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 210
4.6. Public Image and PR -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 210
4.6. Courtesans and wingmen -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 210
BOOK 2 THE BATTLEGROUND OF STRATEGY --------------------------------------------------------- 212
CHAPTER 5 One on One situations with mutual benefit -------------------------------------------- 213
5.1. Dominance, confidence, power and the fight over death ------------------------------------ 214
5.1.1. The fight over death ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 214
5.1.2. Other approaches to dominance -------------------------------------------------------------- 216
5.1.3. Polarity of Dominance and Deception ------------------------------------------------------- 217
5.1.4. Volume and Frequency--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 218
5.2. The process of spontaneous get-to-know and APT ------------------------------------------- 220
Step 1: Mindset and big picture thinking ----------------------------------------------------------- 220
Step 2: Platforms of understanding------------------------------------------------------------------- 221
Step 3: Key aspects to have in the mindset --------------------------------------------------------- 221
Step 4: Reconnaisance / Analysis and Enumeration / Synthesis ------------------------------- 222
Step 5: Pre-Texting ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 222
Step 6: Engagement and Value Extraction/Generation in the moment --------------------- 223
5.3. Aspects of interaction in more detail -------------------------------------------------------------- 225
5.3.2. Portraying Status and Power and Stirring Interest ---------------------------------------- 225
5.3.3. Rapport & Pacing and Leading ---------------------------------------------------------------- 226
5.3.4. Leading with emotion: Frame Games--------------------------------------------------------- 226
5.3.5. Frame Wars------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 228
5.3.5. Kino/Haptics and Economics of Space ------------------------------------------------------- 230
5.4. One on One with groups ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 234
5.5. One on One With Intent (strong assym. Information/Perception) ------------------------- 236
5.5.1. Sales Strategies------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 236
5.4.2. Closing Strategies --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 241
5.6. Mid-to-Long Term Interaction: Relationships --------------------------------------------------- 241
5.2.1. Choosing relationships --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 243
5.2.1. Relationship Hygiene ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 243
5.2.1. Classifications --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 244
5.2.2. Game Theory and Chess ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 247
5.2.3. Preventing and reacting to negative dynamics -------------------------------------------- 247
 5.7. Some playgrounds ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 247
5.4.1. The stage – as performer ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 247
5.4.2. The club. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 248
5.4.3. The sitting in the park environment. ---------------------------------------------------------- 250
5.4.4. The café environment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 252
CHAPTER 6 One on One situations with power -------------------------------------------------------- 254
6.1. Negotiations --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 255
6.2. Interrogation / High Power Interviews ------------------------------------------------------------ 255
Character-Qualities of Interrogators. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 255
Task-specific qualities. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 256
Typification of Subjects. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 257
The Process of Interrogation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 259
6.3. Leading Individuals------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 261
6.4. Managing Individuals---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 261
CHAPTER 7 Group dynamics – Short Term -------------------------------------------------------------- 263
CHAPTER 8 Group dynamics – Long Term --------------------------------------------------------------- 264
Introduction --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 265
7.0. The social web of groups ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 266
7.1. Group Dynamics Basics ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 266
7.1.1. Group Formation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 266
7.1.2. Group Design Dimensions----------------------------------------------------------------------- 269
7.2. Power in groups ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 270
CHAPTER 9 Organizational Dynamics --------------------------------------------------------------------- 271
8.0. Intro: The social web of organizations ------------------------------------------------------------ 272
8.1. Defining organizations and their difference from groups------------------------------------ 272
Organizations as institutionalized groups----------------------------------------------------------- 272
Organizations as multi-group groups that last longer------------------------------------------- 272
Inter-group relations in organizations are simple AND NOT ---------------------------------- 273
Leaders and managers in this context --------------------------------------------------------------- 275
The investor or outside stakeholder perspective -------------------------------------------------- 276
8.2. Taking a conceptual look at an organization ---------------------------------------------------- 276
The institution governs the groups ------------------------------------------------------------------- 277
Institutional and group architecture: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 277
The laws and culture in organizations: --------------------------------------------------------------- 280
The fallacy of organizations----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 280
8.4. Key Dimensions of Organizational Success ------------------------------------------------------ 281
8.4.1. Leverage --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 281
8.4.2. The prime dog theory of group structure --------------------------------------------------- 282
8.4.4. The reversal of group power -------------------------------------------------------------------- 282
8.4.5. Organizations with high levels of coercion ------------------------------------------------- 284
8.2.4. Organizations with high level of terror ------------------------------------------------------- 291
8.5. Organizational Politics -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 294
Context of Organizational Politics--------------------------------------------------------------------- 294
Sources of Power Theory -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 295
Morgans 14 sources of Power theory and leadership style ------------------------------------- 299
 Resistence to Power and its Elimination ------------------------------------------------------------- 300
8.4. Motivation, Volition, Empowerment --------------------------------------------------------------- 302
Theory Setup 0 : The context of motivation -------------------------------------------------------- 302
Theory Setup 1: Content Theories of Motivation -------------------------------------------------- 303
Theory Setup 2: Process Theories of Motivation/”Management styles” --------------------- 305
Theory Setup 3: Group Motivation -------------------------------------------------------------------- 314
8.4. Levels of Loyalty and Alignment -------------------------------------------------------------------- 315
8.4.1. Persuasion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 315
8.4.2. Influence --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 315
8.4.3. Power ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 315
8.4.4. Motivation ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 315
8.4.5. Commitment ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 315
8.3. Organizational Behaviour----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 316
The Hiring Process ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 317
Forming Individuals --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 321
Forming Groups and Teams ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 322
8.5. Incentive Design ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 323
9.2. Punishment & Threats -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 324
Punishment ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 325
Threats ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 326
9.3. Installing Checks and Balances ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 327
CHAPTER 10 Exploiting foreign groups: Hacking and Spying ------------------------------------- 328
9.1. Summarizing prior chapters in the context ------------------------------------------------------ 329
9.2. The irrelevance of organizational theory for hacking ----------------------------------------- 330
9.2. The world of hacking, espionage, insider trading and so on -------------------------------- 331
9.2.1. Hacking----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 331
9.2.2. Espionage -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 331
9.2.3. Insider Trading ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 331
Investigation ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 332
CHAPTER 10 Other tools --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 333
BOOK 3 APPLICATIONS AND STRATEGIES ------------------------------------------------------------- 335
CHAPTER 11 Landscapes of modern life ----------------------------------------------------------------- 336
11.1. Map 1: The landscape of failing old institutions ---------------------------------------------- 337
11.2. Map 2: the Leading institutions ------------------------------------------------------------------- 340
11.3. Map 3: Navigating social systems Luhmann style -------------------------------------------- 344
11.3.1. The traversal of social systems --------------------------------------------------------------- 344
11.3.2. The four economies ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 348
11.4. Map 4: Jump and Run – Jumping from Leadership to Target to Elites ------------------ 348
CHAPTER 12 Practical Examples of exploitation ------------------------------------------------------- 350
12.1. The Investment Banking world -------------------------------------------------------------------- 351
12.1.1. The sales model ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 351
12.1.2. The monkey --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 353
12.1.3. The game of recruiting and aligning junior monkeys----------------------------------- 353
BOOK 4 Classics ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 354
CHAPTER 13 Classics of Strategy --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 356
 13.1. Machiavelli – The Prince ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 357
13. 2. Sun Tzu – The Art of War -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 362
13.3. Tao the King -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 365
13.4. The book of the five rings -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 365
CHAPTER 15 Moderns of Strategy -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 366
13.5. The strategies of War – Robert Greene ------------------------------------------------------- 367
CHAPTER 15 How does this all relate to investing ---------------------------------------------------- 381
Afterword ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 382
APPENDIX B Psychological Classics -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 385
APPENDIX C Self-Help Classics -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 395
APPENDIX D Classics from Sucess Literature ------------------------------------------------------------- 414
APPENDIX E ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 421
Foreword

“The best way to win a fight is not to fight.” - Sun Tzu wrote. True to some point. From an
idealist point of view. But that fails to acknowledge that fight and war is a constant in
todays societies. No matter who we deal with – our friends, our family, our spouse, our co-
workers -, intents are disaligned, communication fails, skill levels regarding domineering,
political power play and getting what we want from others vary. At any given moment of
time, someone is hustling someone else and everyone is following his own self-interest. All
that differs is the level of awareness, skill and effort that people possess in each of these
situations. Happiest are those that know how to get what they want went they want it
without arousing suspicion or discontent, and while being perceived as being gentle and
fine enough to enjoy giving as much as taking. But unhappy in any case those that do not
know how to get anything when they need it and falling victim again and again to those
that get from them what they desire.
This books tries to explain what is going on in everyday situations that matter and those
that don’t from an inside out perspective, from every ancle, and thereby give a first
thorough overlook over all the aspects of life that are governed by the constant struggle of
everyone on getting what he or she wants.
Of course, this book is not the first one that addresses this topic. But it wants to be unique
and the most relevant you come across. How?

(1) The landscape of literature that supported this book is vast. Sources range from works
on social and personal psychology to self-help and success literature, to books on power
and influence in the spirit of Machiavelli to books about hacking. The first relevant aspect
that provides relevancy to this book was that it took everyone serious enough to be
considered and reviewed and hence took a critical, but esoteric approach. If anyone had
something to say to add value to the purpose of understanding how power plays unfold in
real life, it was at least considered and reviewed. Of course, to the extend of the time the
author had available at his hand.
(2) Many books want to be rigorous and thorough, authors want to base their stories on
facts, brighten the long passages of theoretical narrative with practical examples and
inspiring citations, and some focus on tricks of the trade to provide more credibility to the
author. This hasn’t really been a factor in this book. It started as a self-study guide and the
author tried hard to keep the honest that he has to himself in exploring the topics. His goal
was to – in a decent amount of time - to cover the full story and systematize the subject
matter in a way that makes sense and to infer the best insights he could think of.
(3) Many books also target a particular audience to facilitate the digestion of the reader.
They try to provide examples and aspects that are relevant to the audience – e.g. career
support, relationship support, networking support - and again focus on not saying anything
that they believe is likely to upset or be called upon as lacking credibility or anything that
might not resonate with the particular audience. To the unfortunate benefit of the focused
reader, this book also doesn’t follow this approach. It stayed true to its encyclopedic, or all-
overseeing nature. The book tries to make up for the lack of audience focus by staying
focused around concept and easily digestible in bits using the table of contents.
(5) Some books, sadly so, are written by very bad writers and serve the mere purpose of a
book being written or an inner motive being justified. This also was not an issue in this
book. The reason why this book was written was the desire of the author to understand the
limits of the subject.

So here it is: A book on power. It is that simple. Named “The Art of War 2.0”. A book that
tries to be original, exhaustive, most of the time fast paced and untheoretical, occasional
with theoretical reflections on the subject matter, purely focused on two issues: practical
toolsets needed to understand power plays, and the notion of how deep a realist approach
on the subject needs to go into the details about philosophical motivations. May this book
live from Amazon reviews, critical feedback from readers and challenges on its assumptions
and depictions. But may it be read for the advancement of every reader. Have fun!

About the Author and the history of this book

The idea for this book just emerged at some point. I enjoy reading and summarizing ideas
of what I am reading since I can read. The areas I liked reading about covered a lot of fields
over time. From philosophy and mathematics/statistics in high school, to sociology,
psychology, cultural theory, hacker and pick up literature, systematic history, strategy and
political theory and economics in undergrad and later in my work life also business topics
from human resources, organizational development, leadership, work politics. I typically
don’t run around with a notebook and excessively protocol how I see this in real action and
I don’t network with professionals in all these areas to ground and benchmark my thoughts.
That would simply take too much time and my life doesn’t really evolve about the topics in
this book. It’s more like a fun project I revisit over and over again whenever I am bored of
other subjects. Furthermore, I think my reading always was a bit shallow, highly structure
and concept driven, focus on extracting the 5-15 key points in a book rather than reading
every book from start to finish. The result is that this book is also not well narrated, or a
meticulously crafted and overall reasonably structured book but a collection of thoughts
and models that I explore. The structure is clearly defind top-down and approaches the
subject from different ancles. In that sense, it is likely not complete or exhaustive and likely
not grounded on every aspect. It’s explorative and proclamatory, hypothesis focused. So
they reader might prefer to read everything with his own mind and judgement. I
nevertheless find that most readers so far enjoyed the breeze.
CHAPTER 1
Motivation and Introduction
How to use this book
The subject of this book, in short, is power and its application in real life. And the goal is to cover this topic in
the hopefully complete and more reasonably structured way that any other book has attempted or achieved.
As this book will uncover, power is a feature of life that underlies every human interaction in our lives.
Understanding power and its mechanics in everyday situations is, that is the core assumption underlying the
relevance of this book, vital to achieving success in life and preventing others from taking unnecessarily
excessive advantage of us. By looking at life in this fashion, the book stands in line with what is often
summarized as a realist political philosophy that ranges from philosophical authors such as Nietzsche and
Hegel to more practical authors such as Machiavelli, Robert Greene and Sun Tzu. The goal is not to glorify or
promote the usage of power in the somewhat unethical and nihilistic way as it might look like, but to ignore
the question of justification of abuse or use of power entirely and to simply acknowledge that the use and
abuse of power is a fact of human life and societies and that it hence warrants a deeper study by basically
everyone.
It is my honest believe as author that the concepts outlined in this book should be on any school or university
level curriculum and should be understood and to some level mastered when we enter adult life, be it in the
military, in the workforce, in the academic field, in politics or wherever fate and our decisions lead us.
What makes this book unique and somewhat different from other books written on the subject is that it covers
the topic in more breadth, not focusing on power mechanics of leaders and kings as in Machiavelli or power
scenarios in strategic battles as Robert Greene, but that it runs through power mechanics in all strands of life
from spontaneous get to knows, to confidence games / cons, to power mechanics in sales, in groups, in
organizations and that it provides a similarly broad foundation on key concepts that are necessarily fully
understood to understand the full complexity of power and its application.

Since this topic is complex, the question is where one starts the subject. The first step is to acknowledge that
power dynamics leads to the fact that someone is always getting a bit more, someone getting a bit less out of
every situation; and that someone hence is taking something from someone else. To acknowledge that this
indeed happens in every situation, whether we are aware of it or not and that awareness. The next step is
learning how to protect others from exploiting us. That requires work on ourselves, our core values and core-
confidence in a self-help like manner. But also understanding the repertoire we can use to define our own
agendas and objectives and break points in relationships.
Because building awareness is so critical, the book does not start by looking at strategic behavior and
battlefield tactics, but explores concepts that are related to these strategies in detail. Concepts that will cast
light on what is going on everywhere around us in general and how it translates into the right level of
awareness and vision on situations.

So much as to why this book is interesting and relevant. There certainly are some readers who want to know
if they can rely on this book and what nature it has. First of all, expecting an academic treatise of the subject
is as wrong as expecting a Robert Greene-ish example and citation rich popular treatment. This book is not
academically rigorous, as its primary purpose is to guide conceptualization and understanding of the subject.
On the one side, to get a first structured view and the subject and a basic set of concepts that are relevant to
understanding the problems. I clearly focused on structure to uncover topics I missed and I try to get to the
point quickly. That makes it a bit harder to follow and read. But I definitely didn’t want to be one of those
authors that write 200 pages on essentially 5 key ideas that could have been explaind in a blog post.
By taking this approach, I wanted the book to be something like an interesting and non-canonic book that
may also serve as a foundation for further studies in areas that appear interesting to the reader. The conceptual
density of this book should be enough to formulate many questions and to dive deeper into each subject
using academic literature. And last, but not least, academic theories are only as good as their methods. As evil
this may sound, the social sciences and their empirical foundations more often than not are debatable. The
insights ultimately rest on conceptualization and using concepts to analyze the real world and making your
own experiences. Simply because the required conditions ofr a statistically studied relationship and pattern in
real life are often times not met when in the situation and impossibly processed. So being overaly academically
rigorous doesn’t help the reader after all. I hope this sacrifice on academic rigour makes it a bit more applicable
and actionable to real life.
As for citations and practicals examples of history: I like examples, and certainly the amount of interesting
citations is impressive and adds to the content of the book. But since this book is covering far more material
and attempts to structure the topic in a new way, the usage of examples would not always work very well and
dilute the clarity of the concepts and it would also take too much effort and time to finish the book. Without
adding too much value. I am fully confident that everybody can go to a library and get other books in this area
and can read the citations there.
And last, but not least, original work has to go beyond established theories, concepts and relationships and
has to dare to formulate hypothesis that may later on turn out to be partially wrong or off. I, for my personal
taste, enjoy going beyond known paths and concepts and extending defenitions to explore relationships
others have not yet posed. I think that this book and its impact derives a lot from this approach and it adds to
the uniqueness of this book.
In the end, the approach of this book emulates my style of learning about a domain. I start with conceptualizing
and structuring a domain, very superficially and heading for maximum breath, then start extracting abstract
elements and patterns that I find in various branches of the domain, and I start to hypothesize about
connections which increase the understanding of key terms and concepts in the domain. If I have a fishy
feeling, I might go down into the details and uncover errors. But if you do this long enough and have a good
understanding of words, their definitions and their evolution, you get pretty good at knowing the concepts
without reading too much about it. By working this way, I can come up with definitions and relationships
before reading about them in detail and confirm my understanding by either learning that I hypothesized the
meaning of terms and their relationships in the right way or if I am completely off and have to continue
exploring and studying a particular branch to increase this understanding. As I continue to iterate in this
process; I try to find the most simple and trivial patterns and relationships and thereby reduce the complexity
of the landscape of concepts. For pure academics, this approach might be too risky and sloppy and they might
not like it. For popular nonfiction readers, this might be risky, as the reader might not be able to trust
everything. And this may lead to the book being not for everyone. But why not giving it a try.

Why hacker and buddhist in the subtitle

This book intently states in the subtitle that it takes the view of a buddhist hacker. This book is not meant to
be an inspirational book for people who like to domineer and coerce others, or a how-to-guide to deep social
engineering. It is an attempt to be original and creative in understanding those actors and giving a toolkit to
understand what people can do and apply to win power games.
This book wants to be inspired by buddhism as it wants you to understand the game, but not use the skills to
become evil. But to become a master by dedicated study for no other purpose than mastering this study. It
takes a hackers view, because it is not only focused on showing how the world works, but to find quick and
effective solutions to operate in possibly dangerous political situations.

I think the intention of this book is best described by the following philosophical problem.
In a perfect world, there is no war and there is no fight. Only piece. And taking the approach of merely changing
your self to be more gentle, peaceful and to avoid fight is a good and somewhat noble – and also somewhat
Buddhistic or even Christian – approach. I think this approach defined my life pretty much throughout high
school and university. But then, at some random point in time, revisiting the concepts of the philosopher king,
the cycle of political systems from democracies, to kingdoms to tyrannies and forth, I started to understand
the look into the following, somewhat critical concept:

Assume of a world of exactly three children only. There is you, not willing to fight against the other children
no matter what they throw at you and being contempt with it. There is this second child, who is weak and and
not strong enough to be contempt with being thrown at whatever you and the third child bring on. And then
there is this third child, that bullies you and the other child. Now here starts the political dilemma. You have
to choose if you stay non-violent and let the second child suffer from this state for the benefit of the third
child. Or you overpower the third child, thereby enforming a new regime and world where no bullying takes
place. The second child now might be a lot happier. You are equally happy and minorly discontempt that you
had to fight. And then the third child, it might not be as happy as before, but maybe the unhappiness from
not bullying is a bit less than the unhappiness of the second child being bullied. Choosing to fight crushes the
Christian and buddhist morale and extends your world view to that of politics.
But, of course, a new problem arises. You might think you have solved the worlds problems and have become
the Philosopher king in this tiny world. But the second child now becomes very confident and it still bears the
memory of being bullied. It now kills you and the bully in a moment where both of you lost attention. And
being alone, it dies from loneliness. Was choosing the fight the right decision after all? That is the second
problem of politics that you find articulated in Kenneth Waltzs depiction of the “sin”. We simply never are
philosophy kings. We never hold the truth. And choosing to fight and take the political stance immediately
creates responsibility for what is to follow.
I personally believe that the action of the you, the first child, was right. We must strive for a peaceful world,
and with our best knowledge based on the past, we must use our powers to achieve a better world. Doing that
may make us noble. Does it make us good? We cannot know. Maybe after all, we are the tyrants, not the kings.
And when you look at this from a global perspective, maybe never fighting is after fall a superior approach.
But balancing these two extremes of being political or being Buddhistic is probably what makes us human and
noble and political. And it is far superior to understand the problem and to take an active decision on it than
it is to remain ignorant. If you disagree and say “we have to carefully have to choose our battles.”, you are also
right. You are just a bit more egocentric and certainly in this example not political.

With this example, I think it also becomes a bit clearer what I get out of the book. I love political theory. And I
read too many high level books and economics treatises on the subject trying to break some key principles in
the fields that I thought I take a step back and observe the world as it plays out, before coming up with abstract
concpets to challenge the authority. While Adam Smith’s theory of moral sentiments somewhat crushes Kant
without such a deep dive, I guess that was the original inspiration. Now the question is: how to become a
buddhist hacker?
Structure of this book / series

Part 1: Understanding the the battlefield

The entire Series is focusing on covering two aspects: (1) understanding the dimensions of
every day human relationships, and (2) devising strategies to dominate or prevent others
from dominating by knowing how they want to dominate. Hence the book is about power
and the fundamentals that one needs to grasp to master it.

The Series is divided in four parts.

Book I, by focusing on key dimensions, provides the foundation for analyzing interactions
and understanding how power unfolds in them. Chapter 2 covers very basic fundamentals
which can also be skipped or just covered by reading the introductory notes. Chapter 3 is a
self-help inspired look at the humans in the perspective “You”. Chapter 3 then looks at “the
other” as to focus on the analysis of people and pattern detection mechanisms needed to
scope out strategies.
After the fundmentals are covered, Book II walks through different types of interactions
from one on one, direct individual interactions, to interacting with groups and organizations.
Book III of the book walks over systemic aspects and four relates to other literature and
more practical environments.

Looking at it different, Part I to III focuses on (1) and is focuses on the battlefield. The second
part of the book focuses on (2), practical strategies. The second part is to be understood as
a playbook or a collection of strategies that can be combined to to build overall strategies
to work a specific battlefield. These strategies are motivated in the first part by providing a
thorough introduction on a wide-cast net of concepts that, as I believe, are necessary to
understand the depth and beauty of strategic tactics.

In any case, understanding yourself, others and the general rules underlying human
existence matter. The density of concepts and in some parts theoretical analysis are
strongest in the beginning and become more practical later on. But they provide the
foundation of understanding the practical literature. Once this knowledge is obtained,
almost any higher level game (left to right in above graphic) requires sufficient practice and
levels excellence and capability on the lower levels, as each level on the X axis requires more
and more sophistication and understanding of what is going on.
Without a complete understanding of the battlefield or the numbers of games that are being
played and the environments in which they are played, the entire concept of applying a
strategy is short sighted. As 1-on-X represents spy games and hacking, the missions of
moving from the simple to the complex should be clear. You can not use social engineering
to play a one on one social game in a foreign organization if you are not even able to play
it in your own organization or play a simple one-on-one game with a random stranger or
friend. The levels you need to master also depend on what you want to achieve. If you are
only about social vibes and being a cool guy/gal in your group, you will have to master 1-
on-1 and 1-on-N. If you want to build a career and survive in the mob, you will have to
master 1-on-0. If you want to actually do hacks or exploit organizations for your own beneift,
you must have mastered everything else to a certain level and then master to go into hostile
organizations to get what you want from them.

Once these layers have been understood, the next question is how to understand the core
patterns that underly mastery in each layer. Something that would define a general pattern.

THE GENERAL PATTERN

The general pattern is always starting with the value of the objective. Then with the time,
effort and skill needed to extract the value out of the objective. And then with the skill and
capability to act effectively on the knowledge gathered.

TIMING AND ECONOMICS

Since everything we do in life somehow has a trade-off in the sense of what we do serves a
purpose, the purpose promises a level of value, and to extract this value we need time and
effort, we shoul always be aware of this timing effect and how it reduces complexity. No one
will study all the possible 100 out of 1 million people that will be at a night club, which is
where spontaneous seduction games are being played. And no one that wants to hack
highly confidential government secrets will do so spontaneously, but will likely take
something between 1 to 20 manyears years to get access to them. Things require their time
and effort and people just put in the time and effort if the value to be extracted is sufficient
to warrant this effort and time. Understanding this yields an understanding of what is the
reasonable sophistication of the game we are looking at when we are in a specific situation.
And understanding that dynamic and the level of insanity that is possible and required to
break the normal course of things is the next. As the saying goes: never bark up the wrong
tree, or never insult the a person who you don’t know for sure who he is. Because, out of
shere insanity, that one bark might lead to a life long chase.

THE HACKS
Last, but not least, the skill, insightfulness, thinking-out-of-the-box ability and many other
factors might radically reduce the time and effort and make the extraction easier, making
the otherwise insane more likely. Hacking is about finding cheaper and faster ways of getting
something in a well-studied system in a way that people didn’t think was possible. When IT
security specialists say that there is no such think as a secure system, the application to any
real-life situation is to understand that there is no such thing as a limit to skill that makes
the insane and impossible possible for someone.
Once you understand that “hackers” and insane people exist and even might be common,
you are well prepared to understand that people extract value out of you in trivial situations
that you never have thought about. That is exactly why studying this book and the arts of
seduction, influence and exploitation are vital for anyone. In other words: we always are
prone to be hustled by anyone at any given moment. Reason enough to consider the
possibility and prepare.

WHY THIS BOOK IS MORE

Than your average influence, seduction or power book? Because it looks at the topic
thoroughly and doesn’t sell you on the author. It is a full blown summary of what you can
and could know on how people hustle other people.

Part 2: Action

Part two focuses on practical examples. Some core strategy literature is covered and
reflected through the lense of principles covered in book 1. The hard truth is that the
relevancy and depth of these strategies can only truly be appreciated when having dealt
with the fairly long non-practical book 1. So the reader that wants to jump right into strategy
and tactics will find it a bit disappointing to have this short and condensed book 2 and
finding only very small and indicative summaries of the somewhat impractical 200+ pages
of concepts in part one. For anyone interested in application of strategy, the purchase of
the original literature referenced in part two might be the better option. This books core
value added lies in delivering insights and concepts that reflect what we know t oday to
understand and grasp the relevance and applications of the strategy toolsets. There are
passages on indicative opportunities of exploitation of concepts in part one, but the ultimate
goal in part one is to provide a better foundation for the fairly outdated classic literature
from Sun Tzu and Machiavelli and providing some conceptual depth to the well-structured
work of Robert Grene.
Maybe future versions of this book will cover more unique and original thoughts on
applicable strategy. But for now, part two citing original literature is all there is.
BOOK 1
KEY DIMENSIONS
CHAPTER 2
Key Dimensions of Social Development
Chapter 2 covers general aspects that should be understood, but do not directly relate to
any other parts of Book 1. It covers some core dimensions ranging from persona to big
picture thinking to how awareness relates to understanding a situation.
2.1. Basic Concepts

As a quick introduction that will remind you of many things covered in this book, let’s look
on what Aristotle defined as the three pillars of influence and persuasion.
Ethos: the personal character of the speaker, the visible version of someone as he
addresses an audience. It includes body type, height, movement, dress, grooming,
reputation, vocal quality, word choice/vocabulary, eye contact, sincerity, trust, expterise
and charisma. The audience’s total perception of the speaker.
Pathos: The psychological or emotional state of the audience. The ability of the speaker to
influence the audience to be pleased and surrounded by a good mood rather than by
pain, fear, sadness. A person with pathos is able to change the current state of the
audience, group or person to a better desired target state.
Logos: The substance of a message, or the logic it is presented to provide proof to the
audience. It is the art of convincing someone of ones own view and the correctness of
ones hypothesis and deductions.

Many of the things discussed throughout the book will map to these dimensions, but it
will also show how someone teached in the classics and the art of rhetorics will miss some
of the deeper aspects of persuasion that society has lead us to think about in modern
times.
2.1.0. Dimension 0: You, The Other, Want
Before we start with getting right into the subject, let’s have a look at a simple phrase that
relates to power and that is already quite hard to grasp. How do we get what we want from
others and how do we prevents others from getting from us what we do not want them to
get from us. What exactly is “we” or “you”, what is “want”, what is or are “the other/others”.
And what does “how” relate to?

The term “you” – Or in your words: “I”

The term “you” or “I” and its meaning drastically depend on what you consider to be you. Is
this simply you as you just feel and – without further consideration – think you are? Is this
the “you” that you envision when you think back about all your experiences, the you you
envision when all your visible and hidden barriers of being “more you” are not considered?
Are you simply the naïve “you”? Are you the “human being”? Are you the “child under God”?
Are you “the fighter for power?” Every single individual on this planet has an entirely
different view of who he is and this will entirely shape the course of actions that you will
chose, no matter how wisely or trained you may be in “the other” or the “want” or the “how”.
The term I and you is relevant to this book, because having a clear picture of it reduces the
amount of time and energy spent on being the I and you you are actually not. It is the key
question of self-determintation that runs in this book, too, and which leads to the chapter
on “You” to be part of the book. In some sense, the question in this book will be on who
you actually are to you, and who you are to others. And to outline dimensions of the you
that matter in todays world. It is up to you to say when optimizing the “You” part is
something you are not really comfortable with and looking forward to. Which somewhat
will have an impact on what “you” can obtain from the others. And open the doors to other
things, that others that get what you cannot get will not get. Simple. Right?

The Term “the other”

The other might also simply be a “naïve” copy of yourself? You might consider this other
having the best possible or the worst imaginable intentions. You might attribute worm like
or god like capabilities to the other. Understanding the other is about understanding the
complexity of people how how uncomparable people are on the vast amount of dimensions
that define us. And to see he patterns that persist despite the differences. Understanding
the obstacles and beneficial features of others to your own goals and understanding that
others are just some other “you” is tricky despite it being very trivial.

The Term “want”

Want is an evil word. Want implies a gravity towards something and a clear lack of
understanding of the need of it. A want is always something that does not clearly satisfy an
articulated need. If we want something, we imply a need, but we can not articulate it. In that
sense a want is always something dangerous. At the same time, it is a strong choice: a choice
for desiring the thing that we want. We might simply be too occupied to identify how the
want relates to the need. A person that wants wealth might understand that it needs security
to feel happy, but it is unable to define a level of security that is enough or unable to clearly
understand the relationship between the need and the thing wanted – something we call
confusion. Clearly, someone that “wants” to have a luxury good item is an idiot in the sense
of the world, someone that “wants” an iPhone is an idiot. Likely, he believes to need to fit
into a class to obtain something more relevant and necessary, but he completely
misunderstands the relationship of owning an iPhone to the need underneath it. Discussing
what want really is is something not really relevant for this book, but would be part of a
philosophical tractate on what are just desires and needs. In the context of this book, a want
is something that warrants us to spent energy and time to obtain the object or state that
we desire and want. The only pitfall anyone interested in power has to avoid is to have
confused wants that occupy ones time without providing a clear benefit, while at the same
time having a clear doubt.
But apart from analyzing why some wants are idiotic and some are maybe more mature, the
key understanding in understanding wants is that different people want almost anything –
not everything – for the most obscure reasons. Understanding what specific people want,
why they want it, and what keeps them from getting it, as well as why people want absolutely
incomprehensible things and get them is something entertaining as much as it is
challenging. Why do people exist that want to watch people get slaughtered in red rooms
in the dark net? Why do people exist that give up their lives to marry trees? This sounds
obscure and funny? Then what is it exactly that the guy or girl you meet everyday wants and
what is he willing to do to get it? Even if your boss doesn’t kill you, and your wife is not
emptying your bank account, the things these people do want might be way more obscure
than you wish. Or why is it that some people like to be deffacated on and some people get
off by being smiled at by dogs? You just can’t understand the complexity and variety of
wants people have. As little as you understand their desire to get it and to conceil it. Or how
do you explain someone to hack a nuclear power plant to get a $5000 paycheck, or someone
that graduates summa cum laude in an Ivy league college just to impress his dead parents
and then moving to ridiculing everyone that is under his academic roof? Why do people
enjoy going to the hairdresser every other day and why do people think that buying $600
pants every week to brag among their most likely boring peers instead of just moving town?
People are more often than not insane, but they still are people and they exist. And more
likely or not, someone of this lunatic kind will either hustle you or stand in your way and
appear like a mountain you cannot overpass. Is that not lunatic, too? No matter how
structured and sane the limits of capability and awareness of people are and their ability to
use several “hows”, there is a never ending abundance of wants that somehow complicates
everything. And making someone marrying a tree instead marry you might be as hard and
insane to pull off as asking your boss for the raise you deserve or asking your partner to
stop pulling his shit moves.

The Term “How”

The term how will occupy us in the entire book. Referring to ways of looking at the world,
to mechanics of interaction to context and interpretation of particular behavior.
2.1.1. Dimension 1. Identity and Persona

“All the world’s a stage.” William Shakespear

Identity and persona covers the human as an onion, an entity consisting of layers of
individual’s personality and the usage of masks. Developing masks for and adapting them
to specific situations is a key to being socially fluid. And understanding that masks mean
little in conflict and power plays are the key takeaways. The simplistic “individual wears
mask” concept also doesn’t hold in the strict sense and is extended.

The cave of contrasts

The first step on any journey towards being in control over your life is typically composed
of two things. (1) A generally higher awareness about life – discussed later - paired with a
higher ability to focus attention on what is relevant at hand – also discussed later -, and (2)
the ability to break free from unreflected behaviours, thoughts and wants from others that
are somehow percolating through us and define parts of our lives – the need for
independence – and (3) the ability to meaningful break free from physical and socio-
economic forces that bind us and attach to those that interest us – or: autarky. The self-
help or self-improvement literature that provides an ready-hand accessible foundation for
any level of self-awareness needed to control anything in life focuses on (2) a lot. How can
we start to reflect and understand how forces are moving us and how can we control these
forces’ impact on us. Reminds of Plato’s cave, where we are using shadows and contrasting
to derive a posteriori concepts about life using our a priori ability to do so.

Classically, these forces are understood as coming from two ancles. Ancle one being social
conditioning, or the imprintment of society on us as blank slate in the Rousseauan sense,
changing our perception, interpretation, believes. Ancle two being focused on
understanding our biology and genes better, how our emotional excitability, our reaction
to particular events – think of a phobic vs a non-phobic -, and our desires and aggression
potential shapes the way we react to situations. The core goals are the same in both cases:
moving from unknowing incompetence to knowing incompetence to knowing competence
– or control over critical aspects – to unknowing competence – or habitualized/intuitive
control that warrants little active dealing with these issues.

The process of mastering both tasks involves us not only sitting in a cave and observing
shadows patiently, but requires us to consistently slip into the role of others which is
sometimes referred to as emulating someone else or if we do so less consistently and
seriously it is referred to as imitation. By entering a make-believe game where we see
ourselves as these others and by starting to imitate behavior and thought behind it, we
create masks or roles that we wear in a specific situation. Over time, these masks – if taken
serious and being reflected – create their own dynamic and impact our belief and
perception system. The transition from such a mask to a mask with its own dynamic is that
towards what most understand as a frame of mind or frame. And finally, a constantly applied
frame that becomes part of our core personality, a frame we use successfully in a set of
situations that are part of our life, they become personas.
The improvement of our understanding of forces in life comes from the constant play and
adoption of frames, while the application of a set of well-internalized personas decreases
our understanding and limits our beliefs and behaviours that are consistent to the frame
the persona uses. Understood? Good.

From integrity to post-structuralist schizophrenia

The great man myths and images of men in classic and older literature all focus on one
persona of an individual and people describe other people they don’t know very dearly by
one dominant persona. Likely this created the illusion of integrity ever having plaid a vital
role and because of the dominance of this interpretation of people even in our modern
world leads to its continuing power.
Integrity being the consistency of a persona, it’s frame, it’s behavior and belief system,
something that makes an individual in a persona reliable. Our parents are supposed to be
integer, our politicians try to be, our bosses and co-workers try to be, the heroes of popular
culture – in movies, music videos, literature – try to be more or less integer. Mostly it has
been left to the avant-garde and critical literarists to portray individuals in their
conflictedness among persona, a classical feature of tragedy if the conflict leads to problems
or comedy if the conflict leads to a humerous detachment of the individual from
expectations placed on the persona.

In reality, the dynamics are more complex and can explain a lot of behavioural patterns in
real life. Let’s start with a simple onion model of an individual.

As the previous section highlighted, we try hard to understand ourselves better and
uncovering our unknown self by observing and reflecting its workings and effect on our
behavior from outside forces – conditioning – and internal forces – biology and genes.
Somehow leading us to our self-image, our total understanding of our self. We all admit
that this is not necessary the image we would want the world to see. Maybe we lust for
murder, or we lust for doing nothing all day, or any behavior that is not accepted by people
we know and the social environment we live in. And assuming full integrity of an individual,
we assume that is it. There is one public image that is consistent everywhere. There is one
persona.
Sane multi-persona scenario: Nowadays it is more acknowledged that personas differ in
social contexts. We present ourselves consistently with different personas to different
environments such as family, partners, friends, work or social clubs.
Integrity still demands that there is no radical conflict between these personas which could
be explained by a consistent self-image (mid circle). Assuming that individuals have
sufficient coping mechanisms to unit the personas that they chose to have and are forced
to have – family is not always a choice – are strong enough to not violate the core self-
image beliefs, and we are hence considered sane and integer. If the persona we are carrying
is radically different from our self-image, we will likely change the time allocated to a
particular such external group such as family or friends, or we change our self-image or the
persona we wear. Still very simple and the typical playground of our cultural products as
long as sane people are considered.

Levels of Variation: Now the integrity falls apart when have two inconsistent personas or
frames in the work environment. We are considered moody, flip-floppy, unstable, or if we
do apply these images playfully eventually are considered unserious. This perception at
work is somewhat different from the perception among friends where an observed
unvoluntary change in behavior by living and interacting with two personas or frames would

also be considered a weakness, but the playful change of persona would be considered a
key feature of entertaining and humorous behavior.

Detached technocrats: The inability to change and variation in some contexts such as work
and politics leads to different levels of leadership styles. Just consider a leader or any
individual in a group that has by any means necessary maintain its integrity and persona (
C in the below image ), but over time experiences life events that change it’s self image (B
- > D) or even its core unconscious self (A-> E and D -> F). This individual will find it more
and more difficult to enjoy and live up to the persona C. The reaction in this case typically
is the simplification of behavior in the persona C. Some leaders choose to hardly
communicate and be silent watchdogs, distached from the life around them and being fairly
secluded. Some use aggression and behave like assholes to get people off their back and
limit the exposure to behavioural expectations. They start regulating their role and impact
in the company and focus less on being humans and people among other people. The most
socially normal, but nevertheless not less detached version would be a complete
technocratic leader that focuses on creating simple rules for the company culture, simple
mantras and goals or introducing higher levels of statistican and quantitative metrics,
detaching from active leadership by example or inspiration.

Deeper levels of “schizophrenia”: The more people we emulate – reading more, more
exposure to social media and role models, more travel, more transitions in life, more
relocations, more changing co-workers and bosses – the faster likely the transitioning and
evolution of our self-image and unreflected core self. This leads to several problems.
(1) First of all, we can change so radically that we would have to become entirely new
humans, with new partners, new friends and new careers, to fully align our self-image with
the persona expectations again. This makes it continuously harder to fit into static personas
that remain the same over time. The increased levels of detachment combined with
stronger specialisations in life concepts and hence more consistent persona expectations
in a particular specialization apparently leads to what psychologists call cognitive
dissonance and create the consistent conflict of either abandoning new and interesting
parts of ones self-image or live in steady dissonance with expectations and becoming
ultimately depressed.
(2) This also likely leads to more experimentation with variations in personas, which creates
a larger variety of very similar personas in a specific context. We can not sacrifice integrity
by switching between completely different personas and frames, but also start creating
personas that act the same – outside view -, but have radically different internal belief
systems and modes of perception. Asking yourself “Am I the victim persona caught in the
situation or is this the ultimate challenge and rise to success situation and persona in me?”
This creates a deeper schizophrenia and constant switching between personas on the
outside level and destroys the grounding of belief systems and perceptions. With the risk
of splitting self-image completely with the inner self and living again with masks instead of
frames and personas.
(3) This persona schizophrenia can then also percolate and expand into the inner layers
leading to fragmented self-images: very successful in parenting and relationships, but a
joke at work. Or a Rockstar at work, but entirely failing relationships with friends, family and
so forth.The result could be a very high self-confidence – belief system – and self-efficacy –
ability to get what we want – in one part of the self image, but an image of being a complete
failure in some other parts of the self-image.
(4) The fourth stage would be to stop coping with this self-image schizophrenia and
consistenly live live as several persons in the core self-image that even translates into the
unknown core, which ultimately leads to schizophrenic self image and eventually also can
lead to actual psychosis and schizophrenia – when we start to lose our cool at home and
go hunting animals or humans at night.
This concept is quite old. It underlies the Enlightenment movement, the post structuralist
movements in Philosophy (e.g. Deleuze and Guatarri) and Psychology (e.g. Lacan) or even
Marx (Self-Enstragement) and is often perceived of being contrarian to the “one self”
concept that underlies the enlightened , the fully self-actualized or authentic human being.

Masks, Frames, Personas and Living a full life

Coming back from thinking conceptually about masks to the core issue behind the usage
issue of masks. A key aspect of masks is that individuals wear them and use them to fit into
their environment. They are more or less capable of keeping the mask on all the time –
poker face – and to isolate their identity and true beliefs from their public self as it presents
in the mask.
Masks, if worn over a longer time and under certain circumstances impact our belief system
and via this channel impact our persona. The first question is to ask if people really wear
masks, frames or personas. A mask being something we do not relate to at all but are able
to wear in a certain environment, a frame being a mask that has its own belief system which
we adopt to to function and a persona being a frame that suits our personality, a frame that
we want to wear and need to wear for our purpose. Something that is part of us. The truth
is that things depent on the individual. Some people just wear masks. Working 8 or even 4
hours a day or working remotely and limiting exposure to the environment where the mask
is worn and having a rich life outside of this environment almost always allows us to
continue to use the mask as it is. But with a mask a person is completely distached from the
environment and likely will have superficial relationships using this mask. Once a mask is
droppen in interpersonal relationships in the environment – because the individual wants
to communicate authentically – it is interacting with a persona. If the individual is distached
completely but needs to portray a specific image and mask, from some interior motive, we
are talking about a frame. Once the environment is critical to the well being and aspirations
to the individual, we are talking personas. The more an individual wants to fit in and the
more it sees in an evnrinment a step towards a later goal, the more likely it will be
emotionally attached to the environment and will use its persona. Why does this all matter?
First of all, the exploitation mechanisms are different and the impact on the individuals are
radically different. Since we are all somewhat social beings that love connections to other
people – with some very isolated and sociopathic individuals outside of this group -, we
can assume that everyone is wearing a persona somewhere in his life. These personas and
the strength of attachment is what creates the social imprintment or social conditioning
that the individual, or we, have to watch out for. The set of personas we choose to live in
and do so frequently shape our intrinsic identity – intrinsic in the sense that it shapes not
only our self-image, but our unconscious core.

And it can be observed that the most successful individuals shape their personas on some
very similar environments: close relationships that feed their positive self-image – be it
parents, own family, friends or hobby – and relationships to the strongest possible role
models that they emulate and which they idealistically do not know in a hierarchical way.
By serving the base functions in what everyone knows as the Maslow Hierarchy of needs
via close and meaningful relationships which work with little touchpoints or total time input
into the relationship they create a psychological fall-back for the worst case, being fully
available to emulate the most successful behavior in masks or frames, without personas, to
strategically plan their path to success in a non-emotional and unattached fashion. At the
same time it is observable that those highly attached to any environment where they do
not lead and succeed are very likely to be unsuccessful and unhappy, and thereby little
powerful.

Since most people fail at emulating the best path, there is the common quarrel everyone
deals with. How does someone construct his identity? The obvious choices that come to
mind are : (a) abandon it if it fails you, (b) change it to make it more effective, or (c) separate
it from who you are in the outside world and function using masks or frames only.
Without much thought, we can accept that it is nearly impossible to abandon your identity.
And choosing to do so would violate anything we can learn from (b): The entire tradition of
self-help and self-improvement focuses on changing our identity to the best possible self.
But it doesn’t guide us to where we should become so. If we fail to win the right wars that
provide our strong neck and backbone, we will strive very hard to adapt our self to a
suboptimal or even hostile environment. The sub-optimality of environment where we
strive and try to do anything also paints the picture of why (c) is bad. If we fail to build a
strong persona and self in the right area and abandon the idea altogether, we will reside in
our true self in a world that doesn’t fit us and doesn’t support us, and any mask will break
down eventually when the threats of the environments we are in are reminding us of that
we do not have the proper back up we desire in the personal level.

So what is the optimal strategy? Machiavelli tells us to accept reality as it is and use the
tools at hand and proven to further our interests. In this context this is meaningless. We are
chasing success where it doesn’t matter and ignore our core self. Maslow with his hierarchy
of needs tells us there is a minimum level of self-exaltation that is needed to be happy and
that we should focus on the maximum while we are at it in his work on self-actualization.
Ancient political philosophy tells us to be the best political beings we can be. The Christian
tradition tells us to impose the highest moral behaviours on ourselves without trying too
much to be what we cannot be – God. And of course, there are negators of these visions in
the form of relativists – nothing makes a different – and nihilists – nothing matters or should
matter. But again, they are all wrong. If we don’t create a strong personal environment
where our self-image clicks with our peers – partners, family, friends, etc. – and which
provide the minimum level of hierarchical needs and hence a safe ground, we fight in a
battle that we already lost.
The weird proposal of post-structuralism would likely be that we fish parts of the core safety
we need from different ecosystems, making us schizophrenic jugglers that need our
personas – instead of our core self and self-image – to obtain the minimal needs from
different environments. The problem then is that any cut-off of our supply line to one of
these systems kills our supply of these needs and throws us back to being unsatisfied.
Another proposal would be to radically work on the elimination of need by reducing our
want. That works for some people, but they are typically judged by their peers as missing
out on the core value of life – living a full life.
Using Masks, Frames and Personas
Since I am not writing about self-improvement, it’s time to abandon the thought process
entirely on how masks, frames and personas shape us. The focus is on recognizing that
using masks, frames and personas is something we have to learn and that using them
effectively without destroying our self-image and core self is a key in becoming successful
in social games.
What we should ignore is adapting our identity to the demands of environments that are
not capable of providing us sanity and safety, but which we should understand as
environments of opportunity to further our self-interest.
The core feature of the game of using these outside identities, however, be it masks, frames
or personas, is that they allow us to enter social environments or systems. They allow us to
get a foot in the door and operate in them to advance our goals. Most of the time, we have
to progress or “traverse” through different social systems to get where we want. Nobody
knocks on the doors of the white house and becomes president of the United States. There
is a path that needs to be followed. In the first parts of the book we will discuss how
personas can be adapted to social environments and where adaption requires universal
skills that are independent from a particular social circle. Different social circles or systems
require different pre-requisites, different levels of commitment – in belief, frame/persona
adoption, even identity adoption, in time, in resources, in intellect, in past experiences – and
give us a reward: either by rewarding us for being a member or by rewarding us with an
opportunity of an exit to a new environment. In every such environment or system, core
skills can advance or kill the progression – social skills, cognitive capacity, ability to adopt a
new persona with or withour breaking with an old identity, etc -, every environment consists
of gate keepers and requires a fair level of political skills and sensitivity. Looking at the
traversal level, there is always a shortest path to a desired environment, but the path is
sometimes obtuse and certainly isn’t typically found on Wikipedia.

Learning to build a strong core and self-image and walking with masks makes everything
way easier than re-learning your self-image and identity with every traversal. But even then,
being able to completely remold identity and self-image is a skill that might give an
advantage. The basic learning here in this dimension is that learning to fit into roles with
perfection without sacrificing oneself or being too attached to the role is a critical element
of success. Lower attachment always means one is able to leave the table in any negotiation
and exploitation situation, and that in general increases the aggressiveness that leads to
stronger dominance in any environment. Combining the ability to dominate with the ability
to be accepted by a group or environment is equal to learning to take advantage of these
environments. That is the prerequisite to strategically thinking about moving through social
systems to get where we want to be.

Exploitation strategies in the context of identity

We now move to the other side of the table and just take our own situation as is. How do
we win a war with someone that sits on the other side of the negotiation table? There are
the typical dimensions:
• Whoever has more to lose has a worse seat at the table
 • Whoever has no idea about what is really going on during a negotiation likely doesn’t
win
• Whoever knows what is going on, but doesn’t have the practice in executing on his
skills and position – having little to lose – will likely also be worse off than he could
be during the negotiation

Perceived loss: It is hard to win a fight with someone that just wears a mask and who couldn’t
care less if you or he wins the negotiation or fight. But at the same time, this individual will
likely be least invested in the situation, which will decrease the aggression and fierceness to
win the negotiation. These individuals can be strong armed and outmaneuvered using
others that are in need of success of the negotiation.
In with a frame? Nothing to lose on the personal level, but fierce to maintain frame. Network
and interests of others become more interesting and relevant.
In with persona? Strong arming can be an affront and raise irrational counter-reactions and
overall requires more delicate reaction, but if power is sufficient, it can be played.

Knowledge point: Having no knowledge of the complexity of politics in the decision, the
force directed to the one person that has more to lose and the individual with most power
can lead to a stronger arm in negotiation without the individual confronted knowing. If
knowledge of the process is high, focus has to rest more on strategically moving the figures
around the individual. But otherwise same play. In the end, the one most hurt and the one
making the decision are the key gate keepers that will flip the negotiatior.
In a social situation, focusing on the alpha (decision making) and the individual most
invested into the situation (The lowest in food chain? Someone somehow connected to the
topic?) will govern the dynamics and move.

Execution: Whoever is bad at execution can be ridiculed on exactly this skill. Losing face is
bad, being knowingly incompetent makes the argument even stronger. Being unknowlingly
incompetent opens doors to outmaneuver the other by focusing on wins in the range of his
knowledge and screwing him on the terms and parts he is not very capable in. In a random
social situations could imply the change of the frame of the conversation – context and
interpretation by others – which the individual doesn’t understand and which reduces his
value. In actual negotiations focuses on being nice and cooperative on the core pains
expressed and leaving bad terms out of the question or rushing them on the agenda later
on after the decision has been made. Direct intimidation also sometimes work if the
individual can be forced into defense mechanisms that reveal – consciously – that the
individual is not able to cope with the situation.

In the typical social dominace game that happens in every situation when we are out on a
dinner party, people are caught unprepared with a flash move unveiling their lack of
execution skills, some elements of the attack require a knowledge of the context that the
individual attacked does not have and the key attention is directed to the alpha or high
power and awareness individual that knows that the individual attacked has more to lose
than the attacker, leading to an outmaneuvering of the individual and a loss in perceived
dominance. The ideal counter attack demantles the attack, threatens in a very direct and
aggressive way that is not perceived as threatening by the generality of the group in which
it is placed and that makes clear that things will escalate quickly if the attempted attack
continues. Smart attackers attack the lead of the group to enter a group conversation in a
challenging way. Attacks on sub-leaders or lower levels of the hierarchy either lead to a win
and gate access to leaders or a immediate leave. In any case, attacks typically are meant to
be entertaining for someone and typically are based on a pre-assessment that has to be
proven wrong to dismantle the attackers credibility.
The defense strategy always never focuses on “having nothing to lose”, but requires a
reaction in knowledge and execution. Having nothing to lose isolates the attacked as well
as playing the social hierarchy game which implies an attempt to validate ones status via
others who might not be d’accord with this act. Strong knowledge and execution can re-
direct attention to the victim and attack the leader of the group.

The “reality” of masks, frames and personas

When Jean Baudrillard talks about reality slowly disappearing in the simulacrum, or behind
a mere “simplified simulation of a real thing signifying dominance over the real thing as it
claims to be more real than the real thing and being indistinguishable from it”, he talks
about an age of sophistry where epistemology and truth no longer have any saying or
worth, because the mask is strong enough to defy being lifted. In the context of masks and
the general understanding that people’s awareness of and attention to mask games,
simulated identities – masks or frames that make us believe that an individual’s identity is
at stake – can make a real impact.
First, being able to create masks and frames that decept in the way the communicate need
and self-confidence can be used to change how other’s perceive us and thereby can change
our power to dominate in a drastic sense. We will talk about levels of escalations of conflict
later on, but the gist of it is that if the mask, frame or even persona is portrayed in the right
way, it can provide strength and dominance. Either by claiming that there is no attachment
and fear of loss when this strengthens the negotiation or by claiming that thee is
attachment and fear when there is none. It all depends on the circumstances and the power
environment we are in.

Second, on the other side again, our ability to call bullshit on any attempt to change
perception to advance negotiations can provide the upper hand in the game by merely
domineering through the fakism of the mask. Apart from being able to create roles that
further our interests it is also of crucial importance to see through other individuals. A
reason why leaders in organizations – also discussed later – are more prone to not disclose
information that might make their status vulnerable. Or refrain from talking at all. (Of
course, this makes them suspicious. Someone that hides behind silence almost always has
something to lose and especially so if he claims to have nothing to lose.) The interesting
and crucial information when thinking around the corner like this is that almost all people
– no matter how powerful or apt – behave consistent in their deception strategies. And
because deception on many different layers is hard to remember and control with many
people, the likelihood that the corners of deception are going beyond 3 or four are very
very unlikely. In short: calling bullshit on any deception is possible. And focusing on
deception might be an inferior strategy to just drop ones balls openly in any negotiation.
Admitting when we have something to lose when we do so and still negotiating hard may
be a better strategy than trying to pretent and decept that we are not vulnerable.

How to detect masks? We will talk about this in the most difficult context, because the
easier context become apparent by discussing it: the context of highly assertive individuals.
We will later in this book discuss arrogance and assertiveness. A strong assertive behavior
is typically a signifier of a strong core personality. Being assertive means that one is able to
create a belief that is beneficial to ones goals, imposing this to someone else – by being
convincing - and being sufficiently well versed in the subject to actually convince the other
on the subject matter alone that one is right. People who are assertive – and that is the
rhetoric that works very well for assertive people – typically are assertive in one domain
only, while at the same time their assertiveness in this domain is used to be considered core
confident and dominant and hence a type of leader. The truth is, that even very high levels
of assertiveness in a domain do signify nothing but exactly what we just said: expertness in
the domain and strong dominance based on this expertness to get ones point and goal
across. It does not in any sense imply any dominance on anything but the subject and the
factors typically underlying dominance in any subject not part of this core domain have to
be scrutinized rigorously.
It is a matter of fact that people rarely are assertive – in the sense we just explained – in
every relevant domain of their social status. Leaders may be strong innovators, experts in
their nieche, but they will fail to compete with true assertive experts in other domains. A
private equity or investor prodigy will likely not have the same level of skill as a generalist
leader type of person in leadership. The level at which the finance prodigy performs
authentically on the generalist leader domain and how he reacts to the presence and
challenge to the leader is what makes everything visible. A strong core confidence will likely
lead to the state where the finance prodigy is sufficiently well versed in many domains that
relate to his core competency and he will manage to be assertive to the leader, not by his
competence, but by sufficient competence that is needed in his position as an assertive
person in finance. This likely will then convince the leader of the status quo and he will
rather offer his advice in his domain and not head for a challenging competition. If the
leader is very bad at the domain and easily gives in, he will show a lack of core confidence
and hence might be less dominant against the leader. If the finance prodigy is clearly lacking
core confidence and managed to remain dominant and starts to domineer, this is a clear
sign of him being vulnerable. So both the obsessive resort to domineering tactics in non
core domains and giving in too easily to unwarranted dominance seeking behavior by the
leader will reveal the weakness of the mask.
2.1.2. Dimension 2: Depth - Realists, Idealists, and Sophists

Machiavelli is said to have inspired a realist tradition. Enough to ask the question what
realism could refer to and how to define it. In this book, three layers are addressed that go
from sophistry, to realism to idealism. Sophistry being the superficial layer of argument
where a sophist is sufficiently prepared for the world if he can win an argument. He will
adapt the level of depth of his worldview to that of his audience and will care little about
how the world works, but how its working mechanics are perceived and how we can sell
his view. He capitalizes on the lack of depth and rhetoric ability of his opponent making
claims that he defends successfully and which may be completely idiotic. Such things
typically are seen in beer discussions with racist, nationalist or otherwise subjective topics
that nobody cares anough about to actually have a founded opinion. The realist goes
deeper, not preparing for the general argument, but going deeper epistemologically,
trying to cover enough of reality in his mind as to not hit a black swan to challenge his
assumptions and eventually destroy the realm he rules. In politics, realism is relevant to
not overlook things. You can win congress on negotiating a peace deal and win a nobel
peace prize for it. But if you don’t solve the actual problem, you aren’t a realist, you are a
sophist. The idealist goes even deeper and wants to know the absolute deepest level of
truth that he can find, thereby focusing on ideals rather than what is actually the case,
trying to understand why the norm or normal differ from the ideal truth.

Relativism of values and world views appear to be en vogue in our times and does so not
without reason.
But this is only possible under two complementary assumptions. Either (1), you completely
ignore the epistemology problem of being in our world: namely, that the only reason that
we are “together” in this “thing” as such that we can at all “see and meet” each other, requires
something that we share and that has been called many names – nature, reality – and which
constitutes an absolute thing. If you acknowledge this, there is no relativism. Or (2), you
completely ignore the relevance of “the other” and claim that you, despite the “being
together in this togetherness” are simply the only thing that counts, rendering the question
about epistemology irrelevant and resorting to solipsism (and eventually solipsism
syndrome) which renders you a completely selfish and unpolitical human being. You are
typically an absolutist if you come from this viewpoint and almost all mediocre academic
takes this approach.
Or simply: as a homo economics as you find it in todays library books or the “rational man”
– a crippled man with limited capacity that uses all of his capacity to focus on mere things
that further his individual interest with the tools and methods he sees fit best, you chose
not to focus on such issues. Such individuals love relativism and deal with reality only where
they need to win an argument go get something out of it.
People who tend towards (2) also tend towards sophistry. They only seek the depth of
understanding in the world that they require to achieve their wants as people only
interested in mastering getting what they want. If no one else knows deeper and better and
actually knows better, because the other equally is not concerned with (1) – the truth rather
than opinion -, or if those that do can easily be outmaneuvered, you are by definition a
sophist. Someone that believes that there is no meaning in the deeper knowledge itself,
and knowledge in that is just a tool as to prevent being dominate by people being
dominated. This stance is overall similar to (1)

➢ Example - consultant to CEO: The dynamics is entirely cultivated by the fact that
the CEO does – by institution – neither have the time nor interest to perform proper
diligence on the information that is fed to him. This creates the opportunity for
sophists to completely ignore the realist and idealist modes of thinking and focus
exclusively on dominating in the argument without any need to base the argument
on reality. Combining this with the short term nature of consulting contracts and the
“easy way out” combined with the effects of bad consultation being discovered
typically later on, this creates opportunities for consultants to build sizable, repeating
incomes.
➢ The CEO dilemma and Carl Schmitts “Entrance hall to the cabinet of power”: In
effect an exploration in the powers of “he say, she say” combined with the interest
of advisors and direct suboridnates and how they clout a leaders view on the reality
beneath him. Any form of leader who is not able to challenge what is put in his
mouth and go deep into the underlying reality and just relies on his advisors and
subordinates to execute his demands misunderstands the dependency of his power
on the persons around him and that their interests may focus most on obtaining his
chair in the future rather than executing his tasks on a best merit basis. The
disinformation that they can feed him are only as strong as his focus on what he
thinks is relevant for his position in the institution and organization and the survival
of the organization. While corporate CEOs will likely be less prone to attacks from
their inferiors – although they might still feel a very grand threat indeed -, political
leaders, everyday Joes and especially entrepreneurs need to be on top of things at
the base of their organization. The incentive mechanisms must be in check, the
information systems must allow him to see through the deceptions. The checks and
balances must be soberly put in place and sober leadership principles need to be
applied. Nevertheless, sophistry appears flourishing.
➢ The acceleration of time: the rise of sophists and the nurture of deep scientists
With time apparently accelerating – at least I have been told – and biographies
requiring more and more tombstones of achievements, we are prone to head to
encounter an ocean of people neither fit for realist or idealist lifestyles, because they
are simply giving up on competing on reality and focus on obtaining tombstones
using tricks and hacks. The shere massiveness of the Sophist crowd allows sufficiently
many to collect a sufficient amount of stones as to project they are more than
tricksters. But this shouldn’t lead anyone to be fooled that sophists exist, are
omnipresent and are swarming the places they were simply not meant to be. But
since this is a reality, understanding sophistry is as important as understanding who
is at all participating in the global race and who is merely a bystander hopping
around to increase his free-riding rent. And yes, sophistry being everywhere, be clear
that sophists are not leaders, not entrepreneurs, not leading academics. They are
part of the ambitious crowd that serve the function of oil in the power machinery.
Both their relevance and their omnipresence shouldn’t be overlooked. At the same
time as societies prosper under the oiling function of increasingly sophisticated
sophists, more rent is flowing to the deep sciences that help bridging a gap that
otherwise would lead any society to float into hybris. But this will become more clear
down the line.
With these tools, you might understand the stance between Socrates and his feelings
towards Sophists and the benefits our culture had from being driven over and over again
by re-discoveries of Socrates and Plato. Being idealists, their philosophy uses hypothesis
about the reality that they formulate in “ideas” to have a frame of reference for identifying
contradictions in their “world” – or that already consciously experienced part of reality that
they understood as limited. Sophists on the other side did not spent their time wondering
about deeper contradictions in experiencing the world to hypothesize about reality. They
used contradiction and words to outmaneuver others in discussions. The methods of
language were the same, but idealists were focusing on uncovering part of reality not yet
part of their “world” and were less focused on their understanding of the world to win
discourses. Whereas Sophists relied on their counter-parts complete interests in this reality
to simply learn how to use the “world” of the other as his weakness.
Looking at the long-term dynamics of both streams, you realize that Sophists have an
interest in reducing the epistemological advancement of their counterparts to have an
ongoing easy play in manipulating them. Whereas idealists aim at enlarging the world and
bringing it closer to reality. In this sense, these idealists were reality interested, but they
were not realists. The fact that people had little interest in the deeper meanings and
mechanisms of their world was a part of inter-human reality and hence a modern “realist”
would claim that sophists were better realists, because they acknowledged that human life
was more about what was practical and proven and using it to advance natural instincts
rather than taking hypothesized “ideals” more serious than the observable reality in order
to eventually discover something deeper.
Having understood sophists, realists and idealists now, the big question is not about who
is right – because everyone has his reasons for existence -, but what is the right dogma for
getting what you want.
It should be clear that idealism is not suited for this purpose. Freeriding on idealists and
using their discoveries about the world provides a much better return on investment on
ones time and energy than being an idealist.

The black swan argument for realism:

The battle between realism and sophistery can be settled easily, however, too. A solid
argument well known around investors is found in Nassim Taleb’s popular work on the
“Black Swan” – a very rare but highly disasterous event. In principle, very rare events occur
very rarely, but their impact may be large enough to consider them. This is why Black Swans
matter to national states and eventually companies who aim to live and survive for centuries
and where many people’s live take a hit when things go wrong. Exactly the many people
affected makes up for the felt overproportional impact. As an individual however, even a
disasterous event might now have a disasterous event on you. But taking reality serious to
identify potential black swans is the only reason why being a realist should matter to you if
you are living in an environment full of unaware individuals and sophists. A reason why you
will find little realists or idealists in the lower and middle classes or lower and mid-level
management positions. And while, at the same time, you might find more realists at the top
of political organizations, companies and in the top strata of the global society. There simply
is more at stake.
The issue with the above graphic is simple. Classifying relationships among occurences in
our lives happens by repeated observation of those events in correlation with each other,
providing the connection. From the connection, we typically infer probability distributions
that map what we observe to likely (sufficiently probable) interpretations. The total set
occurring in unison provides a stronger empirical foundation for a specific interpretation
and hence both a higher correlation among observable patterns and the probability at
which we assume our assessment true. But this clustering exercise focuses on regularity and
predictability of correlation. This is why such exercises almost always to a normal
distribution assessment of the event. The very clustering of observations into related
observations as they often and regularly occur provide the mean observation (the peak in
the picture above) to a level where anything that is deviating too far from this mean is
considered not part of the phenomenon. By deviating far from the mean, the above fat tail
part of the distribution is either considered a completely different distribution related to
something else or ignored as a “random unexplainable occurance”. By failing to
acknowledge these relationships and rare events (far from the mean, not associated with
the frequency of events that produce the normal curve) people misclassify and misassess
the frequency and impact of such events.
A reason why nobody believes something that is too good to be true to be true, despite it
maybe being very true, according to a fat tail distribut reavion. Or why risk management
fails to acknowledge events deemed “unlikely”, because “too far” fetched (/away from the
normal) to be possibly occurring often enough to warrant a protection measure.
The very same fallacy is hitting sophists that expect the occurance of a relevant individual
that shoots through their argument by having a deeper foundation and understanding of
the subject. In this context, realism requires the acknowledge of black events, a conceptually
correct view on the world that allows the correct clustering and a rader to actually see
indicators of a rare event occurring or to understand the possible existence of the rare
event.

Knowns and Unknowns:

Known knowns are parts of reality that are visible and recurring enough to have been
explored in their regularity as to understand them as sufficiently predictable and
controllable. Known unknowns are those things that keep getting explored but just are not
tractable yet in a way that they can relationships are fully understood or predictions are
sufficiently strong. Unknown knows are those things that are apparent but for which an
individual or group has no awareness of possesses no knowledge of its existence. Unknown
unknowns are those things that can occure and may be impactful, but where their existence
and likelihood can only be posited speculatively. Realism focuses on a sufficient
understanding of the relevant things possible but so far unknown or unlikely – swans – and
use hypothesis and speculation to eventually prepare for the situation – which in that sense
is a known unknown – and the effect it could have – an unknown unknown. It is by the way
interesting to read the discussion on unknowns and knowns when studying the
mathematical foundations of statistics.

The situation argument for realism:

So your choice naturally depends on where you are in the social arena. But there is another
interesting phenomenon. Because sophistery only works in the act of persuasion and
discourse when the other is less than a realist. When dealing with realists, sophistery is only
working with a strong asymmetry of power over the realist. When dealing with other
sophists, the interplay only makes sense when you are in a non-commiting, short-term
relationship or you are in an inferior relationship. When you are in a leading position where
you have to command sophists or others to advance your own goals, sophistry breaks
down. You cannot sophist yourself when you are not dependent on forces that be and that
are open to being manipulated by sophistry. This is why as an entrepreneur or when
standing trial against something that truly tests your ability, sophistery will not work. You
have to identify sufficient cues on reality to succeed.

The situation argument for idealism:

It becomes even more important to consider realism and idealism again when you are in
active and strong competition. Sophistry typically does not have a big benefit in the
leadership situations in market-like competition. It only works in smaller situations or when
power dimensions allow you to get away with sophistery, even when caught talking
nonsense. This often happens when a bunch of consultants talk to C-Levels and a lot of
experts are present. The power dynamics makes the experts shut up, because they don’t
know the political landscape enough and they do not want to be shot down for pointing
out the truth that might hurt a strong political agenda. Hence, the consultant sells his
sophistry package and gets away with it.If you are an entrepreneur or someone that needs
to be ahead of your competition, you are no longer facing the question on how to balance
sophistery and realism, but you must balance realism and idealism. Without idealism or a
method-driven reality discovery that outperforms competition, you will not have that novel
idea of strategy that will keep you competitive. This warrants a new look at the dichotomy
between realists and idealists and it is most visible in the intellectual arguments in the
political theory domain.

So welcome to the argument between realists and idealists that could be an argument
between Machiavelli and Socrates. In principle terms: idealists – according to Leo Strauss
and popular opinion – believes exactly in what we just said: that the pursuit of a deeper
understanding of “this world out there by following reality using the method of “ideas” is
what advances mankind. Realism, on the contrary, claims that idealism is focused on the
world “that should be” just a bit too much, while realism focuses on “the world as it is” right
now and remain focused on achievable results and required level of depth to have a stable
long-term outcome. The realist claim here is that idealists are coming up with ideas and
conjectures about the world that do not in any way advance the individual in dealing with
the world as it is today and as it presses to be understood in the moment.
Both are right in their own respects. Realists claim that the reality is what happens in –
mathematically speaking – almost surely all cases. Reality is the reality without the Black
swan. Idealists, on the contrary, are implying that Black Swans are part of reality. From an
episteme point of view, idealists are right. Idealists can claim that realists die when the Black
Swan comes, which is why they should focus on the Black Swan. Realists claim that idealists
would not even have the time to search and find the Black Swawn if it was not for the realists
to maintain the status quo that allows them to exist. From a practical point of view in the
eyes of politics and inter-human relations, the realists are right. You cannot control your
power when dealing with others when you rely on things happening that almost surely
never happen or you – and this word is important, too – “Focus” on things that do not
matter to your political task of enforcing, winning, maintaining and exerting power.

Are realists “sophists” then? Yes and no. Yes, because they share their disinterest in “the
actual sharedness / reality” that underlies us by saying clearly that it is not an interest that
is precious. No, because they still do believe that knowing the facts and underlying “reality”
behind what is happening in human affairs is more important than merely winning
arguments with others that equally not care about the underlying reality. The question is:
how deeply can the realist go into understanding reality to leave sophistry and not lose
track of affairs. And how deeply can realists focus on the pressing matters at hand ignoring
the deeper reality without losing track of the right thing to do. From this perspective, the
general advice should be to have a solid realist stand in the world, mastering sophistery
where it is required and never losing touch with idealism, as it matters, too. Just almost
always not in any moment.
A simple summary of why to not be too sophistry in life may be the old saying” You can’t
fool all the people all the time.” Couned by Jacques Abbadie.

What does this all have to do with this book?

(1) Idealists serve entirely different functions in society than sophists and realists do.
Period.
(2) Even idealists must play the “realist” game in their life if they want to play a part in
their own lifes as individuals in a social environment.
(3) Since this book is about social dynamics and hence not about the pursuit of idealist
knowledge, we are concerned with realism and not idealism.
(4) Sophistery is something that typically needs to be learned. But it should never be a
goal in character. It likely leads to remaining an irrelevant part of society, despite its
benefits on obtaining power in specific circumstances. Circumstances that if you still
encounter them tell you you are not really advancing, yet.

Relationship to shallowness and depth

Swimming in a swimming pool is remotely different from swimming in an ocean. The tides
are stronger – requiring more grounding – the waves are bigger – requiring working with
forces that be rather than working against them – the enemies are more fierceful – sharks,
dolphins, ships, storms – and overall it is a different game. The same holds true for sophists
– who are sophisticatedly shallow – and realist – who are balancedly deep – and idealists –
who are specializedly superdeep. When you hit a person or gatekeeper that is a realist and
that challenges the sophisticated depth of the sophist, it is basically game over unless the
sophist manages to domineer the realist. With sufficient domineering strength, the realist
will be a mechanism in the social environment to keep frauds out. The idealist, on the other
side, is likely to be so deeply concerned about truth and deeper knowledge that he will not
manage to domineer. And even if he does so, he lacks the social cognition and versedness
of the sophist to work effectively in a world of non-realists, non-idealists that like the
simplicity and effectiveness of the sophist. The summary of this should be that realists are
likely the most relevant leaders if they manage to domineer the sophists. Idealists are the
eyes and ears of the realist leader. And sophists are the executors of the message of the
realist towards all those that neither get the level of depth of the realist or the idealist and
who lack the domineering tactics of the sophist. It also acknowledges that sophists more
likely are not going to obtain core confidence and will rely on social acceptance of their
games to obtain their confidence. Idealists – if refraining from politics – will most likely have
it the easiest being self-confident in the limits of their domain. And realists are the ones
with the highest pressure of orchestrating all four areas: idealists, realists, sophists and the
blatant rest.
2.1.3. Dimension 3. Thinking Balls – Thinking Big

Big picture thinking, and thinking further into the future than others is at the core of this
dimension. The dimension covers the core method that can be used to see beyond the
moment and realistically attainable to understand what really is possible by thinking
further. From the furthest view, the method then asks how to build the high level
connections that relate the visible plane and canvas of the possible. The thinking balls part
focuses on what jumping into dangerous and unknown environments – or: going beyond
ones comfort zone – can mean for developing strategies to attain the possible when it
appears far away. The moving upward and sideward part of the dimension focuses on the
need to re-calibrate and/or taking a step back when things started to look different than
initially planned.

Snobism as a strategy: People who forget their roots and try hard – and remain unfortunate
– fitting into a higher social class by half-heartedly and unintelligently copying parts of the
higher class attributes, such as vocabulary, clothes, material status objects, are called Snobs.
The concept of a snob is important when thinking about taking to heart all those thoughts
of self-improvement, self-manipulation to be successful and all aspirations of thinking big.
Not only because it is always bad to be a snob, which it isn’t, but because specific forms of
Snobism are at the forefront of what defines our society: models trying to lose weight
thinking they deserve a model contract – people dressing as rappers and speaking rhythmic
words over stolen music – bankers from whatever background that come into early affluency
and start spending their money on “models and bottles” and status symbols such as luxury
watches – students who hustle to get a desired job at Google or Facebook to get the
“smartness” attribute written on their resume – or in general: people who “fake it until they
make it”. Snobs are individuals who lose ties with their grounding and history and who are
lost in the game of identities, masks, frames and personas, becoming hunted by the idea of
an invisible man to detect their inherently lack of fit in an environment where they want to
be in for unfrelected and shallow reasons. Markets have found their ways of exploiting
snobbism to both exploit individuals who join their ranks for a dream to work like the slaves
of modern society and to exploit clients who blindly believe in the success model that
capitalizing on snobbism provides. It is no longer frowned upon, when a 23 year old walks
into a room of senior executives and advises on deals and corporate strategy, simply
because the system managed to smartly discriminate against all and their unsuccessful
attempt to understand clear definitions of success and merit. Creating their own outsiders,
modern “high performance” and “high pay” industries from advertising to media to high
finance to deep tech have all found a way to use a somewhat idiotic, but highly effective
method of discrimination that creates perceived value via exclusivity. Lucky all the free riders
in this system that survive, lucky for the society that some really passionate and capable
people sneak in, unluckly for all those passionate and capable locked out that aren’t snobs,
but authentic and honest people.
In that context, thinking big in an environment of snobbism which builds on sophistry can
mean “fake it until you make it”. And it cleaned the slate of the young generation of snobs.

Thinking big without being a snob: But traditionally, the mechanics and risks of “thinking
big” worked entirely different. Thinking big meant facing adversity and always claiming
fiercefully a land above your current horizon and ability to eventually hustle through the
risks inherent in “over stepping”. Or even simpler: just not accepting the status quo of one’s
circumstances in a way that Orthega’s “I am me and my circumstances”, seeing through the
modes of manipulation that are meant to keep oneself aligned and within the checks and
balances of power systems that form social systems and having the self-confidence and balls
to claim a spot that no one more capable is able to fill. The step to become an entrepreneur
is almost always a step into the insane that you cannot possibly master. You never know
what you get into. But you have the balls to do it. The risk inherent was never that of a snob
– simply not winning the lottery and faking the way through until all breaks down – but
eventually making it to the next stage and simply not losing the game, or: losing the game
and thinking too big. The “think big” mantra today is more likely referred to as “dare to fail”
or “fail fast, fail often”. It was a contra argument against “thinking through” things and
ending up over-thinking trying to intellectually conquer a field before you were actually in
it. Similar to saying that a priori knowledge and study prior to being in the situation you
have planned to be in is foolish and waste of time, or simply mistiming and sleeping on
opportunities as they arise. You don’t rever about the battle field too much before becoming
a soldier on the front line. You manage how close you get to the front line before you do
no longer know what you are doing and you are risking too much. In that sense, a smart
form of bravery and a trained lack of excessive risk aversion was at the front line of “thinking
big” and it came in line with a robust self-confidence, a strong mental frame that would not
be manipulated in thinking one does not deserve, one does not have the ability, one does
not have the capability to pull through with a “minor bitsy of snobbism” when claiming
more.
The risk of thinking big is simple: when are you leaping too far ahead and lose ground, and
when is leaping ahead is just the right step. Thinking big is not about pretenting to be high
and trying to live a frame of being accepted as superior, when you are not even in the
position to claim to be so.

There are many other less radically phrased synonym mantras such as “move out of your
comfort zone frequently”, “standing up again after one has fallen”. Down the line, the entire
field of “thinking big” is about understanding that next to the need to adapt as described in
the first dimension, the next biggest consideration should be focused on taking risks into
one direction and hopefully the right direction : upward. Something that the daring
individual who wants to think big is not always sure about. It is clear that thinking big is not
about going the extra mile in risk-tolerance as to pick a bar fight everywhere you can or
bending the law more and more until you get caught eventually – stealing, robbing,
humiliating, etc. Thinking big has to be focused on what matters to get to that position that
gives you more of what you want consistently and defensibly. Taking the higher job position,
founding that risky start-up after solid calculation of risk and knowing what you are doing,
reducing that portion of financial security that binds you to having no upside to what you
do, doing something that will help you advance yourself on the long run but might seem
scary at the moment.

Ingraining this mindset is important. Mastering the risk is equal to understanding a few
concepts, however:
 ▪ You can advance too fast and be among others that simply tear you apart, if you do
not master
the level of ability required on that level. That is the upside mobility risk.
▪ More common, however, and equally important is moving outside of the path.

Moving upward and managing the risk of moving too fast is a classic. There is little need
to explain it in too much detail. More important is the moving outside of scope or the risk
of simultaneously moving sideward. This is a classic among entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs
are not always CEOs. CEOs are not always entrepreneurs. More likey a CEO can master the
entrepreneurial aspect of the early business, but the DNA of an entrepreneur will never fit
that of the CEO. This is the perfect example of when growth means changing course. CEOs
are avid administrators of organizational systems, they pull the strings, they move chess
figures, they make decisions that negatively affect lives of employees. They most likely are
not going to play visionaries, charismatic leaders, builders, rapid and avid testers of market
that move 40% of their company resources to test a heroic idea for too long of a time. They
focus on selecting teams that they manage, the network with outsiders, they build
relationships that help their organization. They don’t fire the CFO they do not like and get
along with when this CFO is laudated by the financial and market community. They don’t
ego bomb the company. Start-Up CEOs or “founders” do. Just like when moving from a tiny
investment partnership or hedgefund to a risk-management driven massive asset manager,
things move from dynamic and star-culture driven to processes and the scope of work
drastically changes. As you grow and rise, your entire environment and behavior has to shift.
And even if you are avid in learning to master these new levels, and you are driven at
mastering this new level of height, you might simply not be competitive any more. Or as
economists say: you comparative advantage over your peers might fade. You represent a
different product that even if you are better at creating it, the demand of the market
efficiency might require someone else to do it. When you move this ladder and change in
the “product” that you are, you either fiercefully break with the past and get all resources
you can grab to learn the new role faster and better than the others, or you are simply not
enjoying this new role as much and it detracts you from your original path. You are no longer
growing “upwards” in towards you “silver star” life. But you grow sideways to something
that might look like upwards for an outsider, but is detrimental to your own interests. This
is only natural as systems and environments outside of our current reach aim at protecting
their inside knowledge by disguising the inner mechanics, which makes it hard to move into
the right direction all the time. This mechanical element is also one of the central power
mechanisms in todays job markets that force individuals to stay in line or be punished. If
you fail at the upper level and move into the wrong direction, chances are you are being
punished and pushed back, eventually to a lower level where you are equally ending up
moving “sidewards”. So as much as thinking big is about taking risks and cultivating this
trait, it is about taking calculated risks. Or doing what is possible to perform proper due
diligence before making an upward or seemingly sideward move. This typically involves
building hypothesis and confirming them with active research and networking.
One of the key risks of snobs and “think big”-ers is that they mis-assessed their desire and
fit for that level and they misunderstood what the level they were growing into meant. While
this may not sound as something particularly different than what normal upwards movers
face, the difference rests in the misalignment of drive and ambition with reality. All of a
sudden, you are no longer following the right path but are picking bar fights, metaphorically
speaking. Something that your normal radar would immediately detect as the wrong area
of growth. But ambition and the desire to prove oneself that has defined you so far can lead
to a bad judgment and being blind. Thinking big in combination with fail fast and fail often
means to understand the predicament of your new position as fast as you can: even if you
may succeed in something new that you understood as the next level, it may mean you got
on the wrong foot and you have to head for the exit fast. And the faster this process is, the
less likely you are wasting energy and time chasing mastering a fight that is not yours. Even
if the mastery of any fight is something sufficiently interesting for an ambitious person to
stay along. Somewhere along the line this experience will help, right? No. It won’t. Since you
did not choose to become a street fighter humping strangers in bars in the beginning, why
would this extra skill you learn in the wrong environment be any different?
The sample principle keeps individuals in bad relationships. Some say it is the fear to exit.
That is what people that never chased their dreams will claim. But in reality, you might just
be stuck trying to master this for later as you miss the time passing by. This is not “thinking
big”. It is fighting against windmills, when you don’t like wind and mills. It is losing at
“thinking big”.

Blind Spots
Thinking big reduces the risk on micro-level managing problems that are no problems and
only distractions. In a manner of “the best way to win a fight is not to fight” and “choose
your battles wisely”. If your big picture steps do not relate to a smaller fight, simply grant
the win to the other or appease the opponent and avoid the fight or even run.
But thinking big also means thinking on the correct landscape – which is opposing the idea
of thinking on the wrong landscape or reacting to wrong issues. But it also means, that you
have to create an awareness of where you are not yet looking. A blind spot is something
clearly lying in front of you and being imminent and significant, but you misattribute its
value or simply – in the worst case – do not see it. Managing blind spots is a key activity,
because no plan works if it blends out the relevant fact because they are not understood or
seen. This goes somehow with the thinking behind a well known model of competence that
relates to thinking big. The model has four stages:
▪ Unknowingly incompetent : A blind spot to the own incompetency
▪ Knowingly incompetent: You identified the weakness.
▪ Knowingly competent: You mastered the weakness and can handle it when
addressing it.
▪ Unknowingly compentent: You are so trained in this that you do not even have to
think about it and you habitually solve the problem.
Sophists can not survive if they overlook blind spots that are relevant to their short term
objectives. Realists and national states do not survive if they do no focus parts of their
energy on detecting blind spots. When designing strategies and applying resources to your
lifes problems and fights, you have to at least reach the knowingly competent knowledge
stage to assess if your long-term strategy requires more effort to move from knowlingly
incompetent to higher levels. Generalists are masters in choosing breadth over depth, being
knowingly incompetent in many things, as opposed to unknowingly competent leading
specialists in their field. Excellent entrepreneurs are in that sense almost always maximizing
on knowing incompetence paired with the ability to either scale up their competence when
needed or the ability to source talent for their venture with the right set of competence. In
that sense, they have to be low-level knowlingly competent in most areas of their business,
unknowlingly competent in identifying blind spots and very focused and fast paced in
assessing the competence level they and their organizations need, while keeping rid of
individuals that want to be more competent in what they are doing than the organization
and their roles require.

Risk Management
It goes without saying that the only way you can manage risk is that you are exposed to risk.
Risk management in the moving upward doesn’t really work like risk management in asset
management. Risk management is having the right eyes and ears and the ability to react to
events and situational shifts that require it. It is about having the right attention all the time,
absorbing the rhythms of change of the environment, having the right glasses on to see the
relevant within the unknown and having the strategic behavioural skills needed to both
design and execute strategies. The next dimension is about the latter component: risk
management.

Some visual concepts

In the above graphic, you have your current skillset on the left. Let’s say social skills, technical
skills, financial skills and power skills. The middle shows the skillset you think would lead to
a position in life where you enjoy life most. On the right, you see the delta in your current
skillset and the skillset you will need to have to get the perfect spot in life. That could be
anything, a high school teacher, a bar owner, a mobster, a company CEO, line manager in
manufacturing company or whatever. In reality, you do not know your skill set, you do not
know the ideal skill set and you do not know the spot in the world where this could meet.
Good.

What you do typically know is what you can see here. You are at the bottom of the landscape
and you currently only have one option to move to the next social system which is directly
on the upper right. You did your research and the only viable way to progress is to transition
to this system. In the right picture, you see the likely requirements in skills you need and the
education in this system that you will gain when trying to become successful there. Once
you spent some time there and muddled through, your skillset changed and you have to
options, one to the left and one to the right. The right one will lower one of your skills, the
left will improve all but one very drastically. Requirements to get in are different, but you
have to make a choice. You do not know what lies ahead and behind this, but you know it
will lead to distinct paths you do not know anything about. Tough choice. Do more research?
Think about how the connectedness of the circles above are related to the difference in skills
obtained in the left and the right bubble/system? Do your math and think about it and make
assumptions and follow your heart. This is a very simple model, but it explains how we
approach choices of change in life. There is a clear benefit and loss from every transition,
but typically we start to understand our option set in any system or situation we are in, and
there will be a small options that invite us to move on. Depending on our ability to plan
ahead, we will know what might come next. This could be featured in media, research or
business literature. Or we could simply have figured it out by listening to what other people
talk about. But in principle, we try to assess a map of options from the different routes we
take in life, we understand gate-keeping entry requirements, and understand that some
options we choose make us transition to a desired place in life earlier, some others make it
impossible to get there, some make it harder to get there and make our progression slower.
If our goal is to advance as fast as possible, we shouldn’t be wrong in any choice, be fast to
adapt and grow in every system and move on as soon as the perfect opportunity arises to
the right next system. This refers to job hopping in the same way as in strategic options our
companies may have, the identities and hobbies we take and the relationships we chose or
the mindsets we chose to adopt and the habits they bring with them. Doing the research
and understanding the transitions and impact of the transition is a key element that allows
us to think big in the right direction.

This picture now simplifies the job transition within a company and the risk of falling victim
to the Peter principle. We start at the bottom and rise the ladder. The red bars indicate the
minimum requirements of each level, the black bars show the average of the population in
this hierarchy level. It is clear that skills sets change everywhere. It is not a clear progression
that grows in all dimensions over the course of time. Some things are becoming less
relevant, some others are becoming more relevant. Failing to understand this and having
our ideal skillset in mind, we can easily maneuver into an environment where we either have
to unlear our favorite skillset that makes us happy, or we are falling victim to the Peter
principle: we got promoted to a level of highest incompetence and are now stuck. Similarly
important is the fact that the minimum levels on some skills on the higher level don’t match
the average skill level on the lower rank. Level two promotes the skill on the right and
furthers it compared to the first level, the same way as the first skill on the left. But what we
actually need to progress is skill number three. A skill that will not be taught or learned on
level two, but needs to be self-taught to progress to level 3. In level three, the skillsets also
do not lead to the skills needed in level 4. And so on. We could assume that we start at level
0 and jump directly to level 4 and that we started with the minimum requirements of level
4. This would be the right leap and we would think big by getting there fast. Because levels
2 and 3 will cause us to focus on other skills not relevant on level 4 and will cost us time and
eventually the opportunity to jump to level 4.
Summarizing these graphics, thinking big is about jumping as far as possible and hoping
that the skillset we have keeps us alive there. And that we are quick enough to understand
what the next jump is that we have to focus on, before adopting to that role destroys our
skill set or leads us to a place where we do not want. If we want to live the skillset on level
two, we of course make a mistake by jumping to level 4. We will fail there and we will have
it harder to get back to level 2. But all that said, it would be wrong to stay in level two or
waste our energy rising to level 2, 3 and 4, if none of them fit our requirement or lead us
closer to the systems and worlds where we can be successful and use our potential.

Exploiting big thinkers and small thinkers

It is easy to understand how small thinking people are being robbed their successes. They
chase hierarchies that require them to adopt and they might adopt to ever and ever more
nonsensical skillsets that nobody really cares about until they wear out and give up. That is
a core function of hierarchy in organizations and a function of discrimination in social
systems. Hiding the skillsets on the next level and keeping people busy mastering the
skewed skills in their roles keeps them aligned to goals within their role and system and
keeps them from achieving more. Without a clear view on this feature of life and the self-
confidence needed to escape this machine of wear-down, we will remain stuck in the
trenches of evolving towards nonsense and wear-out.
Thinking big individuals can be exploited similary. By feeding them idea that they can
transition fast once they moved to the new system or level and then keeping them stuck for
as long as possible. By forcing them into unlearning core skills and learning skills that keep
them aligned and dependent. Or by feeding them misinformation about the role and
benefits of a role as to have them disappointed and stuck in their new role and give up
moving forward.
2.1.4. Dimension 4. Chess
This dimension focuses mainly on two core skills. The skill of knowing there is a finiteness
to every problem and that problems can indeed be studied to their limits, and the skill of
taking the right amount of analysis to understand the landscape rather than being driven
into draps and bad decisions by a lack of patience in the analysis.

Milestone plans and to do lists. The literature of success in business and life often focuses
on taking one step at a time and growing iteratively towards a better future and eventually
a desired state. That appears natural and easy to sell when considering that the largest goals
typically are only met when one understands the full complexity of the goal and the many
steps needed to get there, something that motivates the creation of milestone plans or a
general roadmap and chunking it up into daily or weekly execution plans and installing a
control process that meters progress against target achievements. That is basically project
management applied to any kind of goal seeking. And certainly, monitoring progress is an
important behavior compared to simply doing things and not keeping track. It also makes
sense to assume that we will only get from A to B by starting to take steps from A. But that
always assumes full knowledge of the path ahead. And in social plays, the path hardly is
clearly defined and achieving a goal is rarely a deterministic process that is successfully
completed by ticking of to do lists. So what we should do instead, if we were ever capable
of doing it, is chart thousands of such milestone plans and evaluate which one is the most
realistic to lead us to the goal fast. This takes away the linearity of the problem from “take
one step after another” to understanding the problem as a shortest path problem on a graph
or a classical logistic problem of getting from A to B on a graph with distances indicating
time and weights on each each edge indicating costs. If we now add the fact that we do not
know if we will really be able to take another route once we have reached a certain node in
the graph and we have to assume probabilities, we are getting closer to the actual problem.
We hence do not only have to think about which paths exist, how long they take, what cost
they inflict upon us, but we have to think about probabilities that we can take the next step
once we reached a certain point, which requires us to know where we do not know wether
a path is reliable and usable or not. With these probabilities, we have to solve the whole
problem again and get completely different results. The problem easily gets so complicated
if we have too many paths in our head and have to evaluate each one of them, that
everything boils down to identifying the few paths that we can predict to be reliable with
highest certainty and then to chose the path that appears the most efficient. Only when we
assume that we are able to identify fully deterministic paths that allow us to walk them with
100% probability, we have a set of options that resembles the complexity of chess when
playing it using the graph-based methods that are typically used in computers that play
chess.

Let’s look at some visual examples.

We start with the simple of all plans: the milestone plan. A decomposition of a path from A
to B where different steps are summarized in “miles” or sub-paths that have to be achieved.
Life usually doesn’t work that way. Any milestone plan or single-path solution to anything
is either a best known path for a given problem – a pattern or theme or “topic” if you want
to resort to analytical writing where the topic is the structure of the writing and the subject
is the thing that the topically structured writing is addressing. But in any case, there are
many known paths that are more complex and maybe inefficient, but in almost all cases
there is a path that is more efficient. This creates the following level of complexity.

One step further, having sorted out all possible routes to the solution or goal and having
mapped intersections of these paths in the above diagram, the next step is to assess the
resources needed to walk the path. This is aggregated in “cost” in the below network graph.
These costs are of course more problematic. There is cost such as time, capital needed, skill
needed, gatekeepers and benificieries needed to actually be able to take a specific route
and to specify its cost. We skip one step by also adding probabilities of transition in per
cent. The next step is to understand that even if we pay the cost and try to make the
transition on the path we might have a set back and land at the original “node”, having to
repay the cost and trying again. This perfectly aligns with the job application problem or
winning an election, getting a promotion, training, or whatever.

Moving away from cost, some things just require possession of some fort of “capital”. This
can be actual IQ or EQ when gatekeepers demand it and can measure it, it can be the
requirement to own a boat and invite people to a boatcruise to transition. So we further add
complexity by requiring capital to transition at all and add the probability of obtaining more
“capital” by making a transition.
And finally, we have the additional level of complexity that thte best path anywhere further
down the line – e.g. in years, tears and blood – is not even visible or researchable at
reasonable cost and hence the requirements, transition probabilities, etc. become question
marks down the line. And we quickly end up with a non-deterministic and almost
computationally insolvable problem. Let alone any human can really predict it.

Optimal plans contingent to other players moves. So we boiled down everything to paths
that we know with certainy are reliable paths. Every path could now be managed using the
project management and milestone plan representation. But, of course, we have an new
problem when we the plan involves other people that are gate keepers. In chess as in any
social situation, the entire plan has to be revised after every step, because the move of the
other player – in chess – or the multitude of other players – in real life – or multitude of
players that enter and leave the game at any unpredictable point of time and re-set the
entire chessboard, changes the optimal execution plan. In chess, the way to react to this
dynamic part of the game. Instead of just following your own plan and strategy, you
consistently have to adapt to the actions of the other. To win a game of chess, you have to
know all or at least sufficiently many possible scenarios. The plan itself becomes irrelevant,
but the deep knowledge of (a) the figures of the chess game, (b) the strategies possibly used
by the other player, and (c) the possible scenarios that can result as the game unfold and
how this increases or decreases the odds of winning the game given (d) the total set of
available plays available to the player.
In real life, understanding the battle field is the first step.
First: Who are the players, or who is actively playing against or for you? Second: Who and
what are the figures. The figures include actual actions by the players, but also the analysis
of who plays in the competitors team and how does the team play together and which
implication on possible “moves” of each “figure” is possible. This somewhat unites (a) and
(b) as it focused on who plays with what figures on what particular strategy. The (c) / scenario
part comes into play by assessing under what events and scenarios the other players and
figures will shift their strategy. A figure being removed from the chess board does not mean
someone is no longer being useful to the other, or a player just being put on hold. It is equal
to a strategic relationship between the player being lost – by clear unrevocable
abandonment – or by actually rendering that player completely useless – putting him on
hold forever. Or even better: in converting the figure to ones own team. The dimensionality
of the game obviously outrival chess in their complexity, but the goal is also not to play
chess, but to move aggressively towards removing power of the other.
And as mentioned before, we do not only play against many players in a battle field only,
but we consistently play with a changing set of players that enter and leave the table on
which we play the game. This adds another aspect that goes beyond merely adapting to the
changing environment and devising new strategies, but mastering the timing of plays
against entering and leaving players. Putting entering players immediately into a spot where
the long-devised strategies still work and the new players are mere meaningless figures is
far more useful than having a completely new player that will emerge as a new key
competitor that will shift the entire dynamic of the game – and cost lots of hours thinking,
strategizing, coalitioning, etc. Keeping the battle field low and the players on the table in
boundaries of power that still make following our path possible is important for every
participant in the game. At the same time, having someone leave the table that leads to a
overall better distribution of power can also be a backlash, and preventing the leave might
prevent waste of resources and energy then necessarily focused on collecting the resources
the player left behind.
The power of long-term planning, really really long-term planning: What chess players
learned during their career as players and what is hardly seen by individuals who came from
team sports or without such kind of gaming experience is the deep diligence on the
contingencies of actions. Planning not only the intermediate steps, but knowing excactly
which options are available and how each action will determine the long term dynamics is
crucial in social power plays. If chess players or people trained in this kind of reasoning have
an advantage it is that they know by trained experience how relevant this skill of diligently
understanding the long term dynamics of the interplay of individuals will pan out. The
ultimate game being winning, the strategic looking-forward must end at all scenarios where
there is an actual win and the distribution of “time-needed-to-succeed” must lie within the
time-frame that the individual places on achieving this goal. If you are only able to win in
20 years and you are going to leave the company in 5, the whole playing the game option
is – excuse moi – idiotic.

The takeaway: Understanding that long-term strategic planning with the skill and long
breath of chess players matters, and that diligence in identifying the many paths and forks
in the stochastic network flow optimization game and the need to adapt and control the
other players is what makes up success is the key take away from the dimension of “chess”.
Understanding the level of how long term play matters and that the time spent doing
diligence and strategizing this way is worth more than any series of successes – even if
perceived of high importance – is crucial. No success stands for itself, but must be measured
by its impact on the social play at hand and assessed whether it increases long term odds
or not.
The power of consistent practice and hypothesis testing: Another advantage of chess
players is that they know exactly that practicing is the only way to become perfect. Practice
on executing a strategy and learning when it works and when it does not and on what
parameters the successful execution is based is critical. It is never of any value when
someone knows the best strategy, but the play at hand is not executable because the
methods of actually moving a figure in the desired way is not possible due to the lack of
skills in controlling the figure. So strategic moves in a social game are not so much
depending on the mere understanding of the interplays of “what if” – as in chess - , but on
knowing which moves the player can reliably play and what kinds of actions are available to
the player. So obtaining and controlling figures is as much important as understanding the
interplay of the players.

Patience: Patience is something that chess players also are capable at. Not only because it
takes time to learn, and it takes time to make a move. But because strategic considerations
by other players emerge slowly. This is no less true in real life. Even a considered loss of a
play or a considered win of a play in power plays can have an impact on the entire set of
figures and the constellation and option set. If an opponent wins a move, this might have a
negative impact on his ability to move other figures in the future or the control and
successful play of a specific figure may change the strategy and power of the player. In real
life games, the move never is done in a one-on-one game fashion. Any move against you
can be a move against another player who will then create his own strategy against his
move. With patience at its hand, the player can observe other players moves to see and
learn about the contingencies of a particular move. Which opens another dimension of
inciting moves of other players to see ressources allocated to a part of the “chessboard” that
is not concerned – or at least concerned with defending ones own players – with the moves
and figures of the player. So when good things come to those who wait, this means that
staying away from a heated battle field and focusing on the acquisition of figures without
actively fighting may be a better option. Acquiring figures does include, of course, not only
building loyalty and shared interest but consistently testing execution with small favors.
Without execution on loyalty and training figures to actually play, figures are worthless.

Pattern recognition. The key question you have when you observe moves is what is the
unifying feature that is easiest to predict. This is typically intent. By probing intent, it is fairly
easy to understand who the key power movers are the moment when the game starts. The
first problem that requires pattern recognition is to understand when a new player evolves
that hasn’t been an active player in the beginning. The next step in pattern recognition
focuses on observing the moves the individual does and to assess his political prowess. If
the individual is particularly skilled in the playing the political game, this warrants more
cautiousness than someone that merely plays on a good deck of cards. The latter will be
retaliated and swallowed and will eventually leave the game or play a particular figure in
someones game. Another dimension in pattern recognition is how the player fits into the
entire game and if he will ally with some of the dominant player. In almost all cases, a rising
player will first be serving one of the dominant players. The next pattern recognition
problem is that of identifying if the new owner of the figure is in full control of the individual
– eventually taking away his figures and leaving him at the side of the chess board – or if
the player is promoted within the ranks of the dominant competitor. In this case, the moves
and behavior of the player have to be monitored to assess how strongly his drive to
eventually take the spot of his superior is. This will be apparent in how the control of figures
of the individual is compared to the other players. The control of figures – under full
permission of the leader or not – is a key indicator if the player will at some point become
a dominant threat or not. Players that execute well on their plays and fully control their
figures can win against larger armies easily if they have a good understanding of strategically
beneficial battlefields. The response rarely lies in working with his leader or playing against
his set of figures, but strategically using the lack of control over rivalling figures in the
leaders faction to support the leader or another player in controlling these figures: meaning
a containment strategy.
And of course, understanding ones own patterns and how they are perceived by others is
equally important. Playing a move against even such a tactically skilled individual may lead
to mechanisms that change the battle field dynamics. The hard part then, even when
everything else is mastered, is to understand how the desire to not see an opponent from
emerging is to be reconciled with the need to remain under the radar of other players. So
pattern recognition is something that chess players focus on, and they play their own form
of “frame games” where they ask: what if the other player intents X, and I react by Y which
makes the other player think I will play Y or Z, which I think will keep get the other player to
play A, which might lead to me having to pretend to play B. Etc. etc. etc. And all this has to
be managed without losing figures.
When coming to the readings of Machiavelli and considering the options of the dominant
player, we as well as Machiavelli has to assume a limited set of players and a controlling set
of figures whose loyalty is to be ascertained by the shere resources of the prince. In real life
political plays, the mechanics are way more intricate and require more diplomatic capability
than mere options of force.

Maximum Meaningful Adjacency: Another skill that chess players are trained in and
especially those who appears to have a solid talent for it is the search of maximum
meaningful adjacency of context to a given situation. Boiling down a particular situation to
its core components that matter for the task, without overlooking anything, without
considering what is irrelevant and paired with a deep contextual understanding of the
deeper complexities of those things that do matter to formulate a strategic map on which
the decision making has to be placed is the core advantage. To see that for preparing a well
cooked piece of meat, only the steak, the frying pan and the temperature do matter and not
all other kitchen utensils is a simple task, to understand who matters in whichever occasion
to leave a particular impression on one particular person is more tricky and requires a solid
assessment of the situation and the people within it, while at the same time being able to
reduce the complexity by eliminating the irrelevant individuals and by completely and
thoroughly understanding the relevant dimensions in navigating the ones that do matter
and to understand the game plan or step-by-step assembly manual that creates the final
product. The very same thinking and conceptual approach supports empirical scientists,
investigators and creative thinkers. And last, but not least, writing plausible and effective
stories and plots as a writer is the very same, when considering how much detail is necessary
and what level of detail is too much to create a compelling and engaging story. In chess, the
relationship between knowing the possible moves, and understanding how the other player
is building a strategy on his individual moves requires a solid understanding of the context
of what level of skill and intent these moves entail. Not too much and over-assessing the
others skill, not too little and underestimating the potential result of reacting to a particular
strategy in the wrong way.

Nevertheless, the big take away here is that Chess players have an advantage, because they
take long term and complex reciprocities more serious than individuals focused on short
term moves and checks and balances in the immediate situation. Implications matter.
Learning about this fact is the key mission in the Rules of Engagement chapter.
2.1.5. Dimension 5: Game Theory
This chapters focuses on the tendendcy of people framing reality in models. If we can
control the model or are not in control of the model, we are enslaving or enslaved under
the model.

The chicken dilemma

Almost every individual that studies business or economics will run over some parts of game
theory and the first problem the individual will face is that of the prisoner dilemma. It is a
perfect and simple example of how game theory structures our world.

The prisoner dilemma models a situation where two individuals, both prisoners that were
involved in the same crime, are interrogated. There is no substantial evidence against any
of both, but both do not know this. The goal of the interrogator is to have people openly
admit their crime. If both are not admitting their crime and do not rat out the other as the
culprit, both basically go free after a month of incarcaration. If one of both – A or B – is
ratting out the other, the other will go to jail for 500 months, while the rat will be free to
leave immediately. If both rat on each other, they both go to jail for 300 months. This is then
modelled this way:

Prisoner B
Rat Not Rat
Prisoner A Rat 300, 300 0,500
Not Rat 500,0 1,1

The problem that both prisoners face is if they trust the other to not rat them out. If both
trust enough, everyone goes free. If both do not trust, both go to jail. Etc.

Game theory studies many of such scenarios and is a very rich resource of strategic behavior.
The problem that people typically have is : how does this apply to my situation?

People create games

Almost every situation where game theorists apply game theory models appear artificial and
it is hard to believe that these models work in practice. But when looking at statistics, they
typically provide solid results. When the researchers ask economists, this is not too hard to
explain. They will think in the terms of these models and will act accordingly. But does
everyone have an education in game theory? Surely not. What is more striking and
interesting is that people in specific situations tend – when looking at larger populations
and examples – to actually reduce the complexity of their choices using similar concepts
that make them end up in exactly the artificial situations that game theory models. People
almost never act on the full complexity of a situation, but act upon very simplistic models of
them. The models will be defined by their experience, their conceptual skills and their ability
to factor in behaviours that the other is not aware off that he can use for his/her advantage
during the game. Ideally, the individual will understand his opponent in such a way that he
can see the limits of his reasoning and apply the game theoretic scenario that fits the
reasoning of the opponent. Sounds very difficult? Maybe it is.
People force others into games
The magic of game theory becomes apparent when one realizes that opponents or the
context of a situation can be manipulated into creating a specific game scenario. By feeding
specific information that triggers a specific interpretation of the situation, the other party
can be intrigued into thinking that the problem to be solved is in fact the simple game
theory model that the attacker wants to play for his advantage. The attacker will frame the
problem in the situation in such a way that the game chosen and the payoff matrix (the
matrix above highlighted months in prison) that the best strategic move for the other is the
one that furthers the interest of the attacker. If the attacker manages to establish the
prisoner dilemma and is able to generate trust in the opponent, he can communicate that
they both should call a truce – not rat both – and then rat out the other.

The nature of deceit and deception

Even more interesting is the fact that people construct the simplest games they believe are
capable of winning interactions. If psychopath B is consistently probing and analyzing victim
A, victim A can use this behavior to create a consistent pattern of reaction and behavior. The
more consistent the behavior, the more likely B will reduce the complexity and attention of
reasoning about B and he will come with a set of manipulation patterns that always work
and he will implicitly create such a game. This game will be challenged in moments when
the psychopath B has to defend his position and he will focus on hitting the right strategy
as to adapt the “pain” in the payout matrix that he believes the other is conforming under.
Over time and a few challenges, the psychopath B will see the resistance of A vanish and the
game will be considered as proven and solid. The attention on behavior of A will be reduced
and the game will be stabilized, with B believing to know how to control A. If A now uses
this perception to create a counter game where can beat A with a single strike that not only
inflicts a small pain payout, but one that is substantial enough to eradicate B from his
position, this is what one calls a “moment of surprise” or a strike out of deception. Of course,
any unexpected surprise move that does not yield the result of a strong win does not really
qualify for a “strike”. But is mere erratic behavior that will be either disqualified as irrelevant
or will create the need for B to reassess his control mechanisms over A. Which destroys the
strategic advantage of A.

The insight in our dimensions section

Our insight from this is that people try to frame decisions of others in a way that the decision
occurs within a controllable set of parameters and considerations that can be strategically
controlled. Not falling victim to this form of manipulation is what is part of our next
dimension.
2.1.6. Dimension 6: Awareness
Awareness in this book uses the meaning that no matter how much energy and time you
put into the analysis of something, if you do it within your own understanding of the
world, on the same plateau of knowledge, you always did, you will never see the deeper
levels that others with higher awareness just see. Understanding that plateaus of
awareness exist, or: that the way you see and are at all capable to see the world will have a
massive influence on the power you have over the situation. Simply put: if your awareness
is far lower than that of others, you will likely lose any battle against them if it requires
leading the opponent into traps.

Awareness vs. Perception

Perception is the ability to sense or see things consciously. Some might see the pulse of
another person in a situation rise, others simply might not. Understanding would be the
ability to know what is relevant and what is not among the things perceived. Awareness is
the understanding of what is missing and is not seen and might not possibly be seen, but
needs to be there to make sense of the situation.

So far, we said life is about chosing masks to engage in social plays, that individuals can take
different deep approaches at looking at reality and managing trade offs between time
needed to acquire this knowledge and the risk inherent in not having understood the deeper
mechanics of reality. We then moved through the risks inherent when moving upwards and
sidewares in the social world and talked about the strategic components of maneuvering in
social environments and how far into the future we can and might have to look. This all
assumed we have a fairly clear idea of what reality is.

Reality is based on consensus and physical reality

The good thing about reality as it matters is that society as a whole somewhat has a
generally accepted view on it with a few people having different views, but overall general
views on reality being imprinted on us by merely being an active and curious member of
society. This doesn’t imply that this shared view on the world as a part of reality we all see
is correct – most likely it is correct “if” and correct as long as nothing is discovered that
breaks the assumption on reality. It was a social reality that we are living on a disk. Later it
was living on a ball. Later it was living on a potatoe. Fears in the beginning where the lack
of control over rain and dry periods. Then it was the supernovas and the sun growing and
eating the world, maybe some day it is the risk of quantum effects creating something out
of nothing that destroys the world. We never know. Science has luckily come to the
conclusion that we enjoy stable beliefs about how the world works until we reliably can
falsify our believe by rejecting the hypothesis we originally held. Thinking in rejectable
hypothesis and using logic, the system works about assumptions grounded on observations
and relationships between observations that again form theories of the world that stand
until they are rejected. There still is no proof that what we observe is actually what we
observe – observations are never fully identified and provenly sufficiently close to reality -,
we never know exactly how the observations can be mapped to our assumptions and
theories – the question of how to relate internal validity of models with external validity in
the real world – and a lot focuses on statistics mostly to derive meaningfully probable
causations and correlations. The models go more or less into strong regions of over
simplifying things, from economic theories that hardly have anything to do with reality but
somehow allow the derivation of patterns we again connect with the theories we use. In
physics, the relationships are a bit more solid, given that apples more often than not indeed
fall not too far of the tree “if”… (e.g. nobody catches it and carries them). Fair enough to buy
into this system and learn from what others have observed and learned.

The Paradoxon of the “philosophical zombie” or “p-zombie”

There is an old philosophical problem that claims that we can not know if the other human
being we meet is actually a human being or just a zombie that behaves like and tries to
convince us to believe that it is a human being. We can not decide or determine if the other
is a human being. All we can is to use its lack of awareness or the mechanisms that it displays
to exploit it to do what we want it to do. The inability to tell if the other is actually a human
being that merits treatment as a human being in the sense of how Kant would put it “we
should treat our fellow humans the way we would want them to treat us”, somewhat opens
the door for the disassociation with the “other” and the need to be ethical. With this
disassociation, we can claim that getting others to do what we want – given that they might
be zombies – is perfectly ethical. Because they are only machines that pretent to feel the
discomforts we feel and that deserve these discomforts to be respected. With our without
this discomfort, the idea of using power to get what we want inherently implies that we will
have a complete disregard of respect and the demands of the other. Knowing, that to the
evil or power-focused other, we might be just another zombie. This relates to the map-
territory problem and is what Baudrillards theory of the Simulacra was all about. The p-
Zombie focuses on an epistemological undecidability which warrants belief beyond
understanding, while the Simulacra or map-territory theories focus on awareness. The
simulation that is not to be distinguished from reality is only as real as the creator of the
simulation exceeded the awareness or sensors of the individuals conned to believe in its real
nature, the map-territory is a method of reducing the complexity of what you see to what
matters. The plateau thinking of awarenesss is more of the map-territory kind, where a new
plateau clearly shows you what does not matter where before you thought everything might
matter.

Epistomological difference between reality and ideology

But deep down when taking a realist view, we have to acknowledge – despite all the theories
and models allowing us to do some predictions within the world we know – we still do not
know anything about the “reality” that hides behind what we see. We see as far as our senses,
thoughts and tools we invented allow us to see. But it is without a doubt that we might be
able to see much more in the future. On the contrary, a computer or intelligent machine
that we would design with todays knowledge of reality would only have a limited level of
“connectedness” with reality as such that there is a theoretical maximum view on the world
as it presents itself. At some point, it will stop to see more. Whereas biological systems have
the unique

The reality paradoxon with three simple examples

This is original thought of the author
Example 1: Continuous vs. Discrete
In mathematics, and in most school trained individuals minds, there are two clearly different
types of numbers. The natural numbers and the real numbers. Natural numbers are e.g. 0,
1, 2, 3, etc. Real numbers are equal to natural numbers plus an infinitute set of numbers
between each natural number, so 0.102312 is a real number and 4.23212312312312312 is a
real number. For computer science students it is fairly well known that real numbers can not
be expressed continuously in computers, but only in a “discretized” form. So between 1 and
0, there is no infinite number of numbers that can be expressed in a modern computer, but
only a limited and finite set of numbers.

Example 2: The finiteness of vocabulary

Having understood the difference between discrete – or somewhat natural – numbers and
real numbers – and non-discrete numbers – or real numbers – provides the basic
understanding for understanding the following graphics.

Graphic 1

Graphic 2

Graphic 3
Consider the entire boxes in each graphic, from 1 to 3, to be a continuous area – a two
dimensional area of real numbers, on a x axis and a y axis. All three graphics show lines to
represent a discrete subset of each box. Understood? Good.
Now we all know that every human being only has a limited number of words to express
itself. That limitedness is equal to finiteness. To avoid going too deep to mathematics, let’s
just say that is somewhat equal to our idea of a natural numbers from 1 to 100 both on the
X and Y axis (giving us 10000 points in each box). In the world of this 100x100 box, the world
exists of potentially 10000 words we could know. But the lines indicate that we only know a
small portion of each box. and the lines express the words we know. In the first example we
could say we know 2000 words, in graphic 2 the blue one still knows 2000 words, the black
one knows, let’s say 4000 words. And in graphic three, where blue turned black, the
combined words are a bit less than the combination of both (4000+2000), hence 6000
words. (Yes, you could be a wise-ass and count the intersections and deduct this from 6000).

We go into detail what this all means soon.

Example 3: The tale of flowers.

I myself am not a very avid studier of the flowers and trees of this world. In my head, there
roughly exist trees and grass. A student of botany might know somewhat like 4000 or more
different flowers and how to distinguish them. For me, my perception and my vocabulary
does not warrant me to know any more about botanic organisms as that there are trees and
grass. Some others might even know the exact species of an individual let’s say “flower”.
And some might even be able to tell their exact species and age – not too hard for a botanist
– or their exact location – given wind, seasons, light density, nutrients in the soil, etc. (maybe
better for a trained botanist).
The above graphics expressed the same idea. That our ability to differentiate with predictive
and replicaive accuracy phenomena of the world is somewhat varying among different
individuals and typically expresses in some form of vocabulary or stable and memorizable
notion of that phenomenon.

Explanations:
A. The words
Coming back to the three graphics, we are looking basically at two things. Vocabulary of an
individual A (first graphic and second graphic in blue) and an individual B (Graphic 2 in
black). We now go a bit further and say that only the intesections of the lines are actual
words that the individual knows. We can immediately see a two key things: (1) the number
of intersections of the blue and black lines is very small compared to the 100x100 discrete
space and (2) no intersections of both individuals overlap.

As to (1): The first individual only knows let’s say 50 (I didn’t count) words of potentially
10.000 words he could know in the discrete space. The second knows maybe 80 words. That
is very little and still a lot has to be learned by both. But more importantly, the physical world
is not discrete but continuous. The 100x100 can be interpreted as what is possibly known
by the time of the analysis, so the 10.000 words is what could be known by both given the
current knowledge of mankind. But both being humans, they only know parts of it. More
importantly, it is absolutely impossible to know the infinite x infinite (real dimensions)
numbers of possible words that would actually express reality in a continuous way. But at
the same time, humans never live in a discrete space, but live in a continuous space. To
acknowledge this we have to understand that it may be very very likely that we can not run
through walls, but it is not impossible. This refers to the possibility of quantum tunneling
through a wall. It is, from a probability perspective, possible to to do so, but practically, from
a statistical point of view, is very unlikely. Every scientific law we discovered so far works the
same way. It makes a simplistic assumption on the world that holds almost every time,
thereby reducing the complexity from infinite to something that we believe we can control
and predict by a simple equation as Newton’s law of gravity. Just to give an idea of why it
makes sense to create words at all: the complexity of the real world somehow reduces to
very simplistic models – that can be expressed in infinite words – that hold almost every
time. That is an amazing thing in itself.
But nevertheless all the philosophical issues with the concept of continuinity and
discreteness – our mind being discrete by nature -, the key issue here is that we cannot
understand reality as it is simply not discrete, but continuous and we are not able to think
continuously. Period. Our words and the number of concepts we understand will always be
finite. All solutions and algorithms we use to act and decide on anything will be discrete and
finite. Understood? Good.

B. Connections between words.

When all the intersections are now the words we know, what are the lines between the
intersections? In our model world they are connections between words. A big elephant is a
elephant. A black cat is a cat. Etc.
Coming back at the graphics 1-3, and knowing that blue is person A and black in graphic 2
is person B, we see that both have different connections stored between the words they
know and that both know different words. Applied to a practical context, both would not be
able to understand each other. But let’s assume life is a bit simpler and the intersections do
themselves intersect between both individuals in some cases and that some “lines” also lie
on top of each other. That is equal to saying that both individuals share a common set of
vocabulary and they understand connections between the words they know in a similar
fashion. That is equal to saying that they are capable in understanding each other.
Understood? Good.
The next aspect is to understand that the black line person in graphic two has a finer web
of understanding: he knows more words and understands more connections between them.
That shall be equal to saying the black person has a more refined understanding of reality
and knows more than the blue person.
But we also said that only some intersections intersect. This means that the blue person
understands aspects of reality that the black person does not understand.

C. The composition of both webs

In graphic three, both colors turned black. This shall indicate that in graphic 3, both persons
learned to combine their vocabulary and knowledge of relationships as to create a finer web
of understanding of reality – which still is the entire space, and continuous. So both blue
and black have now the combined knowledge of both worlds. If both now do compete with
someone that only knows the blue or the black world, they will have a deeper set of
knowledge and ultimately will find ways to use their knowledge of the lack of knowledge of
either blue or black to their advantage. Why? Because either blue or black only knows the
rules of either blue or black, which leaves either to have less options of behavior that the
now combined blue AND black.
That is the basic issue of knowledge combined with awareness that creates the ability of
those with higher knowledge and awareness to exploit those with lower levels. The critical
feature of the new blue AND black awareness is that they both completely know either blue
or black, and hence can predict the behavior of the blue or black individual, wheras the blue
or black individual both lack the knowledge and awareness and knowledge of the combined
ones.

D. The lion and the two bushmen

This can be explained in very simple terms with the lion against the bushman problem. The
lion has all the physical strength needed to overpower the two bushmen. He is stronger,
more aggressive and faster than both of the bushmen. But the lion lacks the knowledge and
awareness of the concept of a trap. If both bushmen know the lion will approach in the
afternoon and spent the entire night in digging a hole and covering the hole with something
that the lion is not capable to see, they just have to calculate the chasing trajectory of the
lion as to lure him into running over the trap. Once this achieved, the lion will fall into the
trap where he is slowly starving. Leaving a happy and healthy meal for the bushmen.

E. The bully, the weak nerd and the popular

A similar problem is that of the school yard. A bully has started to govern and rule the
schoolyard for the first two months of the first class in primary school. He beats up everyone
and collects his daily meal from all the weaklings. The weak nerd understood the problem
early on, being the first to be bullied and smart enough to think about it in detail. The
popular kid has somehow escaped the bully, since the bully first had to test its strength. But
after the first month, has fallen victim of the bully, too. The weak nerd is ugly and socially
unappreciated, and somehow failed to mobilize the forces of the group. It knew the answer,
but the popular kid somehow got more attention. After the popular kid started being
attacked, it mobilized the group around it to stand united against the bully. The bully was
overpowered and now the popular kid started to bully everyone, knowing it has beat the
bully and that nobody would risk to get the bully back on its hunting trail by abandoning
the popular kid. But because the popular kid needed to be popular and the entire scenario
fit it fell, it became vulnerable. The weak nerd started to befriend the bully and the other
weaklings now suffering under the popular kid. Summoning the loyalty of both the bully
and the weaklings, and being less driven by vanity and power, the nerd now managed to
use the group and the bully to keep the popular kid in check. The bully knew if it would
defect, the nerd would stop supporting it and the popular kid would win the war again, the
popular kid knew that it would get the highest return on meals and popularity if it accepted
the regime. And the nerd knew that everyone was best off, including himself, if the current
regime of his rule would sustain. Finally, the bullying and narcism ended, and everyone got
the best he could. Everyone became friends.
In this case, not knowledge and not awareness, but character decided the the ultimate
outcome. The weak had no interest in playing the game, just as the nerd had. The popular
and the strong being overly driven by their strength lead to a lower satisfaction of everyone.
By giving the bully his power over the stability of the regime and by giving the popular kid
sufficient popularity, everyone was well off and the regime stabilized.
This somehow summarizes the key aspects of politics and power in this book as they relate
to awareness. Overall, the nerd was most aware of his prime needs and kept them to a
necessary minimum, more than the bully and the popular, and knew that a fair regime would
make everyone best off. Allowing him to keep his food and everybody to have a better time
than under other regimes. Leading to what is known as checks and balances or simply a
regime that leads to an economic equilibrium – a stable state of the system that warrants
no system overthrow and leads to the pareto efficient allocation of rents. The concept of
intersecting intersections in the graphics above explains why cultural heterogeinity incites
creativity in groups, organizations and socities: the cultivation of distinct views and
vocabularies, each entrapping different understandings of the world and their clash in the
process of assimilation creates a deeper and more fine-grained understanding of reality. It
also highlights while dominance and hierarchies in groups that lead to monolithic cultures
is suboptimal for group success. Because the merging of these webs does not occur, but the
leaders force their potentially different-minded inferiors to just adapt their web instead of
creating a merge of both worlds. As a result, the group reduces its understanding,
knowledge and awareness of reality rather than feeding of the superiorty of a merged net.
That is one of the most common pitfals of all integration processes in groups that are visible
in societies, relationships and company cultures.

Sidenode: For those interested in epistemology, the finiteness of vocabulary, concepts and
ultimately memory of humans and collectively – assuming finite humans – implies that life
as it is consciously perceived is discrete. And if all problems we understand as humans are
formed in a discrete world, this implies that every problem that can be posed is solvable by
a finite state Turing machine. Probably a topic for another book, but becomes relevant to
the chapter on chess and the elements of hacking culture found in this book. For every
problem with a finite state space representation there exists a shortest algorithm and if
determinism is abandoned, there exists a shortest path algorithm that provides the minimal
sufficient result. At least in the context of what science calls internal validity of a theory. But
since humans create solutions and protection mechanisms within the scope of internal
validity, every system is hackable. That is the key concept underlying hacking.

Beyond epistemological awareness

The previous part focused on epistemological awareness. The boundaries of knowledge and
consciousness perception of parts of the reality that are memorizable and to some extend
confirmable by the view of others. The other part of the awareness debate in philosophy is
about a different concept of awareness.
In principle, this other part is focused on minimal information-based decision making. This
means that awareness in this context has to be understood as the ability to perceive and
use the simplest concept that is needed and sufficient to solve a problem effectively. If there
are million ways to solve a problem, there is one way that is the most effective for every
situation. And if there are million ways to solve a problem, there are other million ways of
not solving the problem. Since our human brains are somehow wired to be limited in their
ability to operate on very complex problems, the key to winning games using awareness is
to be aware of things others do not see and use this knowledge to find a faster and more
reliable way of winning the game. Since I do not own the copyright on any of such best
solutions, I provide an artificial example. Think about roughly half of the human population
trying to find the perfect mate and they all use many many different strategies to do so. But
what if there is one way, e.g. by squaring the space of the eye, adding a weird number and
relating it to ones own eye calculation with a different number over some esoteric number
field or ring, then this yields a perfect match. This sounds reasonably simple to do and
esoteric enough to not have anyone on this planet already having found the solution. The
first person that is able to use this formula has it a lot simpler than everyone else. And how
did he identify this solution? By looking at things the right way in the right dimensions. Let’s
look at some more awareness games that should outline how important the right view on
things and awareness of what is going on matters.

The tale of the two man and the lion. Why do the two men who are physically weaker
than the lion capture the lion? There are many answers: machine guns, nuclear warheads,
etc. Let’s assume the men have not yet found any weapon and all they have is a lion coming
around in twenty minutes and they have a shovel in the middle of the Sahara. The lion will
eat them easily, being stronger, faster and more hungry than they are. But the two men
devise a plan. They dig a hole and prepare the scene such as the lion will chase them and
fall into a hole. And – god bless – this is exactly what will go down. Why do the men win
against the lion? Because the lion in his plain rage of hunting will not see the hole covered
by sticks and the they will know how to get the lion to chase them down the trajectory where
they put the hole. The lion lacks the perception that they have. They have an awareness of
the lions behavior whereas the lion doesn’t think of a trap being placed. That happens quite
some times in the plains where Lions live.

The tale of the king and the barbarians: The tribe never really had to really find food and
go for hunting. Rather the tribe lived in peace for centuries and all the food they needed to
survive was falling off the trees. A sophisticated society emerged and they already had
comptuers. At some point of time, a clan of barbarians that had a less fortunate physical
environment and had to conquer its food for centuries invades the the clan and kills
everyone, eating everyone and eating the food. That happened quite a lot in history. The
tribe lacked the awareness that there is more to survival than living and prospering.

The solar system. All the stars formed for ages and everything was fine. One planet was
even producing life and highest forms of intelligence. Then a super nova came out of
nothing and wiped the entire solar system. That happens, too. A black swan? Someone saw
it coming and left on a space ship.

The smartest guys in the room. A few guys coming from physics and developing great
mathematical models to make a lot of financial profits at ease suddenly went bankrupt. Yes,
that happened, too, in the case of Long Term Capital Management. They lacked awareness
of something. Google on long term capital and why it failed to get answers. All are somewhat
trivial.

Another smart guy. Came to play big power politics in the post Bolchevist revolution, was
well trained, was an intellectual and smart. Had everyone behind him. Then got
outmaneuvered and exiled from the country. The new leader was a weirdo with good
rhetoric skills and ruthless habit of doing what was necessary to get rid of opponents.
Happened, too. Stalin against Lenin.

The thing about dinosaurs. Some religious fundamentalists in the US are supposedly
always claiming that the earth was created by god few millennials ago and that evolution
is a joke. Public media always cites scientists opposing this view. In fact, nobody knows. If
there is a god, there is no way to claim that it is unreasonable that he created earth or the
universe a few thousand years ago and making it appear as if there was something as an
enteral path of development given our current presumptions. The truth is: nobody knows
what happened even 500 years ago. But under the assumption that we see the world today
as it appears and assuming this appearance as we understand is is correct, we can claim that
it is implausible, under the assumption that no such god exists, that anything was different
before. But to claim that as scientific truth is idiotic as much as claiming that it has to be the
case that everything was created, because it is written in a book. In fact, nobody knows what
happened. The sad thing being, any proclaimed scientist claiming he knows what happened
is a bad scientist, because he can only outline his premises and hypothesis and claim if they
are true, that it is unlikely that things have been as they appear. Everything is a hypothesis
until proven otherwise. Period. Anyone caring about joining such arguments and
denouncing believers as idiots is likely an idiot, not a scientist. All we can claim is that we
have an opinion and that we have a set of premises to support it, without knowing if the
premises hold for any time longer than the moment we state them. Having this Popperian
view on science, as a science of constantly being confronted with the risk that everything
assumed was wrong, is a more mature view. We just don’t know reality in that sense. But
yeah, nobody likes to say he doesn’t know in front of someone who doesn’t know either,
but claims to know. It’s just a social thing.

There are no houses in physics. Another interesting concept that relates to awareness is
somewhat hidden deep inside modern idealism and you stumble upon in Heideggers works.
At some point in time when local complexity and chaos as found in our brains and intelligent
life forms is going really high, structures emerge as “ideas” that otherwise don’t exist in the
universe. Intelligence creates such structures. It is statistically impossible that by the mere
laws of macro- or microphysics – and without intelligence – suddenly two hundred houses
of the exact same shape and form randomly emerge across the universe. But intelligence
has the feature of detecting, memorizing and replicating such forms. Those forms are overall
inert to the laws of the universe. They do not self-replicate with the universe and are
disconnected and protected by the intelligence from the overall forces of the universe. This
concept is a bit tricky. But if you assume that intelligent biological life is fully integrated and
part of the overall physical reality we life in, we can assume that we will always be sufficiently
adapted and if something very drastic happens and suddenly something new is showing up
that violates all previously discovered laws of the universe, intelligent life somehow still
would evolve to adapt – hopefully. The same is not true for non-general artificial intelligence
that always relies on the uncovered knowledge at the time of being. A robot designed to
see regular light as humans do and uses image recognition to move around a known
physical space would not transcend this state of being and adapt to something new if this
was happening. If light would suddenly cease to exist, it would not function unless it finds a
new haptic mechanism to move safely in space. Humans would most probably still be able
to find a way to get around and moving.
2.1.7. Dimension 7: Sloterdijk’s Socio-Emotional householding,

Sloterdijk’s bucket concept is a framework that may be relevant to understand why we

create coping mechanisms. Coping mechanisms are trained behaviours that help us cope
with a specific situation that otherwise would put us off balance. Coping mechanisms can
focus on changing our perception of the situation or changing the frame with which we
encounter it, they can result in us attributing a different view on the outcomes and their
meaning of the situation. Also, coping mechanisms in social situations similar to those
used to overcome fear can be created by extensive exposure to the situation. Most of
these aspects are discussed elsewere in the book, however. The focus of this dimension
rests on motivating concepts around situations.

What Sloterdijk proposed in his book on Time and Wrath was that each of our affections
and sensations are buckets. An example he gave was the frustration bucket. According to
his writings, we collect frustration in various situations and these frustrations accumulate in
the frustration bucket. If we are individuals that collect a lot of frustration, this will influence
our ability to function and will likely lead us to need to release our frustration. The core
concept of his theory was that we accumulate sensations in these buckets and we are
developing habits and activities to manage the accumulated level of sensation. A person
that has accumulated a lot of frustration may either release this frustration in e.g.
participating as a visitor of sports events where he will release his frustration in the form of
aggression towards the opponent team, or the individual will release it by joining martial
arts activities or by joining a heated political group. In the worst case, he writes, the
frustration is released in environments were it should not be released: e.g. in the family
where it translates into family violence and unnecessary arguments.

The theory, to my knowledge, doesn’t relate to active research, but it is an inspiring way to
look of how we cope with sensations and their impact on our self-image. The idea of
accumulating key emotions – such as aggression or frustration or love – and the need to
release them or ceasing to function properly , hence the idea of requiring an equilibrium in
the emotional or sensation household is somewhat appealing and can help understand
behavior of others. It is not too unobvious that individuals trained in martial arts and extreme
behaviours as a hobby are more relaxed in general.

What Sloterdijk wanted to express is what these mechanisms do when looking at entire
populations. He tried to understand and explain what happens to a society that has a known
inability to build socially accepted habits, e.g. around aggression management, when these
aggressions are collected and suddenly start to unravel in a collective manner. Of course,
his theory somewhat is easily related to the German nature. Germans typically are
understood as controlled and rational individuals. When , on a sociatel level, aggressions
accumulate, Germans tend to move towards extremes all of a suddon, when too much
aggression has been accumulated. The same problem is lesser known in the US, where
competitive sports, military organization and workplace behavior is more likely to be feircle
competitive and creates opportunities of releasing stress.
A culture generally more aggressive hence tempts to be less extreme when things go wrong
for a longer period of time.

So far to the theory. Applied to individuals, our ability to function normally somewhat is
related to our ability to manage such potentials. When looking at stress, it is clear that
individuals who suffer from high levels of stress and an inability to release stress are more
likely to suffer from health issues. At the same time, the perception of the stress situation
itself influences the way we accumulate stress. The very same individual in the very same
situation may experience different levels of stress depending on his perception of the
stressfulness of the situation. If we combine this well-established understanding of stress
with the works of Sloterdijk, we get a clear understanding of how such accumulated
sensational potentials affect our lives.

By becoming better at managing the impact of a situation and sensation on our

household/potentials, we reduce the need to create habits to cope with these sensation. At
the same time, when we are unable to reduce the portion of accumulation of sensation in
each situation, we will have to react by creating coping habits or we will eventually “snap”
and become less functional.

When assessing others and their behavioural risks, it his hence useful to understand both
concepts. What are their habits and hobbies and how do they relate to the management of
these sensational potentials. And given the existence or lack of these habits, what is the
perception of the individual of the specific situation as to assess its impact on its rationality.

A person without stress habits but clearly receptive to stress will likely suffer from over-
accumulation of stress. This will lead the individual to release the stress either in its personal
environment – which is bad for its social development – or it will show symptoms in the
strategic context of this book. The reaction to such situation is simply.

A person that is too rational and hence a threat, must be forced into a situation where its
coping mechanisms do no longer support the situational pressures and the person becomes
vulnerable due to the level of e.g. stress. If the person is likely to seek perfection in the
strategic context, the effect will be a deterioration in the personal life and hence the loss of
emotional support from its personal networks, making it more receptable to manipulation
in the strategic context. Or it will unload its imbalance in the strategic setting, making it
explicitly losing value and power in the strategic context.

Or the other way around, if a person if strategically relevant and likely converted as a
supporter, but suffers from syndromes that are related to over-accumulation, the goal is to
coach the individual into creating habits and changes of perception that make the reaction
to sensations manageable for the individual. This requires the creation of trust, the moving
of symptoms from private life to a strategic environment shielded by privacy and trust and
hence leads to the opportunity of solving the issue in the strategic environment. Thereby
creating a loyal follower.
2.1.8. Dimension 8. Projecting, brokering and providing value

Value and status play a huge role in seduction and some power games. This dimension
casts light on the key dimensions of value that are communicatable: capital, capability and
capacity. And what kinds of value interactions exist. The key understanding is that value is
being communicated before it is extracted. And that value extraction is a key underlying
concept in social interaction, where the value might simply be dominance and exploitation
for one person.

Society attributes certain traits and qualities to people displaying a certain behavior. To
know these attributes and to manage them and cultivate them makes you valuable to the
shallow. And if you are good at it, even to the right people. The principle is trivial and
everyone thinks to understand it. But thinking again of masks, snobbism and the fallacies of
thinking big, it becomes clear that this is harder than it appears. The mask might fit the
wrong people, the mask might be approved by those that don’t know the mask and you will
be a snob to those that actually wear it, or you are trying to excel at building value where it
does not matter. Something that “pick up artists” that focus a lot on this suck at. If you aim
is to pick up a woman, you goal is not to master any form of creating value, but just picking
up the girls you want at the least effort possible. Once you over-do it, you are losing focus
and your goal-oriented behavior becomes an obsession. Or who had the initial goal of
picking up every woman he met in life when he decided to learn this artistry.
With this in mind, let’s look at key aspects of creating value.

Projecting environment specific value in the form of social and cultural capital
A good read on this particular subject is Pierre Bordieu’s work on the French social elite in
“Cultural Capital” where he focused on material objects and cultural memes used in French
social elites to identify their own amongst them. The book is interesting, because it invites
the reader through its plasticity. Focusing on material objects and specific memes and
cultural references makes it easier for the reader to understand the mechanisms that underly
the attribution of “class membership” and the associated values attributed to the class. This
basic principle is old and found throughout every socially isolating system in the world.
Freemasons use handshakes and gestures and symbols as codes, bankers talk about specific
memories and extreme situations and their pedigree-loaded resumes that initially invited
them to the circle. Something found in initiation rituals that build on creating experiences
that are aligned and comparable among its members. The mechanism appears less opaque
when studied in specific environments, but it holds true for every social situation. An
individual wears a mask that can be composed of mimics, gestures, mindsets, moods,
clothes, memories, biographical stations, personal connections to specific people. The
deeper a person is rooted in a specific social identity, the better it will perform in this exact
social environment. It will share the same memories, beliefs and opinions that the outer
image and behavioural traits invitingly portray.
This alignment with a specific group would be best referred to as identity capital or group
capital. It is called capital, because the alignment has to be learned and acquired and then
remains under “ownership” or possession of the person having this form of capital.
When Bordieu talks about cultural capital, he refers to a form of such group capital that is
not confined to a microcosmic group such as the Freemasons, the left wing political party
or the clerus. But because it is a form of capital that is somewhat shared among all groups
in a larger cultural setting – such as national culture or “the Western” culture.
Combining group-specific capital allocation and behaviours with what psychologists call
group conformant pressures and you have a clear idea of how personas that are highly
adapted to group capital and then manage to portray status can warrant loyalty of people
belonging to the group or people who – out of whatever sane or even nonsensical reasons
– want to be part of the group.

Brokering general value in the form of capacity

Capacity is different than capital. Because it is not something “possessed”, but something
“acquired” only and to be maintained. And it is something that becomes more relevant when
leaving the social circles and their attribution systems. It is the form of “cultural capital” you
start to possess when you see the entire world without any identity driven differentiation as
one large pool among which you have to convey general value. It could be called “naturalist
capital”, because it is based on anti-relativistic believes that there is some general form of
capacity that will help you survive in any situation. Just as a gun, if fast drawn and perfectly
aimed in a short time will have you win the argument against an individual, or strength and
ability in fighting will put you generally at better ods in a direct fight without weapons.

Providing value by being valuable

Both accumulating and having great capacity does not really create value. It creates the
perception of potential value. In the end it is the decision to act upon capacity and leverage
projected value to enable actions that do create value. For either yourself or others. So while
the prior value drivers created the ability to act. The action itself creates value.

So what form of value creation are there?

1. Leeching: The term comes from P2P networks where a leecher is someone that
simply downloads a lot of data from networks that are based on people equally
sharing and being shared to. This “artform” of personal value creation is using the
“can’t be easily detected” mechanism. It is a persistent and typically stable form of
the economic term “free riding”. Free riding typically implies you are able to gain a
benefit for free by using a weakness of the system. This can be an overly naïve or
generous individual sharing his meal with you, a bus driver not checking tickets and
allowing you to ride the bus for free. Or it can be persistent free riding or leeching
where the system is set up in way that you can continuously free ride with zero
probability to be detected.
Certainly, free lunches, abilities to free ride and leeching are very capable
mechanisms that allow individuals to build “capital” and it builds some capacity in
detecting and exploiting these opportunities. Spending ones life living entirely on
such opportunities is certainly entertaining and fun enough for some to be
something worthwile to pursue.
All concepts are similar to the economic term “arbitrage”. Arbitrage is different to
them as an arbitrage opportunity will fade over time – increasing the value of getting
 caught – and there is absolutely zero risk of being punished, wheras leeching, free
riding and the exploitation of free lunches is in general something considered “bad”
if one is being detected doing it.
What units all these malfunctions is that they invite the public, that means anyone,
from exploiting them as they are simple system malfunctions that command
exploitation. But, of course there are also system malfunctions that can be uncovered
by individual talent and are not open to anyone. Those are the opportunities that are
created by using deception and sophistry. They also work using malfunctioning
systems of checks and balancing, assymetric information or lack of oversight, but
they require active interaction with people – deception - or gate keeping devices -
hacking - of the system. The level of exploitability is hence to be negotiated with
individual and unconnected elements of the system by using methods that have to
be learned.
All these forms of “value creation” are in the first sense value transfer mechanisms
that create value for the person that takes the value lying openly in the wild, while
value creation takes place later when the person having collected “capital” from the
exploitation to actually create something of value.
2. Value Bleeding: This is basically the exact opposite of the former. Someone that has
the capital and capacity of creating value is creating value or transferring his assets
to someone without getting something in return. This can be done willfully with a
specific intention – altruism and philantrophy – or without any intention – idiocracy.
Or it can be done without will or knowing, when someone is being exploited by either
lacking attention, being pressured into the action.
What defines value bleeding as much as leeching is the lack of reciprocity and hence
the lack of social contracting that lies behind it. This is what distinguishes value
creation – something that always is done when capital and capacity is exchanged
under contract – and value transfer, where total value is not created in the act of
transfer, but by the use of capacity and capital later on in value creation. Value
bleeding is very common in todays markets when people blindly buy products they
do not need truly and overpay for the product. A common scenario in value bleeding
with the intention for later value creation is the transfer of value from parents or
benefitors to their children or persons they protégé.
3. Networking: Networking mixes altruism and leeching. Networking requires you to
give something and it is only possible because there are no protection mechanism
in place to prevent you from networking. Networking is a give and take. And contrary
to the popular believe that networking is about acquiring contact information and
acquaintences, net-working is actually about working in networks. Work always has
been putting in effort or energy to create something new or to create value.
Networking hence is putting in your time to identify others whose to give your capital
and capacity to get something in return. And this is why there are three basic forms
of networking:
- Bleed networking: A form of networking where you are giving capital and capacity,
but you do get nothing back. You are being free-ridden. And it is what happens if
you are not able to control the return of favours.
- Effective networking: The form where you give and get back.
 - Leech networking: The form where you get something but hardly return anything.
4. Mobilization: This finally is the form of networking that bears most value. It is not
focusing on getting more value from others like leeching. It is not about giving more
than what you can get – ineffective/altruisitic networking – and it is not about doing
the networking task over and over. It is when you start to build stable structures of
networking among people with whom you network while at the same time managing
to control the networking activity.
5. Institutionalization and Politics: In principle works like mobilization, but instead of
building a stable network that grows slowly by the interchange of value and effort
via the enabling individual which is you, you are either committing people to the
mobilized community via building an institution – a club, a company, a party,
whatever – or where you simply “hijack” an institution that already exists. The
institution provides means and methods to align and enforce the collaboration. IT
makes it harder for people to leave the mobilized community, but also makes it
harder to onboard new people in the network, as institutionalization also means
organizing the distribution and interchange of “benefits” exchanged. The practice of
“networking” or working via transactions of mutual interest where both parties in the
agreement collaborate freely is being replaced by some forms of authority, legally
binding commitment and responsibility and managing the political landscape that
pops up when people do not get what they want and have to give what they not
always want becomes a stronger factor. Due to hierarchy and clear roles, power
hierarchies and interest spheres become static, creating the classical dichotomy
between strong and weak that have to be managed.

Institutionalizing or locking in interests and rents

Since institutions remain the de facto forming environments of unrivalling powers, it bears
mentioning that building institutions and using them for once advantage is at least as vital
to success today as any other tactic and it is of utmost importance to not confuse institutions
with legal forms of social organizations only. Sure, termsheet discussions, foundational
documents of a company, the jurisdictional choices and the crafting of powerful NDAs using
lawyers who are on top of their game are important for entrepreneurs. But these forms of
institutionalizing contracts certainly do not explain the entirety of social institutions and
phenomena such as organized crime syndicates or dictators rising to power. In the same
way as simply managing power politics will not explain the rise to power, although reading
Machiavelli does make you believe this.
Institutions operate via contracts – written, oral, habitual – and organize both the
distribution of income and suffering. Institutions are meshed forms of inter-individual
aggreements that ensure everyone acts in the interests of a group in an enforceable way.
The ensure that the subordinates of a leader are keeping each other in check, each losing if
they are defecting the leader and that the leader is bound to the social contract not
defecting against its subordinates. These contracts must allow a sufficient dimension of
freedom for everyone to display a set of behaviours, but must have a clear “cap” on behavior
from which on the entirety of the group must settle univocally and without doubt for
punishment of the individual.
The institutions also must assure that all critical members of such an institution must benefit
substantially from the existence of the group and that a subset or individuals leaving will be
worse off than when sticking with the group. How else would someone similar to Stalin or
Mao have managed to rise against an established power system already in place apart from
mere luck, force and opportunity. Some form of invisible binding contract among a
subgroup of the establishment must have agreed upon overthrowing the establishment and
getting better of when doing so. While the lack of supervision and the freedom to exert
excessive force might be a driver for organized crime organizations, the systems in place
still must somewhat be stable enough for the leadership organization not destabilizing the
system. Anyone in an institution must know what is exoected and that performance is
sufficiently rewarded. And even in a fully legally organized company, the laws and
institutions of power may differ greatly and must be managed and optimized in their own
respect. And mobilization or lose network that does not institutionalize at some point bears
the risk of falling apart and taking away the entire rents produced by the collective effort.
2.1.9. Dimension 9. Capital and Hustle
Capital and hustle are two completely different forms of how to extract value. One is
focused on building visible value to bargain in transactions using statuts and power –
capital – and one is based on maximum capacity in transactions that require little capital,
but the right amount of capability. Both ways to approach transactions strongly differ.
Which is why they are covered her.

While understanding how capital and capacity create opportunity for value creation, there
is also a general misconception on value creation that is found throughout any form of
literature. And that misconception itself is lending itself from the fact that whoever writes
this literature, does not have anything better to do. You typically do not write literature out
of boredom. But out of lack of opportunity. In relaxation phase.
When you look at the concept of a hustler, this person has no time to think about grooming,
arranging and selecting symbols of power or how to pretend. A hustler is always busy and
operating in value creation where he sees opportunity. He might not be most intelligibly
about choosing wisely which opportunity to focus on for long term return, or he would not
“rather think an hour about how to make money than work an hour for money”, as John D.
Rockefeller said. But looking at a hustler from this perspective and thinking he is a fool is
about as far from truth as you can think of.
The hustler is a man of statistics and energy, and not necessarily one of learning. He
continues to do the same thing over and over again, falling and standing up, falling and
standing up, falling and standing up. Untill he gets what he wants. While this is bad strategy
at gambling in lotteries and casinos, it is a powerful strategy in normal life situations.
Approaching more and more people until you make a sale, find a victim, find a partner and
friend, never accepting rejection as an issue but simply looking for more and more
opportunities to eventually break through is the spirit of hustle. And the deeper insight
about this is that it works. Even if we always repeat our mistakes over and over again, we
will statistically have a success once in a while. And understanding this feature of life and
the need to be persistent in trying again and again and never backing down from past
failures and experience is the key takeaway of hustle. If this is combined with learning and
eventually strategic allocation as in the previous chapter, it is likely to bear fruit.
Apart from statistics, hustle is about energy and the absence of relaxation. Let us consider
about the world where symbols, capital and display of capacity matters. If you are young
and under your thirties, you will think about social comparison in social situations such as
at work, in your free time, when out hunting for personal treasures such as winning the heart
of the opposite sex or enjoying the sun. When you read too much literature, you might think
about the lavish meeting spots of elites and rich individuals that dress up for balls, cocktail
parties and general networking events. People in these visual images are not hustling. They
are relaxing. And that is exactly where the idea from capital comes from, as this exactly is
what capital is. The power obtained via institutional discrimination that protects rents and
income for lazies and relaxing folks to allow them to finally relax and stop the hustle.
A huge mansion or castle somewhere on a massive estate is a simple and easily understood
form of capital. But unless this mansion is actively sold as securitization and just is boring
old private property, it is simply dead capital. It is inactivity. And the likelihood what is going
on within this castle will be inactivity. Or activity that has little to do with hustle and value
creation, but is all about relaxation, sharing the feeling of being bored and making the best
out of it by enjoying doing nothing. If this was all there was, it would be an epitome of lack
of opportunity. Or a hideaway point from opportunity. If this is what the affluency of the
individual buying the estate was all his life was about, then there is likely no way he will want
to spent any more time creating value or hustling, but all about using other people hustling
for him to give him the freedom to remain relaxing and doing nothing. This doesn’t seem
in line with a person that amassed this kind of wealth. And so this person either gave up
and exited the life that drove him all his time on earth. Or it is merely an insurance and
security for the future when things go wrong. More likely, he will limit the immobility of his
wealth and use the remains to create more value.
So what can you learn from this? In the actual world of value creation, capacity and action
matter by far more than projetions of value. The entire meaning of capital or projectable
value comes from its working on outsiders that are not part of the value creation process of
the individual. The house will in no sense increase the efficiency and merits of the actions
of the individual buying the house. But it will send a signal to individuals not in contact with
the person that there might be a reason as to connect and create value together.
This sounds true and simple. But it should be a groce reminder to anyone that does think
about projecting value for the sake of projecting value that all the projection serves merely
the purpose of facilitating actions of value creation by building better networks. Or as it is
stated in Louis Ferranti’s “Mob Rules”: The boss of a mafia family takes his power from the
acceptance by his family. The mere position of being the boss does not imply any power or
meaning.
The same is true for capital. And likely the result why dynasties are hard to build and
maintain. Capital commands capacity and ability to act on a level that sustains the
symbolism behind it.

The resulting key issues

The key consideration when assessing how to employ hustle and capital is that of managing
energy and constant business against taking a step back and thinking forward.

Exploiting hustlers.
There is basically no way to exploit hustlers, except to keep them hustling with strategies
that statistically never work. If you think of a workaholic as a hustler, keep him busy with
tasks that mean nothing and keep him aligned with thinking that this is what he needs to
do to survive. Keep a cushion as reward for the activity, but keep the cushion and reward
low and unimportant and the activity and energy flowing into meaningless things. Wear
them out by giving them more and more meaningless tasks and opportunities and watch
them go insane eventually. But only very dumb and unaware hustlers fall victim to this for
long. But it is the easiest way to keep them out of the danger zone and eventually have
them leave the environment where they are a threat. A hustler that doesn’t control the
environment that he hustles in is indeed always losing. If you are a workaholic like this,
maybe just quit your job and figure out what the other did to make you work for him and
repeat that. The world is abundant with workaholics.
2.1.10. Dimension 10. Happiness and vibe

The first dimension focused on understanding the differentiation between social roles and
inner self, the second dimension about the need to find a path to walk in live and the
necessity to take always the biggest steps possible, the third talked about how value
exchange and the building of stable value brokering social connections creates
opportunities. These dimensions all followed a rationalist approach to creating value and
opportunities. But it would be wrong to assume that human life is all about rationality and
rationality is the door opener to all opportunity.
There is a forth component that focuses less on tactical and strategic plays, but on
something that underlies every moment of our lives: vibe.
Terms you find in the history books are happiness, contentness, being comfortable and
grateful with one has achieved and the associated social impact of likability, charisma,
vibrance, gravitas. Writing about the history and the potential meanings of these words
would kill this book. And I assume almost nobody truly knows how to describe happiness.
The goal here is to focus on something much simpler: vibe.
The vibe is something like a feeling and social feel a person creates in the people he meets
and that is – if people would ever talk about this among each other – aggreed upon and
commonly understood by those people around the person. It is something that radiates
from every person, in fact, and is colored and defined by how this person feels and sees the
world around it itself. So how can we understand vibe.

The individual constitution that creates vibe

Vibe is something that does not communicate willfully via gestures, words or actions. This
is an issue that people of very high standards in moral can likely relate to. Even being the
most moral individual may still allow you come off as shrewed and bitter, something that
the world literature liked to write about excessively.
Vibe comes from a few core dimensions that define and render a human being.
▪ Energy, not in an esoteric sense, but in actual energy a person has, as expressed in
its awakeness, attention, focus.
▪ State of mind or the perception of the outside world and how this person
▪ The mental frame and its stability with which a person dives into social environments
and the general consistency of its “core identity” in all these environments.
▪ Confidence as a tactful – not overdoing, not underdoing – demanding of something
out of the socially acceptable reasons or at least such which can be enforced as
plausible and grounding
▪ Emotional state and mood.
We talked about personas and the need to fit into social environments, and about

Live is about so many things, but when it comes to other people it is about giving them a
good feeling, reactivating their passion and potential and sharing love. Sympathy, empathy,
vibe, and aura.
Some people just want you to t a psychological image they think they crave for.

An inspiring artist, a caring lover, a dominant leader, a young and childish individual.
Head versus feeling
One of the core rules anyone learns when going out and meeting people is that two things
matter most. Frame control and the ability to stay out of one’s own head. Vibing is about
transporting feeling and these transportable feelings end in the moment when the head
starts kicking in.
Vibing is hence about following the pure feeling, uttering instead of intentive talking and
transporting the frame not by controlling it actively, but by having it stabilized via
experiences, consistent behavior and having people around you that perpetuate this vibe
and self-image.
When turning on our brain, we immediately lose the deep touch with other people’s
emotions via the empathy channel and we start to have barriers that we should not have.
The microseconds we need to assess a situation with a head destroys the entire reciprocity
of co-development of emotions.

So what is vibing?
Vibing is the act of using communication on all channels to increase the situational and
emotional comfort of everyone involved in the situation. It is an act of transporting and
raising energy and trance in a physical environment or room. It’s what happened when you
played Pharell William’s Happy or Justin Timberlake’s Can’t stop the feeling or ABC from the
Jackson Five on a dancefloor. When old people drop their walking sticks and start dancing.
The feeling transmits among all group members and elevates the entire level of relaxedness
and enjoyment of the group. People start to enjoy each other’s company more and become
more mutually accepting. A vibe is not controlled or created using role-plays or make-
believe games whose rules have to be adhered, but is related to a nakedness in showing
ones true, unfiltered self as part of a high-energy and high-emotion group with complete
lack of conflict and self-defense mechanisms. The dionysic energy as it unfolds.
Vibe relates to the idea of social calibration, where you are able to be aware and actively
sense the energy around you in a situation and where you are able to increase this energy
by providing more energy.
Vibes are frame-independent and transmit to everyone in a larger situation without anyone
needing to drop his frame or current situational group setting. It just transmits beyond
groups.
Vibes also do not work on autopilots and destroy them, keeing individuals active, observant
and participating with the group vibe, switching brain activity to their right side and leading
to dopamine

Party Crashing as a good example of vibing

The art of party crashing is the art of transforming the energy of a physically bounded room
with very heterogenous people in it. The art of entering a party where you basically see
people without vibe playing games and being insecure about the outcome of these games,
and making people drop their weapons and protection by releasing your energy into the
entire group is some kind of perfection of the art of vibing and is known as party crashing.
Party Crashing alone is usually a bogus thing to do. With two people it is still different, since
two individuals are either pathologically in love or they are still in need to communicate with
others. Three people are certainly enough but it still makes it hard to vibe an entire club.
Apparently, once a certrain treshhold is given you may start a massive vibe depending on
the size of the party or the environment. While you may not vibe a group of 400 people
unless you are the DJ or the performer, you may very well be able to crash a party of around
100 people if the location permits by your mere presence and ability to keep the entire you-
group in the appropriate vibe.
It still requires proactive and engaging behaviour of most group members and a
homogenity of the group regarding value. Only if you are in a group larger than 5 it might
be attractive to carry a low-value individual in the group and make it have a good time, too.
Party-Crashing is an interesting concept because it focuses on groups rather than personal
benet. You will not vibe necessarily with a group of strangers, unless you manage to vibe
with a group in the rst place - if you came alone - and even then you are lucky if the group
itself is homogenous enough such that the group you vibed will vibe on equal level with
you. This is why if you come alone and want to crash the party you may want to approach
groups that are homogenous in their conduct and that bear the ability to vibe accordingly.
The more disparity in the group members, the higher the risk your vibe will lead to a shism
between the original group, which will hinder the full energy of the group being released.

The key takeaway is that people drastically differ in both: discipline and endurance. Almost
any success story of our time focuses on discipline: hard focus, fierceless and long-term
pursuit of a single focal point of interest and excellence in this field. Something that also
hits the hitlist of recruiters that are looking for excellence in sports, academics, or wherever.
And endurance as it is defined by normal people in having a strong eventually brain-
damaging diet while still functioning well and heading for daily sports routines. But overall,
both elements are easily overlooked in their true form: working towards a goal with focus
for decades while being resistant to the most demanding situations such as war, humiliation,
exploitation, etc.
Training for endurance by constantly chasing high intensity moments and mastering them
with the highest level of clarity of mind, and remaining focused on disciplined in getting
ones task done are key learnings. The ability to produce anchors – discussed later – to re-
tune-in into the correct frame for the situation and remaining dominant is critical.
2.1.11. Dimension 11. Stochastics, Determinism, Rhythms
Stochastics and Determinism
There are two very distinctive battle fields and two approaches to them. The first being one
with incomplete knowledge and lack of sufficient competence, with very low impact on your
future if you do something wrong. This is the stochastic battlefield. The stochastic battlefield
is all about numbers. The more often you play and engage and eventually lose, the more
likely you will hit a win occasionally. Street seduction, irrelevant social meetups, weak co-
workers, family members. People like to test their strengths and capabilities in such
environments where no real threat to the long term integrity and vision exists.
The same holds for picking fights among non-aggressive people, taking minor calculated
risks to drive up the adrenaline.
The other side of the coin is that of deterministic plays. The risks typically are substantial
and the strategy covers from the largest risks and aims for the maximum game. Here actions
do have impact on the long term dynamic and vision. If you go for speed racing in an urban
area with many cars and you want to run on the highest speed, running through red lights,
full spead taking turns, then you are in the deterministic world. F1 race driving is
deterministic to some aspect. Picking a fight with 5 thugs is deterministic. And playing
games with the mob is deterministic. Hacking government agencies is deterministic. And
marrying is somewhat deterministic. Deterministic battle fields are characterized by winning
them to the maximum level possible and there is no numbers game that makes up for it.
Losing your hiring negotiation will be detrimental to your income and job prospects. You
cannot re-negotiate every month. You also cannot strong arm and lose in negotiations in
any organization all the time. The key goal in deterministic strategies is not to lose. And to
level up the risk to the level you can control it. Wars and being in the battle zone in general
is a deterministic endeavor where death is a real risk and you have to rely on your training
and skills to make it.

Rhythms
Both stochastic and deterministic battlefields are not attacked with constant intensity. You
just don’t play street seduction games on every person you meet. You don’t permantently
negotiate and attack. Rhythms is about focusing energy on windows of opportunity and
taking time to relax in the position you have. Somewhat opposed to the ideal of the hustler
that always hustles, the relaxation is not only an opportunity created by capital and
ownership of security, but a core strategy in a specific environment. Hustlers can continue
the hustle because they always shift their focus on an array of things, hustling every thing
only for a short period and moving on to hustle the next thing. When focusing on one
environment or one thing, one strategy, hustle stops to work and the need to take a step
back, switch a gear down becomes relevant. Being fully focused and energized when the
opportunity presents and somehow learning to ride the wave of normality and being your
best self in the moment only comes with enough relaxation and rigorous prior training.
Everything in social life appears to follow the need of relaxation and understanding the
rhythms of opportunity and draughts that invite relaxation and reflection is another key
principle of life that has to be understood. The alternative is becoming restless and distached
from rhythms, lacking the peak energy when the situation demands it.

Timing
In stochastic games, the right timing is hit by statistics. But in deterministic games, timing is
something that becomes visible, controllable and that matters. The first to hit the
opportunity when timing is right is winning the situation. The first company that serves a
market demand when it emerges is winning the early majority of the market and can lock in
loyal customers. The first that reports to a boss about a relevant project or that talks about
a problem that needs to be solved sets the tone. Everyone else will present something that
has already been presented and will become a hassle and lose the novelty and value of the
act. While this sounds similar to the rhythm principle, timing is more about timing the
reaction to the rhythm. There is always a too early, a just right and a bit too late. And the
person that identifies the right timing first and acts upon it best is winning the entire timing
exercise. Two hustlers trying to hustle the same person when it is ready for being hustled
and the second hustler will gain nothing, because the first already took what was there to
be taken.
2.1.12. Dimension 12. Discipline and endurance
One of the clearest accounts on discipline and endurance that I found so far was stated in
chapter three of Robert Greene’s Strategies of war. Endurance is there described as the
ability to resist the emotional pull of the moment. Or keeping your strongest frame and
highest level of ability in the moment when it matters and – simply speaking – “shit hits the
fan”. That does somewhat fit the dictionary definition of endurance, but is far away from
what advertising teaches us. A similar story that caught my attention is the mere numbers
game of Chinese high school students that is a perfect definition of discipline: a person that
is not able to sit down and focus on the task may not be unaware that the task he has to
accomplish is necessary to complete for his future success, but other interests, perceptions
of need and emotions prevent the individual from sitting down at the desk. Chinese students
are disciplined out of one single and common sensical reason: they compete with roughly
50 million other Chinese students that all want to get into the top 20 schools in China and
around the world. The clear understanding of the significance of one’s task certainly helps
to eradicate the viewpoint on how to deal with the emotional side of studying hard.
If you combine both you have a deep understanding of what defines our success. Discipline:
as the ability to focus on what is relevant and to show the level of commitment over a period
of many years. And endurance: as the ability to remain calm, fully focused, at the top of our
capability, in any situation where shit hits the fan. So Chinese high school students heading
for their gaocau are disciplined. But they are in no way enduring, as sitting down to read
books is not really of the level of intensity of being in a battle field, surrounded by bullets
flying around in the air and doing what needs to be done in the most effective and most
focused and clear-minded manner. Endurance in this sense means ability to cope with
highest levels of stress and potential anxiety, fear and emotional turmoil in any situation.
Robert Greene cites internal discipline and toughness as the foundation of being prepared
for hard moments and therefore endurance. Endurance is learned and earned by practice,
experience and suffering.
2.1.13. Dimension 13. Human core dimensions
Time to get to the core of any human being: the essence that we hardly control and that
always defines us. There are some key aspects that philosophy has tried to reason about
that underly everything we do.

State of Nature
The state of nature debate in political philosophy always asks how what Thomas Hobbes
coined the war of everyone against everyone as a natural state to either exist or vanish.
Independent from any discussion and motivation, it is clearly pessimistic to assume that
everyone always plays power and domination games, but it is at the same time naïve and
idiotic to claim that it does not happen all the time. What motivated the debate was always
the wish for a less pessimistic end state of the world where these plays do no longer exist.
But none of them acknowledged that we have or might some day achieve such a state.
Power games are simply a part of reality on independent from understanding why and when
they appear, we have to acknowledge that they are ephemeral in our lives.
Nevertheless, some theories might serve some people as rationalizations for their own
behavior and the behavior they observe and they might influence the stance they take in
playing these games. Reason enough to run through the core concepts.
Hume: blames the never satisfied wanting, inflated selfishness and lack of generosity as the
key root of injustince. Following him, controlling want would solve all problems and learning
to restrict oneself as well as learning to be more generous and less selfish would be.
Somewhat putting him into the philosophy of Stoicism and in some sense buddhism.
Getting rid of anger and managing to control oneself would reduce ones inclination to be
injust.
Kenneth Waltz: Claims that people in general are not bad, but have the sin of never
knowing what is being right to a sufficient extent. So why everyone wants to do the right
thing, the right thing is not always the right thing. So even the most benevolent and well
meaning political and ethically inspired figure can become a tyrant that doesn’t deserve to
lead, but being blind to his own fallacies. In that sense, Waltz is the most pessimistic by
claiming that even those most just and inspired to do righteous may do wrong. It is clear
that he wants to frame a theory where peace and a just mankind ill never exist. In this sense
he is in line with post-structuralist thinkers and Plato’s cave.
John Rawls heads a similar direction by saying that people simply lack foreknowledge of
the benefits of acting less exploitative. But leaves the hope for those that think that we can
be teached to be just.
Rousseau: Thinks that we are born blank slates and that we are simply being culturally
imprinted into behaving in immoral ways. Maybe true to some point, likely partially false as
the behaviouralist school in psychology that believes that everything has been trained and
can be trained. To some parts, biology and genes may play their role. His approach taken
serious would require us to slowly transform society to become something better and we
would all of a sudden experience a more just world.
Kant: Believes that telling ourselves to do just a bit better in every situation by asking
ourselves to think of the Kantian imperative in every action would lead to a better world and
eventually a just world.
It bears mentioning that all authors in this field worry about the ethical correctness of
political leadership and do not see simple goal seeking and merely individual claims for
power as the core platform under which to assess human behavior.

State of Politics and Ethics

The simplest answer to all debates on the state of nature is to assume that we are always
having Hobbesian elements in society. The only answer then is to enforce just behavior
which always leads to the core political issue: Someone good or just has to do bad things
do dominate the bad to install a better regime than would exist if he would not
dominate the bad. (Macchiavalien view vs. the good only do good / idealist view).
Coming back to Waltz, nobody knows who is good and what the good is. Or: nobody knows
effectively if what he thinks is good is good or not. Some authors (among which we find
Aristotle) claimed that tyrants are the worst, they don’t understand the justness of a society
and simply fight for their own benefit, but they also have the power to do good if they are
good at it. Crowds or entire peoples in democracy appear in conense to know a bit better
what is bad and what is good, but never beyond a certain level. Which is why they are neither
too good nor too bad. At least not for elites. And the philosopher king that is the best of
everything but doesn’t exist again if we follow Waltz.
When power structures in that sense stabilize and institutionalize, we are looking at
governance, a “system” that transcends the installment of power structures of a short-lived
individual or group.
And that leads to ethics, the believe that one has to look at justness from as many ancles as
possibles to justify a particular action that is considered good or bad.
All that believes in the absolute, but we all know by now – at least since we had the post-
structuralist movement, but actually since Plato’s cave or even before, that there is no
absolute knowledge. We then have sentiment based theories of justice as Adam Smith
provided, saying that the ethical intelligence in a group or society is overall smarter and
better than a universalist and simplistic ethical model as Kant would provide.

Summarizing everything so far, we can see that Hobbes’ war of everyone against everyone
is likely a permanent feature of nature, that politics attempts to explain how power is used
to create governments that reduce the painful forces of this war state, that anyone with
power and any form of government suffers from the inability to understand the just and
hence will always bear guilt and do unjust things. What remains a clear indiscernable aspect
of the entire architecture is one thing: power.

Power
Nietzsche: The fundamentals of “reality” of the individual Nietzsche spoke about the lust
for power. What he meant was that humans want to get the most out of their lives and use
every opportunity there is. And the ability to use these opportunities and expand the power
is at the core of human life.
Plato spoke of the human being as one of reason, which is nothing but the utility
maximizing economic agent. The question is: what constitutes reality as it is and what
should constitute reality. When someone else talks about the political animal that humans
are, he refers to the will to power combined with the will to establish justice in groups – as
opposed to justice in one’s own world only.
Overall, power allows us to form the world to be just in our own eyes. And whether our
concept of just is that of all and of mankind or whether it is ethical in some sense doesn’t
really matter if the person with power sees the world as just for himself. We can now form
the idea that everyone wants a just world, but that the perception of what just is is radically
different. But at the core, we might want to turn the world into a place of justice. Even worse.
The higher our need for justice, the higher the propensity that we will seek power to enforce
justice. Remember the naïve in the introduction section, their feature might be that they
see the world as just just enough and themselves as having too little power to make it more
just. So they are reasonable in the sense that they have little idea of how injust the world
around them is. And thereby making them likely more just individuals that others seeking
power in their need to make the world more just.

Evil in this sense would be someone that does not believe in his acts of power being just.
Not evil, but in no sense less diabolic is the individual that wants to establish justice for all
and fails to understand the best possible and just world (coming back to Waltz and the sin
as our incapability to see the deeper and absolute truth). This brings us to the core problem
of politics: even if the most inspired, hardest working and most aware is striving for the
justest world of all, that individual will ultimately bear guilt in an ethical sense, not having a
complete knowledge or reference point of referencing own beliefs about justice against
something absolute. That fallacy of realism and idealism to never epistemologically capture
the whole truth. A political person hence one that strives for the best for the sake of all
knowing that no matter what the effort to be just one will overlook issues or one has to
take a one sided view and hence leading to the disadvantage of some. Ethical nihilism being
the resignation of relevance of the entire attempt to be just under the absence of a
reasonable measures to ensure one’s own concept of justice is just, and ethical realism
being the acknowledgement that we all have to simply try our best to do as our best and
understanding the epistemological problem as one of society. => The implicit claim being
that one is capable of understanding the best possible world as it can be understood right
now, and refraining from what is knowingly bad, evil or unjust. Selfish and purely self-
interest-driven – and hence apolitical – the individual that ignores the thought of the
interest of others altogether. You easily get the idea of how complicated power and politics
are, and how easy it is to assess individuals that further self interest over politically ideal
visions of seeing self-interest as a way to further just politics and use of power.

Morgan Scott Pecks evil Person

Morgan Scott Peck came up with an easy featureset of evil persons that, of course, has to
be taken with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, it does resonate towards senses on some level.
Peck provides the following features:
1. Consistently self-deceiving, with the intent to avoid guilt and maintaining the self-image
of perfection
2. Deceives others as a consequence
3. Project own evils onto scape goats while being normal to everyone else
4. Hates the pretense of love and closeness, for the purpose of self-deception
5. Absuses political and emotional power
6. Maintains a high level of respectability and lies incessantly in order to do so
7. Consistency trumps magnitude of the sins
8. Unable to take the viewpoint of their victim
9. Has covert intolerance to criticism and other forms of narcissistic injury
The ultimate insight here is that evil exists and that detecting it and acknowledging its
existence is something we have to take into account and to some extend take as granted.
Implying that disginguishing good and evil. Despite ourability to fully grasp it, is a typical
feature of how we evaluate actions and people and that it makes sense to do so – at least
if we believe into our consciousness somehow being attached to some absolute. (Bringing
us to a shallow notion of the devine that goes beyond Pascal’s probabilistic argument for
god: “Even if God only exists with almost zero probability, the suffering of inifite pain if hell
exists warrants the belief in it.”.)

Nihilism and the noble lies

Reduction of complexity by charting maps and creating Simulacra – simulations of the world
that replace our image of the world – are not only possible fallacies of seeing the world as
it is as a realist. They are also powerful methods of effecting behavior. Pondering the entire
complexity of every action we can perform in any given moment would freeze us into
inactivity. So naturally, we think in simplified models of the world. Economics has always
been focused on detecting such simple models for the economic realm and basing them on
the empricial observations. In that sense, building a world view and opinion of how things
work around us and using them is critical.
But no less important is the self-empowerment of such simplifications. Simplifying the world
using such models and holding on to them even if they might prove wrong may in some
cases be beneficial, because it keeps us inspired – some may need God to still continue
living, some may need to believe in their success to make the leap forward – and keep the
system that worked for us for a long time and helped us succeed in the first place alive –
which is likely the sole reason why slowly and subconsciously emerging moral systems
around the world remain the way they are, why cows are sacrosanct to some and not to
others. It is likely true, that given unlimited time and desire for knowledge and the right
mood to inquire on an issue, that anyone with a solidly grounded opinion will be able to
convince someone else that his view on the world or his hypothesis is somewhat correct.
But even if this is the case and someone holding a working believe system for himself may
lose such an argument, it may still mean that he will hold on to it gladly.
So while some authors swear off of this irrealism, and while this book stressed the
importance of realism earlier on, it also has to be acknowledge that building noble lies
around us is the only way we can survive. And the design and crafting of the right lies
become the most empowering tools we may have. The concept of the nobel lie is from no
one else than Plato himself. These lies will remain deceptive and going contrary of what any
true sceptic may hold acceptable, but they are what constitute meaning and stability of our
believes and – as we discuss later – mental frames we need to survive in this world. These
lies can come in the form of everything that we are capable of storing around us. The
trophies from high school that remind us that we have been competitive athletes or
mathematics prodigies. The tombstones of a banker that remind him of his superior
transaction experience and that his position in finance is justified and founded on merit. The
electroral positions held in political organizations. The images of our family that remind us
of good times. The believe that we are supermen, rich – bank accounts – and that we have
every right to use our money to get our will across the board. Every noble lie that when you
explore it deeply might be debunked as completely nonsensical or at least partially
inconstrued adds to our ability to function and continue life. And are likely that one last
bastion that prevent us from being nihilists. While this concept appears trivial. It can be
observed that most social situations where such lies come to the surface, they open ground
for arguments on who is right, which is nothing but a test in the confidence and strength of
the believe of someone else. IN such situations, men often forget that their lies are
completely irrelevant for what they are doing when the lie is caught. So understanding noble
lies are not always worthy to defend, but they have to sacrosanct and holy for as long as we
see fit is an important aspect that will have impact in this book and in your life. And when
value in general is created or social interaction takes place, it is always happening in the
shared view on the world and hence based on a required shared set of lies about the world.
Last, but not least, this entire book is a noble lie in the sense of lies-to-children as Jack
Cohen and Ian Steward would call it.
2.1.14. Dimension 14. Machiavellism in Psychology
Finally, we come back to the Machiavellism that inspired this book. Bearing in mind that
the core principle in Machiavellism is that any means necessary are acceptable for a rule to
further the common good. Something is easily misread as a free-pass for any means
necessary behavior that furthers individual good only. Something that is generally
considered as amoral and anti-social behavior. This small difference of what the behavior
serves in the end makes the difference between what we can Machiavellian and what we
can simply call anti-social. In that sense, this book teaches more about anti-social behavior
than it does about Machievallist political behavior.

A. Motives for Machiavellist behaviour

Over the course of this book, we will discuss ways to increase our leadership ability and ways
to exploit others for our own purposes, as well as ways as to prevent ourselves from being
exploited. The idea behind this is that all can be learned and trained. And that it makes sense
to learn all this.
But when reviewing the literature, it is easy to spot three individuals that will likely be visible
in this game taking a leading position. (1) Normal people, (2) Machiavellists, (3) psychopaths.
The first category, (1), is defined by people that overall cherish the idea of a world that is
not focused on exploitation but on justice and conformity, but who are smart enough to
understand the relevancy of Machiavellism and keen enough to dominate and win the game
as to study the behaviours and enforce them when needed. T
he second category, (2) Machiavellists are individuals who likely enjoy adrenaline and
influencing others, having not an immoral, but amoral view on social behavior. They enjoy
the world of opportunities opened by deviation and see it as a challenge to master this
game. This desire then leads to characteristic of Machiavellistic behavior and forms stable
traits and life concepts around this vision. They like to take risks and to have control of them.
The third category, (3), are not really enjoying exploitation, but they are born with a clear
lack of stress and emotional reactions. Being then what we would call sociopaths, they lack
feelings, ambitions and visions. These types of individuals seek high stress and high risk
situations to eventually feel anything or will start to resent others having feelings and will
chose to be immoral. They naturally get nothing out of exploitation, but understand that
they can control others which gives them a feeling of adequacy in a life where they have no
control over their own emotional reaction.
Of course, there are also sadists, partly sociopaths but having intense feelings all of a sudden
they start to humiliate and exploit others. A sadist with very high impulse control can be
very similar in behavior to category (3). Combinding sociopaths and sadists, we end up with
psychopathological individuals who are so deeply incapable of relating to moral behavior
that they either end up being moral or immoral.
Coming to motives, (1) is likely to have moral goals and motives, but uses non-conformant
behavior to achieve their goals. (2) is likely with a clear motive to dominate at all costs when
the power is there and they seek to maximize their capability and power. There ultimate
motive is power, as more power means more interaction on a challenging level. (3) finally is
without motive, but a result of the emergent factors that form them throughout the years
to become players in the game. As they also do not fear death, but also do not get a thrill
of coming close to death, they are the most unpredictable and the least to be intimidated.
Where (4) is likely to be the most crual when capable to be so and most threatened when
power and humiliation ends, which may trigger the most impulsive behavior of all and
making them bad enemies once they have obtained enough power.
I would assume that most people in middle- to upper management are at best of category
(1), lowest management levels likely being the most open spot for (4), (3) being the most
likely to be leaders in very high risk environments such as criminal organizations. (2) is likely
to form leaders in many organizations and structures. The key to working with each kind is
to read through each individual and then devise a game plan. Intimidation of force is likely
to work on (1), but be a welcomed challenge to (2). (3) is not open for any bargain or
negotiation but will be working on self-interest only and play its cards well, outshining in
situations where (1) would not even be in and (2) would likely calculate the risk as too high.
Which is also why (2) can be kicked out of any organizational game by having it under-
estimate the social backfire of the situation. Lastly, (4) is likely only to be controlled by taking
away power. They are risk-averse, will go to their full length to keep the status quo, but will
clearly back down when they see the risk of backfire and exclusion.
More likely is whenever someone comes of as warm and a good person, you are looking at
(1)s. When someone comes of as a person of respect and standing, it is more likely to be a
(2) or (3). Someone known to be ruthless and cold is morely likely to be in category (3) and
(4). The person everyone wants gone due to his social dominance and exploits is likely to be
category (4). Whenever someone is known for having very cost intense and high-risk
hobbies such as fighting with bears, surviving in the most dangerous natural environments
and who likes to push people over the edge and fight superiors, you are looking at a (2).
The way to discover these types is something everyone has to learn for himself. But these
traits are so stable and defining the individual that they warrant a clear separation of the
types.

B. “The Triad”: Narcissm, Psychopathy and Machiavellism

This part mainly serves the detection of traits and supporting the classification of individuals
in key classes to assess risks and strategies of strategically operating on these types. The
theories are inspired by “The Dark Side of Personality” edited by Virgill Zeigler-Hill and
David. K. Marcus

The Machiavalist:
Psychology had its own take on studying Machiavellism as it comes through in Machiavellis
and for example Sun Tzus work. They have three classes of people at offer which makes the
classification in a a bit tougher to use in practice.
They define the following characteristics:
Machiavellian Egocentricity: a ruthless and self-centered willingness to exploit others.
Coldheartedness: affective detachment from others, manifested in the absence of deep guilt,
empathy, love, or loyalty
Fearlessness: a paucity of fear in anticipation of impending danger.
Social Potency or Social Influence: a propensity to enjoy influencing others and to relish
being in the spotlight
Rebellious Nonconformity: a tendency to flout traditions and defy authority.
Stress Immunity: a relative absence of manifest anxiety in the face of harrowing
circumstances.
And somewhat debatable: Carefree Nonplanfulness - an insouciant disregard for the future.
And Blame Externalization - a propensity to adopt the victim role and to blame others for
one’s life circumstances.
In general, the Machiavellist individual appears to be selfish, planning and strategic, caution,
expedience, self-interest driven, cynical, callous, manipulative, deceitfull, but clearly lacking
the impulsiveness of the individual that suffers from Narcisissm and Psychopathy.

The dark triad. Paulhus and Williams examined the dark triad of Narcisists, Psychopaths
and Machiavellists in detail in order to disgintuish the three traits of narcicissm, psychopathy
and machiavelissm. What they found is that is that grandiose behavior is more common in
narcists and psychopaths, rather than machiavellists. This grandiose behavior expresses in
more inclination of impulsiveness and the overclaiming on knowledge (narcissist/self-
deceited sophist), over-estimating ones intelligence (sociopaths), whereas Macbiavellists are
more realistic in attaining their goals.
Generally speaking, it appears no wonder that narcissists stand out in grandiose. More
interesting is that recklessness, impulsivity, over-confidence and self-deception are not part
of the orginal conceptualization of Machiavellism. Machiavellism in general appears to be
unlikely to predict behaviours, crimes or malvolance associated with (a) recklesnsness or
impulsivity (e.g. petty theft, street crime, drug-related crimes); (b) reactivity/emotionality
(e.h. domestic violence, physical abuse); (c) social pressure (e.g. drug use, vandalism); (d) ego
threat (Ie.g. responses to insults, angers); (e) sadistic desires (e.g. internet trolling, buckels,
trapnell, coercion); or (g) low socioeconomic status, prverty, or desperation (e.g. robbery).
Not because Machiavelism would predict moral objection to these behaviours, but the risk
and reward ratio simply makes little sense.

In that sense, Machiavelists are not sadist – use it to identify sadists – or self-
deception/gradiosism – use to identify narcist. And they are less likely to act impulsive – e.g.
more common among psychopaths. But they are very focused on long-term goals – also
not too revealing for sociopaths – and

The receptivity of the Machivallian brain

Remember that sociopaths don’t emotionally react. Supringinsly – or not – Machiavellist
types do not eithy er. But they also do not show extreme cognitive empathy. At least not in
general studies that focus on representative samples rather than successful ones. What was
becoming clear in research is that reaction and capability in brain regions rewarded with
pain and reward seeking were present (caudate, pallidum, putamen ; emotion surpression
(insula); social strategizing (orbital frontal gyrus, superior medial frontal gyrus, middle and
superior frontal gyrus), social learning (right hippocampus and left parahipocampal gyrus).
Situations with potential benefit via being opportunistically selfish without punishment was
typical. Machiavellists did behave more fairly in cases where emotional bonds existed – as
opposite to sociopaths – and punishment was likely. In general, reaction of Ms was stronger
on pain associated with suboptimal behavior in financial decisions, They just “care” more
about the optimum, wether it is a trained trait or genetic.
Machiavellists are less likely to engage in individual-directed situations. Such as engaging
in individual-directed situation, such as privately helping others and engage in these
behaviours less often when under increased scrutiny of authoritarian control.
2.1.15. Dimension 15. Agendas
Last but not least, we should acknowledge that everyone in life comes with a more or less
defined agenda. And it is absolutely pivotal to understand and reach an honest
communication about agendas with whomever we interact with. Sometimes it is self-
evident, sometimes it is hidden in between the lines, but it can also be completely
obfuscated.

When reading resumes or when engaging with people, we typically assume an agenda and
by assuming the agenda, we see a fitness for a current purpose.

2.1.15.1. Meandring and Stable Career Models

One Goal, One Path Life Strategies

- Politicians / Judges / Doctors:

Very clear path, very competitive, little related exit options. Will accept a lower
outcome, as long as they stay in this domain. Typically, motivation is not purely
intrinsic reward of the actual work, but secondary benefits from perception, standing.
Also need the guidance and likely not very interested in looking beyond the outlined
paths for life style models.

- Banker/Consultant / Academics:
One clear directional choice, early assumption on why this is right and the motivation
is either becoming (a) skilled, (b) well-earning, (c) pedigreed in a competitive
environment.
Will pursue a consistent resume building strategy to slowly progress to a fairly known
outcome. Also typically competitive, but character is a bit more diversification seeking
considering possible exit options in case of failure.

- Visionaries:
Risk takers understand the global domain skill pool very well and build their own
roads and paths focused on specific learning targets. They might pursue tech careers,
jump to consulting, then do an MBA and go banking, to then move to non profit to
political stage. Typically, their agenda is hard to measure and they do not reveal it,
but you can read it if you clearly listen to them and are open to hear the story behind
every move. They might look like meandering, but they are in fact chasing a clear
goal and take a substantial higher level of risk than the prior two examples.
They understand the power of connections and networking on this paths, cultivate
heterogeneous skillsets and networks, but clearly are driven by achieving maximum
mastery in any step in their resume before pivoting to another career path.

They are risk averse in the sense that their mid-term and long-term outlook on life
factors in the inherent risk of building a homogenous and known career model.
 They are the most likely candidates for entrepreneurs if they allocate resources,
networks and skills on the way.

Meandring, unfocused-goal oriented:

- Unguided Opportunistic Growth: Some people jump from good to better

opportunities, focused on learning or experience, without clear direction and drive to
follow one particular path. Typically very smart, fast learning, very passionate,
enduring and focused on maximizing opportunity while remaing adaptive. The ever-
growing challenge and their feeling of superiority by being top tier candidates in any
domain they jump into, and by being able to leverage cross-functional, inter-
disciplinary skillpools is what drives them. They, however, do not have a clear goal
ahead of them and might make pivots that would not fit the visionary from the first
category.
Since they lack a clear goal, they also lack a clear exit scenario and break point on
their path. But they are most likely to have a clear exit scenario and break point in
every step of their career. They will leave any kind of relationship after and will
leverage the opportunity only until marginal returns diminish. Then shop for new
opportunities.

- Experience Junkees: Similar to opportunistic growth, but the goal orientation is

clearly not forward looking, but opportunity driven. Their core belief is stronger
focused on the now and their ability to survive independent of what comes. Might
work for Google, then academically, then on an island resort, then travel advisor in a
remote country, then DJ, etc.

Non Goal, meandering and focused:

- Independent: Wants to work independent and from everywhere. Needs to be very

good and marketable at something truly enjoyed. Typically do freelancing, low-risk
reward start-ups, and will learn to stand on their own feet. Taking the risk inherent.
Some might even just leave society for a while.
Also very similar to “grand coup” individuals who choose low-impact positions to
work on a grand scheme / disruptive breakthrough. Niklas Luhmann is a classic
example.

- Variety Junkee: Cannot keep focus, always need something entirely new to learn
and grow and become bored after a while. Doing something different is the only
thing that keeps them feeling alive.

The rest
- The Security Types: They just want to have a job, a stable income. They have no
interest or ability to learn about the risk of their strategy and will try to establish a
secure position at one company, not being too ambitious and staying on spot.
Possibly taking small risks in promotions, re-assignmens but overall want security in
income, security in location (don’t want to move), security in work life balance (family
 oriented?) and are low treshhold for excessive employer demands (no weekend work,
no travel until 11 pm every day, not 75%+ travel positions)
- The haunted: They somehow want to be richer and more prosperous and show
largely more potential to go the extra mile than the Security types. But they have no
clear goal or understanding what life is doing to them. You hire them, give them a
goal, and demand from them. They follow suit and are very averse to losing their
jobs, having no clear vision what to do after.
- Leave me alone, man: They maximize on their own mix of independence, stable
income, work-life balance and career progression, but in general want to not work
and leverage the weaknesses of their employers. If they find another employer that
leaves them a bit more for the same overall condition, they will move. Otherwise they
will try to hustle themselves to higher paid jobs and will use all their power to keep
work and demands off their back. Eventually reaching a salary level that is sufficient
and a work life balance that isn’t too much. Those are the typical mid to senior
management positions in corporates with no real top ling responsibility. The G&A
guys.

2.1.15.2. Reading and Leveraging core and non core agendas

Core vs. Non-Core Agendas:

The Core Agenda was described above. It is a long-term stable agenda that defines the
human being over its course of its life and defines what a person understands as overall
advancing or disadvantaging its agenda. This typically includes money, growth, ego,
stability, etc.
The Non-Core Agenda is more situational. If a person understands it can learn more about
e.g. marketing, or about playing people against each other, or managing complex projects,
they will jump on it or not and thereby may defect from the agenda of the group that lets
them in.

Leveraging Core vs. Non-Core:

The first thing one has to understand is that people are not leveragable based on their non-
core agenda. If you take one opportunity away – a bonus, a promotion, a learning curve in
one area – they will simply find another one. Untill all such opportunities deplete and the
role is re-evaluated from the view of the core agenda. Non-Core agendas must be managed,
however. They can be very beneficial and are typically used in political plays inside an
organization. A manager or strong political player might open an opportunity for a short
term agenda and explain its value to the core agenda to move the individual to take the risk
of potentially defecting against the responsibilities and core function that individual has in
its role. A supervisor or someone with his agenda that does not like a particular non-core
agenda, might use a threat to the overall opportunity availability on non-core, or might even
threaten the core agenda of an individual.
The leadership challenge is to understand if an individual has an intrinsic value to the
company and the core agenda should be supported, making the non core agenda a field of
play for managing the individual. If an individual is not fit for the company, playing against
the core agenda is used to manage someone out. On the other side, if the core agenda of
the individual is not meant and it is likely to leave, the adoption of the role and responsibility
to fit the core agenda may be a viable strategy to keep the individual from defecting. But
that of course, requires a very solid understanding of the core of that individual and the
options it has on the table to leave the group.

2.1.15.3. Managing your own agenda

The same reasoning also is relevant for the individual. The higher the ability of an invidual
to understand its core agenda and to build the roads and options to follow this core agenda,
the more independent the individual is against the manipulation and leveraging tactics of
groups. With such independence, it is usually possible to open up a better bundle of non-
core opportunities that further the core agenda. And of course, being well fed and core
agendas being met, one is more respected by peers. If one uses the non core agendas and
opportunities to align well with the powerful individuals, more opportunities arise and the
core agenda might even be advanced. Overall making any mid-term stay in an organization
a win-win for both parties.

If you as an individual are bad at defining your agenda and creating options, you will start
any position with a bad negotiation, dissatisfying you on core and non-core opportunities.
That not only destroys motivation, but ruins the value proposition you have in any
organization. Makes you a cynic, a hard to motivate and control element in the group and
an overall element that cannot be used for the agendas of others. Kind of sucks in you into
a bad life trajectory and likely reduces your options down the line.

And yes, it is par excellence the definition of a cynic that lives a life he didn’t want and being
treated below ones capability and self-worth. Without doing anything about it.
2.3. Methods

2.3.1. Methods of Self-Improvements via Method

2.3.1.1. Mission Statements
Mission statements in self-development are equal to formulating desires states. States can
refer to behavior, beliefs, habits, achievements, actions. Visualizing and noting down desired
states and steadily searching for improving the understanding of the ideal states and
correcting false believes is the core to self-improvement activities. This itself isn’t easy and
requires some long-term work to eventually come up with a core agenda, a clear list of what
you want to do and not want to do. It’s an evolving document that defines your core concept
about life and what you want to do in it. At some point having to ask the either/or question
that Kierkegaard wrote about – Kids and family or no kids and family. Etc.

2.3.1.2. Protocolling and Logging

Protocolling and logging is the process controlling part of the development. Writing diaries,
protocols and notes and protocoling behavior that should be observed more closely allows
to uncover invisible patterns, mood and perception shifts, and allow to track changes
triggered by taken actions and to monitor these changes against desired target changes.
Some people write blogs, some people write books, some people write novels, some people
write in notebooks, some people use their partner and ongoing discussions to remain fluids.

2.3.1.3. Hypothesizing and Confirmation

Mission statements, logs and strategies are all based on hypothesis based thinking. A notion
or short term understanding sets the agenda on a particular topic. Having an agenda on a
topic does not imply the agenda is the best agenda to currently focus on, or that the
underlying assumptions of the agenda – a bad original state and an area of improvement
with a dedicated goal – is always correct. The ability to fine tune agendas and mission
statements and the focus of logs and protocols to achieve a certain state is driven by the
ability to formulate the correct hypothesis and finding the best and fastest way to confirm
or debunk the hypothesis. It also means that one is able to see and react to the fact that a
topic on the agenda is mis-managed, undervalued or completely forgotten. And it means
to have a right perspective on what level of impulsivity and long-term planning is required.
Overly obsessing about such agendas and goals is likely also as bad as not having an agenda
at all. Exploring the sweet spot in dedicated and structured self-improvement is as much
desirable as it is an art.
Some people just formulate a goal and then go after it. That is probably the definition of
determination. And the consistency and strength that lies behind it is called drive. But of
course, even then there will a point or fork in life that will warrant a reevaluation to choose
the known and priorly envision path or fork to the road not taken (Robert Frost), And it also
will make you re-think your drive and time you give yourself to to things. Reminding you of
Robbert Herricks objective to make much of time before the rosebuds lost their bloom. It’s
just understand that confirming or rejecting hypothesis and changing course isn’t equal to
giving up. Just as continuing doing the wrong thing is getting back up on the horse quickly.
2.3.1.4. Strategizing
Strategizing is now the application of chess to achieving mission statements. It is not only
coming up with ad hoc and untested milestones, but understanding when milestone plans
work and when they don’t. When they need to work and when they need not. When they
require something else that is not yet given, etc. And building strategies that bring you from
A to B given your current set of achievements and skills and access to paths.

2.3.1.5. Pathology Elimination

A pathology in this context is a trait or behavior in doing or thinking that is not optimal and
to some extend abnormal and would serve a better function if eliminated. This can include
ticks, self-sabotaging behavior, misperception of a situation, a generally blurred and ill-
filtered view on particular phenomena, a false belief system. Understanding and exhaustively
identifying pathologies by self-observation and listening to cues and direct feedback from
others, by comparing to successful idols and individuals, and by using the relationships
introduced below – a process of self-awareness development and self-calibration – is a key
task in pathology elimintation. A huge part of psychology, self-help and self-improvement
is focused on identifying pathologies, identifying the desired alternative and getting from
eliminating the pathological behavior and installing the correct behavior. Some simpler
pathologies are simply eliminated by changing behavior and training new habits or
changing the mindset, some require more sophisticated changes of enabling habits – such
as more sports to increase healthy body posture and lower some forms of ticks and mood
swings -, and some require guided introspection and self-work and the help of a
psychologist or even psychiatrists – if drugs are required.

2.3.1.6. Role Models and Emulation

The most powerful and successful people are almost always not within your range. Or those
power in your range don’t want to help you. From the time on we are born we are learning
many behaviours by observing role models and by emulating their behavior. From the very
far distance. That isn’t the same as having a more warm and close contact and we can always
misread these role models or overspend our time in listening to the artefacts and
information trails that they leave behind. Something that probably happens too often when
someone wants to be the next X (Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Barack Obama, Napoleon,
etc.). And one should always be very aware of whether the interest in such a role model is
entertainment – e.g. Admiring a Mafia boss but clearly rejecting the idea of killing someone
is probably entertainment – or education – interesting to see how they think, possibly testing
behaviours, but not following the individuals path – or actual role modelling (might work
for cherishing Steve Jobs claimed paranoia – want to do the same thing and put all bets on
one horse (might work for a state leader deciding to study law in the right city).

2.3.1.7. Coaches
Coaches are people that satisfy the “been there, done that” criterion and belong to the best
of those that did it there. For affluent individuals, getting an expert overview on a particular
subject is as simple as calling an expert service company and booking 5 hours of expert talks
on the phone and a clerk to summarize and synthesize the information. Some coaches might
assess you in detail, show you your flaws and guide you towards overcoming these flaws.
Having such coaches for specialist situations can be a critical milestone in achieving a
particular goal in the fastest way possible. Coaches show the fastest way, cut all the crap
that otherwise would have to be sifted through and get you to the level of goal achievement
without extra hassle. They work best when own blindspots and lack of awareness in general
are standing in your way and reading a book isn’t your thing. Or you need a push to do
something or you need introductions to new circles and environments.
Coaches are less likely to ask you if it makes sense for you to attain this goal, but are experts
in achieving a specific goal and get you there.

2.3.1.8. Mentoring
Mentors are bit different from coaches. They are there to provide a more general result that
is not attained by a short phone call or a day at a seminar, but that requires consistent
monitoring and improvement in smaller steps and typically there is a shared interest such
as that the mentor gets something out of it, too. The role is more of a facilitator that a
support role in achieving an agenda. They affirm and teach what is required so that the
person mentored can make the progress himself. This only makes sense where making this
progress is part of the achieving process.
Overall, mentors are more reactive to the individual that is mentored and have attained
something that is more difficult to attain, supporting on the process and asking if the
individual mentores is ready, fit and if it works for him. Typically, mentors are more
interested in the success and progress of the person they mentor whereas coaches are more
interested in the success of the mission and eventually payment for what they created.
Mentors open more doors and might be interested in longer term relationships to capitalize
on the fruits of their mentorships.

2.3.1.8. Suitors and Proteges

Suitors are individuals who want you to achieve and get ahead without necessarily knowing
what you are doing and how you should do it, but who provide you with resources to get
there. Maybe because they admire what you do and want to give the resources they have
as an offer, but they most likely know less about the value of these resources than you do
and it is up to you to use them. This can be a steady pay check or investment, a positive
outlook and affirmation of your believes, a trust in your capability. Anything that helps you
to get ahead without actively helping on the task.
Proteges are suiters with a stronger own agenda and who see symbiotic interests in your
achievements and theirs. Proteges can have several roles from suitors, mentors, coaches and
advisors, but their core goal is to support you – at least partially – on achieving your goals,
as long as it advances their own agenda. This is the most typical situation of someone that
stands tightly or directly above you in hierarchy in an organization and wants to see you
play a part in his strategy. It can be someone who wants to build you to play on his agenda.
Or someone that protects you from forces outside of your control to later capitalize on your
progress. The different to a mentor is that the protege typically also builds you into a
dependency relationship and will ensure he can capitalize on you later on. A mentor might
just opportunistically enjoy the relationship and hope for your success and a return on his
investment.
2.3.1.9. Advisors
Advisors are similar to coaches, but they do not take anything from your success and are in
no way interested in your success. They stand ready, usually for money, and in the angel
environment or inconsulting, for your respect and attention to them, to support you on
something they are good at, not wanting you to become good at what they do, but
supporting you in doing what you do better with the knowledge they possess. When
interests are adjacent or only slightly overlapping, as such that there is no direct relationship
between interests of both, the advisor steps in and decreases the burden of something of
little personal, but potentially high external importance to the person advised.

2.3.1.10. Relationships
Relationships such as friendships, family ties, traditional partnerships or business
partnerships often include many parts of the other relationships from coaches to mentors,
suitors and advisors. Typically, the linkage is created via something not relevant to any
particular goal or objective, but focus around more personal and emotions based support,
eventually leading to access to different opinions, views, understandings and perspectives
and aligned interests that are outside of the traditional range of getting ahead. Loyatly and
liking is the dominant binding kit in these kinds of relationships and the currency and wares
exchanges are soft factors that go beyond agendas. Relationships matter for supporting
frames and mindsets, attachment to the world outside the agenda, mood stabilization, self-
confidence and self-resilience when the actual agenda is being hit.

2.3.1.11. Shadowing and Emulation

Shadowing is a behavior observed when someone tries to understand how someone else
behaves and tries to learn from this behavior, by observation or emulation. Emulation is the
adoption of the other persons behavior in order to understand the emotional and social
dynamics this behavior triggers. It is a passive form of relationship that mostly works by
adopting a mask of someone else. This can be related to emulating a role model or another
resource / person in your life. But typically a solid shadowing experience requires you to
have direct access to this individual in your perimeter and the quality of the person you are
shadowing must be far beyond what other people can teach you. In the ideal scenario,
shadowing and admiration leads to a level of professional intimacy where you are seeing
the deeper underlying personality aspects that trigger the successful behavior, which makes
shadowing a role model far more attractive from a learning perspective than just remotely
emulating a person.
2.3.2. Battlegrounds

Conceptualize and Memorize. Before you can do anything, learn anything, or solve any
problem, you have to know what the problem is you are solving and what you want to learn
and do. Having a deep conceptual foundation of your target domain is always the first step.
Reading and studying strategy, power, dominance and knowing the concepts that define
the battlefield of human affairs is something you will give you a core strength that will be
valid in almost any domain.

Visualization. Visualizing the strategic battle field and the roadmap on it, as well picturing
oneself in the role of someone successfully navigating this map, believing in one self, one
ability, one belief that this course is right and just, etc. is the next step. The power of
visualizing your self and the powers you want to have is critical and common in success
literature. Research has shown that the way our brain stores our visualizations is similar to
how it stores our actual physical experiences. I find that when I can picture something until
I know at the core of my being that it will be true, then it becomes true. The only downside
is that the situations and games we visualize and ourselves in the situation must be aligned
with reality. The risk of visualization is to visualize something that doesn’t shine quite similar
in the eyes of others.

Practice. Nothing replaces practice. By far the most important strategy. Strategy tactics and
plays, as well as exercises in reading, understanding, caring for and leading people has to
be practiced. Stress situations have to be anticipated and practiced at even higher levels of
intensity. Once you've found a method that works, you have to keep on practicing. We
aren't always in the mood to do it, but we have to. New things are always exciting at first,
but may become boring. It is the champion who persists.
Practice should always focus on four things. (1) Real world examples of situations you want
to master, (2) exposure to things that we fear, (3) Exposure to things that throw us off
balance, such as high stress, high adrenaline, high perceived future loss situations, (4)
Practice on parts of real world examples where we need to become better and more
sophisticated. In any practice, practice with your right brain. Reflect with the left brain.

Fake it till you make it. Once the game plan is secured, the visualization stands and
practice has ensured that it doesn’t go the wrong way, it is all about getting into the role
and pretending to be the individual you want to be. Live like a leader, think like a leader, act
like a leader, look like a leader. Be a leader.

Affirmations. Success literature talks a lot about keeping on repeating empowering

phrases to yourself, even when they don't seem true. The subconscious mind accepts what
it is given. If you keep on saying, "I'm stupid," soon, you'll think you are. And vice-versa. In
reality, affirmations work more strongly when they come from peers and relationships.
Choosing relationships wisely and surrounding oneself with people that re-affirm the self-
image and world view of the frame support the strength of it. And still, only when also re-
affirming to ourselves what we hold true and accurate can we keep a strong frame when
someone starts challenging our beliefs with all the dominance and assertiveness he has. In
the heat of action, when a strategy depends on a set of belief and the circumstances don’t
allow a steady reflection of these beliefs and that they still hold, having a strong founded
frame that relied heavily of affirmations is the only key to not forget ourselves and our
beliefs in the heat of battle and action.

Meditation and reflection. Reflection helps us keep things in perspective, re-shape

situations and memories to make them fit our world view and frame. But only when we stop
thinking about how to change situations, and we start to feel the justness of our frame and
self when we medidate can we belief to have fully incorporated the self in ourselves.
Often the mind seems to run o by itself, following strings of random thoughts. Meditation
helps you permamently build focus and helps you reset the brain. It is one of the strongest
techniques, I've ever come across.

2.3.3. Simple Rules

Complexity reduction is always a key thing. You cannot memorize and actionize a complex
concept or model to a situation. But you can ingrain and practice very simple rules that
you want to apply in any given situation. This is also something taught at business and
leadership schools when it comes to reducing cognitive load and complexity of behavior.
The idea is not to write down a million of rules, but the rules that are most relevant to a
particular situation and possibly some that you want to code so deeply into your behavior
that you always live by them. Then they are somewhat character principles.

Some random examples may be:

▪ Genuinely love yourself. Not the features. Not who you are. Just you.
▪ Stop criticizing yourself. Or listening to anyone criticizing you. Stop any pattern that
creates negativity, self-doubt or anything similar.
▪ Don’t obsess over the bad things, focus on the good things.
▪ Forgive others and yourself. Fuck guilt. Guilt is the acknowledgement of having
fucked up and deciding to not do something about it to prevent that from
happening again. If you don’t prevent it and want it to happen again, you don’t
want the guilt.
CHAPTER 3
Key Dimensions of YOU
We covered some basic aspects of human life. Time to focus on how building power works
on the individual level. The algorithm for this is simple.

Stage 1: Build up
Building personal capital such as health, energy, memory, and all those features that are
simply present in any moment.
The building capability by focusing on core skills such as habits to acquire and retain skills,
body language and communication skills, skills about adapting to expectations and fitting
in and skills of drawing people into your story emotionally and cognitively convincing.

Stage 2: Activation
This section focuses on showing how emotions and moods affect access to capability and
how mood and emotional control can help remedy this. With emotions and moods
stabilized and anxieties and fears conquered, the concept of “frames” can be used to
understand how situations make us jump into different frames with different attached
capabilities. Learning to re-think situations to activate stronger frames and learning to
integrate the capabilities that these frames provide leads to the capability of having stable
and powerful frames in any situation. Once this achieved, the design of masks, personas
and identities can be used to create more meaningful and quality situations which – taking
all together – build something like core confidence.

Stage 3: Building power

With all these basics mastered, the creation and sustainment of power rests in the
application of normal behavioural patterns that are adapted to the situation at hand and
lead to dominance. Domineering and coercion tactics belong as much to the capability of
building power as the overall “relaxnedness” and comfort in the situation that is needed to
stay strategic and in full control of the situation.

Stage 4: Achieving goals

With the ability to have power in every situation, the choice now focuses son identifying
the right situations to be in. Identifying clear goals and learning to execute towards these
goals is a first step – or learning to get things done. With the ability to convince others of
the value of your goals and your ability to lead them towards these goals, the quest for
power rests on finding others to join your quest and learn to leverage the inspirational
power to get there faster. Finally, being able to enforce that people stay on track even in
the toughest moments and being a guide and a coercive force towards a goal creates a
level of success of the group that is sufficient to create a social autarky that then translates
into more choices about where to apply ones powers and capabilities.
3.1. The Basics:
building the core and frames around it

3.1.1. Looking good and having a golden rolex: situational

preparedness

The basics teach the aspects that underly what psychologists refer to as impression
formation. The aspects of what other people use to decode behaviours and minds
from the bottom up and schemas / frames from top down. The entire goal is to prepare
situations in a way that all the forces of impression formation work for you seemlesly
and that the entire focus in the situation can focus on winning the domination and
power game.

When you observe older and average people, you will immediately see that they are
very likely to underperform on core metrics. This is the simple result of Western society
being sufficiently affluent and full of opportunity as to make it matter very little if one is
scoring high on these metrics. Something we will discuss in the context of baselining.
3.1.1.1. Trophies that win wars: Health and Strength
This isn’t a book about living healthy. The relevant insight here is that people do notice
health and strength – some way more than you might be aware of – and some do less,
and that strength and endurance is something relevant in any battle field and that it is
something that isn’t acquired for an occasion, but acquired via very long-term consistent
habits and determination. Hacking results without spending your life at the gym is
probably the goal here. And a combination of exercise, sleep and healthy food and some
off time does the job usually.

Exercise and activity

Atrophy is the slow retardation of a biological function when it is not used or damaged.
Hypertrophy is the development of a biological function when often used and kept under
healthy growth conditions. I am not trying to be fully med-school accurate here, but the
concept is simple: biological parts of our body when neglected in their function for a long
and consistent time are shutting down their capability. If you sit at the desk all day for a
years and hardly move – really just sit 20 hours at a desk and sleep 4 hours for a year –
you will have the same effects as lying in coma for a longer time. Your muscles, your
skeleton, they will have retarded to a level that requires you to learn to walk again. The
same is true, to my understanding, for many functions. Using your brain to solve complex
problems? To memorize things? To be creative and conceptualize? To interact in social
environments? To be mood stable? Have regular exercise? Doesn’t drink your brain and
liver to death? Doesn’t smoke your capillars and nerve ends to death? Good.
The core concept of health is to sustain minimum viability of all body functions to not
feel health issues deterioriate our ability to live a normal life. The core concept of strength
is to develop a subset of these critical body functions on a level that allows us to be
competitive in a stressful and high-intensity environment.
And lastly, success partly also focuses on making enough time to grow an even smaller
set of body functions to excel in the domains where we want to be successful.
You want to live healthy? Eat healthy, sleep healthy, move and walk enough and exercise
a bit. You want to be strong, add high intensity moments, high adrenaline moment, high
concentration moments to your life and train your ability in motorics, thinking and frame
control in these environments. Want to be particularly competitive and good in some life
domain, let’s say selling: go out there and train as much of your cognitive empathy as
possible, learn to use your vocal chords and and control your frame and body language.
The trophy effect is the effect of having a biological boost of no matter what you do. You
can have the best algorithms for performing head calculations, but unless you train over
years to become faster and more intuitive at applying them, you won’t compete with
others with similar algorithms.

Summary of Health : Health Management and the regulation of the body by matter
o Food and Nutrition
o Sleep and Recovery
o Energy and Pyhsical Activity
o Shape and Alertness
o Drug Abuse

Sleep and endurance.

It is well known that humans require sleep to survive. The debate has more been about
how many hours of sleep. The arguments are that sleep and excesses of it combined with
intense intellectual work increases memory, social function, emotional stability and
creativity. Sleep in combination with heavy physical demands increases the development
of core strength, muscles. Overly focusing on intellectual endeavours leads to higher
brain functions and skills, but to muscle and physical atrophy. And the focus on physical
strengthening creates opportunity costs on learning. Individuals with neither lot of
intellectually demanding developments or physical exhaustion appear to require less
sleep as they get older, while highly creative individuals that concentrate on life long
learning and rich lives appear to be require more sleep their life long. On the contrary,
longer hours of sleep have been the enemy of busy people. Although time sleeping
appears to matter less than stability of sleeping patterns and rhythms and quality of sleep,
going lower or longer on sleep likely is one of the primal choices in life and choosing
lifestyles that allow for different sleep patterns is a fundamental.
Overall, however, functioning with less sleep and focusing on productivity will wear of
physical attractiveness as skin, mental function and the like will be likely impaired. Some
individuals are sufficiently high in intelligence and capability as to require less sleep, but
they will still give up on some aspects of their humanity. So while most individuals do
make subconsciousness choices about their lifestyle regarding sleep, and their social and
career paths demand specific sleeping behavior, it is still a dimension that can be studied
and optimized.

Nutrition.
Apart from obvious malnutrition by having subsufficient nutrients intake or consuming
energy in excess or in the lack of thereof can have a key impact on core energy, mood
swings, hyperactivity, muteness, low core energy/metabolism, awakeness, attention. Not
really what this book is about. But relevant to everything.

Sexual Capital < Health Capital < Individual Capital

Apart from obvious malnutrition by having subsufficient nutrients intake or consuming
energy in excess or in the lack of thereof can have a key impact on core energy, mood
swings, hyperactivity, muteness, low core energy/metabolism, awakeness, attention. Not
really what this book is about. But relevant, too, in some way.

3.1.1.3. From now to forever: From Grooming to Cultivated Style

Let’s assume your health and strength already provide for a good impression and no
moment of reducing this impression when under stress. The next obvious thing to
optimize in any situation are those things that can easily be “put on”, but require years
of cultivation and reflection to get to a level of nailing it in all occasions and to project a
consistent pattern and identity. The difference between short-term grooming like going
to a nail and hair salon and buying a random new dress is to cultivate style by having a
complete, reflected, in some parts unique and cultivated set of attire that matches your
identity, wear the scents that match mood, time of the year, personality and style and
occasion. Etc.
Hygiene. Keeping your teeth clean and taking a shower once in a while, ironing your
shirts and keeping a trimmed and sober appearance is something that should not warrant
any mentioning. Anyone that fails at this is either awkward or deceitful – when being
under groomed and still respected, you are considered as overly arrogant or simply
under-developed as a human or at least underdeveloped in understanding social
perception and being disrespectful to the effort others are putting in to not make you
cough up your lunch when seeing someone. Just respect a bit of hygiene. Humans are
ugly enough and decay fast enough to keep it up on hygiene.

Selection of attire. There are as many books about good style and teachings about
appropriate attire as there are dreams of success that never became true. It is clear that
one wears a tux to a formal, a suit to a business day, drops the tie on a casual Friday and
nevers comes in sweatpants to work. Unless one wants to make a statement and one has
the power to do so. This also is not the book to discuss style and fashion requirements
and demands. Yes, the tie should match the pants, some color should reflect the eye
color, the contrast should be set appropriately and one should uses glasses if bald,
untrained and lacking contrast in skin complexion and facial hair, but the ground rules
are that the entire wardrobe should fit the occasion, the coloring and color combination
of each wardrobe combination should reflect the skin type, set the right accents and
contrasts and true style only becomes visible when all that also reflects moods and power
statements – the red tie in negotiations, the black tie as the silent observer, etc.

But maybe we should start with simpler things. Because simple mishaps are common.
Here are some of my favorite style fuckups:
▪ A 20 dollar “no need to iron” shirt in a business environment doesn’t impress and
makes people puke
▪ Wearing 20 dollar black business shoe in a business environment makes you look
like a phone salesman. Spent your money on real shoes.
▪ People that wear oncomfortable shoes and don’t get them bended to not cut into
their feet are idiots.
▪ Colorful socks are for phoneys. Socks match the suit. Colorful soles are stylish.
▪ Only idiots wear pocket squares.
▪ Ties match eye color or accentuate face color. Nothing more. Nothing less.
▪ Having worn out pants that actually show your “lower parts” or just indicate them
is a clear no-no that only ugly Hollywood actors can pull off. The same is true for
unwashed armpits, greese on the neck part of the shirt.
▪ Revealing your body too much as woman is as ugly and inappropriate as a 600
year old guy showing off his grey chess hair and skin irritations in a business
setting
▪ If you are balding, wear a wig, get a transplant or cut it off. Period.
▪ A golden rolex always looks shit. If you want to show off money get 5 pairs of
understating patek philiphs and wear a different one every day.
▪ In general, unless you are really slim, you will look shit in Suits. Fat people and
body builders look shit in suits. Period.
▪ Suits must be fitted. Only idiots wear blue. Dark grey is the only acceptable color.
▪ Only british nobility wears anything other than a dark grey suit,.
When showing dominance, one should never outsmart the wardrobe requirements by
making a statement of ignorance, but by an elevation of polish and level of formality and
overall cleanliness of style, paired with choices of accessoires that match status and social
standing and indicate cues to the initiated. Wearing a smart watch is never trumped by
having the right pocket watch when in the upper class circle, and having the leading
signature pattern on handkarchiefs in London trumps having the coolest socks from
Woolrich.
Overall, doing the Steve Jobs and always wearing the same pullover and pants only works
when you really made a bigger fortune than anyone that ever entered the same building
you are in and you coulnd’t care less about status.

Overall appearance
The complete appearance doesn’t only suite with wardrobe and visual patterns, it services
olfactory patterns in choice of scent – decent, reflecting personality, taste in choice of
fragrance house, selection of base notes and fitting to occasion and time of the year
without ever talking about it or accepting compliments –, includes the right body
temperature – have sex or go running if it requires heat and glooming, stay underslept if
requires the look of someone working too hard and having no life -, the right levels of
touchiness – inviting patterns, gestures and voice patterns when touch, intimacy and
closeness matters and refraining from it when it doesn’t fit the situation.

Nails, Hair, makeup, eyecolor

And of course, the natural grooming matters. You can overdo and underdo nails
depending on the situation and circumstance, you can over and underdo your shaving
and hair style, you can show the wrong eye color intensity by drinking and drugging too
much or too little. You can have the right fitting slim body type among academicsc and
hard thinkers, or be the chubby one among lavishly living dionysic types. You can stare
to intense and focused, be distinerested and fading in alertness.

Getting into the right “overall wardrobe” when the situation arises and talking the talk,
walking the walk, and looking the look and being the being is what creates symmetry
and similarity that underlies situations and structures liking, accents and dominance.

The only big error that can be made is sleeping on all these issues, thinking someone will
not recognize their consistent application and we can slip a perfect impression and image
in a situation where we are not entering fully prepared and aligned with objective. And
as always, someone does it better than us and someone that might be relevant might
think it is more important than we do. So while the overall issue of grooming might be
considered an irrelevant side factor in today’s world, it still governs first impressions and
the image we project in a consistent manner as much as behavior does.

While the impact on dominance compared to other means is likely to be highest in

anonymous environments and lower where public image or status by role and known
influence, grooming, health and other basic features of appearance typically make us
blend in more and show superiority without being overly arrogant or indeed
underdeveloped when neglecting grooming. The interesting thing that everyone can
easily try to understand the implications of grooming is to start looking at the elements
of grooming and relating differences in grooming to self-image, position and character
of the people we meet in life. The patterns are often striking and allow us to infer far
more from the individuals we meet than they would like us to know.
3.1.1.4. Insignia, Symbols of Status and Power
Cultures encode symbols and hidden behaviours that are known only to a small group of
initiated insiders in the form of insignias. Insignias are to be scarce – not accessible by
outsiders – and hardly recognizable – not everyone should be able to copy cat the
handshakes of a freemason or fraternity member, sects or cults.
Some forms of insignia are similar but more visible: dog tags of soldiers, particular
uniforms and their decorations, signature rings, particular watches and accessoires. In the
older days, these symbols actually symbolized something and portrayed membership to
a group. Nowadays many visible features have become indiscernable consumption goods
that aim to suggest an image of the self, and no longer initiate into a group.
The pricetag – luxury fashion - , fit to fast paced and changing trends – hipster culture -,
forms of intended deviation – punks and radical left or right wings or Satanists and emos
-, have become more common and abnormality from the average mass has become a
key differentiator.
In principle all these visible items are possibly copied and have little deeper meaning any
more, with insignia having become more hidden and social castes living increasingly
isolated and autark from public.

In a general setting, reading symbols has become a different game. Defined less by their
ability to suggest power and association or status, but instead test and train loyalty to
group authority. A banker wearing an expensive brand watch and choosing black over
brown shoes is not in any sense displaying a sense of taste, but perpetuates the power
structure that the banker is raised in and that demands his obedience. Instrinsically,
symbols of power hence do not serve the purpose of signaling power and capability, but
they display loyalty to a specific authority and being doing so debunk their owner as a –
well – a rat. A banker not wearing an expensive watch still has to act like a banker among
bankers. A person suggesting to be a banker and wearing the watch will only lose if he is
unable to obey the code of conduct of this circle. So less than a symbol of status, more
of a light tower in an ocean of people that are not part of the inner circle, they invite
conversation among people who are similar. The code of behavior is then way more
important. If the symbols signify a common identity and behavior doesn’t match, the
symbol has effectively become useless. In that sense, these symbols work, because all
institutionalized social systems survive by keeping their cultural rituals alive. Super
normality as we discussed before is in its deeper intrinsic function the behavior of
someone that becomes invisible in the social status of the group by not commanding
any doubt in the integrity of the individual under the group authority system or “regime”.
In this sense, super normality does not display power or status in a naturalistic sense. A
person with absolute and undisputable power will display and communicate its power
the more it deviates from the symbols of the caste. If an individual of the group hence
creates such as thing as an insignia that is used to display excess status in the group, it is
an ability to test exactly the absoluteness of the status. But it also shows arrogance and
there is rarely any absolute power.

The power of invisibility

 ▪ A lack of visible disobedience makes appear the individual as requiring less
attention. The individual is more loyal and not actively and visibly engaging in
power games.
▪ When most of the individuals strive for being invisible and hence proving their
loyalty to the regime, being part of the larger group again makes more invisible
as being part of a larger group.
▪ Deviating successfully and socially acceptable might give some comfort and
identity to the individual, but any such visible deviation from the norm can be
understood as an insignia itself. If this visibility goes hand in hand with ambition
and the desire for power, one is an easy target, whereas under the absence of such
desire or ability for it makes someone a simple disturbance. This becomes more
and more of a problem as individuals rise in rank and are in the near center of
power where there is a higher likelihood of conflict with the leader of the group.
Even if checks and balances are installed and the individual is overall loyal and
achieving well, the insignia status of the visible sets the individual under higher
scrutiny and makes any deceptive and strategic play more difficult. This is what
makes these individuals also appear less apt in being a rival, but it also
concentrates more attention when the overall acceptance and popularity of the
individual is higher than that of the leaders.
▪ Lass, but not least, the higher the social and economic cost of the status symbols
of the group, the stronger the buy-in into the culture and the higher valued the
loyalty to the regime and the higher the value of the group via its exclusivity. High
social cost can be the chastity applied to monks, or the purchase of luxury yachts
and villas by financial magnates.

And the application to chess

It already becomes clear that status is also not something that comes from power, wealth
or ability, but the alignedness with a desirable social system. The status increases with
the difficulty of operating within the rules of the social system and its ability to
discriminate against minor violations, combined with the groups ability to sell its own
brand to create soft power of the group and hence all holders of the symbols of the
group.
Applying all this to the chess game framework, blending in, being super normal and
indivisible builds loyalty with all the other members of the group who buy into the regime
and hence facilitates collecting and operating on figures.

Implications about the selection of symbols and attire

It now should be clear that simply buying status symbols to impress random strangers is
an utterly useless game to play. You do not buy a 3000 dollar suit as a banker to impress
non-bankers, but because you want to buy into the loyalty the system demands.
Attempting to sell the status symbol of a 20k+ watch to a stranger is somewhat defunct
and works only on the most unintelligent and uninformed human beings. But hey, that
doesn’t mean it does work. After all, our social systems are too confusing to most normal
people to not be impressed by someone waving his minor wealth. Just don’t be
impressed as a founder.
3.1.1.5. The dimensions of style
Understanding the biological aspects of long-term development of the self from the
simple sleeping plan side and understanding the purely culturally relevant aspects of
luxury symbols and insignia of status, we can now turn to those things that should
dominate in the acute social situation: style.

Style empowers Personality

Style and the hetoreignity of the audience

Dimension of Style
(1) Blending in and Nailing it: Attire, scent, haircut, voice and verbal patterns,
acceptable frames all depend on the individual context where they are applied and
nailing that particular context is one aspect of the situation. Having perfectly ironed and
starched shirts, being correctly buttoned up, wearing a perfectly fitting uniform, polished
shoes and having powerful gestures and male speech patterns likely is more important
when meeting with high levels of military. More social smoothness, selection of symbols
and jewelry, color matchings and the right level of relaxnedness in body posture is more
likely be an issue on elitarian cocktail parties. And having a sophisticated repertoire of
good stories, a dictionary memory of trends and classics and being very smooth in talking
is more likely something to display in artsy circles. Just doing it in general a step better
than the others is the idea of nailing it. There is no upper limit on perfecting the regime
– or set of expectations combined with the typical and consistent average behavior -
present in a situation. Knowing the aspects where deviating from trends is a must and
where it is absolutely forbidden. Blending in perfectly is about supernormality with
hidden excesses in normality that make us super-super-normal. Nailing it is mixing the
ability to perfectly blend in with the ability to appropriately and effectively standing out
as to either focus or unfocus on our core personality. If we blend in and nothing enters
the awareness and receptors of an audience, they will look at as with scrutiny on other
aspects besides deviations from the trend. If we want to have others exactly not scrutinize
us on personality, character, opinion and interests, we can overload their cognitive
processes via targeted deviations. This is as simple as wearing a ridiculous suit to distract
from the fact that our pale skin color shows that we are terminally ill. Or wearing a
screaming tie to work to distract from the fact that we didn’t sleep and it is clearly visible.
Or driving an overpriced car and wearing a rolex to distract from the fact that we are a
very boring and financially unsuccessful individual.

(2) A bit more sophisticated: Every nailing it and blending in situation that attempts to
maximize on hitting the maximum number of expectations in total a bit better than
others, the sophisticated edge is about using the totality of variation that is allowed in
the setting and to move towards the spectrum of individuals that simply know a bit better.
So while a young and financially successful banker might think this means scaling up on
the prices of all symbols used, the choice of combinations must have a deeper and more
reflected meaning, allowing to outwit others when symbols are being discussed. This can
be a special cheaper watch that was worn by a less known prodigy of the domain that
only the most interested 5% in the group might understand, the signature handkerchief
that the founder of the firm always wore, or matching the scent to the meaning of a
recent financial event whose impact almost nobody understood or coming to a party in
a Prius when everyone is coming with a Tesla, except again those 5% of participants.
Sophistication is about matching the top 5% on several dimensions – everyone will be
better at something, being part of the best in all dimensions and non-screamingly
displaying this knowledge is what sophistication is all about. So when everyone is
discussing tie brands and wools used in manufacturing them, the top 5% makes a choice
on what is actually superior in a classic sense and can back his story up. The status does,
of course, not from having the level of sophistication, but in being able to lead smooth
discussions that display superiority in taste while at the same time winning every
discussion as the more social and laid-back individual. And while of course not being
dominated by the less sophisticated individuals of the party. So here we are doing for
super-normality with depth on each aspect of normality that is again invisible to the
average of minimal viability for normality of the group. Where minimal viability means
that we satisfy the expectations of of everyone in the group at the lowest level as to have
any deviation from the normal to be invisible. And that our deviation from this visible
normality being only visible to those that appreciate the deviation whereas anyone else
not likely appreciating it not recognizing it. The latter could be the case when we drop a
perfectly acceptable quote from an author from a book and where anyone that has red
the book knows it is an overall attack on someone in the group, but knowing that this
person did not read the book and does not get it, whearas those that do get it are not
attacked. That is similar to dropping a commentary on software development from a
Linus Torvald that basically shows the bad beliefs of individuals in the group without
those targeted having the depth of knowledge or awareness on the subject to recognize
it.

(3) Screaming: We discussed two rivalling ideas (a) that people who are supernormal
can be boring and must break out of the invisibility to build emotional bonds, and (b)
that deviating from symbolic regimes and supernormality makes visible in a sense that is
bad for playing power games by being over-exposed to possible attacks which might
break the credibility of the supernormal dominance frame – or resoluteness of the
authentic dominance claim. In competitive battlefields of power, (b) is a strong reason
not to stand out too much, unless one can, and even then, it is perceived as arrogance
and uncessary aggression. But that is the rule when being “on stage” of the battlefield
where all this matters. Outside of the realms of the chessboard of strategic plays that
matter to us, and in heterogenous situations with many people and non-aligned interests,
being able to play frames and deviate from the norm in an almost screaming fashion
while still remaining self-confident after taking the attacks is a key to attracting other
people’s interest. Either to deflect from the lack of integratedness in a particular group
or by simply grabbing the attention that is needed to stand out and simply play more
moves with strangers. Screaming is the ability to find and use deviations from the norm
that make interesting and use them to build emotional connections with people by
sparking curiosity and attention and exploiting this curiosity to get something out the
situation. Surprisingly enough, the use of screaming style and behavior is often found in
depictions of con men in modern TV series and movies. Which reminds of the joker and
chester nature of the screaming pattern.
(4) Presentability: Style that leads to introductions
Presentability is not so much about how you present yourself in a situation, but more
about how an individual is picturing you as you are in the moment when presenting you
to others after he/she found you valuable enough to present you. Whether it is a
colleague that wants to introduce you to his friends, a potential future colleague who
wants to introduce you to his boss and pictures his boss presenting you to others, a
partner presenting you to his social circle and family, presentability is about fitting
expectations on look and behavior of a target individual in his circle outside of the
current situation.
Up until now we assumed we are mainly playing the field in a specific situation. But most
meaningful engagements in a situation are leading to long-term relationships with
others. Strategies like “peacocking”, where you are presenting yourself as overly colorful
and crazy are more likely leading to a win in the present and concrete situation and leads
towards an isolated, short-term relationship with someone else. It leads to a “curiosity to
the unknown treasure” that is not be shown around. The pea-cocking or excessive
screaming strategy signals the clear intent of not being presentable and making
connections in the now with the people present, and not their networks and affiliations.
Pea-cockers exist in every situation, too. Individuals who do not care to be presented
somewhere else, but want to get the maximum out of the situation they are in. And such
types of physical self-presentations are valid in some contexts. A scientist just wanting
scientific information from a colleague but having not intent to tap into his network, a
person on a entrepreneurship meeting just excited about other people’s work without
wishing to get anything out of it, a pick up artist just wanting to find someone for a single
night instead of looking for a relationship, or a negotiator that just wants to strongarm
in the negotiation to win the power battle with zero interest in a long-term relationship
building effort based on the current transaction. These types of plays directly
communicate the lack of intent of forming a long-term relationship and being presented
to others. And the signaling can help get in touch with people that are open for exactly
such value extractions. This is why you would also go to a Vegas casino in such a fashion
or to a Silvester party among strangers. And the more one is screaming with non-
presentability, the more likely one is understood well on such occasions where everyone
is there to enjoy the moment and not for the eternal relationship. Which is also why some
musicians like wearing a hat. Nobody except Texans picture people as presentable if they
wear a hat. Wearing a hat tells the audience: this is a magic moment and there is nothing
after that brings you back, wo do not meet again.
At the same time, clear non-presentability screams of the need to be accepted and loved
or get something out of the situation, which is why it also works extremely well on some
people that ignore presentability and focus more on emotion and acceptance of
personalities and understand the non-presentability as a hopeless signal of desire. The
desire to be accepted in the non-presentable and awkward form as it presents.
And last, but not least, individuals who are clearly not presentable but come with a strong
social proof – being courted by the most important people in the room that are
presentable – are likely to magnify their status. Simply because it invites ridicule and
attack from other dominant figures and showing no reaction and interest in these
individuals is a dominating behavior – they wanted to engage and make a point and
didn’t get the attention they wanted while the screaming individual simply wines and
dines and doesn’t care. It is the complete absence of neediness and best accompanied
by a good vibe and amusement and enjoyment of the moment.
But if you are looking to connect with people for a long-term relationship, presentability
dominates every consideration on how to present oneself in a way as to enable others
to picture you being introduced to others.
And the question is not so much about how you are perceived in the situation, but how
you are perceived by the social environments of the people you engage with. And again,
choosing wisely the levels of anomaly and non-presentability as to present lack of
neediness is both an element of increasing status and an element of style. It all depends
how you wear it to some extent, and not solely on what you are wearing, to be
presentable. Being a boring person that has unpresentable features almost never works,
however. Something that is traditionally coined “awkward”.

Cushioning personality, displaying natural authenticity and dominating by style

Style is supposed to get us what we want a bit faster. The only thing that varies is the
context. Some use style to seduce and attract – peackocking in pick up-, others to display
superiority – rank display in military and neat flawless wardrobe - , others to perfectly
blend in – spies that never want to attract -, others to support a charismatic image – just
think Barack Obama – and some to get more leads and introductions.

A sophisticated, non-screaming style that perfectly aligns with the right personality and
a never-breaking symbiosis between a dominant and well-recepted frame and style
creates charisma. Yes, it’s out. It’s not divine, it’s not special. It is a well-crafted image
that sits well and that creates vibrance, attraction and resonance while not being
considered as unsuitingly abnormal or mundane. And the shere vibrance and attraction
that charisma creates in groups warrants respect in the form of absence of visible
aggression. When style matches persona matches personality matches core self in a
sufficient manner and frames are strong and the whole packages transcends social norms
in the right dimensions, you get charisma. A non-threatening and warm form of
dominance that stirs safety, trust and absence of conflict.

Warm personalities
Warm personalities generally appear more influential and charismatic as cold one. The
basics are clear, handshakes and hugs trump stare offs and cold nodding. Displaying and
portraying positive energy is better than looking grim or depressed. Stirring and actively
creating a good feeling by making use of energy in rooms and vibe is better than being
a passive and non-energetic individual that stands low and isolated like a stone figure in
a room.
While there are always environments where personality is not welcome – diplomatic
negotiations warrant a discussion based on the cause and the cause only, and should not
be overshadowed by the complex social dynamics that start once personality is openly
displayed, same is true in business negotiations where layoffs are being discussed or
someone will get the shorter stick in general (while it may be fine in an exciting
negotiation of mutual benefit, but still might hurt the one overly excited) – almost all
non-negotiating interactions in life allow personality to shine through and influence a
situation. So it is warranted. The only risk of showing too much personality is the effect
when in a moment of warmths a situation of negotiation or conflict arises and shifting
from warm and excited to cold and rational could be considered a break of the frame.
But this also warrants why people who are cold are considered weaker and less attractive
than warm personalities: the only meaningful reason to hide personality and warmth is –
apart from being cold and lacking a warm personality – the fear of breaking frame when
suddenly challenged. Cold people are hence rightfully so considered fearful of possible
conflict, hence lacking confidence in their ability to maintain the status quo and warm
environment. They consider their environments as threatening. And hence are less human
in their appearance, showing less charisma. George Walker Bush is a good example who
is by far colder than Barack Obama, being constantly under threat of scrutiny from his
family and network maybe, but still tried to convey a lose cannona attitude with
numerous idiotic and human jokes in the form of misspellings, uncontrolled behaviours
and mishaps. Which also explains how humor comes into play in personalities that are
warm by nature but fail to build a warm personality they can use to bond in a warm way.

3.1.1.6. Vocabulary and Language

There are two aspects of actual content of language in this section. Vocabulary as a way
to express clarity of mind, expertness and style; and language itself as a way to navigate
discourse using rhetoric and the ability to actually convey true expertness.
We will cover adaptation of language and style in the NLP section of the book. And we
already covered the dichotomy between realists and sophists.

Hygiene. Hygiene in vocabulary, imagery, world view and the ways we express ourselves
is a core feature of how we are perceived by others. The sad part of it is that hygiene of
thought and vocabulary is also hygiene of social contacts. If family members are
complaining all the time, if friends use bad and deragotary language, if our co-workers
use simplistic forms of understanding life, we will adopt this behavior. Partly due to what
is referred to as cognitive dissonance and partly due to our need to somehow fit in with
the groups we are part of, we will adopt language and speech patterns, rhythms of talking
and ultimately the core ways of thinking on trivial everyday things by our peers. Hygiene
would demand that we chose our words wisely – not using terms like “shit” or “bitch” or
“damn” all too often and seeing how this slowly translates into ourselves thinking and
expressing ourselves differently. Not talking about financial problems but seeing it as
something that is not emotional but rather rational and just dealing with it radically shifts
our perception on wealth and financial resources and its impact on our emotional
wellbeing. In that sense, language hygiene is a long-term effort. It requires a clear vision
of what language should no longer be part of our talking, thinking and reasoning. And
learning to reduce social affiliations with people and groups that stand in the way of this
vision. The power of vocabulary hygiene on our life development is certainly more crucial
than most of us realize. And the power of words in structuring everyday interaction is
even more crucial and often misunderstood. It is not only the inability to resonate and
lead a discussion with someone that uses a different vocabulary than you, but it is the
shere incompatibility of life concept and mindset that makes living with a distinct set of
words impossible in a group. Just try to express the emotion and feelings that the simple
expression “Shit!” would need to express in a group that simply says “Shit!”. If you are
coming up with : “Oh, I think I have stumbled upon a trait that I continuously do that
consistently leads to a suboptimal result in *200 words explanation*”, you are the odd
one out. And if you always just reduce this thinking process by saying “Shit!”, you are
verly likely to suffer vocabulary and thinking atrophy. Environments that use the word
shit are also very likely to not pay any attention to sober deduction or clear minded
observation. They are more likely to be environments that oppress dealing with issues,
favoring suppression of negative emotion and keeping going on functioning. An
environment where dealing with a boss is resolved by mumbling the word “asshole” has
implicitly accepted that the problem of the communication problem and the problem of
having a more meaningful relationships can not be solved and that any further thought
about resolving the issue is a terrible waste in time. Makes sense? Good. Choose your
words, leave people that don’t listen to your words and you will lead a new life. But that
is part of the self-improvement part that we look at in the next section.
Word patterns if conflict. Coming back to our “Shit!” and “Asshole” example. Reacting
in such underdeveloped and simple-minded fashion may be a word patterns that simply
works in a domination game. Something that we all know from the infamous TV Show
“The Prince of Bel Air” when we see Carlton reacts to Will’s street-witty insults and
humiliations. So leaving the world of trying to live a better world and coming back to
social environments and the domination game, word patterns for prototypical insults and
attacks exist in every such environment. Just think about how Donald Trump walked over
the Rhetoric that dominated the smeer campaigns against him as a seemingly insane
candidate. Or girls on a school yard might pick a fight over a pony tail. How a three year
old son will throw punches at one of his parents imitating the typical behavior shown by
his other parent. Word patterns typically are controlled by the dominant individuals in a
group. Emulating them can be dangerous if hierarchy rules are overlooked. An intern
sporting CEO level agressions towards a mid-level manager will likely get fired. Same
would probably happen when a mid-level manager attacks another mid-level manager
on that level. So while in public group settings, imimtating the most dominant behaviours
can lead to dominance, if the frame is strong enough and the dominance is displayed
consistently despite the possible series of attacks started once the spot at the top of the
hierarchy is basically claimed by the behavior, the language patterns during conflict
follow a completely distinct dynamic from the patterns observed in normal non-conflict
discourse. Understanding and interfering levels of hierarchy from observing such
behavior and adopting a particular pattern ultimately leads to a claim in the hierarchy.
The same concept is used when a social engineer with an authority identity starts
humiliating a lower level employee to get something out of him. The patterns have to be
consistent to the hierarchy level and the culture in the company to be authentic.
Individuals with on par weaker patterns than their hierarchy level would allow them to
have are consistently spotted in organizations as possible victims of exploitation,
individuals who consistently overstep the dominance resonating in their behavior are
understood as trouble makers. So in situations where hierarchy is stable and things are
smooth, people that rise in power and respect fast are typically those that show the
highest form of dominance (CEO level) behavior against rivals where it is permissible, and
never fall too low in dominance when the situation warrants them to stick to their role in
the hierarchy. Although some individuals I know which are known as ass kissers to their
bosses are indeed falling to levels of submissive behavior that wouldn’t even be observed
in dogs, and it works for them as long as there are aggressive and strong when they need
to. This behavior is by its nature considered deceitful, however. So while I can’t give any
practical application of this, this can be easily observed and is something anyone that is
into social engineering and playing the dominance game in organisations should master
to see and emulate. An extreme, but funny example of non-verbal aggression that I was
told was when a senior manager at a bank, who sucked up hard to his not so capable
boss was fired and he actually shit in his hand and started throwing it at his boss and
peers. A clear sign that he wanted to show that he has more aggression and dominance
potential than anyone in the group and that it was a bad decision to let this dog / monkey
go.

Clarity of mind. Speak in the logical patterns and within the set of concepts that the
audience knows, relates to and regards normal in the group. Clarity in mind is clarity in
the listeners minds. Learn from the sophists. The clarity of mind expressed by clarity of
expression is something typically honed in middle age philosophy or high academic
debates. In the work and group context, clarity of mind comes less in the clarity of vocal
expression patterns and the application of logical and analytic language patterns, but in
fixing ones arguments on the leverage one has. I remember a university friend that was
hired for a fairly good salary, almost increasing his net salary by 40%. He was happy to
have joined the company and earned a nice upgrade on his salary. But the hours he put
in were insane, and he had to learn that even the lowest level employees were paid this
well at this company, with peers similar to him almost earning double the money. During
his negotiations for a better salary in the next year, he was still intelligent and soft about
his demands, but made it clear that he needed a bigger raise than he was offer, which
was almost an insult. Knowing his leverage, he didn’t enter the re-negotiation with long
arguments why he would deserve a higher raise and why he thought it was unfair. He
knew he was irreplecable during the next three months and that he was not really
appreciated in the company – given such a low raise. He asked for an 80% increase and
a highly inflated title and home office once a week, and used his notice period – which
was held lower than anyone else’s at the company to give a shotgun argument of getting
the papers on his desks within a week or he would be gone in two weeks. Of course it
worked, and of course he left three weeks later for a new company. The clarity was the
clarity on what mattered in the situation.
Rhetoric and story telling. The level of depth, the time accepted to make a statement,
the patterns and tones of voice inflection that typically is used in the environment, the
ability to use body language and social relationships to keep a group interested and
ultimately emotionally attached to the story, this all makes for rhetorical dominance in
the group. A friend of mine who is known for his ability to sell people on complete
nonsensical claims used a very fast paced story telling, meandering to imagery that would
appeal to his group whether it was reacting most to auditory, visual or touching sensory
inputs and vocabulary and kept swinging his attention to those that were clear leaders in
the group – if there were separate groups – to keep the attention high. Typically, everyone
had to abandon questioning the validity of the claims and was drawn in by the story itself.
The imagery it created, the feelings in induced, the sheer amazingness that it stirred.
Talking with the right tone and self-confidence and pathos, he was getting people to
open check-books, girls to ask for a cab to his place, or everyone leaving their evening
plans to join on a rant of excessive partying. The only way to learn such behavior is by
trying and trying again and becoming better and better at maintaining the frame, better
and better at spotting victims and better and better at drawing people in.

3.1.1.7. Time
Time Management as a source of higher energy and

Chronemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronemics#Control_of_time_in_power_relationships
➢ Dominance by Chronemics
3.2.3. Core Dimensions of self-control and stability
Now we come to features that are not as plastic and physically present as those in the
previous chapter, but relate to the ability to maintain a frame and be a likable person.

Mood control
There is a reason why sports teams have their pump up rituals in the locker room and
before the game, why people pre-drink before going to parties, why some people re-
affirm images first thing in the morning when they get up and brush their teeth, why
people turn on Al Green before at night. It’s called getting in the mood.
Moods activate cognitive, behavioural and memory repertoires that otherwise are hiding
in parts of our brain that we typically do not activate. It’s the reason why we do not think
about the risks of speed when driving a car and focus on things like checking rear
windows and assess speed variances; why we look for symbols, forms and colors in the
supermarket and don’t think of caressing arms or necks when we sit in the Sunday service
in church. Our lives are structured around distinct environments where we use different
repertoires. And emotions are the strongest form of binding memories, behaviours to
specific environments. Moods serve two purposes: to reduce the amount of emotions we
can feel in a specific environment, and structuring memories in specific environments by
binding them to emotions that only happen in this emotion. Football players, soliders in
an active engagement, they must be alert, ready to feel pain and be aggressive in moving
forward with their task. They are not in the moment to feel sorrow, feel sexually excited,
in the mood for feeling the sunlight on their skins. They must focus their attention on
aggressive actions and hence use an aggressive mood. The same holds true when we are
having moments of pleasure and relaxation with our beloved ones. The mood is distinct
and feelings are present that we don’t have or want to feel when in the board room
meeting negotiating a deal. The power to separate our emotional excitability in a specific
context is what makes mood control and the nurturing of behavioural strategies in
specific moods so important when building stable frames. While most of this comes from
self-observation of the author, there is also a lengthy article on Wikipedia on the subject
[Wikipedia: Emotion and Memory].

Moods and situations and connecting mood-specific repertoires

We start with some basic mood mechanics. The goal so far was to learn to be in a mood
in a specific situation to have access to a particular repertoire and frame. But the other
way around, if we are unable to control the mood in a specific situation, the vice versa
argument, that we have to built the right repertoire in this particular mood holds, too.
When you are extremely excited in high stress situations and your capabilities suddenly
fade, the action is either to perceive the situation differently or to reproduce the situation
as often as possible and to build the capability in this mood. And ultimately, when
environments require the same skill set but we attach different moods to them, what we
ultimately have to achieve is the merging of capabilities of both moods. With the same
capabilities in both moods, we also have the same body language repertoire, which we
will found out soon will help us steer into the right mood.

General stability of moods in same situations

Psychology studied many factors that affect mood in general. Sleep deprivation,
malnutrition, lack of control over facial expressions, generally high emotional empathy
that can not be regulated to lower levels, low levels of exercise and hence energy can
lead to unfavorable and negative moods that in general decreae our capabilities.
Especially the combination of nutrition and life style that affect biochemical stability –
think of the feeling you have when eating something that spark a strong insulin reaction
– can make moods generally instable.
This isn’t a book about mood regulation and healthier lifestyles. Feel free to read about
it. General stability of moods is the pre-requisite of inducing moods and training
capabilities in them.

Beliefs and self-image regulate moods

Emotional self-control
Autists, sociopaths, depressed people all can have unusual levels of a general lack of
excitability of their emotions in specific environments and as an effect of events and
interactions. That certainly is something bad for the general development of personality
and a happy healthy overall life.
But being generally excitable would make us a nerveous, anxious, hypersensitive and
thereby also not functioning properly in life.

Moods encapsule emotion:

The goal is to be able to control the level of excitability in a specific situation. High
emotional empathy is needed in strong relationship, sociopathic traits are needed in
conflicts and power situations, high excitability is a key benefitor of learning and
immersion in a subject, low excitability is a key to endurance when battling physical
weakness, pain, etc.
So the goal is to control the excitability depending on the situation. The excitability can
be managed by creating filters on how we perceive the details of a situation – creating
blind spots or shifting focus on something else -, the level of detachment between our
self-image and the situation – mask vs persona argument – and the general trained
numbness towards a specific feeling in a specific mood. While this sounds like cultivated
schizophrenic behavior, it is exactly what makes us work in society and life.

Exposure regulates intensity of reaction:

What doesn’t break us, makes us. Works for phobias, intense pressure, pain, etc. Getting
a lot of exposure that we would get in the real situation is what regulates our reaction to
it.

Click-and-Wirr Manipulation:
Click and wirr basically refers to automated responses to a signal. If anything event or
signal makes us feel a certain emotion, we just have to change the physical reaction we
display from one enforcing the feeling to one immediately killing the feeling. That is why
some people clutch their hands when they get angry, to release the tension inside their
minds with physical tension. That is also the way we get rid of ticks, which are trained
reactions to a stimulus, by overriding them with another stimulus that is less visible.
Jokingly, a poker player that tightens his but instead of his facial expression when a bad
hand is played will likely perform better.

Frame control
We come back to frames. Remember that we discussed masks – an emotionless state,
distached from any persona or self-image, and without the need to defend the mask in
any situation – from frames and personas.
Putting this in context of the mood and emotion management problem, frames must be
stable in very different situations that demand different emotional interaction and hence
will run in different moods. An easy example would be work: being excitable and personal
when going for a lunch or Christmas party, being professional, kind and in a good mood
when doing work and engaging with co-workers and clients, to being assertive and
dominant without emotional reactions in negotiations. The frame in this context must
remain consistent, the moods shift, however, but the repertoire must somewhat align to
the frame and the situation.

Principles in Thought and behavior

We skip the part of the persona and come directly to the self-image and core. In every
mood, every emotion, every frame and every persona, we somehow still have to be
ourselves. There must be some core beliefs and principles of looking at the world that
float on stably and healthily. Such as that we simply do not kill people. We do not
humiliate people. We do not steal property of partners. We do not inflict unneccesary
pain on someone for our own amusement or out of a nihilistic worldview. Things must
matter for us to some point – the belief consistency of the self-image -, we must have
the thought concept that allows us to integrate all our personas, frames and masks and
moods and emotions that keeps the self-image from falling appart into sections that do
not make sense to each other. And finally, we must have the necessarily minimal
behavioural capability in all dimensions to enforce the survival of the self-image and its
demands to not radically destroy our self-confidence and self-efficacy. If this all works
out and we have what it takes to defend our self-image in the turmoils of life, we do have
what would be called “core confidence”.

Core Confidence
Core confidence is basically the development in confidence in the self-image where it is
related to the core beliefs and concepts that govern it. Since confidence has something
to do with the ability of getting what you want, it relates to the question on (1) how what
we want is aligned with true needs as the self-image requires it, (2) how we are able to
satisfy these core needs. To understand needs, we will look at Maslows hierarchy and his
theory of self-actualization and understand that understanding our real needs is critical
to core confidence as well as understanding the necessity to put in effort to make the
attainment of these needs possible. It relates to stripping our set of wants to those that
we truly want and that we can achieve or we want to learn how to achieve. Nothing is
more destructive to core confidence or life purpose that having unreflected needs and
wants that are hard to attain and then failing in attaining them. One of the worst
unfreflected wants we can have is the wish to be very rich, or the leader in an academic
field or be a super-gigolo, or be a leader of a national government. If that is really what
we need, then it is of course implying the clear need to learn to get there, but if we are
not really sure about it and just try to achieve this level of success for an unreflected
reason, we will likely lack the drive, the energy and the intrinsical deep pain that we feel
when we do not get it. This is also relevant because core confidenc also requires focus,
tremendeous focus on what we have and can achieve and be sufficiently satisfied with it
to have the confidence needed to attain more. And because so many people fail at the
exercise is the reason why it is also highly interesting to understand the flaws in reasoning
others have and how they can be exploited for this exact reason. Because people who
lack core confidence are way easier to exploit than those that have it.
So we start by looking at the problem of wanting. And then look at the self-actualizing
theory.

How do you know what you want?

When you like something, you typically say you like something, because it has …. What
you are saying is that you like something because the attributes you believe this
something to have – first hypothesis – and you believe the set of attributes will have a
particular impact on you – second hypothesis – compared to other object and their
attributes – third hypothesis/opportunity costs. When you desire something, it works
similar to liking something, but you desire because you attribute a causation of that
something with something you like – assuming this causation is valid being your fourth
hypothesis – and believing the desired thing is the best option you have – your fifth
hypothesis.
Checking and confirming these hypothesis and learning more about the relationships
between attainable or desirable things and you are really structured is what would be the
quest for seeing the world as it is in the sense that Maslow talks about it. The issue that
society and culture actually works against this uncovering is something that was at the
fore front of discussions on cultural alientation in the eligthenment era. The key issue at
hand in these discussions was that culture is blinding our view on what is essential and
what is not. Or the inability to any longer understand what our needs are vs. what we
believe and are educated to believe to be our needs. Something that Freud was referring
to as mechanisms of sublimation.
The key takaway today is that we still have to learn to listen to ourselves in a sophisticated
and educated manner to understand the difference between what be believe we want
and need and what we actually want and need. Any second wasted chasing the
obtainment of something we want or need when we do not really want or need it is a
waste of our life’s time.

So what is it with liking and desiring? If it all boils down to some afftributes giving you a
specific feeling that generates the “liking” part, then you might ask two core questions:
(1) is there really no lower cost way of having that feeling as to make you less dependent
on the thing you like, and (2) should this thing that you like be allowed to have you like
it.
Or in othe terms: (1) is there really no other way for you to have that feeling? And (2) if
there is none is it still acceptable that you crave the feeling and hence the thing that
creates it?

Vocabulary. Our ability to differentiate feelings, emotions, moods with a rich and well-
understood vocabulary is typically the first thing we have to learn and it goes against the
idea of labelling everything as “cool” or “uncool”, or “good” or “bad”. Any binary-level
simplication of things lacks the sophistication of contrasting states and desires in their
nuances and hence reduces our ability to react to the actual sensation we have and the
sensation we believe to must have.

Awareness. People who lack awareness of their own are typically prone to victims of
following an unreflected want or desire. They become witnesses of wants. Why exactly
do you want to buy that TV? That answer is simple: better screen quality. But when fully
aware of all the aspects, buying a TV is simply a dumb idea, because there is no real
program on TV any more that warrants the purchase of a TV. Or you focus on the
attainment of more power and money, whereas you remain completely blind of what
your actual desire is. Maybe power and money is unimportant and under full
consideration of all aspects, the length of your life demands you spent it having a bit
more fun and having a bit more quality time with your parents, you friends, you lover and
eventually your children. Such “blindspots” in awareness are dangerous as they are easy
to ignore. Unable to start a critical reflection process by simply lacking the skills it needs
to start such a reflection and lacking the skills and – well – balls to start the process, you
might simply focus on increasing your power and wealth, while being completely
unaware of its idiocracy. Maybe you wish to defer this process, because you still negate
the idea that you will die any time soon and that this critical question already matters to
you. Or you say that it doesn’t matter to ask this question, because you will die anyway
someday and the whole question doesn’t really merit your time. While all these
arguments make very much sense, the same tendency to forget about asking questions
thoroughly might stand in your way of generating power and wealth. You might know
you are a fraud, and still don’t care in this case, which also makes perfect sense if that is
what you are and want to be. So living blindly has been a blessing for many and it
continues to be one. But this lack of awareness then is a choice. And it should be of no
surprise that someone with a bit more of awareness and prowess might overtake you at
some point. The problem here is again that of realism: is the likelihood of you regretting
your choice large enough for you to make it matter or is it merely fine the way it is.

▪ Goals
▪ Fears

Static models of assets and value-generation in social environments

▪ Sennett's Culturalist Symbolism and the manifestation of identity and every-day life
ow in interior architecture
 ▪ Bordieu's depiction of culture as an asset and its implications on social dierentiation
Dynamic Models of social progression
▪ Theory of social networks:
Foundations
Character dymensions of networking
success Network as an asset theory

Social Percolation of likelihood of intermediate-term success in pathwalking

▪ Neuro-Programming as a means for the analysis of social networks The paradigm
of architectures

1) Behaviour and Problem Solving , a general denition

2) Analogy between synapses and program-architecture evolution

Denitions of locality and globality in various contexts

Success as stochastic control of local evolution of architectures

1) Comfort zone, social facilitation and inhibition and relation to local

evolution of the program-topology

Connections to the path-walking concept in Part I

▪ Luhmann in the micro-sphere: from contingency slopes and autopoietic dynamics
towards the neuro-programming paradigm and back

Dierentiation in social systems and materializations in Bordieu'ian asset classes

Baudrillard's concept of simulation and articiality with connections to epistemology

Fakeism, authenticity (Part III),

Measures of deviance: coolness, frame-dominance, -> a

brief note on connections to

To achieve this we need to be able to generate big value in a very short period of time
in front of a complete stranger. We need to seize this time to understand this individual
and to give him an idea of ourselves that makes us desirable. Only when we have
achieved enough value we can get this women into bed. But also, if we can get a women
into bed, we have enough value to do anything with her. Namely, the process of getting
this value is exactly the same process we need to master to make a good impression on
anyone and to get enough power of the situation as to dictate the relationship we are
getting into. Dictating the path of the relationship is however the prerequisite for taking
responsibility over the situation and the relationship and taking responsibility over all
relationships and situations one is in is nothing but the direct result of self-condence. We
need to have this self-condence and ability to con-trol our interactions with others, and
it is this control that we need to actively pursuit a plan towards our dream.

The pickup literature was designed to be understood by any person, academic or non-
academic and it is highly practical and result-oriented in nature. The literature on pickup
does not elaborate rhetorically brilliant on how to understand social activities. It gives us
a very fast and brute force introduction into social dynamics and how we can use it to
get what we want. And I personally believe that if we are able to be good pick-up artists
and we know their machinery, we have a solid and realistic foundation for getting deeper
into psychology and sociological and economic aspects of social interaction

The theory os self-actualization

Self-Actualization can be somewhat understood as obtaining control over the lower
levels of Maslow hierarchy of needs in a way to provide sufficiency in the key needs and
to then develop the finer elements of the higher levels.
Because Maslows work is very accessible to any reader and not too overly long, the idea
here is only to report briefly about the key dimensions of “the self-actualizing” man.

o Clear perception of reality (including a heightened ability to detect falseness and be

a
good judge of character).

o Acceptance (of themselves and things as they are).

o Spontaneity (a rich, unconventional inner life with a child-like ability to constantly see
the world anew and appreciate beauty in the mundane).
o Problem-centeredness (focus on questions or challenges outside themselves in a
sense of mission or purposeresulting in an absence of pettiness, introspection, and
ego games).

o Solitude seeking (enjoyed for its own sake, solitude also brings serenity and
detachment from misfortune/crisis, and allows for independence of
thought and decision).

o Autonomy (independence of the good opinion of other people, more interest in inner
satisfaction than status or rewards).

o Peak or mystical experiences (experiences when time seems to stand still).

o Human kinship (a genuine love for, and desire to help, all people).

o Humility and respect (belief that we can learn from anyone, and that even the worst
person has redeeming features).
o Ethics (clear, if not conventional, notions of right and wrong).

o Sense of humor (not amused by jokes that hurt or imply inferiority, but humor that
highlights the foolishness of human beings in general).

o Creativity (not the Mozart type of genius that is inborn, but in all that is done, said, or
acted).
o Resistance to enculturation (ability to see beyond the connes of culture and era).

o Imperfections (all the guilt, anxiety, self-blame, jealousy, and so on that regular people
experience, but these do not stem from neurosis).

o Values (based on a positive view of the world; the universe is not seen as a jungle but
an essen-tially abundant place, providing whatever we need to be able to
make our contribution).

Coming to the self-actualizing:

Traits 1: realistic perception and comfortability with the truth

1) Ability to detect the spurious, the fake, and the dishonest in personality + ability
to see concealed or confused realities more swiftly and more correctly than others

=> in general more accurate and complete predictions of the future + less based
upon wish, desire, anxiety, fear, or upon generalized, character-determined
optimism or pessimism
Not truly a better judgement, but a better perception (of what was really there)

It was found that self-actualizing people distinguished far more easily than
most the fresh, concrete, and idiographic from the generic, abstract, and
rubricized. The consequence is that they live more in the real world of nature
than in the man-made ~ass of concepts, abstractions, expectations, beliefs, ,
and stereotypes that most people confuse with the world, They are therefore
far more apt to perceive what is there rather than their own wishes, hopes,
fears, anxieties, their own theories and beliefs, or those of their cultural group.
"The innocent eye,"

Our healthy subjects are generally unthreatened and unfrightened by the

unknown, being therein quite dierent from average men. They accept it, are
comfortable with it, and, often are even more attracted by it than by the
known. They not only tolerate the ambiguous and unstructured (135); they like
it.

And yet we all know how many scientists with high IQ, through timidity,
conventionality, anxiety, or other character defects, occupy themselve~
exclusively with what is known, with polishing it, arranging and rearranging it,
 classifying it, and otherwise puttering with it instead of discovering. as they
are supposed to do.
Since for healthy people, the unknown is not frightening, they do not have to
spend any time laying the ghost, whistling past the cemetery, or otherwise
protecting- themselves against imagined dangers. They do not neglect the
unknown, or deny it, or run away from it, or try to make believe it is really
known, nor do they organize, dichotomize, or rubricize it prematurely. They
do not cling to the familiar, nor is their quest for the truth a catastrophic need
for certainty, safety, deniteness, and order, such as we see in an exaggerated
form in Goldstein's brain-injured or in the compulsive-obsessive neurotic.
They can be, when the total objective situation calls for it. comfortably
disorderly, slopply, anarchic, chaotic, vague, doubtful, uncertain, indenite,
approximate, inexact, or inaccurate (all, at certain moments in science, art, or
life in general, quite desir. ahle).

Traits 2: Acceptance of self/others/nature

lack of overriding guilt, of crippling shame, and of extreme or severe anxiety.

Our healthy individuals nd it poso sible to accept themselves and their own
nature without chagrin or complaint or, for that matter, even without thinking
about the matter very much.

They can accept their own human nature in the stoic style, with all its
shortcomings, with all its discrepancies from the ideal image without feeling
real concern. It would convey the wrong impression to say that they are self-
satised. What we must say rather is that they can take the frailties and sins,
weaknesses, and evils of human nature in the same unquestioning spirit with
which one accepts the characteristics of nature.

simply noting and observing what is the case, without either arguing the
matter or de-manding that it be o,therwise, so does the selfactualizing person
tend to look upon human nature in himself and in others.

see human nature as it is and not as they would prefer it to be. Their eyes see
what is before them without being strained through spectacles of various sorts
to distort or shape or color the reality

Those self-actualizing people tend to be good animals, hearty in their

appetites and enjoying themselves without regret or shame or apology. They
seem to have a uniformly good appetite for food; they seem to sleep well;
they seem to enjoy their sexuaUives without unnecessary inhibition and so on
for all the relatively physiological impuls

these people are inclined to accept the work of nature rather than to argue
with her for not having constructed things to a dierent pattern.
 Closely related to self-acceptance and to acceptance of others is (I) their lack
of defensive-ness, protective coloration, or pose, and (2) their distaste for such
articialities in others. Cant, guile, hypocrisy, front, face, playing a game, trying
to impress in conventional ways: these are all absent in themselves to an
unusual degree. Since they can live comfortably even with their own
shortcomings, these nally come to be perceived, especially in later life, as not
shortcomings at all, but simply as neutral personal characteristics

What healthy people do feel guilty about (or ashamed, anxious, sad, or
regretful) are (I) improvable shortcomings, e.g., laziness, thoughtlessness, loss
of temper, hurting others; (2) stubborn remnants of psychological ill health,
e.g., prejudice, jealousy, envy; (3) habits, which, though relatively independent
of character structure, may yet be very strong, or (4) shortcomings of the
species or of the culture or of the group with which they have identied. The
general formula seems to be that healthy people wiII feel bad about
discrepancies between what is and what might very well be or ou~ht to be

Spontaneity, Simplicity, Naturalness

Âuthenticity is knowing you are a good person and you deserve the time of others.

This might stem from the fact that you are not conform with behaviour you learned
as acceptable, but because you developed traits and habits that stem from your
personal truth

It might also arise from the fact that you know that you are a good person in that
sense that you give people value. You are neither an attention seeker nor a
supplication-inducing player that just tries to castrate other people's security. You
are here to do good and you are sincere and honest and well-meaning in
everything you do.

It has to do with choosing who you want to let into your life. You do not have to
bond with everyone and get them into your life, but you need to choose those that
deserve you for their authenticity and here you can be authentic, as they appreciate
the very idea of authenticity.

If you are authentic and people still do not get it, you might want to ask yourself if
this authenticity stems from the core of your identity or is some part of piece that
you dragged along as being authentic.

So asking who you are deep down inside, what made you the man you are and the
man that cannot change and dier in certain aspects, then if your authenticity comes
from this point, it will be felt.
 Dening coolness and what is worth living for for yourself and not because others
like and love it.

Authenticity and dominance is what makes you go from entertaining to fascinating

to desirable.

Authenticity comes from a point where you are so validated and satised that you
can help others and provide value without hopes of giving anything in return.

If you are Tom Cruise, you are at a spot where you can basically take value from
noone any more and you are basically just there spilling value all over the place (or
today it would be Charlie Sheen)

Being able to open up authentically despite peer pressure all aroundd which acted
lik is a sign of high social value (the Chief in Blue Bloods)

The girl should not be interesting in what he has to say but in who is actually is and
whether he is interesting.

Balance your identity, your thoughts and who you are, how you act. And become
authentic-The pitfall of the development

Being entertaining rather than interesting

Instead of becoming authentic you become bold and play frames that do not
represent you
Insecurely Ball-Busting rather than being playfully challenging

Too cocky and overcompensating lack of being playfully condent

Trying too hard to be aloof, to the point where you are considered arrogant

Trying too hard to be sophisticated persona. Professors and doctors need this
persona to survive in their eld, but it is not something to do in your private
life.

Being so macho that you can't think about LTRs any more and you value
women less than they deserve

Being inexpressive, quiet and too nice. The opposite of macho

Common pitfalls
Value chasing:

- continuous reaction seeking

- thinking it is your set rather than you personaliy
- substituting self-qualication and supplicating others for demonstrating value
more will
 still make you invisible

Pitfals:

- refusal to improve

- misconception (thinking congruence is cool)

- continually reationalizing to be cool => your frame will collapse anytime you
start to approach

Perils of the game:

- social robot

- fear being manipulated all the time

- you see haters or sluts everywhere

- Value-Chasing

- unable to listen to people

- basing your validation on how well women respond to you

- thinking women are

replacabled Final Tips

- Have your own reality. Let people face it. Be aggressively abducting them
into your world.

- Always use your frame to draw others in. Don't do it the other way around.

- It's ne to be attracted. But don't become dependent on their judgement

Authentic Happiness (Martin Seligman)

Authentic happiness has to do with personality and character and how it suits you
to enrich your environment with what you deserve and need.

You can refer to Sloterdijks paradigm of the human emotional machine that
aggregates and releases emotional potential. To release emotional potential and
aggregate it in a sustainable and optimal manner is key to happiness in life. Usually
you have a limited set of actions that you can do in your current state of network.
You can release agression when you are in sports or a gthing club. You can release
love when you are with good friends, family. You can release sexual desire when
 you are together with a woman that suits you well. So more important than
aggregating wealth is the ability to enter a stable environment that is dynamic and
consistent enough for you to feel secure and happy depending on the emotional
cycles of that environment.

3.2.4. Habits

“While good habits are hard to acquire, they become easy to live with; in contrast, bad
habits come slowly and easily but are hard to live with”

There are five types of habits that people can use to grow in their lives.
• Sustainability and Anti-Atrophy habits that prevent their capabilities from
vanishing. Can be related to sports, health, sleep, memory tasks, problem solving.
• Destress and Reflection habits that are meant to recharge and gain perspective in
a world that is rushing through every moment.
• Challenge and grow habits that attempt to consistently move the individual out
of his comfort zone, increase the level of intensity in aggression, complexity,
reaction, etc.
• Blank or do it different habits: habits that focus on not going in the direction the
individual takes to do something completely different. Adds perspective, creates
creativitiy.
• Train and practice habits: meant to improve habitual competence in an area where
this is appearing as desirable.
Some are reactive habits that prevent something bad from happening and their goal is
typically to keep them to a minimum where they still serve their purpose and select the
most effective habits that exist. Some are lifestyle and feel-good habits that are there to
keep the individual motivated and dreaming. Some are habits that are used to increase
the speed at which the individual is learning and growing to get closer to a goal faster.

There is no real catalogue of habits since the pursuits of everyone are too distinct. But
using habits reduces the cognitive load once the habit if formed and they provide long-
term benefits. And, of course, kicking bad habits is another central aspects. One must
enjoy the good habits and enjoy not having the bad habits.

3.1.2. Body Language.

Body language training and reflection requires a lot of pictures. Not the point of the
book to run through all the many body language aspects. Instead, this part focuses on
core aspects of how body language works in the general context of what this book is
talking about. Another part on body language is found in the “the other” chapter when
it comes to reading body language. This part focuses on what it takes to train and use
body language.
3.2.1.1. Relationship of body language to other traits
Moods -> Body Language:
The first and most important thing that we can learn about body language is that it is
nothing that we control in our mind and in the moment. The attempt to control of the
full spectrum of body language in any situation would completely deplete our
cognitive capacity and reduce our ability to act agile and reactive and focused on
using our cognitive and emotional empathy.

The question then is how can we control body language in various scenarios that warrant
different patterns and behaviours? The answer could be simple: by using frames. But
that would make it difficult to adapt frames to the situation and we would come off as
stiff. We will have to change our frame and persona in a situation, but still have to project
a consistent body language while being emotionally open to the situation. The only way
to structure and anchor behavioural patterns to a situation is by attaching it to moods
and learning to invoke the moods and attached behavioural repertoires when we need
them and then to learn to attach the best possible behavioural patterns to the mood of
choice.

Body Language -> Emotion:

Some forms of body language, especially posture, does not only reflect on emotional
and mood state, but creates emotions, as psychological research has shown [Wikipedia:
Posture]. While self-validation theory and the correlation between posture and self-
image and atttitudes just reflects what we already said about moods and frames, the
more interesting embodied emotion theory says that when something triggers an
emotional shift, it translates into body language and posture and vice versa. Namely the
movement caused by an emotion does not only follow the emotion but creates and
magnifies it. So the connection can be understood as a click-and-wirr mechanism that
increases the intensity of an emotion or that it is a learned behavior to increase our
emotional empathy. It does not exclude the idea that we would react differently to the
signal if we would adopt a different posture that would show a different emotional
reaction. It should be easily observed that our emotional view on any particular event
changes the moment we change our posture. Which is nothing different from seeing
that a forced adoption of a posture can lead to a frame triggered that creates a different
interpretation of the situation and hence our emotional reaction.

The learnings here should be twofold. If we want to access particular behaviours, we

need to activate a frame. Something that we likely do by connecting the frame and
beahviour to a mood and learning to control the mood. The second learning is that the
constant adoption of a particular pose and set of body language will lead to a constant
emotional state. If we adopt the same posture in different moods and frames, it will likely
become a dominant determinant of how we feel and react in situations. And mixes the
clarity of the frame and its effectiveness when the mood is activated to serve a particular
frame in a particular situation. Makes sense? Just take care of your posture. Monitor how
you react to certain events by changing body language and how this relates to the
stability of your frame. The whole training in creating stable frames is connected to
learning how to channel our body and emotional reaction to events. Our whole ability
to fit in and blend into different situations is to separate frames and moods for these
occasions.

Relevance of body language for social status:

The key takeaway why we will discuss dominance and confidence in the context of body
language rests in its connection to emotion and the effect of emotion on affecting our
self-image and thereby affecting the strength of our persona and frame. The key to
stabilizing frames is to limit the forces that influence our body language in a way that
its effect on emotion destroys our frame.
But before getting to body language that transports confidence and dominance, time
to understand some core concepts in this context.

3.1.2.2. Dominance, Confidence, Assertiveness

Assertiveness 1: Assertiveness is defined by the absence of self-image confirming
receptivity and the ability to impose one’s will on the other. Sounds simple, let’s dive
deeper.
Receptivity: A person that is lost in being aware of domination and body language
patterns and probes and pings for clues signals from others to identify the rank in a
group is not assertive, but receptive. This receptiveness can be observed either in left-
brain mode when people actively scan and assess a situation and react strategically. Or
it can be in right-brain mode, when they don’t actively focus on the situation and they
intuitiveless or via cognitive and emotional empathy chose a path of interaction that
places them in the hierarchy. Such receptiveness happens when our standing and place
in the world, the situation and the environment is unclear. The oppostive of receptive
behavior is assertive behavior. And this typically comes along with very high levels of
confidence. Rather these people enter situations directly enforcing their core belief that
they are the highest in the hierarchy and enforce anyone receptive to align with their
claim on their dominance.

Confidence = con + Fidence = Conning with faith: In this context, conning is based
on the belief that we accept that reality is not absolute and a matter of interpretation,
making conning the art of persuasion, the art of convincing others of our view of the
story, and doing so with faith in our ability to do so. If we are confident in this sense and
dominant as to be eager to always persuade such that there is no need to ever question
our view by listening to the view of someone else, we are being assertive. We assert that
the other has to follow our view and that we will ultimately move out of any situation
with this mission achieved.

Arrogance: Arrogance is simly assertiveness combined with a faulty view on the world
where our ability to persuade does not rest in the superior and aggregable view on the
world but our ability to dominate the other into accepting our belief or pretending to
do so. Arrogance certainly is a negative trait, but arrogance paired with a very high
interest and devotion to learning to understand the better view of the world that will
lead to confidence and assertiveness is a far better strategy than being overly receptive
and self-doubting. The oppostive of arrogance being unsure about the truth or even
being sure and then being overpowered by arrogant people : meekness. Modesty being
able to stand back and accept the view of the other after initially entering a situation
arrogantly, humility the ability to do so after we dominated the other and accepting our
misconception in behavior.

Domineering behavior: Domineering is related to arrogance but sets in on a different

level. Arrogance is the belief that one is right and the domineering or dominant attempt
to enforce this belief on others. Domineering is the reaction to the understanding that
one is not dominating, that this fact is violating a core blief and self-image and that
aggressive and hence domineering behavior is needed to enforce this status quo. The
task of the domineering individual is no longer to enforce consens on believes, but to
simply set the hierarchy straight. And doing so not by dominance – the non-aggressive
ability to take this rank – but by using aggressive tacticts to achieve so.

Assertiveness II: That being said, assertiveness is assertiveness as understood in the first
definition attempt, but with a very high ability to actually be right in the domain where
we are assertive and to win the fight in a non-aggressive way – by being resolute.

Confidence vs Assertiveness: Confidence is something that relates to our self, self-

confidence the ability to not be receptive to attacks on our core beliefs and self-image
when it relates to us. But it does not relate to our reaction to relationships with others.
Assertiveness, Meekness, arrogance are then concepts t hat relate how we use our views
on a subject outside of our self combined with our actual expertness on the subject and
our ability to dominate in the situation.

Confidence, dominance, assertiveness: In that sense, core confidence regulates our

body language. If our position in an argument or dispute on something on a subject
matter does not penetrate our self-image, it should not incite any reaction in the form
of body language that would be displayed if we are being attacked. With confidence, we
simply do not show regret, fear, humiliation or shame when winning or losing an
argument. Learning to not attach any meaning for the self-image to any interaction that
does not relate to our self-image, and hence not attaching our self-image to disputes
on a subject, is what increases confidence. Assertiveness then is the ability to extend our
self-image related confidence to the confidence that we can win every argument and
dispute. And dominance relates to it when we move away from the subject matter to the
mere inter-relation dynamics. We can lose an argument, and still dominate the
interaction, but we are no longer assertive if we hold the right view. In that context,
having balls is to enter any situation with the idea that we will be assertive, independent
from our knowledge of how assertive, dominant, knowledgable and confident the other
is.

Dominance vs Arrogance and Domineering

A blog post if found that defines the common problems of discriminating key terms and
was written from the perspective of a woman:
1. Arrogant: Gets defensive when challenged vs.
Confident: Has nothing to prove.
Arrogant people are ready to fight, often at the drop of a hat, to defend manhood
and dominance. The confident man, on the other hand, doesn’t feel the need. He
knows, without question, who is the man and feels no need to take it further. I’ve
 seen this presented with humor, with aloofness, and with simple straight, no
backing down, eye contact. Now, some will say that not defending oneself might
be seen as beta, but there is a vast difference. A beta will tend to drop his eyes,
give a slight slump of his shoulders or even raise his hands in a defensive
position. The confident man will do none of these things. He will however, if the
situation warrants, make it very clear through his eye contact and body language
that he will, indeed, throw down should the need arise. The arrogant man will
often simple start throwing fists, lamely walk away trying to maintain frame, or
will lose himself altogether.
2. Arrogant: Childing
Confident: Child like
The arrogant man tends to come across as childish when things don’t go his
way. He sort of stamps his feet and walks off sulking. The confident man simply
fixes the situation. His child-like ways often will come out around those he loves,
when teasing and playing around with his wife and in playing with his
kids. Confident men aren’t afraid to play with kids like they are kids and have a
wonderful time doing it. The mirth one sees in their eyes is genuine and infective.
3. Arrogant: Aggressive
Confident: Resolute
This goes back to the getting defensive when challenged and the having nothing
to prove concepts. An aggressive man often goes into a situation looking for a
fight. He might be intimidating to a lot of people, but there is a certain weakness
about him that is often perceived, but almost difficult to put ones finger on. With
the resolute man, there is none of this. He will calmly stand his ground, will
defend himself as necessary (often brutally, as it will end it quickly) but will only
do so if necessary.

4. Arrogant: Threatens
Confident: Messes with minds
This one is interesting to observe. The arrogant man is quite obvious. He hears
something he doesn’t like and he will get loud and make various threats. He is
standing up for himself, but it is almost too much. He is losing his frame in his
anger and it diminishes him. The confident man will play with someone’s
head. Often, the person on the receiving end won’t quite know for certain what
happened and if it was derogatory, funny, witty, etc. It is a very good example of
the male hamster spin. This is when you can almost see the person being messed
with almost turn his head to the side in wondering what just happened? Did he
miss something?
5. Arrogant: Domineers
Confident: Dominates
The definition of domineering is: Assert one’s will over another in an arrogant
way (google search) or inclined to exercise arbitrary and overbearing control over
others (Merriam-Webster). A domineering man will often use some kind of threat
to assert his will. He usually has no other way to enforce it. Therefore, people do
what he wants to avoid some kind of a bad outcome. A dominant man most often
inspires people to do what he asks. They want to do it to please him. He is well
liked, yet often has very high standards. He will not respect anyone and
 everyone. People must earn his respect and they strive to do so. People around
men like this will often go above and beyond for them and they will be respected
for it. This will drive them to continue to work in this fashion.
The terms dominant and domineering have been hijacked in recent years in an
attempt to bolster women and put men in their perceived place. Feminists
referred to the patriarchy as domineering in their attempts to end it. But, while
there were certainly some domineering men, most men were simply
dominant. They had a family and a home to care for and they did it. These men
knew that in order to care for the family, tough decisions must be made and they
were often at the expense of what their women said they wanted. Here’s the
thing, though. Their women respected them. They may have been hurt they
didn’t get their way, but the decision was made and it was what was best. She
may not have overtly understood (though, I think far more women did understand
this then) that the decision made was best for all the family members, including
her, she knew on some level that things were good, safe, and secure. She could
depend fully on this dominant man, and she loved and respected that (Need I say
that, obviously, not all marriages were like this and that there were domineering
men? They were still fractionally small compared to the dominant man.)

3.1.2.3. Alaways make sure others want something from you

One goal is always to make sure people want something from you. Either they do so
from the beginning – by all your grooming, reputation and status – or you know exactly
what you have to pitch people to leave with a memory or desire to meet you again.

That is probably one of the most powerful concepts behind confidence.

If someone of confidence doesn’t want much or is fully satisfied, it is absolutely normal

that he never wants anything from others. Especially in a time where everybody wants
something, this becomes of enourmous important. Nothing hurts confidence more than
being in need of someone else and being unable to offer more value to the other than
one needs. If you can offer more than you want, and know how to present the offer in a
meaningful transaction, that is par excellence the meaning of confidence.

This doesn’t say that we should never want something from anyone else, but that every
social interaction should be phrased by what someone else wants from us. The entire
strategic thinking of manipulation and how we use others for our purpose should be
done as homework and be present in our mind when we engage with people. But in
every situation we should be receptive to and reaction to the wants of others. Their core
agenda, their situational agenda, their mood, their situational view on the situation and
their expectation and then formulating a need and want and reacting on it. The entire
idea of dominance and confidence somehow rests in displaying attractiveness and value
to others. If we succeed and showing value without ever going for an ask, we are in the
position to have them secretly, hiddenly or even openly and directly approach us and
ask for something. Once we understand this principle and that people throw cues and
messages at us that they want something, we just have to throw the hook and catch the
fish by asking people what they want. For a person high in the mobster hierarchy this is
obivious: people come to him/her, ask for something and they get played for life. In a
pick-up scenario, you build value and observe the cues for want and approach and ask
what people want. And move on when people don’t want anything. When you are fund
raising for a fund, you are not begging for money, you are realizing someone wants your
profile and you offer it. As an entrepreneur, you don’t go out and look for someone to
buy your product, but you serve a pain of someone and then educate him that you are
there. In a salary negotiation, you don’t go out and ask for more money and position
telling you are in need of a better position, but you say how nice everything is and that
you feel like you want to move on and get some new exposure to experience, while being
a valuable asset to the company. Of course, this is only one strategy. If you know you
can get what you want, you just go there and demand it. If you are very attractive and
everyone wants to get down with you, you just pick. If you are a rocksolid start-up that
serves everyones need, you just go and call your client and serve your product asking
for very good prices. If you want a better job and you are invaluable, you just go into
the negotiation state your demands and put your resignation on the table to establish
your ground.

3.1.2.4. Body Language for dominance

Dominant body language attempts to portray self-confidence, strength – in case of a

fight or challenge -, competence in the domain and relaxedness at the same time. And
doing so consistently over all non-verbal and verbal channels including sweating, pupil
dilation, and other hard to control aspects.

Dimensions: Posture, body tension, usage of space, symmetries, mimic, gestures and
learning deaf language, voice and being blind, sweating sex and those that perceive
smell well,

Example - Attraction: Walk down a street in a suit, look on the ground, huddled body
posture and an angry or sad look and a bit in a hurry. Do the same while looking into
the skies or ahead, strong body posture and with a smile on your face, overall slower
and more relaxed. And measure the number of times you have to move aside for a
passenger in a dense urban environment. Or observe the different if you look through
someone pointing your eyes into the direction you want to move and observe how
people are moving around you in the opposite direction. And then do the same without
solid attire and looking like you just left Alcatraz. And then do the same with luxury
brands printed all over you. The golden middle in being groomed, non-luxurious and
non-homeless – being supernormal – will likely lead to the most favourable overall
reaction. That’s the first thing you learn in pick up artist schools. Then adding code
coloring and uniqueness to an overall supernormal look increases interest and attention.
And finally, polishing this look by getting fitted and tailored clothes and being in overall
good health and shape gets something like constant attraction.

Example – Non-Threatening Confidence: Use eye-contact with wide open eyes,

relaxed state of mind and a friendly face and hold it longer than others. Don't open your
eyes and grin evilishly, just look contempt and keep looking longer on others than they
do and count the number of times these people smile or turn around vs. when you don’t
do. And do the same exercise when moving your head pointing to the person you look
at and do the same when pointing your sholders towards that person. The stronger the
body is aligned with your eyes, the more sincere and confident you are perceived. And
the more approachable and possibly open for engaging. Remaining friendly faced and
less tense than the other also reduces the adrenaline and stress reaction of the other.

Example – Baselined Level of Aggression:

The perfect dominant postures depend on the level of aggression and attention needed
in a situation. An aggressive, but not necessarily threatening posture would be standing
tall, shoulders back, straight body, but not too straight, with body tension without being
stiff, and arms not hanging loosely off the body but having a meaningful distance to
other people. Distance, total space taken and the level of density and symmetry in
walking can be used to increase dominance. In situations where dominance counts, the
whole game is adjusting dominance levels to the level you want to display. Typically that
adjusts to the people in the room, not displaying dominance higher than the rank that
is known and not being a slight inch less dominant than the most dominant superior.
Being too dominant shows ignorance or displays a level of ambition that might put
people off. Being too non-dominant will lead to negative judgement of status and
ambition. But then again, the higher the level of dominance in a room, the higher the
uncertainty in the room about what the pecking order is and who is who. So dominance
is more visible in rooms where nobody knows no one.

Example – Baselined Level of Relaxedness: It is also easily observed that the highest
ranking and most established individuals in the room show the highest level of
relaxedness. The higher the attraction and status and the ability to show status by being
approached by others, the more likable and confident the individual that displays no
dominance. Showing dominance in such an environment displays to what extend you
are an outsider. The strategy of dominance is to focus on power of association and talk
to the individuals you identified as highest status and use the social proof concept rather
than the dominance aspect. It makes absolutely no sense to play a dominance card, as
you will not approach anyone or win more connections by doing so. What might help
being more flamboyant and use that as an entry point. Or use introductions by someone
else you know to expand footprint.

Example – Baselined Level of Activity: So dominance is not always associated with

more tension. The level of aggression displayed depends on the dominance in the group
or room. And sometimes the speed of interaction – faster requiring more jumping off
the toe and hence being more aggressive by being to the point, intelligent, witty and
fast thinking. The level of energy now translates into brain activity and agility and is less
focused on slow and controlled physical movement. Being fast paced while not being
fidgety and jump-the-gun is the art in these environments.

In all cases, aggressive or not, openness is a sign of being non-threatening and feeling
non-threatened. Stiffness and closed body language immediately show higher forms of
aggression which diminish dominance. Posture can be impacted by health and other
factors and requires baselining in the same fashion as behavior in general requires it.

Pacing:
Pacing relates to the velocity of movement, talking and behavior. Some situations require
us to tred slowly, some require fast paced movement. Some situations require slow
thought out sentences to be uttered, some require catchy phrases to be explaimed, some
require witty and fast expressions. Some require getting to the point clear. Some require
a concise and highly structured account of a series of concepts and relationships to make
a point. Being highly adaptive and overperforming against others based on the expected
pacing in the situation is another art. Too often you see people just being themselves
and reacting emotionally and intuitively to the situation, but thereby merely pacing and
not moving to leading the overall pace of the situation. Understanding the target
scenario and converting others towards that target scenario is some typicaly feature that
can be observed. Domineering would imply that a target pace is set and anyone that is
non compliant is judged as not able to keep up the pace. Dominance would imply that
the target pace is known and an individual engages at a level that allows people to follow
the pace, possibly adjusting pace into their direction in the beginning and building their
confidence to slowly move to the Target pace. Depending on the overall distribution of
dominant and domineering individuals, the strategy must again benchmark against the
situation. Sometimes leading people towards target is inferior to being on target and
requiring them to follow suit without help.

Voice, Voice, Voice:

Etiquette:
The etiquette aspect was mentioned on several occasions. Etiquette means one is able
to adopt to the situation when it comes to dominance, domineering, to pace, to posture,
to voice, etc. Etiquette for leaders goes a bit beyond and requires the knowledge of an
overall perfect state. People then are being slowly coached and moved towards that ideal
state. Differences are used to formulate an agreeable mid term etiquette and everyone
is slowly moved towards a target etiquette down the line. If you have a bunch of angry
and aggressive bankers and want a more agile and friendly environment, the etiquette
surely demands first winning the aggression game, then moving slowly to the agile
approach while winning consensus and acceptance by making the benefits visible and
relatable. But first off all, unless you want to display a superiority by mere non-
conformance to the etiquette, you should always adapt to the etiquette and then go
from there if you seek inclusion and leadership that is accepted from within the group.
In fast paced environments where hierarchy and status is clear, it more often than not
happens that the new etiquette is defined and executed from the beginning. That
reduces the need to win acceptance during the progression towards the target state and
the conflict that arises in the beginning and the uncertainty about the skills and powers
of the new authority leads to more disalignment in the group which helps uncover and
formulate more strategies to deal with the entire group.
We called this the “rattle the tree” strategy in one of a prior “group” I was in. By pissing
an entire group off, loyalties and bounds became clearly visible and could be use to
formulate a transition framework that leveraged the existing group structure.

Proactivity in social management

It is impossible to be on point in fast paced environments without a massive memory.
Preparation is hence key. Cool general stories in your head are a must. More travel, richer
experiences, more display of status baked in, and a less caring tone in the way the story
is told with an overall more effective narrative pattern for different paces – 2 seconds ?
10 seconds ? A minute to tell the story ? – is typically what wins such situations.

And this is where sophistry matters more than realism and idealism. Reality is impossibly
uncovered and the story must hit.

Learn to be proactive, prepare to belief in your worthyness no matter what, expect

success Your head

Greeting:
There is even an art of greeting people that of course is different in every culture. Having
the right people to ask what the superior greeting and “5 seconds to make an
impression” strategy is crucial.
In the western world, greeting by nodding upwards is perceived as more confident than
greeting by nodding down – which is a tiny bow. Greeting too high can also be arrogant
like greeting a servant. It is a clear way to show you don’t approve of someone. And it is
very natural in the western world to great a foreign acquaintance this way, indicating a
“leave me alone” statement. Greet nodding downwards it is submissive if the other nods
upwards. If both greet downwards, it can be a sign of a mutal bow and hence mutual
respect. If both greet upwards, it is basically a direct message that both don’t want to
talk to each other.
Greeting without a nod is sometimes appropriate. In a business setting, the person that
is paying is typically not nodding. The person paid trying to be non-submissive nods
downwards very fast and abrupt without really going down.
Greeting without nodding is acknowledging that one does not judge someone or does
not acknowledge knowing someone. It is a subliminal statement saying “I don’t know
who you are or what you want. I want nothing from you. Let’s see where this goes.”

Even more important, do you greet with the forehead – neck unchanged – or is your
back and neck lowered? If you greet by lowering the back of your neck, it is a sure sign
of ducking and fear.

3.1.3. Superior Behaviour

3.1.3.1. Vices and Virtue
Vices and virtues are symbolic concepts of displaying ethics by both not doing what is
understood as bad, and doing what is considered good. It reflects in habits, traits that
steadily repeat or reveal in specific situations. They are the revealing outcome of self-
images that percolate through personas, frames and masks to utterly display in a
moment and indicate either virtuous or viceful character. They relate in part to other
concept, but also are worthy mentioning stand-alone. Noteworthy is that a vice does
not attack the self-image when revealed, but the credibility of the persona. It will hence
create feelings of shame or guilt more than it will incite aggression and dominant
behavior. Someone whose vices shine through doesn’t feel like he was confronted with
an event that breaks his self-image, but may very well be aware that the integrity of his
persona or frame is being destroyed. Deep down the person knows his vices and they
are part of his character. It hence makes a difference if someone suddenly kills an
animal and feels okay with it – a vice – or is forced to kill an animal and doesn’t feel
okay with it – an attack on the integrity of the belief system that one is capable of not
killing animals and that it is not fine to do so.

A. Actual Vices and Virtues

Our image in society might get destroyed as soon as the first stroke is off in the
painting. So while context matters a lot on what is a truly bad stroke and what is not,
some behavioural traits are regarded generally good and bad.
(-) Jealousy and Envy. Yes, those almost always destroys perception of status. Almost
nobody can force us into acting jealous, but if we do so we do so because we have the
character trait.
(-) Subordination. Yes, being the obvious pawn of someone else’s game is bad.
Women have a special sensor and it is said that they always pick the #1 in the social
environment rather than the prettiest or strongest one. So we can be forced into
subordination, but we can also blindly walk into it and be okay with it when confronted
with the fact.
(-) Supplication. Yes, trying too hard to impress someone that might not be worth it is
also bad. Also something we can be pressured or motivated into, but most of the time
a trait we display when we are needy and lack the trait of deserving and status.
(-) Fixation/Obsession. People all over the world have – more or less well tuned –
sensors when someone is abnormally focusing his attention on something. If someone
is too openly and easily detectible focusing his attention on something and ignoring
the remaining things that also warrant attention, this is equal to an obsessive fixation.
And a sign of lack of control and weakness – you always subordinate to the thing you
attend too too much. This is not to be misunderstood as passion. Passion for the right
thing is a good thing, passion for something trivial and even a particular person in an
obsessive way is bad. Always. And opens door for attackers. Lack of fixation would be
the oppositive to smootheness.
(+) Coolness. The ability to not be affected by others attempt or non-attempt to stir
an emotional reaction that is inappropriate. The ability to stay calm, focused and rested
when this appears normal and is expected.

3.1.3.1. Authenticity vs Superficiality

Different from the actual vices and virtues are those that are to be displayed by masks
in a social setting. They are trained symbolic behaviours that serve the impression
formation, but can be emulated without the self-image being responsible for it. There
are modular building blocks of publicly visible or invisible “must haves” in behavior.
While all of them can have some deeper meaning and to some form are obvious traits
that we posess or not, some are really just modes of comparison on the outside.
Thinking of the “lifelong learner” that always snaps a book when people observe him
and starts talking funny stories about what he learned, but in the end his learning is
slow and he is overall retarded – does happen, doesn’t it. As opposed to someone that
doesn’t wear that symbolic flag, but indeed is driven by the very same concept in his
deepest character. In this direct comparison, we are talking about authentic vs.
artificial behaviour.

This is taken from a text book on social psychology and provides a list of ten top cross-
cultural values ranked by importance. They appear completely outlandish for anyone
that understands how society and power works today. But everyone would agree they
are the features a good human being should display.
(+) Benevolence. Preserving and enhancing the welfare of those who you are in frequent
contact with.
(+) Self-Direction: Independent thought and action, choosing one’s own goals. The
freedom to create and explore.
(+) Universalism: Understanding, appreciation, tolerance and protection of the welfare
of all people and of nature. Advocating justice, peace, respect for other people and the
environment.
(+) Security: Safety, harmony, stability of society, of relationships, of the self. Maintaining
social order, establishing trust and reciprocation with others.
(+) Conformity: Restrait of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to uposet or harm
others and violate social expactations or norms. Obeying authorities, being polite, self-
disciplined, honoring parents and elderly.
(+) Achievement: Presoanl success through demonstrating competence according to
social standards. Being ambitious and feeling competent.
(+) Hedonism: Pleasure ans sensuous gratifictation for oneself. Enjoying life.
(+) Stimuatlion: Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life.
(+) Tradition: Respect, commitment, acceptance of the customs and ideas of traditional
culture or religion.
(+) Power: Social status, presige, control or dominance over people and resources.
Seeking authority, wealth and public esteem.

All those behaviours can be faked and are generally understood as indicators of core
confidence and an ethical belief system and being social. Especially good deeds do not
have to indicate anything. The chase of power can be intrinsically motivated or one is
simply doing it.

Authenticity, Sincerity and Integrity

The term authenticity is better known when looking at original paintings vs forged
paintings. The idea of authenticity then means that something is unique and truthfuly
what it presents to be. This is equal to saying that an authentic individual is somewhat
radically honest – in the words of Brad Blanton -: it does not disguise its intent, opinion
or belief and what the individual portrays and communicates is what really what the
individual thinks and is.
Sincerity on the other part is the intent and dedicated attempt to be authentic. Sincerity
can be understood as an unspoken promise of trying to be authentic coupled with the
attempt to treat others the way we think they want to be treated in their best interests
and the best way we can, while also suggesting that we do act in this way not because
we want to deceit but because we authentically want them to be happy and treated just.
So while authenticity is something that relates to ourselves and the image or mask we
create, the sincerity concept implies that the mask we wear is non deceitful and the
benevolent thoughts and actions we display are sincere.
Integrity is then the idea that our beliefs, behaviours, etc., or, our authentic self is stable
and reliable in the future. Integrity refers to the alignment of our current self with the
future self. The idea that we hold on to promises we keep, hold on to keep the level of
fairness we currently display and that we will not suddenly change our behavior or
believes when things change. An integer person that treats everyone in a particularly
nice way would do so even if that person defected from cooperation and did something
morally wrong.

All these three concepts could start a lengthly philosophical debate about their actual
meaning, their implications on behavior. At this point, the relevant aspec is that it is
assumed that the lack of any of these three traits will result in behavior that can be
detected and that reveals the issue.
Lack of authenticity can translate into occasional frame breaks, when an overall confident
individual suddenly displays traits of someone in doubt about his own self and the core
belief of him being good. Typical behaviour observed in authentic people include: Firm
eye contact, constant levels of warmness and touch, taking up space, relaxed body
language in relation to group, strong voice, decisiveness, holding court of having people
approach you, visible emotional reactions, being hard to get rapport with (people will
bow down immediately), being the first one to do something. They express verbal
patterns that defy qualifying themselves, they easily create images that create excitement
and amusement, their frame fits and suits them, they are being assertive and
commanding. Non-Verbal features are clearly visible in body-language, tonality, lack of
yelling, emphasizing and connecting, sexual innuendo, ability to be excited, being
playfully disapproving, projecting voice with resonance, without whispering, having a
consistent and unique style, firm handshakes, expressions.
Authentic people do dominante more likely and are not intimidated by dominizing
machos.

Lack of sincerity typically translates into micro gestures that reveal that the actual intent
and body language is not in line with the attempted behavior and revealed intent. The
voice tone becomes to strong and almost sarcastic when complimenting someone, or
when showing emotional support and understanding. The eyes look disinterested when
a fake smile is put on. The behavior is overly styled and appears theatric. Etc.
Being playful

Not to get sucked up by distressing situations but creatively and inspiringly creating an
imaginary environment where everything thrives positively.

Authetic people don’t supplicate

Supplication is the act of trying too hard to impress others who don’t deserve it.
Authentic people are not needy and don’t need to show anyone that they are worth their
attention when they are not getting it. Typical signs of supplication are:
- Laughing at own jokes
- Saying: Right? oder you know all the time
- Using too many space fillers
- trying to hard for verbal acknowledgement
- Repetitive humour after it worked once
- Snapping to attention when someone speaks
- eagerly nodding your head
- Going too far out your way to hear what others say
- Being too willing to reply to everything with well thought out answers
- Remembering too many details from the past
- Traps of rapport seeking
- Waiting for people who are not coming back
- Always trailing instead of leading (but don't always lead)
- Being unaware of needy bodylanguage
- Chasing when people withdraw
- give more attention to s.o. you don't know than to your friends
- Reconfirmung plans over and over
- Name dropping, status dropping, too eager to impress
- Talking to many sentences to state an idea
- Trying too hard to reinitiate a dead conersation
- Overcompensating for insecurities “Oh, I'm looking fat”, don't be the bad joke
- Overcompensating for failures (“I'm tired, let's go home.”)
- Trying too hard to be unimpressed
- Responding to criticism with lengths excuses.
- Trying too hard to demonstrate detective skills “Oh, this guy just wants to pick me up”

3.1.3.2. Rhetorics
Rhetorics is the art of using repertoire of basic symbolic expression/vocabulary and
repertoire of patterns and sequences of these expressions to form complex expressions
and the repertoire of using complex expressions to incite a desired reaction. Rhetorics
works for spoken language as well as physical symbols, gestures and mimics and
postures or body language in general. Rhetorics are surrounded by rhetoric style, where
style is the art of surrounding

Speaking the right vocabulary and correctly is something that will make or break many
social situations. And in that sense, any non-verbal and symbolic capability and general
behavioural repertoire will be as relevant as having a vocabulary of words. The only
difference: there is no real dictionary and no Wikipedia to make sense of anything that
is not a word. Thanks to TV shows like Mind Games and Scorpion that bring the Numbers
and 23 atmosphere to the psychology edge, some basic issues can be viewed on the big
screen.

Words, just words.

- Actual Vocabulary
- Rhetoric Figures : Irony, Sarcasm, Second Level Meanings, Alliterations
- Brecht and simplicity
- Silence : The act of not talking or not using figures.

Symbols, more symbols

Same problem as with vocabulary. The task is both to acquire more symbols and to
understand the “rhetoric figures” of using symbols, when to silence them and when
simplicity trumps

Gestures and Mimics

Having as much as a smile as your mimical repertoire is as interesting and sophisticated
as knowing the single world “yes”.
Some part of mimics certainly might be more related to EQ and being the a stable and
confident state of mind in order to allow authentic, unfiltered emotion to guide mimical
behavior, the deceptive or intentional usage of mimics, also refered to as grimaces for
some reason, is something poker players, leaders, public figures are more capable of.
People referred to as saints or monks more likely play less with grimaces but show
particular mimics by controlling their emotional reaction to situations.
Gestures as gesticulational repertoire, on the other hand, are something more related to
confidence, learned behavior and activeness in their usage. Public speakers and
individuals addressing larger amounts of people typically are more trained here, some
learn from training in non verbal languages.
Interhuman gestures such as touching, caressing and displaying emotions and
attachments in a physical manner are also cultivated in some sense from the
environment they are raised in, and typically individuals with a larger repertoire of strong
personal relationships and partnerships are more experienced in using different gestures
in different environments in a more authentic manner. Individuals working in the social
field or taking care of sick or old individuals also have key advantages in this.

Postures
Posture requires the work with the entire body in unison with frame, mimics, gestures
and behavior that all serve the key goal to display confidence and appropriateness within
a given situation. With low sophistication, postures typically relate with physical strength,
good sleep and self-image, perception of attractiveness and power and frame. While
posture behaviours of actually confident and strong individuals typically shows a lot less
pathologies than untrained and unfit individuals, the level of sophistication requires
more and is something that individuals with very high EQ and beneficial relationships, as
well as artists or individuals who slip into different roles often will exhibit. The
sophistication in postures is mostly related to displaying the right amount of power as
to not intimidate and create behavior in someone else that would compromise this
individuals self-confidence. This is why posture in a fight situation should be generally
different from the posture around meeting friends in a casual and in general good-mood
environment. On the upside, posture-based power play is one of the least socially
scrutinized phenomenon and the least likely aggression that will create retaliation from
someone dominated merely by posture. Putting this into perspective of the escalation
mechanisms in the “fight over death”, strong dominant posture is the most likely
behavior to win a fight without fighting, as it is of a higher aggression level without the
direct affront that a verbally or mimical aggression would display. And to some
individuals, this is likely the dominant trigger for attributing security and power to the
posture holder. The downside of this behavior is that it also triggers a misconception of
power, which is why sometimes a Jock gets beaten the crap out of himself by a think and
sleeky looking martial arts fighter – mostly after a verbally unsophisticated muttering
slips the mind of the Jock. Another upside is that Jocks like Jocks and posture obsessed
individuals tend to meet and greet at higher levels of hierarchy often.

EQ

Motorics

3.1.3.3. Baselining and Supernormal Behaviour

Baselining is the art of analyzing the normal behavior someone is displaying to infer
when he is deviating from this behavior. Baselining is a necessary action when assessing
someone and his behavior as to not apply a general key that would lead to false results.
For example, associating sweat as a sign of anxiety and eventually lying would be wrong
if this person is sweating a lot in general.
Baselining towards supernormality of a group is the art of understanding the different
behavioural expectations and norm(-al) behavior of a group and becoming the most
normal person for everyone. The average of everyone.

The theory of normal behavior is simple: people can act below expectations and above
expectations on every dimension they can be scrutinized again. For every group, there
exists “mean” behavior and a normal distribution around being “below” or “above”
expectations. Super-normal simply implies that an individual is below a certain level of
deviation from the mean on all dimensions of scrutinity. A super-normal individual
“perfectly blends” in the environment, being an average, and being somewhat invisible.
A sub-dominant individual is dominated in every situation and easily is seen as someone
that is being dominated easily. A above-average individual in dominance might pick
every fight that possibly can be taken to enforce once dominance. The goal in leading in
the group is to be an example and hence to be somewhere around the mean, not under
and not over performing on dominance.
Being the “average” of everyone is the core strategy when joining a group for a longer
term and establishing a stable relationship. This is likely the art that spies are most
sophisticated in, as their key capability in “normal” situations is the be invisible, liked,
and trusted by all individuals of the target group. Maybe they also try to be a bit sub-
normal on all dimensions, the fall below the radar of those most ambitious and apt in
scrutinizing.
When looking at normality, no universal reference exists. Both on group and individual
level, a mean exists. Identifying the mean behavior is identical to baselining. For some
individuals, a millisecond look to the side when answering a question might imply a lie.
For individuals frequently looking to the side, the baseline might be found in measuring
pulse rate deviation or the color of the cheek. The idea of baselining is to understand
how someone behaves under normal circumstances – being above or below average of
his group – and then to look for deviation under specific pressure circumstances.
The level of baselining and normality that is demanded in a situation depends on the
desired outcome and as a result on the timing and pacing of the situation. Baselining
into super normality for too long and then eventually being an accepted member of the
group does not really validate the strategy to isolate members of the group and hit
towards a specific target and getting rid of everyone else. Stepping into a situation
without any assessment of the group dynamics and the individuals will however produce
an environment of toe-stepping and immediate disbarment, or exclusion from the
group. Typically, the process is always about getting in to something and then chosing
the action that is required to achieve the desired goal.

For leaders that do not want to lead by authority and fear, supernormality is the best
way to stay connected to the entire group and then using ones power to change and
lead the dynamics of the group. For any person interested in a stable relationship.

Supernormal betas? O.o

In organizations and groups, there is always a hierarchy. That’s what this book is
somewhat about. But even those that don’t lead a group can be found to own more
eventual power than the actual leader of the group. Those typically are the supernormal
and super-connected individuals that are able to build trust with everyone independent
of status, place in the organization, that build trust and friendship ties among the lower
ranks. They do not even need to be the middle-managers in a company or individuals
inspired to rise the ladder, but they are de facto key effectuators and drivers of culture
in an organization. The power does not from commanding and dominating, but by shere
confidence, their ability to be super normal and features that we now discuss as super
prime behavior.

3.1.3.4. Super Prime

Social psychologists talk about social priming as the act of observing someone elses
behavior to get a better idea about the meaning and value of the behavior. Being super
prime is – in a simplified manner - equal to simply be the best person or worst anyone
could use to prime his own behavior. Or being the best suitable person for emulation in
a particular setting.
Heroes and anti-heroes:
Observing someone being aggressive, gives us an entry point for understanding
aggressions, which we then might replicate to experience aggression as a voluntary act
of our own.
Super priming is the art of being and performing in such a way as it teaches others
immediately about the rights and wrongs of their prior experiences. Wether individuals
are positive super primes, thereby being rolemodels that inspire emulation and adoption
of their behavior, or they are negative super primes that exemplify the way it should not
be done, being the anti-heroes. Super primes shape the way people in a group or setting
are perceiving behavior. They are to some extent are the opposite of supernormal
individuals. They are far away from the standard and allow the group to understand the
boundaries of acceptable normal behavior.

You cannot be prime in all aspects, but also should not be in too many
Being a perfect parent, being the perfect workaholic, the perfect pareto-principle driven
executor, you can’t be all at once. Everything comes at a cost and there is always a bigger
fish. Understanding the sacrifice people make for being good at what they do and
learning to assemble those that sacrifice in the right area most is a strategy used to select
employees for a company.
But the same way as we cannot be positive superprimes, we should avoid being negative
superprimes by neglecting to meet normal expectations. Just consider the fairest and
most hard working boss in a company unit that always works late and takes care of his
unit, but is known for never having managed to found a family and being lost in the work
lifestyle. Certaintly, that is type of individual nobody wants to be and it takes away the
status the unit manager otherwise would have.
Another leader type I came to meet and experience was a very assertive and highly
successful individual at the top of his company. He very well managed to focus to be
confident and dominant in his core domain only. He neglected everything else and was
able to do so by hiring his direct management staff to keep the parts of his role off his
back that would have destroyed his core confidence and his overall assertiveness. By
fencing responsibility away from him successfully and keeping his management staff
aligned to his vision, he was able to focus on what he was really good at and kept
building more wealth and power. He was a positive superprime in his core domain, a
negative superprime in the way he domineered his senior staff, but ultimately managed
to be humble by not over-stepping the boundaries of his core domain. He knew his
battlefield and made sure he would not have to fight any fight that wasn’t part of it. But,
of course, this works in work contexts. It doesn’t work in partnership, most family and
friendship relationships.
3.1.4. Story Telling
We walked to being presentable in the moment, being prepared in the terms
of self-control and being able to have convincing body language and style of
interaction.

Why we need stories: The next thing on the to do list is learning to tell your
story. So why do we need a story?
1. We need a story for our self-image and our core beliefs to stay commited
to our believe. Telling a story and framing everything that happens to us
in this story can provide guidance.
2. We want our friends to (a) love us who we are and who we want to be,
and (b) to feed back to us a positive image of ourselves as to re-affirm
our self-image. Both warrants that we chose a story that allows this.
Wrong story in the friendship and we will hear the reflection of that story
on and on and on and it will hold us back. In true friendships, a pivot in
self-image can happen, but still it has to fit into a plausible and general
story of ourselves.
3. We want the people we meet to believe our story. And those that we
need to form relationships with and for whom we want to be
presentable, to go out and tell other people our story. In order to have
our story told when me meet their network or to be aligned with the
story we told them when we accidently meet their network.
4. We also want to convince people of pure lies and fable-like stories when
we need to and when it has no consequences for our general public
image story.

Fabricated and real stories: Given the above considerations, fabricated stories
are never a good thing in the long run. The areas of life we are visiting are no
longer isolated enough to allow us to tell completely different stories to anyone
without someone finding out. But still, there are two considerations to bear in
mind. First of all, being very good at fabricating completely new stories of
ourselves in a plausible way increases the ability to sell our true story to those
to whom it matters. And secondly, telling our true story is a matter of
interpretation. The interpretation does not go as far as that scenes in our life
can be invented – unless we really incorporate these lives into our memory and
deem them as real and always tell them and always memorize them – or that
extreme events can be completely omitted – which is also the case, but to some
case we have to acknowledge life stages as they happened. Being open for
interpretation means that the level of insight, inspiration, playful imagination
and maturity of understanding can be varied in great levels. Selling drugs as a
kid can not be spinned into having owned a viable private business until one
has actually started a business and knows all the processes that one needs to
serve. But then it can be within the range of interpretation. But also only
plausibly when the numbers and business model are in memory, when
bewonderment about tax issues are present in our head when we tell the story
and we tell the story through the eyes of the 15 year old. (No, I didn’t sell drugs,
but this story appears often in movies.). If your job title says “stinky guy”, but
you were indeed a CTO, you might still not write “CTO” on your resume, but
you might spin an earlier role you had where you could have been the CTO into
being the CTO. But restricting story telling to resume tweaking would
misunderstand the subject.
Let’s think of a adolescent child whose parents had died and which had to take
care of its grandparents, organize their move to a home for the elderly and
entertained them after school along with other people in the facility. The truth
is just what I just said, but eventually the author failed to mention that the
grandparents lived in another country and that it had to recolate, that it was
not awkwardly sitting in the lobby and trying to entertain his grandparents, but
that it did the job that only the best of wards could have done, that it involved
everyone in social activity that everyone enjoyed. Framing it as a tragedy and
interpreting it as a tragedy to himself, the individual would completely mis-read
its past and live in a sadder life than it would have to. Completely ignoring the
fact that the own grandparents were put there and just interpreting it as pro
bono work would be similarly wrong and decreasing the self-image. The ability
to see the level of responsibility and the maturity in the way one dealt with the
subject is part of framing the story correctly and framing the years to come.
Making a heroic story out of it, would be wrong, too, however. Talking about
grandeur and excessive maturity level would, too. The authentic and best
possible evaluation of the past is likely the best story to start with when framing
a life story. And honestly and skillfully dissecting the obstacles and levels of luck
in the own history and assessing the resulting self-image and levels of learning
and advancement are critical. Having understood what matters in life at the age
of 15 can place the individual far beyond what someone in his mid 30s has
achieved and basing the self-image on this awareness and using this self-image
to lead associations, friendships and career goals can be a sign of maturity and
confidence.
The ultimate person that has to live with one’s personal story is oneself. And
the ability to live with a consistent and positive life story while at the same time
being able to sell the story as something special and relevant when it matters -
blowing it a bit out of proportion to get a better effect – is perfectly viable.

Myths / Noble Lies

A myth is a story of the universe that underlies ones own story. The myth is
ideally adjusted to the frame and shows thereby highest authenticity of the
frame. The myth defines the purpose of the individual in its frame, by covering
its past, its values, its principles, its entire being. It is a noble lie, a reductionist
view on what happened to the individual and that clearly defines who it is.
The well-off kid. The cool kid whose father is by far the riches faster of all
parents in the school yard provides a myth for the cool kid that creates status
and followership. Independent of the actual behavior.

The perfect resume. (1) The Rockstar scientist that went to the elite
universities, passed with highest distinctions and wrote one article after the
other having highest citation performance is the whizkid that creates the story
on which the individual can sell itself as an expert. Completely independence of
the entire idiocracy of the dominant school of thought in the elite universities.
(2)

The qualities of life stories

With the lengthy analysis of an authentic story using a simple example, we
touched several of the core topics of a quality of story. We can have authentic
stories and unauthentic stories, effective stories that stir interestand and create
the belief in us being something special and admirable, or we can fail to do so.
We can be understood as schizoid and as someone misreading the own story
in an overly grandeuresque way, or we can be realistic and appreciated in our
honesty and ability to see the story in a powerful way. We can also tell our story
in a negative and depressing way.
A good personal story is colorful and full of passion when remembering the
largeness of the small moments that signify dignity and rootedness. It is slightly
underplaying the significance of events on our self-image – not implying we
are great because we had the experience, but we are greatful to have had the
experience for how it shaped us inside, but being humble and realistic about
what impact it had on our lives. Any sense of demand and expectation towards
life from our pasts will be understood as schizoid and narcistic, over-painting
the relevance of our life against the life on anyone else. Something that is
portrayed in many family comedies where someone is lavishly and confidently
talking about past successes and coming off as narrow-minded and
confronting, while at the best sweet in splendid ignorance when being
portrayed with naïve, child-like compassion for apparent banalities.

From life stories to story telling : color memories of passion

Our life story tells the story of who we are and what happened to us. The stories
we tell are the theatralic, emotion-loaded, color-ful and imaginary re-livings of
things passed. Story telling is where Marcel Proust meets Giacomo Casanova
and Indiana Jones in a short glimpse of time. Taking away people not by what
has happened to us, but how captive we can relive the moment that gave us
and our listeners a lasting impression.
3.3. First look at leadership theory
We have enough theory and concept background to think about leadership. We
talked about assertiveness, dominance, confidence and charisma, super normality
and super prime behavior. What else does it take? In this section we find some
common leadership theories. We will see in a second that they are all lacking the
understanding that we have now and explain things with simplistic models of the
world.

“Leaders manage Change, Manager manage stability.”

Leadership is the ability to inspire – by example and offer of value - others to
follow [Super prime]. Management is the ability to command – with power and
order - and orchestrate – with seduction and influence - those that follow to
achieve a common goal [assertiveness]. Leaders manage change by creating
followers to adhere to new visions, managers create stability by organizing how the
vision is followed. This assumes that domineering and aggressive individuals can
keep people in an organization in line, but they lack the skills to motivate people
into following them.

Leadership by eradication – Stalin Leadership:

Okay, this is not a typical leadership theory. But it is a viable case when you consider
the following. Very successful people typically have not been extremely successful in
school, typically have not been successful in mating exercsises and typically were not
born rich and entitled. This is a key context that leaders that are in competition with
other leaders have to bear in mind. People who failed early in life – in school, or in
mating – have a drive to succeed that others that did succeed likely do not have.
People born entitled are similar, even if their parents tried to give them a very very
hard time, they will just destroy the core base confidence that non-entitled
individuals have – either because their parents weren’t derobbing them of the
benefits of their priviledge or because they were able to understand later on that
their parents had no other choice, something that priviledged kids do not enjoy,
because their parents did have other choices. From this background, leaders coming
from such backgrounds where they suffered lack of priviledge by any feature that
they brought to the table will be more determined, more driven, more aggressive
when needed and more aware of the consequences of failure. That places them in
an advantage. But still, even priviledge and their competitor non-priviledged fellows
will be a threat to them. The first theory that we have to bear in mind when we think
in the Machiavellist tradition is that leadership follows from the eradication of other
leaders. And this eradication implies eradication by any means necessary. So while
the lowest aggression form of eradication is always to be favoured if it is sufficient,
it can mean domineering and even escalations of power conflicts to the level of
death – we talked about it in the context of Kojeve’s fight over death – can become
necessary means. The ultimate question is when eradication can take place. The
lower the level of intensity of conflict, the better for everyone. But from a moral
conflict, one the intensity reaches the level of the fight over death, both sides left the
ethical ground and the lethal eradication becomes an option for both sides. Of
course, this isn’t an invitation to escalate to this level. But it is the level of escalation
that Stalin played and that we have to accept as potential reality – even if we are not
willing to escalate to this level, our opponents may be, and this is where the
priviledged have a better net of safety and a lower treshhold of going this far. And
somewhat trivial: if you want to become the CEO of your company while working on
the lowest level, this is likely the only viable option you have. Nevertheless,
eradication can also simply mean you sabotage your opponent to a level where he
has to leave the battlefield and becomes a mere figure in the play of others. And
finally, this is the game you play if you play in the game of leadership. Don’t fool
yourself. And it is the game that highly assertive and probably somewhat arrogant
people play every moment they step into a room with a stranger.

Review:
http://www.leadership-central.com/leadership-theories.html#axzz4WX8xUFbT
https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/leadership-theories.htm
https://www.boundless.com/management/textbooks/boundless-management-
textbook/leadership-9/defining-leadership-68/four-theories-of-leadership-344-
7580/

Attribution Theory: leadership is something attributed to the

individual
Assertiveness and dominance to get ones point across, supernormality to be
accepted by the group, super prime to be seen as someone special and above, and
lack of what we called awareness to understand the deeper picture of power plays.
And finally, charisma to connect it to some vibrance the individual has related to
integrity and so on. Voilà, you explained attribution theory.

A. Formation of individual opinions about the reasons of particular events or

observations. Opinions about the behaviour of other people and oneself.
The leader is hence simply the one that has the most traits and qualities interpreted
as leadership qualities and they these qualities and traits are visible by the decisions
people make, their success in achieving their goals and the way they realize these
goals in social interaciton.
B. Naturally, the higher the degree of knowledge on the relativeness or context-
dependence of this attribution theory and the higher the willingness to construct a
reality that is consistent with leadership, the higher the probability that one is
leading.
C. Leadership does not exist independently from followers and is only a construct.
The notion and denition of leadership qualities depends partially on the context
(street gang vs. executives)

- meaning the visible and symbolic perception of action and the attribution
of its reason is depending on the system it happens in - and parts that are
 independent from context - the frame-battle and domination games talked
about earlier.

This implies that a leader has a) the general qualities of a leader that
are independent from context, and b) is intelligent enough to observe
and understand the attribution mechanisms of the environment,
maximizing his own social value in this context.

He recognizes the pecking-order in the family, in school or at the job

and plays the cards accordingly, guring out the maximum authority he
may possess given the die-hard facts that dene his current position in
this system.

Die-hard itself must be understood relative, because the lower soldier

may determine the outcome of the battle, the child may replace the
father and the lower ranked VP may outperform the value of the
executive.

Stages:

1) Observation

2)

3) Model: were there any behavioural alternatives and how is the choice
made by the behaving to be understood and valued

4) The followers interest: now the follower asks how the action of his
superior interacts with his own objectives. If he can overcome the negative
hurdles, he will begin domination and if he cannot he may choose to leave
if the burden is unbearable.

Good things come to those that wait. This phrasing tells you that it is not
always the wisest idea to immediately get annoyed by hurdles and engage
in ght or ight mechanisms. Sometimes things have to be endured.

Psychodynamic Leadership: Depth Psychological View, the subconscious and

how it interferes with efective leadership, the idea of overcoming childhood's
impact through maturation.

Family and Origin:

Maturation and Individualization

Dependence and Independence: depending on the followers childhood he may

react to leadership by ignoring it (independence), defyiance (not doing what was
said) or by following nicely (subordinate)
 Regression: The management of leadership styles for the kinds above is
important, but sometimes even managers fall back into these schemas, which is
called regression.

Suppression and Shadow Ego

Styles of Leaders - Classication I

The down-to-earth and objective craftsman. Not domineering, but dominant.

Asseritive in selling his vision, and the vision works – expertness of the assertive
individual – and we have this leader.

The power-hungry jungle fighter who focuses on conflicts. Domineering,

arrogant and able to force his view on the world and somehow lucky enough to not
drive the boat against a cliff. We have this type.

The company man who is interested in the security of the company and cares
for his subordinates. Confident, the beta superprime, super-networked and
aligning everyone, not focused on dominance, but powerful by relationships. We
have the company man.

The gamesman who sees his tasks as a challenge and for whom competition
itself offers an incentive. Also confident, mixing assertiveness and arrogance,
willing to win all fights and lucky to do so without coming off as too aggressive –
mixing dominance and domineering – and also doesn’t drive down the cliff. We have
the gamesman.

=> Note: Apparently different styles dominate in different periods. Note even more,
that the style applied depends in his success on the attributions of the follower. If a
leader has a role that is resented by a follower, it is hard to break through. Which is
why women do not want a father-style leader, because they do not want to sleep
with their father.

Furthermore, the question on which style to use in a company depends on the

distiribution of attributions among the followers. Namely, the style that dominates
a subset of the population that together with the leader dominates the social
network su-ciently through social dynamics will be the most appropriate, which is
why the company should focus on knowing what kind of individuals are in the
company.

And it is not the shere mass. If for example a 100 person company is mainly
controlled by the alpha-network of maybe 12 people (all nodes are connected
through these 12 people and each has a stable network of 10 followers), the
domination must work on these 12, and not on the rest.

Styles of Leaders - Classication II

The authoritarian type, who excels in traits of character such as tidiness, thriftiness,
stub-bornness, but also in the ability to switch between being active and passive, as
well as in giving orders or disobeying.
The narcissistic type, who excels in a high degree of self-satisfaction with respect to
pride, is focused solely on self-preservation, but at the same time is highly
aggressive, wants to impress others, and is therefore suitable as leader.
The narcissistic-coercive type, who combines thoroughness with narcissistic self-
condence. The erotic-narcissistic type, who seeks love and aection.

=> Note that narcisists with their preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success
and their sense of self-importance appear to followers to be completely free from
social inu-ences. They are perceived as standing above the group, or outside the
frame of the social entity and hence they are independent individuals, ideal to the
followers.

Neocharismatic Leadership
Max Weber and Leadership by attributed
authority Three types of authority:
Traditional: It has always been the case this way, so we accept it.
Legal: The law or the force behind the law is enforcing the leadership
Charismatic : The individuals are natural leaders and followers want to follow
=> The leaders ability is true and eective (core belief)

the specic eects charismatic leadership has on followers with particular

indi-vidual characteristics a leader has, such as, dominance, self-security,
a need to inuence others, and a strong conviction in the moral integrity
of his/her be-lief. On the other hand, charismatic leaders show specic
patterns of behavior. They act, for example, as a strong role model, they
articulate ideological goals that have strong moral overtones, or they
encourage task-oriented motives of followers with the help of power or
appreciation.

Charismatic Leadership

Value-Based Leadership

Character

Leader - Member Exchange Theory

Idiosyncracy Credit Model of Leadership

People join groups for external reasons (prestige being a lawyer) and intrinsic
reasons (loving to work on cars in a car club).

People continuously assess the adequacy of their members in fulllling

expectations of a good member. His value increases gradually if he performs
well.

Giving everybody a good time

Teaching or providing useful information and knowledge that helps

everyone achieve his

intrinsic goal

Being able to make use of the time, consuming little ressources and
maximizing output Managing well a crisis situation

Accumulation of credit: intelligence, personal characteristics, gender,

number of verbal statements, seniority

Leaders break conformity when introducing new stats quo and innovations.
This does not destroy their credit

A leader that has substantial credit is perfectly allowed to recongure the

group if everyone is aggreeing on the change being protable for the
group

Symbolic Leadership

Micro-Politics approach to leadership

Micropolitics = the active engagement in tasks that aim at creating more room
to inuence others and widen the hole in the net of control and supervision
from outside.

Power is a currency, and politics is the way to spent it.

Destroys any hierarchy like and monolothic understanding of groups.

Everyone is engaged in politics everywhere and tries to maximize his power.
Hence there cannot be one great leader in a group that is the interest giver
for all, which is why legal authority is important.

The game is of course not game-theoretic, but rather indivuals bring dierent
forms of politics into the arena and large deviators are quickly punsihed out.
Common tactics include:
 Control of Information

Control of practices, rules and norms: inuencing what is cool and what
not, what is appropriate and what not, claiming vested rights and
common law, dening the room for behavioural alternatives

Relationship building: hidden coalitions, dividing and conquering, gift

exchange, priviledged relationships

Proling: impression management, self-codence suggestion, blu-ng,

unsettling others

Control of the situation, establishment of inherent necessity: making

mistakes apparently unintentionally, working to rule, creating fait
accompli

Imposition of pressure to eectuate actions: articial crisis creation, making

use of crisis, setting xed dates, controlling deadlines, postponing
meetings, failing to meet target times

Capitalization of Chances, timing: taking advantage of situations, waiting

for the best moment, being available, mobile, exible

Role Theory and Leadership

Social Learning Theory of Leadership

Leader behavior is explained as being reciprocally determined by personal,
situational, and be-havioral aspects.
Mental conceptualizations of the leader's own personality, objectives, and
subsequent behavior influence the reaction(s) of the environment (e.g., followers).

Leadership by Design / Incentive

Systems
Great Man Theory and Myth
McCall and Lombardo

Emotional stability and composure: calm, confident, predictable, especially in diffcult

times Admitting error: owning up to mistakes, not putting energies in concealing
errors.

Good interpersonal skills: able to persuade without using negative and coercive
tactics
Intellectual breadth: having a good general understanding rather than a narrow area
of expertise
Leaders ans Motivators:
 They know the needs of others and how to motivate them.

Further Theories of Leadership

Behavioural Theories

X and Y Theory
Lipitt and White

Situational or Contingency Theories

Leader-Member Relationships

Task Structure: clear-cut, structured, with identied goals, procedures of

the work: Denit-ing an institution that governs the usage of time and oers
benets

Fiedler:

Readiness: willingness of followers to direct their own behaviour: job-

rediness and psycho-logical readiness, motivation and desire to do
quality work

Ability: how able is the sta to work without direction, further coaching or
training

3.3. Dimensions of Self Cultivation

Time so summarize the chapter and look at the process you and everyone else on
this planet has to go through. A lot is left to look at in the following chapters that
renders the context and perception of this chapter. But it’s time to think about a
framework of self-development that allows to build domination strategies.

Build your core personality

With the dimensions in chapter two and the basics in the first part of chapter three
you have all you need to know to start thinking about on which dimensions you want
to focus and where you are at the moment. Be aware of throwing too much
personality into the ring of bad social systems and focus on building a core safety
and personal network. Stabilize and re-affirm your desired identity and core beliefs
with people that matter and further your personality.
Be clear about your agenda. If you are not clear yet, be clear about your current
situation and what’s next. Learn how to increase negotiation options by becoming
better at reaching out and networking.
Focus on the most actionable with good results first – the low hanging fruit – and
review the overall arena in which you are looking for improvements.

Build your frames and masks

Without knowing your core self and personality, it doesn’t make sense to create
frames around them. But once that task is done, the next step is to define frames.
The publicly visible and hopefully stably portrayed images you carry out in the world
and into the social situations you are living in and want to win. Use frames only where
you want to have skin in the game and you want to actively further your interest. If
you just “have to” be at a job or at a social event, use masks and play them as
consistently as frames, but don’t think too much about how these masks refer to
your personality or require you to stick to some core beliefs of the role you are
playing.

Build style and personality around your frames and masks

Once your frames and the social environments are set, it time to learn everything
about them and to work on the style of your frames. You will have a family frame, a
relationship frame, a friends circles frame, a frame work work and the professional
world and if you are somewhat different probably even a hidden second self frame
and likely a self-progress and growth frame that will continue to develop over your
life.

Time to acknowledge that these worlds warrant different behavior – you can sit in
shorts studying books but can’t visit your family or work this way and you won’t wear
a suit when visiting your parents – and that you have to find habits that serve all
frames as well as such that serve only some of them. Be aware how much time it
takes to improve in every area and which frame and world it is attached to is really
worth the effort. Some might abandon their families, some might chose to never
work, some might never have relationships, some might never chose to grow on a
separate trajectory. But once the picture is clear and set, being half-hearted and low
in commitment in any of these frames and the creation of style around them is
mediocre.
If your work place warrants a 20.000 Rolex, then just damn get it. If you need to wear
ties, have the best tie wardrobe in the workplace, if it requires black shoes then get
a few pairs of solid black shoes.
If you relationship style requires smiles, cooking, a sporty body, then do the math
and put your time and effort where your wishes and aspirations are. Learn cooking,
smile no matter how hard life is outside of the relationship, etc.
Love it – your frame and do the work - , change it – or adapt your expections and
aspirations to a lower level - or leave it – accept failure, inconsistency, weakness and
depression.
Build your habits
With style frames and personality core set, the next thing is to learn to foster and
strengthen the stability of the frames and consistency of everything.

Step 1: Learn to accept your own weakness and accept that lack of sleep will not do
you any good. Sleep! Do personal hygiene! Eat healthy! No other habit can save you
from missing the core habits. Drop drug habits. Stop the idea that you are not good
enough to function or perform when you live a healthy life.

Step 2: Depending on the level of intensity and conflict your ideal future warrants,
get ready for some high intensity habits. Go run, go base jump, go bar fight, go to a
boxing club, go speed driving your car, go do the marathon, go climb the mountain.
If you are not willing or able to create high intensity hobbies and habits, you will
suck at high intensity moments. Someone else will have done the job.

Step 3: Take a step back. If you have no idea about clothing, accessories, ironing and
whatsoever to manage the grooming section, go die a lonely and unsuccessful life.
This takes time to learn and there appears to be a zero value added, because nobody
ever talks about it. But it is there. It is a fact. Learn the grooming and accessory and
symbolism section and stick to it.

Step 4: Create your environment. If you are one of the likely 90% of unlucky human
beings that have social environments that don’t really stir success – bad vocabulary,
bad emotional coping mechanisms, etc. – than talk the mile and get better friends,
a better partner, and manage your family interactions better.

Step 5: Stability and harmony. If you feel stressed and there is no habit that makes
you relax and get back on the ground, search it and find it and live it. Lacking
grounding and feeling life is a chase of one moment after another kills any view on
purpose and goals and takes away the core stability that everyone needs who wants
to have a strong core frame.

Step 6: Build your style. Build your growth habits. Yes, if you need to ace memory
and head calculations, do it. There is no way around it.

Step 7: Live your frames in style.

And last, but not least, create a habit of not giving anything for limiting belief.
Financial setbacks, potential ridicule, loss of perceived social status, whatever. Ignore
it. Stick to the plan. There is no domination or success in these kinds of games if you
are not master of your own.
CHAPTER 4
Key Dimensions of THE OTHER
Overall, the whole game is about understanding the other to make him useful for
ones own objectives. The core understanding is that individuals also use frames
that define their own belief and strategy system, that their individual ability will
cause them to break the frames revealing their weaknesses, that manipulation of
motive and rational behavior will lead to manipulating their actions and loyalty.
Other people will also exhibit strengths that need to be detected and dismantled.
The entire game also depends crucially on the others lack of awareness and ability
to read ones own agenda and capabilities – or: deception. And by using power
moves in the moments when it matters to intimidate individuals – either by
consensus or shere force – into behaving as we want.

The prime assumptions in these chapters:

• Others observe: So this is about observation
• Others have flaws, irrationalities, errors in their reasoning and perception
and awareness that can be exploited and facilitate strategizing
• Pattern recognition is a key tool for very fast classification of people and
putting them into the battle field. The faster this happens, the less energy
spent on assessment, misassessment and the time needed to remedy.
• The easiest way to deal with the complexity of people is to disqualify people
and get them off the radar. But to never falsely disqualify or overlook an
individual.

These assumptions impact the way we interact with individuals, groups, form
relationships and use individuals as part of our group, our organization, our
network.
Face to face
4.1. Pinging and Probing

Pinging We continously connect to the outer world by sending cues and receiving
them and it shapes and re-shapes our ideas about who we are. Just like a Mac does.
Being unreactive means either to be socially isolated by habit or being really clueless
and low in EQ (no pinging at all) or that you choose whose judgement you accept
(selected pinging) by not caring or not understanding the outcomes. The ability to
manage who you ping and who not and most importantly when not to ping and
when to is important.
Analysing who gives a positive reaction is giving you an idea of what you are
attracting. If that is not what you really want to attract, you should consider finding
out what to change to attract different people.

Probing This is proactiving pinging by creating signals and observing responses.

Probing can also be performed passively by observing other people’s behavior, but
in most situations where an observer is typically observed, staying active most of the
time is creating value faster than mere observation. If you are probing, you are
typically proactively engaging with people and run a script – not so much pinging
and reacting to them – and then evaluate in retrospect if your active strategy was
giving you the response desired. If that was not the case, reform and rinse and
repeat. Iterative learning on your self runs via probing.
While pinging gives you a good feeling on how the world perceives you and how
this perception is misaligned with the perception you want to create, probing is
starting with having a goal in mind and getting responses on actions you take
towards that goal. If you get the desired reactions, good. If not, crunch your brain.
Most likely, nobody you know is so aware on these aspects that they can give you
actionable tips to the situation you are in. But finally recapping all those cues and
clues your family and friends gave you about your actions and appearance might be
a starting point to start a re-evaluation.

Expectations Valuation Theory: Behaviour is assessed based on what people

think is normal and will likely occur, and what they think is the most desirable think
that could and hence should occur, if the person is above average. And people
have a clear idea of what is underperforming. This is what happens in the mind of
anyone. And what happens depends on two principal approaches that people take:
experience based and conceptually based. Those with high level of awareness and
attention will analyze using their best knowledge and experience with some fine-
tuned perceptions of what is going on. And those that are not aware or overlay
attentious will decide based on their past experience without knowing, and
applying unreflected concepts. This has to be understood not necessarily as
weakness, but fact. People do not like putting attention on things that they
normally do not put attention on. And applying false judgements to reduce
complexity and decision making time in any situation is simply normal. You also
shouldn’t waste your time on trying to mingle and get acceptance of such people.
Use their click-and-wirr judgements to understand and cluster types of people and
learn how to deal with their judgement and use it for your favor. More often than
not, when you think about it, those people aren’t the ones you want to deal with to
get a favor after all.
But you also have to understand, always when discussing normality and mean
behavior in this book, we are implying that we are facing “mean” observations
when the expectations of a large number of people are being analyzed – the
“normality” concept.
In our lives, we are faced with a dichotomy here. The reality is that the majority of
these “Normal” people are not a good benchmark. The strategy of everyone that
achieved anything in his life typically focuses on giving little attention to those
normal people and being almost invisible by being super normal – kind of what
spies do. The more tricky question is how to identify non-normal people and how
to judge their value quickly and finding a way to be normal for them – if we want
to associate with them and no want to be understood as a threat or someone they
have to put too much attention to (because in the beginning you don’t want much
attention of people you want to win).
But then, again, it is good to learn benchmarking and baselining against normal
behavior, because it is starting point. Wwhat should be the conceptually correct
behavior of someone with zero awareness, mid awareness and high awareness=
Since almost nobody knows what the individual that is observing is like, acute
observation and experience that relates to this observation will dicate how to be
normal, optimal or suboptimal for the individual and its pinring and probing
screen.

The pinging is deeply wired into our normal behavior. The pain centers in our brain
pick up on signals of social rejection and exclusion. We are generally to categorize
into closeness and solidarity and status and hierarchy, normally doing so to move
around conflict and therey comforting with group norms. Doing this all our lives
and trying to fit in steadily we are also socialized into behaving in what our neural
transmitters have been trained to be conforming. And we are trained that non-
conformance is threatened with isolation, marked non-conform, outsiderish, etc.
This is what opens the path for strategies to work. By cultivating groups with
different dynamics in power families and other social environments, people get
socialized to expressing more aggressive and power-facilitating behavior. These
behaviours might feed from priorly learned leadership behavior and experiences,
but ultimately are tied very closely to the definition of the normal conformant
culture that the leadership skills are attached to.

So when pinging is so deeply wired into our brains, why do we need any strategy
and concepts of strategy? First of all, pinging only creates conformity, but does not
establish higher levels in the group hierarchy and automatically makes one a
follower in the group. Not what people who want power and domination really
look for. But if the whole biological process is wired to exactly this, and everything
works on an emotional and intuitive – or subconscious level – the quest is out for
mapping the effects of the unconscious activity. Let the unconscious do its thing,
and it will lead to a sensation of the pain part of the brain. Elevate the level of pain
introduced and you see more clearly what your brain has processed. Then learning
how to correlate what you are consciously observing and sensing with the reaction
will allow you to provide assessments of the situation that then can be mapped to
concepts as to guide to the right choice of action and behavior. Independent from
the biological mechanism and highly independent – because strategy driven – from
socialization. The ability to disengage from the social and biological tendencies and
to be in full strategic control is referred to coolness in some parts of the book and
to presence of mind in the later strategy chapters.

4.2. Understanding Errors in Congnition and Emotion

Cognition vs emotion is somewhat about left-brain vs right-brain. Both worlds are

a bit mutually exclusive and follow their own reason. One is either in the cognitive
mode or the emotional mode. Some individuals are more inclined and capable of
performing both tasks – either by switching regularly between their two brain halfs
or because their brain halfs actually are a bit more less mutually exclusive -, but
most of the time individuals try to manage to be in one effectively in the situation
that warrants them. Understanding when a situation warrants the use of which half
is one task to learn that separates imbecils from more apt social individuals.
Anyone that is cognitive in an emotional situation is considered cold. Anyone that
is emotional in a situation that requires cognition is understood as overly so and
weak. Non-situations typically warrant emotion or feeling as a dominant state.
Someone that walks through the world should either solve a problem or enjoy life.
Obsessing and being overly cognitively observant in any situation that neither
warrants problem solving or imminent danger should not be approached using
cognition.

There are several reasons why these two worlds need to be understood as separate
and why being in the right state is important. (1) Others immediately sense in
which state someone is in. Cognitive individuals are more likely to be defensive,
misjudge a situation and being unable to build rapport and a strong emotional
connection, which makes any interaction less engaging and interesting. (2) A
person in problem solving mode is absent and not learning anything from the
moment apart from the problem in his head. Observing the world with a cognitive
mode is equal to pre-filtering it to what is already known, allowing less stimuli to
be received and less processing to be done over night and hence ultimately
making the individual less intelligent. Unless the situation is chosen to be
demanding – such as balancing on a rope or going to a physical or cognitive limit –
the cognitive record in the head will simply lead to a non-experience and a state of
non-being. If this habit is trained and learning and experiencing is reduced, the
individual is more likely to be adopting meaningless habits and will become
mentally inagile and stiff. (3) The ultimate goal in being very good at something is
to have subconscious habits working effectively, something that hardly works when
one is not focusing his energy on the subconsciousness processing that is more
active in the non-cognitive mode. (4) Finally, not being agile in switching between
both worlds reduces the overall ability to fine tune behavior to situations that
demand it, such as social interaction. (5) More practically speaking, people who are
in their rational state tend to micro-manage social interactions. This will destroy
any form of authenticity and congruence with your inner self. Instead the goal is to
communicate through every inch of your body that who you are and what you do
is okay.

The work hard, play hard phrasing relates to this discrepancy, too. Be rational when
it is demanded – work hard – and be emotional whenever else – play hard/enjoy
life. This method prevents also from over-stressing and makes you appear more
humble and relaxed.

4.2.1. Cognitive Biases

4.2.1.1. Cognitive and Emotional Empathy

The term empathy can refer to cognitive empathy : or the capacity to understand
what is going in someone else’s mind, without necessarily sharing feeling or
emotionally reacting to it. In power plays, high levels of cognitive empathy are
certainly helpful and they are usually found in con men, seduction artists and
torturers. But it can also refer to emotional empathy, the ability to feel the feelings
of someone else. In its more natural context, this ability allows us to feel the pain
suffered from others, especially our loved ones and to re-assess our behavior and
understanding to their situation. This very same ability, if not controlled, however,
leads us to being manipulated by those able to create the projection of a specific
feeling or pain that we then open up to and which makes us easily manipulated,
and it leads to immoral behavior. Likely the reason why Nietzsche appeared to
have a particular issue with people of high emotional empathy and suffering from
its negative consequences itself, and also likely what lies behind what Stalin meant
when he said that a few deaths are tragic and a disaster, but many deaths are
merely a statistic, a phenomenon that is referred to as the “identifiable victim”
effect. This effect has been found applicable in situations where, for example,
people chose to save the life of a child seeking an organ donership over the life of
equally at risk individuals higher in the priority list, if we have been shown a picture
of the cute subject and a convincing emotional story. This effect alone can lead to
many decisions that would undermine the Kantian imperatives and opens us to
being manipulated. But the effect is severed by the equally studied effect that we
increase the level of emotional empathy towards individuals that we cooperated
with successfully and who we are more likely to see in the same set of boxes that
we would put ourselves in – something that also powers the phenomena described
in the earlier sections on building capital and projected capacity by adapting to a
social environment -, and we decrease our level of emotional empathy for
competitors, individuals that have fallen out of our favor and individuals from other
“boxes”. So in this context, we have another view on why the strategies developed
earlier are working and it might be a better narrative of explaining how we are
perceived by individuals who are not intrinsically paranoid and analyzing us.
More interesting is the use of these forces for manipulating others and how
building rapport by pacing and leading works. Hence using just enough of our
right brain and emotional empathy to increase our cognitive empathy capability is
likely the ideal way to increase our resistance to manipulation and being able to
spot and use emotional empathy to operate in groups where our competitors
might be con men with the very same intent of using the technology.

4.2.1.2. Fallacies of risk

Loss aversion: Portfolio managers have shown to be biased to have a higher risk
aversion to take risk when possible loss is involved then when possible gain is
involved. As a result, they are more likely to exit a position which they fear might
create a loss and are more likely inclined to take a position that they think will
create a gain. The same is observable in job hopping, where individuals are more
likely to give up a job that in hindsight was solid to pursue a promising better
position and thereby ignoring the risk that it might not work out as planned,
whereas nobody likes to exit a position when it clearly is a creating losses, and are
likely not to take another job if it does not promise a high enough reward, given
that the loss of something positive about their current job would certainly be lost
and the gains of the new job might not materialize as expected or wished for. The
same reason makes individuals believe that the upside of joining a sect might be
sufficient to offset the more probable downsides, and are more reluctant to leave
the sect once they discovered the upside did not set off the negative effects,
because being out of the group again appears too much a loss to take. So this
misguided perception of risk and rewards always strikes when someone is sticking
to a bad position or situation rather than leaving it.

Black Swans: We talked about high impact, but very low probability scenarios
already when talking about realism. But it is also applicable to situations where
something is highly probably, but so radically breaking with common sense and
beliefs that it is perceived as unprobable. This happens when someone is being
betrayed and stabbed in the back by his best friends – as also described in
Machiavellis book – and when obviously being taken intolerable levels of
advantage of, when molested, tortured or otherwise abused. Basically all scenarios
where the 5 stages of grief and loss are starting to work, the individual is looking at
what his inner perception considered as a black swan. From this perception, the
bias and misconception first manifests itself in the form of denial of the situation.
Since it is not probable to be in such a situation, the easiest way is to
disacknowledge the facts of the situation. When anger kicks in, the situation
manifests itself strong enough to be considered real. The reaction is to challenge
the fact that the perceived low probability was actually large and that it did occur,
leading to the feeling that something in the universe is wrong. Followed by the
negotiation phase, where then the belief that something improbable was not
necessary to happen – still disacknowledging that it is indeen not an actual black
swan and a situation of low probability – and can hence be fixed. Once it is finally
accepted that the situation can even not be mended, the depression phase sets
where the situation is blown out of proporsion. Since the event was understood as
low in probability and the own belief system was wrong, the entire belief system
about probabilities of what can happen is being twisted and attacked. Once the
belief system stabilizes again and the conclusion materialized that the event was
not improbable and that only the view on the likelihood of the event was low, the
individual can go back to resolving the situation which is equal to leaving the
situation.

How this is used by those that exploit: Both aspects combined create a strong
mechanic that allows individuals of power to abuse it. All they have to ensure is
that the commitment is deep, linked to a need that runs deep into the psyche of
the individual and to ensure that the level of trust and acceptance of the good is
deep enough that it will make the individual assess exploitation as highly unlikely.
Something that is possibly sustained by feeding the click and wirr mechanisms that
created the perception of the situation being good and relevant to the deeper
needs of the individual. Once these mechanisms and anchors have been
programmed into the individual and the commitment is indeed deep enough, the
exploitation can start. In reality, it also occurs frequently that the abusive patterns
are starting very early on. During the early days it is typically easier to train and
habitualize the acceptance of patterns of exploitation, brains energy and attention
being focused on making the good in the situation work out, proving worth to the
group. Such situations work if the perceived value of the group is high and the
victim individual beliefs that it has to prove to be part of the group, thereby
rendering its perception of the exploitation as being not part of the group yet and
having to prove itself.

4.2.1.2. Biases based on Sex and Isms

Clear that there are a lot of biases based on Isms. Racism, sexism, nationalism, etc.
While we always have to distinguish people that just display this behavior and use
it to obtain access to resources and powers of those group, those guys that
actually follow the isms are most likely confused people that focus on the wrong
things in life. They are by their own stupidity a mass of people that make owners of
their isms power brokers. They matter for elections and those ism folks also can
make life miserable or kill people. So while no ism individual likely is very intelligent
and useful, the mass itself is something operating on society and has its role in
outcasting talents, ruining lives, setting political agendas and so forth. Nothing that
should be overlooked.

But apart from Isms, there are biases not based on false pre-conceptions, but on
actual biology. When you study the chronicles of pathology, you find enough very
bizarre cases of humans. Humans that only get aroused by eating horse shit,
humans that get aroused by touching or looking at body parts, people that get
aroused from abusing others or getting abused by others. Then again, when you
look at the role that sexuality – apart from food, movement and sleep – plays in life
in general and how existential a deprevation of sexual pleasure is, and then
considering the statistics of such non-canonical fetishes, you can realize that sex is
playing a strong play in power dynamics.
Reason enough for Friedrich Nietzsche writing a lot of weird stuff, for priests
molesting children, for politicians abusing hookers and for sex trade being an
actual thing.
And the truth behind all this for power plays are severalfold.
First of all, everybody will judge anyone based on sexual experiences and
judgements. Something that plays into the grooming and presentability factor
when portraying dominance.
Second, almost everybody that isn’t completely boring and normal is coercible
based on sexual behavior. Somehow the whole thing remains a tabu and people
keep denying their true self and build social circles based on a lie which makes
them vulnerable.
And thirdly, people misjudge situations very much based on their sexual state.
Undersexed high drive males are simply less risk averse and more aggressive. And
understanding those patterns gives a leverage on how to lure such people into
socially sanctioned levels of aggression that hurt their image if you push the right
buttons.
I don’t think that should be part of this book so apart from being aware of these
biases and vulnerabilities, let’s leave it at that.

4.2.2. Cognitive sonance

Cognitive sonance
Cognitive dissonance is something very easy to observe and a great measure of
conflictedness and lack of self-efficacy of an individual. Looking at sonances, the
three categories that you find on Wikipedia are consonance – when the cognition
and action is consistent and the person does what it itents to do -, cognitive
irrelevance – when the person thinks about doing something but does something
different – and cognitive dissonance – when the individual wants to do something,
but does the exact opposite of it.
The example for dissonance would be that the individual does not want to drink
alcohol on a particular evening, but ends up drinking alcohol. A different example
would be an individual which is decided to quit a bad situation, relationship or job,
but keeps being actively involved in the relationship. Or a person that seeks a career
in particular field, but does nothing at all to work towards achieving this goal.

4.2.2.1. Preference for cognitive consonance or consistency

Individuals – even subsconsciously – gravitate toward and follow individuals who
show high level of consonance or consistency in their behavior. Only those
individuals whose words, beliefs and actions match are regarded as sincere and
authentic, wheras others are interpreted as hypocritical, two-faced, confused,
cyncical or mentally ill.

4.2.2.2. The power of dissonance

Wikipedia gives the “fox and grapes” example where a fox decides that the grapes
he cannot reach on the high tree likely are not that tasty after all. The same
mechanism works when someone is being exploited and knows he is not enjoying
the situation, but he somehow fails to end the situation, slowly starting to accept it.
That is what yields the power of dissonance.

The rule of fading dissonance: When faced with dissonance themselves, by having
beliefs, attitudes or self-images conflict with reality, individuals feel discomformt or
even depressed – if they cannot escape this situation over longer times – and they
are motivated to change this state. It is hence natural to assume that people thrive
towards reducing dissonance over time. By either changing their status quo and
actions or by adapting their cognition to the status quo – via resetting frames,
changing beliefs and self-image, etc. This aversion against dissonance explains also
why we often mis-interpret and mis-remember our past, something that is referred
to as “rationalization”.

Methods you can observe in anyone with large dissonance include denial of the
problem and dissonance, modification of the existeting cognitions and admitting a
former belief or interpretation might have been false, reframing of the situation by
giving new meanings to a situation, and sometimes drifting into the magical and
schizoid, searching for new evidence that you are indeed right and the world is
wrong, separation from reality or at least the attitudes that are in conflict, and
rationalization as the process of altering our interpretation and memorization of the
past to obtain consistency, e.g. after trauma.
When being confronted with dissonance, there are only two really relevant ways to
react to it: either admin you were wrong for the whole time and you grow and gain
from adapting to the current situation, or you realize that the laws and realities of
the current situations demand you to leave the situation. In either way, dissonance
will fade over time or lead to a breaking point. Military indoctrination and breaking
individuals wills work by creating a very strong dissonance and making it impossible
for the individual to escape or accept the reality, which leads to a complete “snap”
of the psyche and a re-wiring of the entire belief system, and creating a moment
where the individual can be reprogrammed from scratch. In more normal situations
where you are not being shot for destering, individuals who choose to stay in a
situation that creates large dissonance will eventually also either snap and be thrown
out of the situation as they seize to function, or they slowly adapt to the new reality.
Or they are actually leaving. The most unrealistic option is to believe that holding on
to old beliefs in an organization will create a switch of the entire organizations belief
and attitude system. Although that is exactly the story behind figures of Ghandi,
Martin Luther King, etc. or at least the story we are lead to believe.
More likely these individuals did not exhibit dissonance, but knew exactly the
territory they got in to and their minds and actions were focused enough as to reach
a tipping point in the groups they then lead towards a new way of thinking.

Kurt Mohnstein in his book maximum influence regards dissonance as a strong tool
to create commitment. He uses the consistency bias and the steady re-confirmation
of a seductively extracted short-sighted commitment to create an overall
commitment that is strong enough to overrule the eventual doubts in the situation.
Stating the scenario of marriage, saying yes to a proposal, communicating it to
friends and family, starting to spent money on wedding planning all leads to a larger
level of commitment that will eventually trump over any doubts on the altar. The
rule to kill someone to enter the mob, the rule to do self-incriminating things during
a group initiation, all use this method.

So Kurt Mohnstein clearly tells a story about what needs to be done to use the power
of dissonance.
(1) The foot in the door technique is first applied, a small ask, a minor commitment
is elicited that requires the individual to do something that bears little risk and costs
for a minor benefit, something that looks like a free lunch. The foot in the door
technique then unfolds in progressive asks for higher level commitments – as
opposed to a technique where you start with a big ask and then go down.
(2) Once the foot is in the door, a series of increasing commitments is placed. The
increase in severity and the number of commitments are chosen to fit the individual.
The intensity of the commitments may increase in the size of the ask and the
intensity of the commitment – from small private commitments via oral contract, to
written commitments and legally binding commitments to public commitments and
announcements.
(3) Once the commitment is strong and the option to leave the table has vanished,
cognitive dissonance is being built.
(4) Offering a solution to the dissonance. Showing options as a victim that are
appealing.

Building dissonance: The success literature which tells individuals to think of their
success and their best possible vision of their life constantly are also doing nothing
but driving cognition away from action, forcing the individual to use the pain of the
dissonance to become more motivated and demanding towards getting where they
picture themselves. The same methods are found in narcissists and individuals who
are not willing to accept their status quo, trying to stay hungry and goal oriented,
and who accept the misery of constant dissonance pain for it. Todays pseudo-
elitarian systems work the exact same way. The banker who accepts a really
unpleasant lifestyle trying to desperately maintain the image of being part of the
elite and hence thrives to do anything necessary to climb the ladder and cultivates
coldness and disinterest in people that think otherwise are cought up by the
mechanisms that make them built dissonance to stay working hard. Without any
proper analysis of cause and effect. The same holds for individuals who want to
become movie stars, models, US presidents, famous musicians, nobel laurreates or
fields prize winners. The upside of the dissonance is that it stimulates endurance of
pain and creates focus. The downside is that it can blur the actual facts that underly
the processes of being successful and their focus on their own preconception of how
to perform and grow towards the goal might create blind spots of actually getting
there.

For social games and power plays, dissonance is wonderful. Dissonance always
comes with self-doubt, lack of self efficacy and being somewhat disconnected to
outsiders. This creates opportunities to connect with such individuals, feed their
hopes and beliefs with positive images and support, while at the same time opens
the opportunity for exploitation. Guiding them towards situations where they lack
self-efficacy can drop frames and coping behaviours and make them more
vulnerable. Their intents are typically visible and strong, and can be included into
strategies of supposed mutual benefit. Their disconnectedness with non-dissociated
individuals also can lead them towards behavioural strategies of isolating
themselves from others and creates a larger desire to connect, while at the same
time lowering their social acceptance to normal people with no agenda. Patterns of
dissonant people click and wirr strongly, too, and are resistant to change. A specific
dissonance will continue to stay with the individual and it will likely not give it up
without any serious reason.
The predictability of these patterns can also be used to influence the mood of the
individuals and gain control over their mood cycles, which allows for becoming an
individual who is perceived as having the power to positively affect the mood of
the individual, allowing higher levels of trust and hence higher levels of
exploitation.
4.2.3. Cognitive load
Most people find it hard to quickly memorize number sequences longer than 14
digits. Most people find it hard to play a theatre play while balancing on a rope
and arguing emotionally with a person they like. People also find it hard to apply
more than 14 rules in a situation where they need to make rapid paced decisions
and act upon and most people find it hard to really think through a problem when
they are expected to solve them mediocrely within very short time frames with high
pressure. All this can be trained to some extend, but at some point our brains just
start to shut down and do not function properly.
Something that pickpockets, magicians, sociopaths and all those people that make
it an art to exploit it know quite well.
In organizational theory, reducing cognitive load increases motivation and reduces
failure rates. In organizations that fail to manage cognitive load – too many tasks,
too many overlaps, too many distractions, too much dissonance – people are
collapsing and underperforming. Something that people use to manage people
out. And something that people use to sustain their power over workaholics and
teams.

4.2. Self Esteem

Self-Esteem: Self-esteem is defined by Brandon as a combination of self-
confidence (the belief that one can get what one wants, that one can achieve) and
self-respect (the belief in ones own value). Let’s restate that to self-confidence
being the feeling that ones deserves what one wants, self-efficacy as being that
one gets what one wants by knowing how to get it effectively, self-worth being the
feeling that one is worthy and has value. And self-respect being the feeling that
one knows one can remain true ones principles and still succeed and prosper in
life.

But anyway, the the arguments in his book are:

A To understand that the human mind is there to think (cognition), namely thinking
capacity exists such as to be used. It is used mainly to make decisions. In order to
make decisions, it must apprehend reality. Such that is is rational (in the Plato sense
of maximizing power in the Nietzschen Sense). At the same time we are natural
beings and we strive for life, and a good indicator for life is mental health as a
psycho-somatic tendency towards life rather than death. This means we must use
reality and our cognition to get the best possible world we can have. (self-confidence
+ self-respect)

B Epistemology is the inquiry in the theory of knowledge. Psycho-epistomolgy is the

inquiry on what truth and knowledge the human mind is capable of. Namely, we ask
which knowledge and truths maximize our rationality and our mental health.

C “Psycho-epistemology is the study of the nature of, and the relationship between,
the conscious, goal-setting, selfregulatory operations of the mind, and the
subconscious, automatic operations.” / “This branch of psychology is concerned with
all the possible types of mental operations (nor-mal and pathological) of which
man's mind is capable”/ “The mental habits a person acquires, and the standing
orders he establishes, constitute his characteristic psychoepistemology, his self-
programmed method of mental functioning. These habits and standing orders play
a crucial role in directing the mind's subconscious, automatic operations” in
determining the integrations that will or will not be made, the material that will or
will not flow into conscious awareness, the im-plications a mind will or will not grasp,
the ease, speed and productiveness of a given thinking process, etc.

D Mental health is the unobstructed capacity for realitybound cognitive functioning

and the ex-ercise of this capacity. Mental illness is the sustained impairment of this
capacity. / An unob-structed, integrated consciousness, a consciousness in
unbreached cognitive contact with reality, is healthy. A blocked, disintegrated
consciousness, a consciousness incapacitated by fear or immo-bilized by depression,
a consciousness corrupted in its function by reality-avoidance mechanisms, a
consciousness dissociated from realityis unhealthy. / unhealthy. Mental illness is,
funda-mentally, psycho-epistemological; a mental disorder is a thinking disorder.
This is fairly obvious in cases where the patient's predominant symptoms are
hallucinations, delusions, "word-salads," neologisms, time-space disorientations, etc.
But it is equally true in cases where the patient's symptoms are less obviously
cognitive or psycho-epistemological in originsuch as pathological anxiety,
depression, hypochondriasis, conversion reactions, sado-masochism, etc. (

E A man whose cognitive contact with reality is unbreached, whose perceptions,

judgments and evaluations are free of blocks and distortionsa man who is willing
and able to look at any fact relevant to his life, whose integrative powers are
unimpaireddoes not exhibit symptoms such as pathological anxiety,
depersonalization, obsessive-compulsive reactions, conversion hysteria, or delusions
of persecution. => This implies that a mere management of frames as proposed by
the literature on pickup is merely changing behavioural patterns and suppresses the
actual cause of the misbehaviour. One has to clearly distinguish between randomly
adopted habits that do not reect on the personality and which will cease to cause
any illness once dropped and those that are the direct result of a psychological
impairment.

F The issue of education: An irrational environment can and often does play a
devastating contributory ole in the development of psychological disorders.
Instead of encouraging the child's healthy cognitive development, many parents
do a great deal to stie it. But they seldom, if ever, succeed without the victim's
cooperation. There are children who resist such pressures by persevering in their
will to understand and to achieve cognitive clarity. They do not destroy the health
of their minds in order to "adjust" to an insane background.”

G "Psychological maturity," then, is a concept pertaining to the successful

development of man's consciousness, to the attainment of a level of functioning
appropriate to man qua man.
 A man who deals with the facts of reality on the conceptual level of consciousness
has accepted the responsibility of a human manner of existencewhich entails his
acceptance of responsibility for his own life and actions.
The acceptance of responsibility for one's own life requires a policy of planning
and acting long-range, so that one's actions are integrated to one another and
one's present to one's future. A child, in large measure, "lives for the moment." A
healthy adult plans and acts in terms of a lifespan. This policy entails a corollary:
the willingness to defer immediate pleasure or rewards, when and if necessary, and
to tolerate unavoidable frustration.
A cardinal characteristic of maturity is emotional stability. This trait is the
consequence of one particular aspect of the policy of conceptual functioning: the
ability to preserve the full context of one's knowledge under conditions of
stressfrustration, disappointment, fear, anguish, shock. It is the ability, under the
pressure of such emotions, to preserve one's capacity to think. The opposite of this
state is described as "going to pieces."
H Finally, there is an aspect of psychological maturity that is profoundly important
and that few adults fully achieve. It pertains to one's attitude toward the unknownnot
toward knowledge which has not yet been discovered by anyone, but toward
knowledge which is available but which one does not possess

Self-Esteem Section
Why it is important: The nature of his self-evaluation has profound effects on a man's
thinking processes, emotions, desires, values and goals. It is the single most signicant
key to his behavior. To understand a man psychologically, one must understand the
nature and degree of his self-esteem, and the standards by which he judges himself

Why it can be faked. If and to the extent that men lack self-esteem, they feel driven
to fake it, to create the illusion of self-esteemcondemning themselves to chronic
psychological fraudmoved by the desperate sense that to face the universe without
self-esteem is to stand naked, disarmed, delivered to destruction.

Correct world view: Since reality confronts him with constant alternatives, since man
must choose his goals and actions, his life and happiness require that he be rightright
in the conclusions he draws and the choice he makes. But he cannot step outside
the pos-sibilities of his nature: he cannot demand or expect omniscience or
infallibility. What he needs is that which is within his power: the conviction that his
method of choosing and of making decisionsi.e., his characteristic manner of using
his consciousness (his psycho-epistemology) is right, right in principle, appropriate
to reality.

A man can activate and sustain a sharp mental focus, seeking to bring his
understanding to an optimal level of precision and clarityor he can keep his focus to
the level of blurred approximation, in a state of passive, undiscriminating, goalless
mental drifting.
A man can dierentiate between knowledge and feelings, letting his judgment be
directed by his intellect, not his emotionsor he can suspend his intellect under the
pressure of strong feelings (desires or fears), and deliver himself to the direction of
impulses whose validity he does not care to consider.

A man can perform an independent act of analysis, in weighing the truth or

falsehood of any claim, or the right or wrong of any issueor he can accept, in
uncritical passivity, the opinions and assertions of others, substituting their
judgment for his own.

A man's character is the sum of the principles and values that guide his actions in
the face of moral choices / the need to feel that he is right as a person, right in his
characteristic manner of actingthat he is good => Be ok!

Man cannot exempt himself from the realm of values and value-judgements.
Whether the values by which he judges himself are conscious or subconscious,
rational or irrational, consistent or contradictory, life-serving or life-negating every
human being judges himself by some standard; and to the extent that he fails to
satisfy that standard, his sense of personal worth, his self-respect, suers accordingly.
=> remember the murderer who never felt guilt?

The basic conditions of self-esteem

1 Will to understand. The desire for clarity, for intelligibility, for comprehension of
that which falls within die range of his awareness, is the guardian of man's mental
health and the motor of his intellectual growth
2 The policies by which a man determines the state of his self-esteem are formed
gradually across time; they are not the product of the choices of a single moment
or issue. The collapse of self-esteem is not reached in a day, a week or a month: it
is the cumulative result of a long succession of defaults, evasions and
irrationalitiesa long succession of failures to use one's mind properly. Self-esteem
(or the lack of it) is the reputation a man acquires with himself.

Nathaniel Branden has suggested that having high self-esteem (your reputation with
yourself) isn't only about being condent and happy. It's as much about how freely a
person can experience and feel all aspects of himself without projecting
uncomfortable aspects on to ohters.

Value is about value: as already stated, it is important to get what people don't
really allow you to grow. So maybe some Maslow'ian concepts are helpful to
understand the idea of value.

Traits 1: realistic perception and comfortability with the truth

1) Ability to detect the spurious, the fake, and the dishonest in personality + ability
to see concealed or confused realities more swiftly and more correctly than others
=> in general more accurate and complete predictions of the future + less based
upon wish, desire, anxiety, fear, or upon generalized, character-determined
optimism or pessimism Not truly a better judgement, but a better perception (of
what was really there)

It was found that self-actualizing people distinguished far more easily than most the
fresh, concrete, and idiographic from the generic, abstract, and rubricized. The
consequence is that they live more in the real world of nature than in the man-made
~ass of concepts, abstractions, expectations, beliefs, , and stereotypes that most
people confuse with the world, They are therefore far more apt to perceive what is
there rather than their own wishes, hopes, fears, anxieties, their own theories and
beliefs, or those of their cultural group. "The innocent eye,"

Our healthy subjects are generally unthreatened and unfrightened by the unknown,
being therein quite dierent from average men. They accept it, are comfortable with
it, and, often are even more attracted by it than by the known. They not only tolerate
the ambiguous and unstructured (135); they like it.

And yet we all know how many scientists with high IQ, through timidity,
conventionality, anxiety, or other character defects, occupy themselve~ exclusively
with what is known, with polishing it, arranging and rearranging it, classifying it, and
otherwise puttering with it instead of discovering. as they are supposed to do.

Since for healthy people, the unknown is not frightening, they do not have to spend
any time laying the ghost, whistling past the cemetery, or otherwise protecting-
themselves against imagined dangers. They do not neglect the unknown, or deny it,
or run away from it, or try to make believe it is really known, nor do they organize,
dichotomize, or rubricize it prematurely. They do not cling to the familiar, nor is their
quest for the truth a catastrophic need for certainty, safety, deniteness, and order,
such as we see in an exaggerated form in Goldstein's brain-injured or in the
compulsive-obsessive neurotic. They can be, when the total objective situation calls
for it. comfortably disorderly, slopply, anarchic, chaotic, vague, doubtful, uncertain,
indenite, approximate, inexact, or inaccurate (all, at certain moments in science, art,
or life in general, quite desir. ahle).

Traits 2: Acceptance of self/others/nature

lack of overriding guilt, of crippling shame, and of extreme or severe anxiety.

Our healthy individuals nd it poso sible to accept themselves and their own nature
without chagrin or complaint or, for that matter, even without thinking about the
matter very much.

They can accept their own human nature in the stoic style, with all its shortcomings,
with all its discrepancies from the ideal image without feeling real concern. It would
convey the wrong impression to say that they are self-satised. What we must say
rather is that
they can take the frailties and sins, weaknesses, and evils of human nature in the same
unquestioning spirit with which one accepts the characteristics of nature.

simply noting and observing what is the case, without either arguing the matter or
de-manding that it be o,therwise, so does the selfactualizing person tend to look
upon human nature in himself and in others.

see human nature as it is and not as they would prefer it to be. Their eyes see what is
before them without being strained through spectacles of various sorts to distort or
shape or color the reality

Those self-actualizing people tend to be good animals, hearty in their appetites and
enjoying themselves without regret or shame or apology. They seem to have a
uniformly good appetite for food; they seem to sleep well; they seem to enjoy their
sexuaUives without unnecessary inhibition and so on for all the relatively
physiological impuls

these people are inclined to accept the work of nature rather than to argue with her
for not having constructed things to a dierent pattern.

Closely related to self-acceptance and to acceptance of others is (I) their lack of

defensive-ness, protective coloration, or pose, and (2) their distaste for such
articialities in others. Cant, guile, hypocrisy, front, face, playing a game, trying to
impress in conventional ways: these are all absent in themselves to an unusual degree.
Since they can live comfortably even with their own shortcomings, these nally come
to be perceived, especially in later life, as not shortcomings at all, but simply as neutral
personal characteristics

What healthy people do feel guilty about (or ashamed, anxious, sad, or regretful) are
(I) improvable shortcomings, e.g., laziness, thoughtlessness, loss of temper, hurting
others; (2) stubborn remnants of psychological ill health, e.g., prejudice, jealousy,
envy; (3) habits, which, though relatively independent of character structure, may yet
be very strong, or (4) shortcomings of the species or of the culture or of the group
with which they have identied. The general formula seems to be that healthy people
wiII feel bad about discrepancies between what is and what might very well be or
ou~ht to be

Spontaneity, Simplicity, Naturalness

4.2. Body Lanugage: Reading it

Learning from the best
Sign Language:
Not really canonical here. But from the people I met that understood sign-language
(deaf language), they all displayed far more superior skills in using their hands in
telling a story.

Mimics and Pantomime:

People that I met that did pantomime were mostly over-charged in capacity in
expressing target emotions via their face. Learning this and toning it down a bit is a
key element in learning to act. And more important, learning the key visual and
facial patterns that express emotion and learning how to show them without
grinning and looking extreme is a basic first step in learning how to use your face
correctly when talking to people. It is also observable that women and especially
women that grew up with a lot of sublings have by far superior expressiveness in
facial expressions than single children have. And admittedly, male engineers or
mathematicians typically have the worst ability to use their faces to express
emotions. But that should not read as a generalizing and discriminating statement.

Theatre/stage acting and dancing:

Also kind of normal that people that learn complex acrobatic dance have the most
powerful whole-body expressions and tension. And mixing that with the skills
needed for stage acting is quite powerful for learning the patterns of movement to
express energy states, motive, and other attributes to movement.

Film acting:
Sign language guys, pantomimes, dancers and stage actors suck at film acting.
Because their medium requires long-distance expressions and that simply doesn’t
work on film. Film actors possess the best overall ability to express and convey
emotions and attributes in the near distance and that is likely the most powerful
source of displayed body language and dominance one can have.

Singers:
Last, but not least, singers ranging from pop singers, to vocal impersonators to
operate singers have gone through year of vocal coaching, breathing techniques
and all that Jazz and learned how to cultivate the most expressive and powerful
voice. Also important.

So yes, overall, powerful public speakers should be good at language, good in their
domain and they should have taken dancing, sign language, pantomime, stage
acting and film acting classes. And on top of that, they should have enjoyed a
decent range of vocal coaching to learn how to use their voice.
Simple Neuro Linguistic Programming
Neuro linguistic programming at its core is about reprogramming the way people
react to certain situations by anchoring click and wirr automations to sensations. A
simple example: you make someone think of a a very good memory over and over
again and evertime you do it you touch is wrist. The basic theory says that if you do
this often enough, you set an anchor. The individual will be able to access this
memory everytime it touches its wrist. This anchor is supposedly strong enough to
over-write the click and wirr mechanisms that dominate the situation otherwise. So
instead of fainting on stage when having stage fright, the anchored memory of a
secure and good memory will dominate and you physical reaction disappears. Or if
a person has fear of exams or job interviews, all you have to do is anchor a memory
of success in this moment to the touch of the wrist. The next time the person is in
such a test or interview situation, it just has to touch its wrist strong enough to
completely change emotion and mood and be in the memory and hence the
associated “frame” of winning the situation.
In seduction, neuro linguistic programming or NLP is used in entirely different way.
Either the NLP expert wants to use typical click and wirr automations to build trust –
the victim said it was treated nicely and caressed by a parent when young and the
NLP practicioner uses the opportunity when appropriate to do the same act to give
the feeling of comfort originally felt when parents did this – or to bind someone
emotionally by eventually anchoring a very normal and social form of touch with a
very strong memory in the relationship. This can be a particular form of hugging
someone, or poking someone. Once the anchor is set, the anchor can be used to
steer the emotional click and wirr mechanism in conflict situations. Sounds evil?
Maybe it is a bit evil.

Good or evil, the NLP practice comes from therapy and requires the therapist to
have a clear eye on the emotions someone feels when recounting a memory. And
this is where this set of body language reading tactics comes from. And more
interestingly, NLP practicitoners talk about frames. And thereby provide the best
definition of a frame that is worth studying. Anchors, in the end, are means to switch
frames in a reliable way and re-framing a situation. One moment you feel sad that it
rains, you activate the anchor and are in a frame where rain is associated with
warmth, closeness and romantic memories. A memory that was perceived as
threatening and unbearable suddenly becomes a funny game that someone else
played where we were not part in. How do they do it? By anchoring a memory
where the frame was present and establishing this memory to build an entire new
wordview in contexts where the memory and the frame can shape the meaning of
the situation.

The four ways of coding reality

According to NLP, humans have one or two dominant sensory organs. Individuals
dominantly view and encode information about the world using these senses. The
list includes
1. visual sensing,
2. auditive sensing,
3. kinesthetic sensing
4. emotional sensing and
5. olfactory sensing.
Visual would be attention to breathing patterns, frequency and volume, color of the
skin, eye movement, directions, dilation of pupils and general wetness, lip size and
behavior, skin humidity, muscle tension, general posture, symmetries, and
movement patterns of different body parts such as hands, shoulders, head, arms,
body, legs, feet and ideomotroic or unconscious movements.

Audible individuals focus more on the rhythms in audio patterns, the tonality,
volume and timbre.

Kinestheatics focuses on air pressure, humidity, muscle tension, touch, warmths and
body temperature.
The emotional guys with high EQ receptibility immediately feel the emotions and
moods of others and understand the state the other is in.

And finally the olfactory individuals focus on smells such as alcohol, sweat, perfume.

The four key sensory units are used to get into the brain of someone. To really
understand where the other is currently at, what is his state of confidence, anxiety,
etc. And to use that ot read the actions and reactions of the other individual to form
an opinion on behaviours and intent and thereafter on character, personality and
value.

A person calibrates and understands someone else depending on his dominant

sensory unit and will likely be more receptive. The dominant sensory unit can be
detected by word choices and the way situations are described.

Something that is taught alongside of NLP is using verbal expressions to meet the
dominant sensory organs (one could be rationally dominant, one emotionally). So
instead of describing a perfect day as warm, cozy, one would depict is as bright,
colorful. Using the words that fit the mentally dominant representation, one is
mirroring the way this individual would represent the same concept, thereby
increasing likability and hopefully the emotional reaction. Emotional reactions are
then used to move towards leading the thoughts of an individual to build trust and
sell a story.

The eye patterns in NLP

Direction: Time for some fun and interesting. Look at the following graphic. It
basically says: if you are looking one side, you will likely imagine things, on the other
side you will remember things. Try it out. Remember and image visuals, sound and
touch. And observe where you are looking and how hard it becomes doing the exact
same when you look into a different direction. This works for everyone that doesn’t
decidedly learn to re-program his behavior or who has some pathological condition
that wires his brain differently.
The funny part is what someone that is very aware of this behavior is when you first
observe or stare at him, and then start either constructing or remembering
something. What is the most likely conclusion this individual has to have when you
imagine auditory things? Visual things? Kinesthetic things? What is the conclusion
when you start remembering things? What is the conclusion when you look down?
What is the conclusion when you look up? And what is the conclusion when you just
keep observing? This is why street seduction teaches staring or maintaining eye
contact until someone looks away. Remembering is locked in the past or
remembering another nice memory and de-focusing on the person, imagining
means you are thinking of something that you believe you will not attain in the
present situation, fleeing from the situation. Looking up means you are arrogant or
are enjoying the intensification of the moment rather than engaging. Looking down
means you are depressed and acknowledge you lack value for the other. The only

way to win is to keep looking straight. And making that a habit. Once the other one
looks away first, you know exactly where someone is going? Past? “What are you
thinking about?” Future visual? “What are you going to do tonight?” Future
auditory? “How are you?” Future kinesthetic? “Don’t be so fast. What’s your name?”

But as usual, the above shows the mirror on the X-Axis and implies the standard.
Without baselining you don’t know for sure if someone is constructing or
remembering. But if you look right when you construct, you are behaving as in the
above picture and are normal. And interesting enough, defocusing the view when
looking straight (observing), we typically are also constructing/imagining visually
and pupils always dilate. We are interested. See blow.

Pupil dilation:

Another thing to monitor but harder to see for people with bad sight is how pupils
dilate. Dilating means interest or even arousal, smaller eyes means we don’t want to
be in the situation.

Posture Symbolic

Some things in life are really as simple as they look. Look at this graphic. Eye
direction shows how the core body looks (to the front) and how feet tell the whole
story. Overall, feet direction (facing inside or outside), lower abdomen (feet towards,
parallel or away from someone) and upper abdomen (toards, parallel or away)
matter as well as how far arms are away from the body (far = power gesture, close =
insecure, lose = relaxed) and where arms are (protecting body organs is defense, not
protecting) and the surface of the hand (showing palm = open, showing outside =
closed ) matters.

Guess who needs social training (lower right) and who needs NLP training (lower
right middle) and who needs confidence training (upper right middle) who needs
a general training in how to interact with people (both in upper left middle), who
shouldn’t be here or learn to jump over ones shadow (upper right), who is
unsensitive (lower left middle). And what would someone assertive look like and
where he is at the end of the game (lower left), and who is unassertive and might
end up happy (upper left). This stuff becomes extremely handy when playing
group games.
Posture analysis always focuses on feet, eye contact with reciprocity, alignment
of upper abdomen. And the direction of the shoulders. Are you facing the other
or not. The first thing pick up artists learn is that nothing in this segment is
random and that everyone follows this pattern if they want or not. Almost
nobody trains specific behaviour here. If someone does it is likely someone was
trained in this. In that case the way postures evolve over the interaction show the
playfulness. Moving towards for liking and moving away for unliking is normal.
Moving away for liking and towards for challenging is playful behaviour.

Once we add hand movements and mimics we are ready to understand the
basics rapport and friendly negotiations assuming no anxiety. To understand
hostile negotiations, signals of anxiety and weakness, stress and weakness
become more relevant.

Levels of vulnerability
The levels of vulnerability matter a lot in body language. It matters, however,
what the attention is focused on. Is it focused on the room? The situation in
general? Or on a person and a situation around a person? Someone can be very
open but completely focused on the entire situation and space, showing one is
comfortable with the situation. But the attention can also be focused on a
specific individual or group and the mechanics can differ. If someone is showing
strong signs of interest in a public space that equal distant advancements and
the signs of openness increase, this shows interest. In a negotiation situation an
extreme openness towards an individual can either be a threat similar to claiming
that the other is understood as so unthreatnening and irrelevant, that no
precaution is necessary, or it can mean a signal towards acceptance of the other
one’s interest and position. More likely, the levels of content and agreement
show in far lower form of openness in a negotiation situation. If it exceeds the
situation, it clearly becomes a threat.
Legs: Closed or wide spread levels sexual excitement and relaxedness.
 Armpits: Weak areas, if reveales on one or both side indicates openness and
very high levels of comfort in the situation.
Abdomen: Protected in any sense is always closed and defensive.

Levels of body language imitation / physically visible rapport

The feet, lower and upper abdomen elements above already show some signs of
rapport. The more the posture is imitated, the closer the willingness to aggree.
Things become more relevant when eye contact increases and start mirroring the
other such as remembering visuals when the other talks about visuals from
memory, imagining kinesthetic when the other remembers kinesthetic up to the
level where eye contact is maintained and the focus reduces as where the
individual uses the auditive reception to fully imagine being in the mind of the
other person. Rapport increases when someone starts to imitate actual
behaviour. Such as scratching ones neck when the other scrateches, crossing
arms when the other crosses, leaning back when the other leans back. Etc. While
this sounds very very fishy, this works very very well on building rapport on
people when they are focused on what they are focused on rather than focused
on their own body language.

Body Functions
o Respiration
o Blood Pressure
o Pulse
• Speech patterns
o
• Measuring stress levels and framing of stressful events

• Ticks and Abnormalities

Exploiting Bodies
Interesting enough, the anchor concept already touched upon somewhere else is
used excessively in pick up artistry and is called kino. Kineasthetic reactions are
typically stronger and more rare than non-kinaesthetic ones. In pick up artistry, the
appropriate and early on touch of someone moves the entire conversion to a early
on fight or flight decision that saves time for everyone is flight is chosen and creates
a quick win in closeness and liking if fight mode is started and won.
The same mechanisms is used by pick pockets. When approaching without notice
and heading for a strong physical contact, the uncertainty creates a flight mode and
pumps whatever physical process that stalls the entire human being for a few
seconds. Exploiting this few seconds lasting click and wirr reaction creates
opportunity to take items. If you combine this effect with the effect of suddenly
changing the pace of a visual situation that it has on observers, you get what
magicians are doing when they change the pace of a trick and the mere speed of
some movement captures all attention of the observers, keeping the activity of slow
moving components completely invisible.
4.3. Pattern Recognition I : Micro Expressions
Pattern recognition is about pinging for cues and observing several cues to obtain
an informed opinion about intent and likelihood of outcome.

Observing intent: Almost all pattern recognition applications require what is known
as “baselining”. This means that any pattern is only as valuable as it is related to the
“normal behavior” of a person. If a person normally nods downwards, just having
someone nodding downward will not reveal submission, despite the fact that a
larger set of untrained and normal human beings will – on average – assume that
the behavior is that of submission or a generally submissive person. Since average
do not matter when the task is to exactly read another person, but actual truth
matters, it first has to be understood what this person normally does. Once an
anomaly is detected and generates an indicator for an intent outside of normal
group-compliant behavior, the anomaly has to be mapped to possible meanings of
the anomaly.
Identifying intent is about understanding the space of possible interpretations of the
anomaly and mapping it with the sets of intents and actions that are attainable by
the person.

From intent to likelihood of outcome: When looking at the likelihood of outcome,

several things matter. The actual probability of the outcome occurring at all, the
ability of the individual to act efficiently towards that intent – as rendered by his
general self-efficacy, his level of skill, etc –, the actual value of the outcome which
may render the effort as too high and the intent being likely of low sincerity and the
overall risk of the route towards fulfilling the intent and effort required. The
likelihood analysis is relevant as to sort out if an intent is to be considered relevant.
Even if the skill and true intent exist, but the likelihood overall is low, it may be
sufficient to decide to pass on engaging with the intent and watching it slip away
over time. But it, of course, can also be used to play against the individual and keep
its energy and focus on the intent. This section covers the detection of anomalies
mainly and ignored the likelihood, effort and capability analysis.

4.2.2. Situations
How does an individual approach a situation. More often than not, an individual has
a complete disassociation from the situation that presents itself and what he or she
thinks the situation is all about. This is observable by a discrepancy from the frame
and associated behavior of the individual and the actual situation the individual is in.
People can believe they are in a situation when they are not – the non situation – or
they are in a situation and believe they are not – a situation of disregard – or they
believe they are in a conflict situation when they are not or when

4.2.2.1. Non Situations

A non situation is a situation where two parties are not actually participating in a
situation. This is commonly observed when someone is interested in a situation with
someone else because he has interest in such a situation, but the situation is not
taking place. There are a few simple examples:
The secret admirer: The secret admirer is so interested in having a situation with
someone he admires that he lacks the acknowledgement that such a situation does
not even exist. He is lost in the idea that he is being observed and what he does
matters, but he is not even seen and there simply is no situation. The person
admired simply might simply not be aware of the admirers existence or not be
interested in the admirers existence even if he had presented himself to the person
admired.
The haunted: Someone might believe he is being surveilled by government forces,
while in fact nobody cares about him. He is obsessing on what impact his actions
may have, when in fact for the pictured observe he does not even exit. The strong
disassociation occurs here because the observer is either non-existent or surely no
where near being possibly being put into a situation with the individual. The
haunted is the strongest form of a non-situation when the other does not exist – in
this case the individual is clearly a lunatic.
The ambitious: The ambitious individual in the work place might see any disregard
of his interest as a dedicated affront against his interest, while he might simply not
be on the radar of the individual he wants to please or believes he is in a situation
with. This kind of individual might want to create a situation that plays well for his
ambition, but the person he wants to situate with might either not be interested in
any situation with the individual – the busy boss who doesn’t care about the
individual – or the person the ambitious wants to be situated with does simply not
see the situation. Or the person might very well be aware of the individuals behavior
and disacknowledge the situation, because it does not satisfy the intensity of a
situation. The ambitious that shows his ambition in this obvious manner but does
not manage to create the situation might be completely lost and hence
misunderstand the non-situation that is his situation.

A defining feature of non-situations is that they either really do not exist or the
other does not have any interest in the situation. In the least cases the other has an
interested in pretending there is no situation to wear out the person that wishes for
one or thinks one exists.

4.2.2.2. The conflict situation

This occurs when a situation actually exists, but there is a strong misconception of
the situation as hostile or conflict-loaded while it may be neutral of cooperative.

Self-Defense Mechanisms
The self-defense mode accepts the other as an authority and assumes the it is under
attack. It will start to display self-defensive behavior with a varying degree of
idiocracy and showing its trained behaviours used in such situation. In the worst
case, the other is interested in using this misconception to identify vulnerabilities
and entry points of control over the individual. In no case, the status of the self-
defensive individual is regarded as equal. In any case, the self-defensive individual
will lose value and might even lose the standing it had prior to the incident. No one
should ever display defensive behavior. Not even when under attack.
Acknowledging the attack in a defense situation and correctly understanding the
situation acknowledges guilt. The behavior of defensiveness only works for
individual of strong power trying to convince a followership of possessing guilt. For
anyone else, the possession of guilt display the loss of value and opens the door for
exploitation and manipulation.
Attack Mode
Similar to the self-defense mode, the attack mode can more often than not be
understood as a weakness. Only when the attack is real and the fight is won quickly
and effectively, does the attack mode any sense. In all other cases, when the attack
is not won immediately when it occurs, or when the attack mode is started when no
attack situation is actually happening, the attack mode opens windows of
opportunity for exploitation. Attack modes show both the aggression potential and
the coping mechanisms of an attack. Unless the attacked is striking without any
ambivalence and lack of success, the attack mode itself displays weakness in not
being able to win a fight. And thereby is a sign of weakness or “toothlessness”. A
person that believes his ego is under attack must escalate to the highest level and
reduce the value of the attacker furiously, or the mere reaction of the attack is a
farce. If he does full force on a non-attacking situation, he only reveals his inability
to assess situations and will lose value. Eventually losing more – such as going into
an all-in attack against an authority that was not meant to harm will eventually lead
to ultimate harm or lack of cooperation.
More often than not, it is wise to hide the attack mode and assume that any attack
is not actually an attack.
Only when an attack is really an attack and it bears merit because if not defended it
will lead to a negative for the one attacked is a counter-attack meaningful and only
then should the counter-attack be fast and effective. Anything else is bad for all
participants.

Disacknowledgement or blindness
If there is a conflict situation and it is overlooked, this of course, is also bad. The
disacknowledgement of an attack when it takes place will decrease value.

4.2.2.3. The cooperative situation

In cooperative mode, the core focus is on consensus and value generation for the
parties involved. The cooperative mode can be natural and well or it can display
misconceptions of how cooperative situations work.
The supplication. Trying to please extensively in a cooperative situation by going a
longer way than the other would ever go is communicating a want that is beyond
feasible expectations. This will devalue the individual by communicating the desire
for a positive outcome in a level of strength that is not understood or shared with
the other. This is where a level of “coolness” or lack of excitement and interest as
openly displayed is a generically optimal strategy. To understand the level of
excitement of the other and to slightly stay below that level is a key to creating
value in a cooperative situation and a key for staying on top of negotiations for the
ultimate outcome of it. The key to such a situation is to stay a bit – just in the right
amount – less interested in the outcome of the cooperative situation as to use the
willingness to reveal preferences of the other to optimize the outcome.
Excessive bargaining. Of course, the counter element of cooperative situations is to
be too eager to display interest. This may lead to the other person losing its face
and leaving the bargaining table. The key to cooperative situations being bargaining
is to stay sufficiently interested to keep the negotiation alive and being cool and
disinterested enough to focus on the one key element of negotiations: increasing
the want and desire of the other party in order to increase the maximum level of
compromise the other is willing to take – or to increase the BATNA range in the
negotiation which will be discussed later.

4.2.2.4. The indifferent situation

The disregard mode somewhat ignores the idea that there is the need to identify
the cooperative or rivalling mode. It focuses on ignoring either the cooperative or
conflictual nature basically stipulating that the other – no matter what his intent in
the situation – is not relevant to individual interests.

Indifference as an operner
Indifference can be read as a “try again, stupid” to tell the other that the situation as
it presents itself at hand is not giving any reason to enter the situation. It can be
read as reminder for the other to re-assess the situation before a more accurate
understanding of the situation is taking place and is a probing strategy on the
interest of the other in a situation. The indifference strategy is very common and
effective in unprovoked attack situations where the individual attacked really has no
interest in being attacked and the attacker is told to “just fuck off and attack
someone else”. Or it tells someone with cooperative intent that currently there is no
interest in cooperation.

Indifference as indifference
Indifference can also be a motive to imply that a situation will not take place. As for
cooperation, the indifference may simply claim : “nothing to gain from cooperation
with you” by either claiming that there are no common interests, that the higher
power of the other makes the attempt of cooperation an idiotic attempt or that the
value of the other is simply fruitless, because the other does not have the value to
start a situation. This can, of course, also be the result of an error from the
indifferent person and lead towards an indifference as an opener situation, where
the individual indifferent is not yet aware that he his missing the opportunity from
the situation. In an indifference as an opener situation the person indifferent is very
well aware of the the potential benefit of a situation, but merely claims that the way
the situation was presented by the other person was not a viable entry form of a
negotiation – be it conflicting or cooperative.

4.2.2.5. Lack of situational awareness

Last, but not least, some individuals just might not be aware of the entire aspect of
situations and might either ignore a situation that presents itself, because it is not
aware of it presenting itself, or the individual is in particular situation and is under
complete denial or lack of awareness of the nature of the situation. This is not a
“refuse to play” or “not willing to pay to play” situation, but a simple: “too dumb to
see the play” situation.

Exploitation strategies

(1) Dominate and exploit: The dominate and exploit situation is a typical situation
of commercial contracts when a person with a short-term want and a lack of
diligence for the long-term consequences of the situation can be exploited. This can
be a buyer of a life-long contract out of a short-term motive, or a person wishing to
change its job without any knowledge on the battle field of potential exploitations
of a employee contract situation.

(2) Abuse: A lack of situational awareness opens door for conflicting situations that
continue as the individual exploited consistently is remaining in denial or lack of
awareness of the exploitation taking place. This happens in abusive relationships, in
fraud, trickstery and any form of actual abuse where someone is being physically or
socially harmed in a consistent manner without acknowledging the fact of the
situation that creates this harm.

An example: A company I worked for focused exclusively on hiring high potentials

with enough blindspots and lack of situational awareness. The key strategy was on
false-promising both roles and responsibilities of the job and using the lack of
awareness on the financial and career-specific lock-in effects of the potential
employees. By having scrutinizied a set of these characteristics, the individuals that
signed the contract were immediately exploited openly and mobbed to conform
towards a very inferior position that required them to work very hard on topics that
completely were below their qualifications and abilities, constantly feeding them
their inferiority and demanding their loyalty to the regime of exploitation by merely
using their risk-aversion and lock-in to keep them conformed. A very strong
example of abuse, but not too uncommon in today’s work environment. Sad to
watch, but effective and a good example on how to play lack of situational
awareness.

4.2.2.6. Frames and the impact on power

All of these situations and their misinterpretation have to do with frames. We judge
situations and apply a frame to cope with a situation. What unifies all except those
with a lack of awareness is that a misconception of the situation leads to the use of
a frame that increases the vulnerability in the situation. The latter, those lacking
awareness of the situation, are all qualified by having a strong disassociation
between effective frames and frames these individuals want to put themselves into.
The latter are in that sense psychologically nonsane, because their psychological
disposition requires them to maintain a frame distached to the actual situation at
hand to remain their self-image. These makes those of the last class of
disassociation with reality the most humble and easiest to exploit. All types of mis-
aligned individuals have their strengths and weaknesses and can either exploited or
used to developed a solid strategy of value creation. Aggressive people can be used
to thrive in aggressive environments with weak counterparts, self-defensive
individuals can be used to drive energy-consuming work by giving them the
acknowledgement and release of self-sabotating beliefs. Those lacking in awareness
can be training in gaining the awareness or their frames can be used to drive
activivity and loyalty. The most difficult to cultivate and exploit are those that show
indifference and those are typically we understand as the most powerful and
attractive.
When comparing all those that suffer a dis-associated from reality and the situation
at hand, those that are strongly associated appear to be more aware and to be
individuals we would trust to make sober decisions. While all those that are less
associated appear to be better figures in the chess play that can be learned to be
handled. As for ourselves, if we want to succeed in life is to be strongly associated
with the ability to decept others by displaying a certaing trait of disassociation.
Certain social and political environments seek individuals of specific type of
disassociation and knowing these preferences and playing along can be a great
source of power.
In one on one situations, playing disassociations can lure others into accepting us
into their inner circle where we can start to exploit them. When thinking back in self-
improvement and thinking big, any such attempt to lure someone into believing we
are disassociated in order to exploit them will likely make us fail in the attempt to
grow. Which is why self-improvement and overcoming the fallacies of disassociation
from situations somewhat play hand in hand.

4.2.3. Practical Frameworks

4.2.3.1. Female body language in open situations

This more funny and entertaining section covers elements from the pick-up artist
literature. It provides some basic examples of occurances in the real world. The key
take away is that little things that occur do not occur for no reason. There is always a
reason in the space of possible behaviours why some behavior actually takes place.
Pickup itself is interesting because it focuses on a setting in real world situations that
take place every day in almost any public situation. The best non-committing training
ground for making new experiences and growing skills, when accepting the possibility
to engange with strangers everywhere and anytime. Something that socially apt and
generally social individuals enjoy.

Peekaboo: a game where she starts to look over the menu oder somewhat looks at
you in a rather conceiling manner. It is not yet an approach but rather an invitation
to play a game: “Peekaboo”.
Women play games all the time when they are young. With their parents, with
siblings, with relation, with friends. At some point, you might wonder whether the
signals you get are rather an invitation for a irty game or a direct invitation to come
over.
The game is like foreplay. Just like you do not take the amusement and enjoyability
of foreplay in bed, you just should not miss on the chance to use this kind of foreplay
to excite.
The Smile Back: Noticing a women when she notices you, eye-contact. Usually a
woman will look in dierent ways. If the signals are right, stay focused on her eyes and
wait for around 45 seconds. If she looks back, it's a first signal.
- If she looks to the floor or to the ceiling, it's ok. If she looks directly up it's saying:
Let me alone!
- If she wets her lips or starts to giggle when she looks away it is a sure good signal
The shy glance over the shoulder
Many women don't look at you directly. But it is an invitation.
Playing with neglace while looking at you => Invitation to sex? Well, there is
certainly some attraction. Get over there.
Shoe-Dangle and Exposition: a rather aggressive approach to invite you over
urgently. Also a threat in some sense, namely she will look into other
directions so. Which is why it depends on your style if you approach or not.
The move in your comfort zone: Usually requires that you are already talking.
Smile, get even closer, or touch her, anything. If that is her way to approach
you, just touch and get your game on. QUICKLY! AND AGGRESSIVELY!
Touching: According to this self-made expert, a woman should make the rst
touch. You never know . I think this is bogus to be generalized.
 Hand underchin: pointed towards you? Good. Painted towards her => ready
for a st ght or cramping due to arrousal? Go escalate. What do you have to
lose?
The neckling: raising her arms such that you can see the lower side of her
arm, or simply the moving up of the head to expose her neck. Meaning: I
submit to you. Or: now you can get your game on and lead.
She suggest a comment on her hair. She always suggest a gesture to
acknowledge the gesture.
Matter of fact, she suggests that if you miss out on this, she will feel
embarrassed and start
to withdraw sending you singals.
She compares it to a tennis match of give and take of the ball. The
better you play it, the more you will appear in her league.
Lipstick and Powdering: Clearly a no-brainer. If she uses your absence to
brush herself up, she likes you. Actually ,she cares about you and how you
value her.
Hair play or moving her shirt: sending interest, starting foreplay (caressing
herself, so it is some-what an invitation to get into the direction to touch her
und help her with the burdon.)
It is a clear indicator that a specic treshhold of arrousal has hit her and
taken over her entire body.
Heart starts to beat faster, palms get sweatier,
Wide-opened Iris, bubbly behaviour, iritious, joking, humorous: well, guess
what you got her. Now don't mess up.
Sure-Anti-Fire: If a girl does not correct her posture when she sees you, forget
about it.
Eyesight accorcing to this author is the most suggestive method to create
arrousal. Use it. Stare deeply, stay talking, and stay condent.

4.2.3.2. More on reading people

A mature definition of friendship: A friend is the ultimate result of a never-ending
companionship, where a companion is an individual to which you are at some point
in your life for some reason connected to by a relationship. In this somewhat bizarre
denition we go further, a friend is what you get when the following happens.
When having a companion at your side, most individuals in the world will basically
submit to you and be boring as fuck, which will be something like the Siren above, or
they actually will abuse you like a madman, trying to manipulate you and get you to
do what is good for them. This is no paranoia, this is a fact. And I said: “most”.
First of all, everything we do is egocentric and selsh. And it is good that way. But we
must very well discriminate between the motivations that drive individuals. This is
where this gets interesting.
So a good companion is such a companion that uses the intimacy of your relationship
to get to know you more and more. But, and this is the dierence, not to simply know
you or to manipulate you, but to use his own knowldge and wisdom to nd something
out about your truth (remember us talking about truth earlier?). ANd then, of course,
this person may consciously guide you towards this knowledge. He will help you
realize yourself a little bit more. He will help you expand and grow.
And if this companionship shall become a friendship, you will do the very same.
But to become a friendship, there must be something in both characters that is
mutually the same. In most cases, people in your life will be very dierent from you
and what you companionship will do, if it is sincere and successful, it will lead them
away from you. Namely, you meet at some point similar, and you help them become
their true selves and vice versa and you are in your core dierent, then you will actually
drive this companionship into a separation.
Unless, and this is where friendship may emerge, you both are practically similar
enough in your core to have a shared identity that binds you. If this is the case, then
you may become Madonna, and your friend may become Hitler. You will stay attached
and friends for ever, no matter what the distance.
So if you are adding the fact that your friend is of the appropriate sex and you are
even willing to be there for this individual in times of hardship and vice versa, you
have one good indicator of whether you two belong together.

4.3. Pattern Recognition II : Cause and effect

Understanding specific cues and micro expressions in everyday life is certainly
crucial for getting a situation. But the actual power of pattern recognition is to
understand how observable behavior can predict future behavior and outcomes
from it. This is best motivated by an example.

4.3.1. Examples

The rogue follower: Someone has worked very hard to show his loyalty to a leader
and has built a track record of success. There have been occasional fights among
the leader and the individual in question, but most likely the open-minded and
sharp leader observed and understood the power and conflict situations and had
everything under control. Things get more tricky now, because the individual in
question met someone new in his life that has told him in a clear and sensible way
that he is being disadvantaged more than he would have needed to or should allow.
Out of some invisible reason, the individual in question completely changed its
perception and now is convinced that it cannot tolerate the situation any more. The
decision is made and the overall goal is to now work against the leader as much as
possible and eventually overthrow him. Such situations do happen everywhere and
they are serious. The issue here is that the leader will likely not be able to see the
change in the situation clearly, but if trained well, he will have a notion that
something changed. The eye contact was a blink less intense and trusting, the voice
pattern in a specific situation changed. The individual is spending less time
presenting his successes and failures. Or – coming back to the last chapter -, the
eyes start to look into the direction of imagination when something is being recalled
or they somehow behave differently, the Iris is smaller, doesn’t widen. In almost all
cases when the mindset or the perception of an individual of its situation changes,
even if it tries to behave as usual, will lead to changes in micro behavior and create
patterns that can be and should be detected early on. The key art of pattern
detection is to see when something is coming up, what exact implications it will
have and to handle it with the attention necessary ot prevent a derailing situation.

The board meeting: Pattern recognition appears also to be a famed capability in

Venture capital. It relates to recognizing patterns in the organizational behavior, its
processes or board meetings that warrant possible losses to the investment. One
pattern is similar to the general rule in applications: small mistakes when it matters
reveal a mind that has a pattern of making mistakes. An ill-formed and formatted
financial statements invites the idea that someone is messy. An unclean and terribly
structured board presentation shows someone either does not get the situation or is
very busy doing more important things. Context matters in such pattern recognition
environments. But never the less, knowing when something is a tune off, and
knowing exactly why it is off and why the reason of this bad tune might lead to the
total destruction of a company is something that matters for investors in young
companies. Board meetings are the epitome of short, infrequent, impersonal and in
the case of venture capital, highly information and power asymmetry driven
situations. Most venture capitalists sitting in a board have a personal connection
with the founders and know some people from other investment houses sitting in
the meeting. The dynamics that unfold when many personal relationships suddenly
need to be managed in a professional setting reveals a lot of information on how
the relationship between an entrepreneur and other investors have formed, what
this implies for the information presented and how anything that flies out of the
comfort zone of such a meeting has meaning in the future development of the deal.
The company can simply stop being a good investment, someone can jump off the
deal requiring someone else to put more skin into the game than wanted, while at
the same time killing perceived value of the company by someone leaving the table.
One investor might have a deep personal passion for the company, someone else
might want to see it fail, simply because his overall portfolio looks more promising.
In many cases, the behavior in the board meeting requires actions against or with
many different people who all are quick to jump on what they think is best is a very
good environment to see dynamics unfold and cues and patterns emerging. The
patterns in board meetings focus all on the founders ability to produce results,
present focus and accurate and desired progress and managing all the investors
correctly. Apart from the entrepreneur, it is about exchanging value and vision
among the other investors, create new opportunities and get along with the good
ones, and keep the bad ones contained. And there are many bad guys in board
meetings.

4.3.2. Patterns that work

Mission: the mission of pattern recognition is to uncover patterns in real life that
work and how to manage them. There are in general two patterns: patterns that get
you what you want, and patterns that if left unmanaged take away a lot of what you
thought you already had secured. So maximizing impact of own actions and
minimizing risks coming from patterns that others start is what this is all about.
If we call these two patterns the positive and negative patterns, the key is to
hypothesis test and execute on as many positive patterns as possible and to learn to
listen to ones gut and intuition in detecting and pinpointing negative patterns. In
both cases, positive and negative, it has to be learned what the existence of the
pattern really means. A positive pattern needs to lead to an actual result that is desired
and has a profound and sustainable positive effect. It has to be learned how to be
implemented and when attention can be lowered without breaking the unfolding of
the pattern. Once a pattern has been called and is unfolding, the focus is on earning
as many of the fruits of the pattern as possible and to consider the next pattern to
strengthen, weaken or sustain the ongoing dynamics. The negative pattern has to be
understood in its entirety of negative effects. It has to be learned when it is easiest to
be contained – in the beginning or after its initial unfolding -, how it is contained and
when its total negative impact is sufficient to warrant full attention to it. Almost all
cases of betrayal and death by it in Machiavellis Prince depict leaders who overlooked
negative patterns. Almost all advice on what to do is based on others, individuals and
groups, being unable to detect patterns as they unfold and what opportunity is
created from that fact.

4.3.3. People’s patterns

When coming back from general pattern recognition in certain situations and
environments, individuals’ patterns are also something that should be part of any
relationship management situation. People do possess patterns in behavior and they
more often than not can not be managed, if they relate to private behavior. In that
case, the question is always around (a) whether the patterns are destructive to the
relationship and the relationship has to be ended, (b) the patterns are working and
worth studying, reflecting and discussing with the individual, or (c) are valuable
enough to accept the relationship for a longer term and enjoy the fruits of the pattern.
Individuals’ patterns in professional or non private situations are a typical first entry
point to manipulate someone. While people rationalize a lot and believe their
principles and beliefs are guiding their behavior, they are more often than not merely
indicators for a set of patterns and click and wirr automations that define their
behavior.

Using someones patterns to take advantage of them could be referred to as pattern

surfing or free-riding the pattern. A lot of relationships that you can observe are
having their own dynamic mainly because someone is not accepting and fully
acknowledging the existence of a pattern that is just impossible to break. Instead of
fixing people and their patterns, the wiser choice is always to use their patterns to
control their negative impact and guide the relationship towards a better dynamic,
fully accepting the patterns. Or by simply exploiting them.

4.3.2. Pattern management: back to intent and likelihood

4.4. Human Playground: Patterns we can observe in
others
4.4.0. Three audiences and kinds of humans: Naives, Players,
Experts
There are three kinds of individuals that we encounter in life. The naïve, or: those
that have absolutely no idea about anything that is written in this book and do not
feel the urge to find out. The players, or: those that are fairly aware of the tools in
this book and that see in their application a worthwile pursuit in their life. People
who want to lead and mislead, manage, control, or simply destroy others, generally
people who enjoy orchestrating other people and intrinsically favour the activity of
thinking about people – well, or systems , how people “work” and how they can be
“controlled”. Those individuals may have “flow” experiences when doing so. And
then there are the experts, or: those that are aware of these rules and could learn
and apply them, but who decided they are enjoying the fruits of intellect and autark
pursuit of achievements independent from others. Those people who cannot stand
the idea of thinking about motives and behaviours of other people all day, but see
in their social life a means to a pursuit that is beyond human relationshps. The latter
are likely the typical experts, scientists and professionals in their field, able to
navigate out of the battlefields of politics and making a consistent career in getting
closer to where their individual intellectual passion is leading them. And they likely
experience flow moments outside of thinking about people and how to engage with
them. All three categories come with different levels of skill, awareness and drive.
But in principle, when interacting with others, the naive are those easiest to be
managed and exploited. The third, the experts, will be able to use their skills and
skills covered in this book to get their normal relationships working a bit better or to
survive in political battlefields. They are not as easily controlled and exploited, but
they are also not the most aggressive when it comes to getting something from
someone else or a group. Those who actively want to become leaders and managers
and are most likely to use this book as a resource manual are the ones hardest to be
cracked and hardest to strategize again.

4.4.1. Self Esteem and Sexual Drive

The pick-up literature provides its own bag of concepts that are somewhat sexist
and overly focused on what you could call a Freudian reading of human behavior.
But since most of that stuff actually works in reality and exploits lack of self-
awareness, why not cover it, too.

A famous classification in PUA (Pick Up Artistry) is that of classifying humans into LD

and HD types – Low sexual Drive vs High sexual Drive – and LSE – Low Self-Esteem –
and HSE – High Self-Esteem – types. Makes sense, as lower sexual drive typically
leads to an overall stronger obsession with meaningless endeavours and a lower
need to focus life about optimizing mating opportunities. And because self-esteem
somewhat interacts with how actively a person engages in meaningful relationships
vs. how actively it wastes its time with what it gets, no matter how bad or
exploitative one is. The ideal types in PUA are of course high drive – they enjoy “the
thing” – and high self-esteem – they aim for good stable relationships with overall
good partners.

That also spills over into the general political landscape in life. The strongest political
players in your life will likely be HSE-HD types. But likely, different characters will
jump to your eye on both sides of sex and in many real life situations. While stable
family oriented individuals will all somehow tend to evolve towards HSE-HD, too,
the “bulldogs” in life are almost all somehow LD and LSE types and will be around
low- to mid-level leadership positions. Sacrificing their private life due to the LD
part, which distiches them from focusing on relationships and being somewhat lost
in social obsessions of power and as a result being LSE mostly because they have
not amounted to anything higher in the rank, being pulled back by their feeling of
not deserving more, or short: a lack of pride to stand up against superiors.
LD types are perfect workholics, and LD LSE types are the ones you can easily milk
and waste like a bucket of human energy. If the LD LSE type comes with very high
intelligence and throughput, you have your typically “type A” hire in a start-up. LSE
means no threat to the authority of the leadership and low likelihood of moving to
another job. LD means he really doesn’t care about having good relationships
outside of work. The millennial problem that most corporate have relates to people
displaying HD and HSE features in the sense that they want meaningful relationships
at work – not necessarily outside of it, but some, do – and HSE in the sense that they
switch easily to better opportunities understanding the basic laws of supply and
demand and the opportunity for negotiation that entails.

LSE: Low Self Esteem

Low Self Esteem, but attractive: the lower the self esteem and the higher the
attractiveness, the higher the inclination of using methods of manipulation. This is
not an intrinsic feature, but the attractiveness is equal to more practice and more bad
experiences that did not solve the self-esteem problem.

Key Features:
Inability to accept being treated well by others. Because the low self-esteem defies
the idea that one is worthy of someones attention and love, these kind of individuals
dislike any form of authentic benevolence. Compliments are understood as
submissive, and they prefer to be made fun of – thereby confirming their self-image.
They cannot tolerate harmony, peace of mind and happiness, because they are certain
that they do not deserve it. Dynamically, they will seek emotionally dry and
meaningless relationships, and are likely to expect little in deep experiences. Most
likely, this expectation is coupled with what they experienced when they were younger
and they are just habitualized on being treated badly. Their inability to solve their
esteem problem leads them through cycles of ups and downs where they feel they
can have hope to have something better coming for them and the low where they
realize what they know – abasement and lack of acknowledgement – makes them feel
secure and normal.
The attractiveness factor makes access to strangers abundant and they are very
unlikely to really pull a string to do good to others. They know everyone can be easily
replaced and so no effort is ever put into the feelings of someone else. On the
contrary, knowing that they can easily find someone else to lure them, they will seek
enjoyment and amusement in the debasement of others. At the same time, they have
the feeling of deserving the highest attachment and acceptance and expect being
treated well and with high ettention and effort. Because they have the freedom to
leave someone, they want commitment shown.
Depending on their desire to have this easy access and eventually being insecure
about their ability to sustain attraction, they will learn how to please and attract apart
from their natural attractiveness. Being sharp about their ability to lure, they will
immediately abandon the strategy once an individual is lured into and becomes loyal
and commited.
The wish to be rescued from the emptiness of their existence might lead them to
demand exessive, high adrenaline and non-conventional behavior, requiring more
and more extraordinary pleasures.
In transition to new lovers, out of mere laziness and fear from uncertainty when
looking for their next victim, they might try to debase their partners as much as
possible and seek the maximum of power by consistently idiotic demands for their
amusement. Because all of these dynamics – the debasement of their partners, their
low self-esteem, the lack of trust and belief in true relationships -, sexual encounters
and experiences are also likely to be low and flat. They might be afraid of very deep
emotional bondings and any physical behavior that expresses it, such as touching in
public, cuddling.

When LSE mixes with LD (low sex drive) – the LSE LD:
Low sex drive implies low pleasure in receiving sexuality and hence low meaning in
giving sexual pleasure. This translates into lowering the value of sexual activity overall.
Observable features are little or negative re-actance to sexually connotated behavior
– such as touching, talking about sexual pleasure and experience. They typically hardly
enjoy actual intercourse, feel little. Coupled with low sex drive typically are deeper
psychological issues regarding the development of sexual desire which express
themselves in abnormal sexual desires. Debasement, power interplay and violence can
be part of the experience. Since these individuals know that their sexual encounters
will debase value, they are likely to ascertain a sufficient level of control and
dependence prior to committing to sexual relationships. They are more likely to seek
amusement in manipulation of individuals which are on the boundary of actual
relationships and hence flourish among individuals with little focus on sexuality:
power, money and passive-aggressive individuals. Another typical coping method is
the escape using unproductive habits and addictions including drug abuse, self-
manipulation, diatery misconducts and sex addiction.

Aware of their deep insufficiency, they are also more dangerous socially, caring little
about their social standing and social standing of their partners.

LSE-HD: Low self esteem individuals with high sexual drive: Very similar to LD
versions, but less sexual abnormality and a clearly higher involvement in sexual activity
with lower levels of compensation such as food excessiveness and

High Self-Esteem individuals – again with LD and HD:

Are more likely to enjoy smaller things, easier enticed and in love with details, closer
to nature and animals and with a healthy relationship to spirituality and deeper
meaning. Likely to appreciate the phenomenon of life and their existence a bit more.
That implies a somewhat higher focus on love and respectful collaboration, a higher
level of social awareness and EQ, more likely to be exicted by giving pleasure and
kindness to others, take care of other people’s feelings and wishes, but nevertheless
– as HSE – able to get what they want an be fiercefull and fearless and selfish when
life demands it. Less likely to display overly strong immorality, however. And like to
gift things.
Likely more inclined to have stable famility lives, and a healthy relationship to their
friends, family and kinship.
They managed to successfully unite job, leisure, hobbies, friends, duties and passions.
But also very likely to exhibit strong self-doubts somewhat in line with realistic levels
of them. Highly intact sexuality and experiencing pleasure from it. Not all too deep
into perversion or exploitation of any kind.

4.4.2. Partnership Types

Again, the literature focuses mostly on what “partner” to pursue. PUA in the end wants
to match people with smart, good-looking, fun to be around people that are
committed and good partners.
Because it is always hard to know something that is good if you never experienced it,
the literature focuses on depicting character types that are just bad. Let’s have a look.

Victims (LSE-LD): Wining character, inhibited body language, silent, yearns affection.
Martyres: Want to help everyone. Visit church with glowing eyes. Nobody recognizes
or knows them, but they have a sense of belonging and purpose. Aggression is
strongly suppressed and cooking below their skin.
Includes nuns, individual with bad prior experiences and a feeling of guilt for it,
opening their perception of the relevance of sin. Or auto-aggressive types, castrated
people, who gave up part of their personality to forever be saintly and free of guilt.
In general, these people are victims because of their very high commitment to a single
thing once they have been converted. Ideal for sects, exploitative bosses and
organizations.
Borderlines: Cut themselves, or created other forms of permanent damage, yearn for
affection and being understood in their pain, somewhat not believing anyone ever
will and constantly willing to accept death and hence being entirely indifferent to
social norms and conformity. They are excessive in everything, violate protocol and
are willing to use their ability to disobey norms without guilt to control others. Might
call police on false rape accusation and other insane behaviours.
They are called borderline, because their behavior makes them useless in almost all
social environments. In PUA, they are described as good short term dating
opportunities, in the work environment and anywhere else they are best ignored.
Drama Queens, low self-esteem but likely high sex drive, having a high demand for
others behaving exactly as they want. They will complain and lament consistently,
about you not being there, not being sexually available when needed, whatever you
do is not enough, and when it happens, it better didn’t happen. Typically full of desire
and hunger for more, but unable to find that thing that makes them feel satisfied and
comfortable, not able to overcome their low self-esteem. Can be handled and
exploited if calmed and not taken serious in what they say. Nothing really for a long-
term relationship.
At work and in life, those people are typically lured into a relationship with some
promises that they evaluate as attractive. Once lured in, they are stuck until someone
lures them into a new position. They are “high maintenance” individuals, because they
cannot be treated as the martyres without them shifting to panic and aggression
mode. If the floor of satisfaction is reached, they are likely to stay, be cynical, require
active monitoring and goal setting, but otherwise may perform well.
Narcistic attention seeking LSE: Talks too much, believes to misunderstood and
underappreciated, wants to be challenged all the time, and compares itself a lot to
others. Have very low self-esteem and typically try to over-compensate with
personality. Uses all sorts of strategy to be the center of attention. Abuses others as
long as they give it the right level of attention. Actively or passively devalues the other,
despises their inferiority. Being respected and recognized as special is the key driver.
Even dominating desire to have a fulfilling life and eventually being good in a
partnership and sex. Also likely to be unable to compromise. Only does what it wants.
Unable to accept and actively engage with the needs of others. Typically work in
relationships where influence is contained. Nothing for marriage.
Gold Diggers: Always wants more status, more material possessions, and offers its
good freely. Easy prey for those with status and power. Nothing really relevant for
anything meaningful.
Probably the classic archetype you find in banking and consulting. As long as the
carrot is huge, the stick works. Give those people the feeling they made it and are
better than anyone else and they can associate with strong brands, and they are
committed and loyal. Also the types that like buying expensive luxury goods and
compete against everyone on their status symbols. Their overall lack of self-worth is
so large that they cannot think straight and fly like moths into the light. Setting clear
goals and demands that allow them to stay close to the light makes them easy to
manage.
Freaks - HSE-HD: Sexually aggressive and direct, impulsive. Some LD individuals
imitate them and immediately block when it gets to actual sexual activity and
relationships. Those types try to use the behavior of freaks for controlling access to
comfort rather than sexual activity. Typically an easy catch, certainly nothing to ask
for some deeper meaning or activity in life. Easy going and focused on pleasure and
excitement. Since most of their energy goes into entertaining things, they are likely
to provide a lot of energy to their partners.

Dominant types (HSE-HD): Always require their partner to enhance their well-being
and confidence. Try to make clear that they own you to others, giving a brand mark
onto you, likely to be interested in changing you. Use compliments and disgust to
control the direction someone goes as to model the other the way they think is fit.
Typically the sense of ownership leads to aggressive behavior motivated by jealousy.
Typically focused strongly on winning arguments and dominating the other in every
way, seeking as much of control as possible. Consistently testing the other for its
worthyness, try the limits of giving commands and controlling. Typically are more
attracted to someone that goes against them, offers some aggressive and dominant
vibe. They want adventure types, indepdents, strong-opinioned and socially apt
individuals that get what they want. The Hillary Clinton type.
Submissive types (HSE-HD): easy to fall in love, dreamy, put in lots of effort, calm
and sweet and overall enticing. But typically operate on Yin-Yan manipulation.
Typically knows the other better than the other knows itself. Able to pull a lot of click
and wirr mechanisms and manipulative. Typically use their strength to get high status
individuals into their realm of power and focus on long-term relationships. Might
suffer from excessive fear of loss. Very hard to get rid off. Likely will pull a lot of strings
to make things work for their partners. The Michelle Obama type.

4.4.3. (-) How people cope with insanity

This classification focuses on the dominant approach to life that also reflects how
they treat relationships.

The Siren: Takes away the obligation to function all the time. Offers a relief.
▪ Using the siren you may display strength, dominance and sexuality, passion.
▪ The Siren lives in a paradise that does not function. Her presence will remain
an illusion. Individual will not understand much about finance or anything
relevant to practical life. Life will be focused on emotions and subject will
favour the oppostive behavior. Women will seek masculing protectors, men
will seek organized and eloquent individuals.
The Rake: Will go to the end of the world with the partner
▪ Rakes concentrate on a mix of danger and pleasure. They are best
understood by having suppressed feelings who want to be stirred up and
the desire to be cared for and care for.
 ▪ The male rake can be disloyal, dishonest, amoral and yet, as he is the master
of his words, and so skillfull in manipulating her and stirring up her fears, he
is always welcome
The Child: Symbolizes youth and playfulness and offers a fantasy every individual
has, the wish to go back to childhood and get rid of the disappointing experience in
life and their consequences.
▪ The ideal lover creates the illusion of youth and dreaming, idealizes his own
portrait and yours, lets you forget your age
▪ Often it is said that young women have a energetic eect on old men, not only
for their sexuality but for their energy. This energy transfers to the older
individual and vibrates
The Dandy: disattached, sophisticated, transcending the law and rule; he breaks the
norm in an interesting and pleasent way, cultivating his uniqueness

The natural: golden paradise, longed for qualities of childhood. Not really fit for adult
life, but want to remain in a child state and enjoy its pleasance.

4.4.4. ( ) How people use Self-Image to achieve goals

The perfectionist: Highly focused on perfectionism and critical of others, wishing to
reform and sanction anyone that is not perfect. Their intelligence is likely somewhere
in their gut and instinct and they desire a perfect world, incapable of accepting the
other way.
Typically having high demands against themselves and against others. Want to
improve a continuously imperfect world. And judge everything bases on order,
virtue and moral. Also typically strong opinioned about their own superiority on
knowing the right way, having blind spots for typical contradicitons. The sense of
seeking perfection takes up a lot of energy and time and makes them enjoy the
imperfections a bit less.
Typically competent, hard-working, reliable and disciplined. Want their life to be
under full control, but also enjoy scheduled and effective relaxation. In generall low
on feelings and emotions. Try to live the ideals of their own world in a way visible
for others as to inspire others to follow their lead. Become fierce in demanding
others to follow their lead. Their mindstate is consistent disappointment in the way
the world plays out, being impure and imperfect, somewhat feeling guilty about
their inability to make things better and angry.

How to operate on these kinds:

- Dismantle the black and white thinking.
- Accept imperfection and focus on tolerance and beauty of others
- Reduce discipline, abandon catalogization of the world and reduce overly fast
judgements
- Increase relaxing, inspiring, happy moments.

Helpers
Hardly think of themselves and love helping others. Mainly thinking with their heart
and via emotions, strongly identifying with pain of others. Looking for acceptance
and connection via this bridge.
Look for love mostly, think that helping others is a gate towards being understood as
valuable and lovable. Go a long way and put lots oftheir focus and attention on the
demands of others, thereby losing focus on their own wants and needs. Therefore are
proud and confident by their achievements, believing how they are perceived as
valuable and important from their actions. But also demand love and respect from
their behavior. And thereby sometimes lead to feeling of guilt or rejection by others.
If the right ones they want to be loved by reject, they feel exhausted and empty.

How to operate:
- Realize that they almost exhibit no self-love and are highly dependend on the love
of others
- They are most adorable when not approached via any strategy but accepted for
who they are, shown love
and appreciation.

Success Seekers: Heart and emotion driven like the helpers, but more successful in
collecting acceptance, respect and admiration. Their core drive is to be the center of
attention, require reactions to be happy and powerful.
They want to present themselves as flawless, and learn how to present themselves in
glitter and glory. Typically well versed in selling and celebrating their successes.
Because success is almost always related to a level of achievement compared to
others, they are highly competitive and understand hard work as a key driver of
success. Anything that is not related to hard work is understood as dubious and
fraudulent, implausible. They take a long way and effort to maintain the image of
success.
This takes its tolls and makes them understand that appearance is far more valuable
than essence of being. Because of that, they are more trained in the chess game,
reacting swiftly to situations and people, ready to sell their status, success and
superiority and maintain their relative status. With all this focus, they are successful at
winning games, but more likely to miss the deeper picture of existence and what
motivates and makes humans humans. Typically are hard to have intimate
relationships with and fear opening their feelings of inferiority.

How to operate on them:

- Apart from exploitation, which works well if the benefits for their success hall of
fame are apparent:
- In almost all cases there was a moment of deep insecurity and setback in their life,
which they want to
protect from.
- Focusing on identifying this aspect and supporting them to be more authentic and
righteous, opening up
their feelings for the meaning of life and the chances they miss if they continue to
walk so narrow minded
is a way to move them into more meaningful relationships.

Individualists
Sensibel und launisch - im Bewusstsein der eigenen Einzigartigkeit.
(Intelligenzzentrum: Herz, Emotion)
- ausgelebter Dramatik => Tragik zum Selbstzweck, Unerreichbares die
Erfüllung
- Stimmungen Schwarz und Weiÿ, Himmel hoch tief betrübt.
- Ausleben der Emotionen für Energie
- Einzigartikgeit macht sie glücklich => Unverstandenheit Unglücklich.
- Dramatik und Tragik => intensiv gelebte Emotionen stoÿen auf Unverständnis.
=> Schneck-enhaus + schöne unerreichbare Dinge - weitweg von dieser
profanen Welt. Die Sehnsucht nach Schönheit führt VIERER oft in Richtung der
Künste. Ihre lebhafte Phantasie ist mit intensiven
 Wahrnehmungen verbunden, die Suche nach dem Unerfüllten Motor für
kreative Schöpfungen. Die Begegnung mit anderen VIEREN ist oft von Neid
geprägt, denn ein Nebeneinander von Einzi-gartigkeiten führt unweigerlich zu
Irritationen.
Auf dem Weg zur Ausgeglichenheit müssen VIERER sich von ihrer ständigen
Selbstbetrachtung lösen, das Blickfeld erweitern und andere Menschen in die
Denkweise einzubeziehen. Sie sollten Ihre Fähigkeiten des intensiven
Wahrnehmens als Geschenk nehmen. Intensive positive Beziehun-gen zu
anderen Menschen warten darauf, entdeckt zu werden.
yp 5 - Die Denker
Rationell handeln, Wissen sammeln - und immer auf Distanz.
(Intelligenzzentrum: Kopf, Ratio)
FÜNFEN nden ihre Sicherheit in der Welt des Wissens, des Denkens, der
Rationalität. Der Verstand regiert das Leben, der Wunsch nach objektiver
Beurteilung und die Sammelleidenschaft Wissen lassen die FÜNFEN intensive
Beobachter und Zuhörer sein. Doch ist damit Distanz verbunden. Nicht nur
situationsgebunden, sondern auch emotional zu anderen Menschen. Mit dem
Ziel, alles unter Kontrolle behalten zu können, wirken FÜNFEN auf ihre
Mitmenschen oft abweisend oder sogar arrogant.
FÜNFEN verstecken ihre Gefühle hinter Sachlichkeit und Logik. Sie sind Meister
des Versteck-ens - Gefühle zu zeigen, fällt ihnen bei eigener starker
Empndsamkeit schwer. Sie neigen zu Berührungsängsten, befürchten
Angrisäche preiszugeben, nicht bestehen zu können. FÜNFER sind keine
Freunde üchtiger Bekanntschaften, sie lassen nur wenige Menschen in ihre
Privat-sphäre eindringen. Mit diesen Menschen allerdings gehen sie durch dick
und dünn. Wissen und der Wille zum freien unbeeinussten Denken gibt den
FÜNFEN Standfestigkeit. Dabei besteht allerdings die Gefahr, dass sture
Denkstrukturen sich manifestieren, dass Denken um des Denkens willens zum
Zentrum des Lebens wird.
Den Weg aus der Isolation und Einsamkeit nden FÜNFEN, wenn sie es wagen,
sich anderen Menschen zu önen und eigenen Emotionen mehr Öentlichkeit
einzuräumen. Sie werden er-staunt sein über die Wertschätzung, die man ihnen
und ihrem Wissen entgegenbringt und über die Lebendigkeit des Lebens.
Typ 6 - Die Loyalen
Ehrlich, pichtbewusst - und immer auf Nummer sicher. (Intelligenzzentrum: Kopf,
Ratio)
Das Leben der SECHSER ist von Skepsis, Fragestellungen und Befürchtungen
geprägt. Was kann alles schiefgehen? Was wird passieren? Kann ich meinem
Gegenüber vertrauen? Was könnte ich falsch machen? Viele Fragen, viele
Zweifel und langes Zögern bei zu treenden Entscheidungen. SECHSEN
überlassen Entscheidungen gern Anderen, denn als ausführende Personen sind
sie nicht sie, sondern der Entscheidungsträger verantwortlich für die möglichen
Folgen. Angst vor allen Eventualitäten und vor dem Verlieren bestimmt den
Alltag der SECHSEN. Gäbe es eine Versicherung gegen Spontaneität - SECHSER
würden sie abschlieÿen. Auch das Verhältnis zu den Mitmenschen ist von
Unbehagen und Fragestellungen geprägt. Erst wenn das Gegenüber sich als
zuverlässig erwiesen hat, vertraut und folgt eine SECHS demjenigen zuverlässig
- let-zteres am liebsten in der Gemeinschaft anderer. Damit sind SECHSER
allerdings ideale Opfer für Führungsstärken wie beispielsweise des Typs 8.
Werden SECHSER dann doch enttäuscht, verstärken sich die Ängste und so kann
sich eine agressive Anti-Stimmung entwickeln, aus der es kaum ein Zurück gibt.
Den Weg aus der Angst nden SECHSEN, wenn sie es wagen, sich selbst zu
vertrauen und Ver-antwortung für ihr Handeln zu übernehmen. Aller positiven
Teamfähigkeit zum Trotz sollte eine SECHS sich der eigenen persönlichen Werte
bewusst werden und Mut zu eigenen Entscheidungen fassen. Dann würde ein
täglich gelebter Leitspruch wie "Don ´t worry - be happy" zu sehr viel mehr
erfülltem Alltag führen.
Typ 7 - Die Abenteurer
Immer auf der Suche nach dem nächsten Glück. (Intelligenzzentrum: Kopf, Ratio)
SIEBENER wandern von einem Vergnügen zum anderen. Sie planen immerfort
neue aufregende Dinge, um keinen Spaÿ zu verpassen. Sprunghaft brechen sie
jede Unternehmung ab, wenn ein noch besseres Abenteuer in Aussicht scheint.
Unangenehmes wird stets beiseite geschoben, für ernste Dinge ist kein Platz im
Leben einer SIEBEN. Die stete Suche nach dem nächsten Aben-teuer wird zum
inneren Zwang.
Auf ihre Mitmenschen wirken SIEBENER aufgeschlossen, fröhlich und
unbeschwert. In beinah kindlicher Art und Weise wird alles ausprobiert und
ebenso schnell wieder abgebrochen.Gern lässt man sich kurzfristig oder
zeitweise von der extrovertierten Heiterkeit und der oensichtlichen Sorglosigkeit
einer SIEBEN anstecken. Doch mit der Sprunghaftigkeit ist auch eine gewisse
Oberächlichkeit und Unzuverlässigkeit verbunden. Tief empfundene
Freundschaften sind nicht möglich, denn bei einem Problem oder einer
Koniktsituation wendet sich die SIEBEN schnell ab. Mit dem Wunsch nach
Lebensgenuss in vollen Zügen ist die SIEBEN anfällig für Depressionen.
 Probleme, Schmerz oder Krankheiten, die nicht mehr ignoriert werden können,
führen zu einer bedrohlichen Lebenskrise.
Auf dem Weg zur mehr innerer Stärke müssen SIEBENER ihre Angst vor den
unangenehmen Dingen des Lebens bewältigen. Sie müssen lernen, dass Licht
und Schatten zusammengehören. Wer den Schatten annimmt und sich ihm
stellt, wird das Licht viel besser genieÿen können.
Typ 8 - Die Macher
Kämpfernaturen - die Gewinner mit starkem Auftritt. (Intelligenzzentrum:
Bauch, Instinkt) ACHTER sind stark, voller Energie und verlassen sich auf diese
Kraft. Und tatsächlich sind ACHTER oft sehr erfolgreich. Eine ACHT nimmt sein
Schicksal nicht nur selbst in die Hand son-dern bestimmt auch gern über das
Schicksal Anderer. Das Auftreten ist von Dominanz geprägt und man nimmt
sich, was man will. Auf Provokationen reagieren ACHTEN meist empndlich und
sehr vehement.
Niemals würde eine ACHT die Kontrolle aus der Hand geben, Unterordnung ist
ausgeschlossen. Im Berufsleben kann das zu Problemen führen. Oft sind
ACHTEN als Selbstständige tätig. Treen ACHTER aufeinander, ist meist Ärger
vorprogrammiert. Zweifach übermäÿiges Selbstbe-wusstsein und
Demonstration von Stärke in einem Raum ist für ACHTER eine Herausforderung
und für die Mitmenschen sehr anstrengend. ACHTER vermeiden das Zeigen von
positiven Emo-tionen im zwischenmenschlichen Bereich, denn in ihrem tiefen
Inneren sind sie sehr verletzlich. Das dominante Auftreten ist der Schutzpanzer
einer ACHT. Ihre Zuneigung zeigt sich in dem groÿzügigen Schutz, die einer
Person gewährt wird. Wer diesen Schutz genieÿt, kann sich einer
uneingeschränkten Verlässlichkeit der ACHT sicher sein.
Wenn ACHTER die tiefsitzende Angst vor Verletzung ihrer Gefühle erkennen,
können sie ihren Mitmenschen mehr Lebensspielraum zugestehen. Sich müssen
sich selbst zurücknehmen und die Einkehr innerer Ruhe zulassen. Dann wird sich
ein harmonischeres Miteinander möglich und letztendlich zur Zufriedenheit
führen.
Typ 9 - Die Friedliebenden
Unentschlossenheit auf dem Weg zur Harmonie (Intelligenzzentrum: Bauch,
Instinkt) NEUNER sind gelassene, sympathisch wirkende Menschen. Mit ihrem
Wunsch nach Harmonie passen sie sich jeder Umgebung an, sind sehr
unauällig, wirken bescheiden. Streÿ und Ärger wird um jeden Preis vermieden.
Dieser Preis beeinhaltet die Unentschlossenheit, sich festzulegen; eine eigene
Meinung zu nden und zu äuÿern. Auf dem Weg des geringsten Widerstandes
übernimmt die NEUN gern die Meinung anderer. Selbst Entscheidungen zu
treen wird als anstrengend empfunden, die NEUN schwankt im Meinungsbild
hin und her.
Trotz unkompliziertem Umgang mit NEUNEN stoÿen sie bei längerem Kontakt
auf Unverständnis bei ihren Mitmenschen. Sie wirken ständig unkonzentriert, in
sich zurückgezogen. Schnell sind sie unzuverlässig, denn was sie gestern gesagt
haben, kann heute schon die Gültigkeit verloren haben. Hier entwickelt sich ein
Teufelskreis, denn die NEUN möchte auf keine Fall Ärger provozieren. Nach und
nach zieht sie sich in ihre eigene Welt zurück. Die Unfähigkeit, sich auf
Wesentliches zu konzentrieren und sich eine Meinung zu bilden ist Trägheit der
NEUNER. Hinter diesem Verhalten steckt keine böse Absicht, NEUNEN sind
ehrlich und friedfertig. Es fehlt ihnen lediglich die Energie, den Bann der
Bequemlichkeit zu durchbrechen.
 Wenn NEUNER das Band der Trägheit durchtrennen, werden sie erstaunt sein
über die Kraft, die in ihnen steckt. Sie werden merken, wie angenehm die
Gesellschaft anderer und die Teilnahme am Leben ist.

4.4.5. (-) People that obviously fail in life

These types are defined by an excessive allocation of energy and resources to obtaining
a status quo that wil never realize and hence over-allocate and obsess over something
that eats up their life. While most of them are not able to function in society, they do
make a leap to environments where you might be in, even into your start-up or
company. If they exist in your environment other from public space, chances are they
appealed so strongly to a decision maker in their personality that they ended up as
powerfully supported frauds. Their unifying feature is that they don’t play chess.

Playette: Likes playing mind games apparently and enjoys the sensual experience in
unison with emotional and sexual fantasies.
Social Butterfly: Apparently is obsessed with understanding and dealing with people.
Maybe likes to manipulate, help, be highly selective, learn etiquette and perfect her
behaviour and emotional intelligence. Rarely does anything apart from learning to be
social.
The Hopeful Romantic: Realized it will not be self-sufficient and can't provide itself
romance. All life is focused on looking for a provider and partner, the pain of being
incomplete alone is so deep that nothing else matters.
The Cinderella: Typically enjoying warm love and affection from people around and
family. Is feeding off a level of admiration and care that resembles a prince or princess.
The re-creation of a lost childhood keeps these individuals from being part of real life.
The Private Dancer: Never accepted his true self and is lost in the conflict of private
and public self. Wants to function in the social world and believes its real self may not
ever be accepted by the public world. Time is excessively focused on building a perfect
world that accepts the true self in his private life and a second world. The desire to keep
the second world of desire alive is large enough to render any public behavior
ineffective.
The Seductress: Similar to the playette, but the desire to control others is so
pronounced that all energy is focused on identifying victims and their control, that the
private and remaining life is hardly attainable.
The Connoisseur: Utterly bored by anything, eventually even social games and tries to
nurture curiosity with knowing materialistic things. Focuses all mental and memory
function on cultivating ever and ever more exotic practices to get a feeling that only this
activity can provide. That is a sign that she seperates and distinguishes clearly and is
overly control-oriented in where and when and how to open herself. THat is like a
woman that has 200 pictures in her bedroom and each picture shows a person that she
has a dierent feeling for. So that is one hell of an obsession.

4.4.6. (+) Carol Pearsons Heroic Archetypes

Carlos Pearson’s heroic archetypes is a collection of behaviours that keep individuals
from being in bad situations, as they deflect the problem to some problem they are
fighting on their own. They all focus on a core belief on what life is all about.
Her “Self-Help” literature enforces individuals in their believes that they should try
harder to fight their irrelevant wars. The best thing you can give someone under your
spell is her book. She is a par excellence example of an author that doesn’t get the
basics of life.
 1) The orphant (Life is suffering -> Survival diffculty) (e.g. Bunyan's endurance in times
of trial.) Ever felt betrayed, abandoned, victimized? Pearson tells us not to despair, for
such experiences are a “mythic event calling you to the quest”. The job of the orphan
is to face life head on instead of becoming attached to the victim mindset and states
of dependency. You have integrated your Orphan when you stop craving protection
and security and are willing to let others be freer as well; when you can balance
wariness with hope, avoiding the conclusion that “life is suffering”. You know about
pain, but you also assert that it is not everything.

Orphants or “Bunyan” endurers mistake social life from the cruelty of nature. They
believe they have to endure. And anyone that has to endure can be lured into enduring
the rest of his life until he suddenly awakens and realizes social life is not about
endurance, but about dominance. Endurers are people that can be made suffering
over and over and that believe that their suffering is a test. Never let them know it is
not a test, but that they are idiots.

2) The wanderer (Life is an adventure -> Find yourself) Misunderstood, alienated or

in an unknown situation? Pearson says It's a call to move into another life that is less
restricting and more “us”. People that suffer this conditition never think about leaving.
The right choice would be to leave the environment and search for new environments
that are more suitable.
Luckily, people wonder if they are just escaping responsibility or whether it is time to
choose a new life path. People that suffer this question typically have parents or
histories that made them stick to terrible situations out of lack of self-efficacy. If you
can identify that it is the parents or family members that give the idea that life is a
quest to enduring and taking responsibility, the key strategic goal is to exploit and
humiliate them so hard as to run for help to these exact individuals to keep them
convinced that all they have to endure and life will turn out great. Make sure you
reduce the time of these individuals to hear other opinions. If it is the wife, make it
impossible to meet the parents. If if it the parents, make it impossible to meet a wife
or friends that tell a different story.

3) The warrior (Life is a battle -> Prove your worth) Pearson says “Each time we use
the warrior well, we are not so much fighting battles as awakening the King” ; Warriors
today are less engaged in active competition but struggle with themselves to
overcome limitations and achieve excellence. Whenever we have this type at our hand,
the individual will not abandon the situation until it believes to have proven itself to
itself or any authority that it needs to prove itself to. Make sure it never proves itself.
And the individual will be stuck in the terrible situation.

4) The altruist (Committment to the greater good -> Show generosity).

5) Innocent (Life is joy -> Achieve happiness)
6) Magician (Creating the world I want -> Transform your life)
Also: She obsreves we are moving from a warrior towards a magician culture.
Magicians envision and blieve their vision will create a dynamic that influences the
future course.

4.4.7. (+) Robert Bly - Iron John

Learning to take ancient malehood seriously and incorporate it into our modern life.
Similar spirit: Richard Sennet in “Flesh and Stone” compared the Romans and Greek
and basically claimed the Romans wore heavy armory to pretect themselves from
dangers in war, but also psychologically they wore masks to play social images
correctly without being seen. The Greek on the other side fought naked, throwing
their entire vulnerability into the field and believing in the Gods to help them if they
 were the stronger fighters to receive. They were also naked in a psychological sense
that they carried their hearts inside-out, like a torch that guided them through the
darkness of life. To live naked, vulnerable and still strong and self-condent is the way
of the Greek ideal that Baudrillard proposed.
Wild man vs savage: Savage wrecks the environment, abuses women, and so on, his
inner desperation being pushed out on to the world as a disregard or hatred of others;
the wild man has been prepared to examine where it is he hurts; because of this he is
more like a Zen priest or a shaman than a savage. The wild man is masculinity's highest
expression, the savage man its lowest.
In modern world childhood is being over-protective, children are held in cocoons and
hence they never are exposed to danger but also never learn about power. In a bare
ght against external forces, there is no rule or institution governing fairness, but it is
an interplay of force and power. To learn to deal with this is a vital awakening and
initiation.
Males do love warrior figures because there is such a thing as warrior energy. Jung
said that American families are so poor because man do play warrior at work only,
becoming pussycats at home. This is bad.
Coming to ground: A man may spend his twenties and thirties as a sort of “flying
boy”; in his imagination, nothing can hold him down. But for a man to be made whole,
there has to be something that rips him open, a wound that allows his soul to enter.
In many myths, a wild animal gets close enough to a young man to gore his leg; in
the Iron John story, it is a knight who chases after the prince and stabs him in the leg.
As he falls o his horse, the golden hair he has hidden from everyone underneath the
helmet is revealed. Until then he has seemed two-dimensional. Appreciation of pain
and sorrow, Bly says, is as vital to a man's potentiality as is having the ability to soar
through the air.

4.5. Stuff that almost nobody changes and is easily observed

4.5.1. Myers-Briggs ( Differences ).
Feeling vs. Thinking and Intuition vs. Sensing.
ST (Sensing + Thinking) Facts senses do verify. Practical minded. IMpersonal analysis
such as surgery, law, accouting, working with machinery

SF (Sensing + feeling) Rely on senses, but judge by their feelings rather than cold
analysis of them.

NF (Intuition + Feeling) Warm and endly, more interested in what might be changed
and future possibilities rather than facts at hand. Gift for communication combined with
need to make things better. Higher Level teaching, preaching, advertising, counselling,
psychology, writing, research

NT - Focused on posibilities, powers drawnd from rational analysis to achieve outcomes.

Technical sciences, computing, mathematics, finance

Extraversion vs intraversion
Extraversion: seeing life in terms of the exaternal world vs. Intraversion: greater interest
in the inner world of ideas.
Extravers: move quickly, inuence situations directly / Introverts give themselves time to
develop their insights before exposing them to the world
Extraverts are happy making decisions in the thick of the events, introvers want to reect
more before taking action

Note though stupid introverts that the decisions we form in a blink of an eye are often
not worse than those we make reasoning for ages.(Malcolm Gladwell)

4.5.2. Personality Styles

Analytical - Analytical people are known for being systematic, well organized and deliberate. These
individuals appreciate facts and information presented in a logical manner as documentation of
truth. They enjoy organization and completion of detailed tasks. Others may see him at times as
being too cautious, overly structured, someone who does things too much 'by the book'.
• controlled
• orderly
• precise
• disciplined
• deliberate
• cautious
• diplomatic
• systematic
• logical
• conventional
• conventional
Driver - They thrive on the thrill of the challenge and the internal motivation to succeed. Drivers
are practical folks who focus on getting results. They can do a lot in a very short time. They usually
talk fast, direct and to the point. Often viewed as decisive, direct and pragmatic.
• action-orientated
• decisive
• problem solver
• direct
• assertive
• demanding
• risk taker
• forceful
• competitive
• independent
• determined
• results-orientated
Amiable - They are dependable, loyal and easygoing. They like things that are non-threatening and
friendly. They hate dealing with impersonal details and cold hard facts. They are usually quick to
reach a decision. Often described as a warm person and sensitive to the feelings of others but at
the same time wishy-washy.
• patient
• loyal
• sympathetic
• team person
• relaxed
• mature
• supportive
• stable
• considerate
• empathetic
• persevering
• trusting
• congenial
Expressive - Very outgoing and enthusiastic, with a high energy level. They are also great idea
generators, but usually do not have the ability to see the idea through to completion. They enjoy
helping others and are particularly fond of socializing. They are usually slow to reach a decision.
Often thought of as a talker, overly dramatic, impulsive, and manipulative.
• verbal
• motivating
• enthusiastic
• convincing
• impulsive
• influential
• charming
• confident
• dramatic
• optimistic
• animated
If you are able to quickly identify the personality style of the customer, you will know the "hows"
and "whys" of what to say to meet their needs. Once they feel that you truly understand them and
feel an emotional connections, they will come up with the logical reasons to buy from y

4.5.3. IQ
Anson Rabinbach in his book Motor Mensch accounts on the history of IQ.

4.5.4. EQ ?
EQ is not a stable pattern, but more of a buzzword that summarizes many concepts.
The core ability that is stable is that of cognitive and emotional empathy already
discussed, combined intelligences being the ability to understand oneself –
intrapersonal intelligence – and others – interpersonal intelligence-, as discussed by
Howard Gardners work on multiple intelligences.
The concept of EQ that is known today uses this capacity as a baseline to build a
model of social interaction based on emotions.
The ability model of EQ focuses on four factors – according to Wikipedia.
(1) Perceiving emotions: detect and decipher emotions of others and the ability to filter
signals to understand when the emotional state of the other is becoming relevant and
warrants action or opens opportunity.
(2) Using emotions: to advance cognitive abilities such as thinking and problem
solving. The latter is certainly interesting, as different moods and emotional states can
be used to make different patterns and rational abilities accessible.
(3) Understanding emotions: how they intersect, where they come from, what they
truly mean, etc.
(4) Managing emotions: Ability to regulate them in ourselves and others to create door
openers and detect and move around barriers.
4.4.5. Genes
You can hate genetics or you can love it. You can have won the game or lost it. But
some genes just really matter and it is ridiculously entertaining on how people engage
with their ups and downs of the gene pool.

When we are young, we are typically very curious and somewhat politically incorrect
when it comes to genetic dispositions. When we are becoming older, if we want it or
not, genes almost always play a crucial role in who we associate with.
Beyond Faces: Context and Space
In this part we discuss the analysis of the environment in which people live. Their
direct context: the space they own, the space they express in, the space the use and
abuse.

4.6. Context and Space Introduction

To motivate, we start with a small example. That of the old investor without
employees.

The old investors office. The moment you entered the office, you started to realize
the power of space. A shiny marble floor surrounded by arrays of mahagoni
cupboards filled with very old original literature. Some spaces in between show walls
covered with silken wallpaper, refined with artful and elegant flowery patterns and
the family symbol of the this old money fellow. All held in a purple-platinueqsue
color. Some very old and original looking painting of US statesmen painted in van
Gogh’ian manner – were they painted by van Gogh?.
In the middle of one wall, in between two of these paintings, two cosmos
atrosanguineus bathing in unrefined oil. The chairs looked for the visitors looked
tiny, but reminded of Golden Age British nobility, arranged in a way as to make the
visitor look at the investor in a 26° ancle and look up to him, on his podest, with a
black-ish antique desk with tiny encarvings of the all the figures you met in Dante’s
circles of death. The person behind the desk almost looked shabby against his
furniture. Wearing some cheap old-fashioned and extremely strong glasses, almost
always eating a plate of sushi when someone was entering his office. There was no
phone, no smart phone, no computer, just always a set of yesterday’s papers. The
guy wore a GAP T-Shirt combined with simple Khaki cargo shorts and Air Jordans. All
this was done to create a dissonance between the figurehead of the office and the
office itself, which created the notion of power.
The story could continue with the ceilings, the chandeller, the curtains and style of
windows, but the more interesting part apart from the expression of power were the
key symbols the old investor displayed.
He was a workaholic, his wife had passed away, his son was killed during a war
mission, and his best friends have all long passed. He lived in this office, clearly
visible via the spartanic bed that rested next to a small fountain in the right corner of
the office. In this room, you were able to identify all belongings that defined this
human being.
Apart from investing, the old investor liked to end the day with a reading of classic
literature in rare original bindings, in a warm cozy light, pouring a glass of alcoholic
beverage while reading and wanted to get to bed as easy as possible when drunk
and lost in thoughts, after having written into this diary. This was his evening routine
and habit, cultivated for the last 50 years. To no surprise, the corner hosting his bed
also hosted a very cozy and elegant looking of chaise with a even more refinedly
looking standing lamp with a shade that looked a bit worn out, unsophisticated and
non-fitting – it was the first gift of his wife after the wedding to support his reading
habits. Next to the light was a small sideboard with typically exactly 7 books, one of
which was lying open with the cover facing the ceiling, the other ones stacked
further away from the lighting and the chaise, and in between exactly one
diamondish Scotch glass. The scotch was locked behind a glass wall in the cupboard
right behind the right side of the desk, on the way to it. The impeccable coloring of
the wallpaper indicated he was not a cigar type. But there was a hooka locked
behind glass right next to the liquor cabinet. Again, a memory of his wife, or their
honeymoon in Turkey in 1938, and enshrined next to it a a small wooden piece of
artwork, a memory of his attendance of the Kemal Attatürcks funeral and his positive
impression of his family, taken from the families Ranch. A symbol of the luck of
meeting an individual who at that time he admired and cherished. In the cupboard
on the left side, under the paintings of van Gogh, there were no trophies, he did not
like trophies and symbols of merit, but binders filled with childhood paintings from
beloved friends. The old investor was a deeply loving and devoted friend. And as a
loving father and husband, the kept the diaries of his wife and son right next to
these binders.
First thing in the morning, when waking at 5am, the old investor liked reading
letters, too. It was his medium of communication with other investors and industry
magnates of his time. He read them at his desk and kept all those letters that
covered important investment information in a file cabinet right in the right drawer
of his desk. The 20 worst and 20 best investment decisions would always remain on
the top of his desk, however, again on the right – as they were something he was
relating emotionally to – and right next to his desk lamp and next to his pencils. And
so forth.

The morale of this story is manifold.

First of all, the self-image of an individual reflects in the publicly visible space of an
individual. His public spot in his own house at home, his space of work at the work
place, be it a desk or a room, it will express in the symbols and rituals an individual
carries around in a public gathering and it will be reflected in many everyday habits
that are clearly visible to others.
Secondly, our strongest habits which we cherish translate into daily routines that
warrant the existence of artefacts that are used to conduct the ceremony of the
habit. The visibility of the artifacts and their level of sophistication also reflect on the
self-image and the importance an individual puts on rituals.
Thirdly, symbols and artifacts also reflect key memories and achievements in our
lives that present themselves in the direct surrounding. Someone with a Harvard
degree obtained in the 30s or 40s might or might not hang it on the wall, but no
matter how it presents itself to an audience or to the individual itself displays the
significance and respect an individual has towards its own history of achievements
and the level of which it wants to display this to others. A person with a tidy desk,
with little symbols around, and only a family portrait around him directly
communicates a lack of self respect, especially if the person works excessive hours. A
lack of such symbols clearly shows a focus on achievement in the now and a
deragetory attitude towards past successes. A lack of a family photo or just a
slightest indication of a symbol related to personal life shows a clear separation of
family life from work or public life.

The small story of the old investor of course mixed many things into one single
space. Most people separate their private life and the way they furniture their homes
from the way they present their life at work or in public spaces. Symbolism and
artifacts themselves have become less common in our world today and are frowned
upon as being artifacts of lack of dynamism and being stuck in the past. But when
looking at a very successful and dynamic individual, do you prefer to engage with
someone proud of his life, his family and his achievements or someone hiding
behind the invisibility of nothingness? In any case, this chapter is about non face to
face communication, but the communication of self and self-image using habits and
artifacts.

4.6. Private Places

4.6. Public Spaces

4.6. Public Image and PR

4.6. Courtesans and wingmen

The president Simple example. Accompanied by secret service agents to provide

protection and either family or one or two advisors. The message is clear: doesn’t
travel alone, has things to do. Doesn’t want to portray more information to outsiders
than necessary.
The druglord Also courted, mostly loyal and likely able and evil folks.

The Pick Up artist

Social Circles of Public Figures Social circles of public figures such as movie and
music stars don’t always follow the relationship building patterns, but follow the idea
of building a reputation via association in social circle. For various reasons, this
appears to become a more dominant way of choosing and cultivating relationships
even in our private lives. Understanding this can give a very good picture on the self-
image and lifestyle of an individual. Someone that chooses social circles and
relationships to portray status and create a public image, being in sync with the
group image and “good enough” and “not too good” is a critical element. In such
circles, emotional mood control doesn’t exist on a peer level. Such circles
communicate about emotions, life problems and concepts in a way that is aligned
with the group image and what is considered “hip”. A deviation from the way how
communication on deeply personal aspects of life typically is retaliated by a lack of
status or at least some form of isolation. The deviating individual then typically is
moving below or above the hierarchy.
Such environments don’t serve the prime function of relationships and are hence
very likely lead to emptiness for those take part in such social circle games without a
back up in real relationships.
BOOK 2
THE BATTLEGROUND OF
STRATEGY
CHAPTER 5
One on One situations with mutual
benefit
This chapter covers covert value extraction under mutual benefit, what is commonly
known as “seduction”. The art of over-powering someone without him really
knowing that it happened or what the real implications are.
The whole art of one on one with mutual benefits is relevant, because it is the de
facto standard of interaction with limited information of both sides on each other.
The goal is forming perception and opinion either in a very short time or over a
course of interactions. It is the most dominant form of social communication. When
interacting with people on the street, in cafés, when heading for the supermarket. It
applies not only to zero-commitment interactions, but also to low-commitment
interactions such as going to church, visiting the kids soccer matches. And it even
covers some long term relationships such as actual partnerships, friendships, co-
workers that are not part of the inner circle of power games. It is the key and lowest
form of art that every human being has to master.
It requires a consistent frame and image with everyone we meet, an aura of
authenticity and openness and requires us to actually interact as if we are interested
in a mutual benefit. Everything in life is seduction, unless it starts to become a game
of conflict and dominance.

What defines mutual benefit situations is a form of conformity among participants

within the situations when the strategy is played. Overshadowing the other in a clear
and understandable way Is detrimental to the goal of the situation. This is why
symmetry on key issues such as information, perception, habits, power must be
applied in a way that warrants that the conformity assessment of the other is
peaking. Of course the strategy is designed as to hide the asymmetry that actually is
the case behind the dynamic of the situation and hence allows the play to work
below the radars, sonars, sensors and perceptions of the other. Or at least to the
extent where the decision between fight or flight stays on fight/stay and the
situation continues to unfold.
5.1. Dominance, confidence, power and the
fight over death
When seduction concerns everything in life that is not ridden by conflict and
dominance, then what is conflict? Conflicts take place even in seductions, but more
likely they take place on a subconscious and non-aggressive manner. But in the end,
someone always needs to wear the domination hat. And this level-based look at
dominance makes it clear.

5.1.1. The fight over death

Dominance is part of every social situation. Someone is always dominating and
someone is always dominated. The difference between mutual benefit or seduction
environments and power interactions is the visibility of dominance and the level of
accepted aggression to enforce it. Reason enough to look a bit deeper at how to
understand dominance.

We start with the fight over death domination game that underlies the slave-master
dichotomy in the works of Alexandre Kojève, a Russian Hegel interpreter. Kojeve
coined the metaphor of the fight over death in political power play escalations which
somewhat inspired this model of escalation, which I observed plays a crucial role in
escalating situations even in direct conflicts among individuals. Since escalation always
means a rise in level of severity, the model talks through the levels of escalation or
frames of escalation where everyday situations play in. My understanding is that every
situation that involves two people is a situation where dominance is negotiated and
that it is negotiated on one of these levels. The goal in a Sun Tsu sense of winning
fights best by not fighting or the term that one should chose ones battles is to
establish the dominance with least amount of effort on the lowest level possible. The
lower the levels we are able to win our fights in, the less risky the situations get and
the less energy is wasted on establishing dominance. In the ideal case, there is simply
no interest of both parties in thinking about dominance and the most relaxed wins
the fight without anyone noticing, or – in a relationship or group context – the entire
dominance game is won without any escalation of displayed interests by having a clear
atmosphere where everyone believes interests are aligned and again the most relaxed
has won the game.

Level 0: Everyday interaction such as people don't go out of your way, or look at you
unfavourably and judgmental. Typically we flight. And it is a signal we do not display
dominance and confidence. People always move if we look confident.
Level 1: Interpersonal Relations such as the pseudo-alpha and his female friends don't
react to you as their superior, or they are genuinely cold, aren’t respectful; or the guys
at the work place think you are inferior and easily fooled ; the woman at the bar
doesn't let you talk to her. These actions are not subconscious, but are a bit automated
based on click-and-wirr patterns learned and also tell you a good sign that you have
no visible confidence and dominance.
Level 2: Soft Confrontation such as your girl is manipulating you all the time and
dominates you, or the guy on the street is mocking you and your girlfriend with a
direct aront. This goes a bit deeper, not only you are perceived as not being confident
and dominant, you are experienced and understood as such.
Level 3: Direct confrontation such as direct drama with your woman, someone wants
to pick a fight with you or severely afronts you. Yes, that is a bad sign and when a fight
might start.
Level 4: Fight - someone really wants to beat you up, attempts to rape you or is giving
you really bad shitloads of crap at work.
Level 5: Fight to death this is no more simply a barfight where someone wants to
release aggression, this is the level where one of you definetly must die. (The Hegelian
fight over death to determine the master and slave position). The winner may decide
to spare the life in the end and command ultimate submission to his dominance or be
so up in rage or in conviction on that he may not subdue his principals – common
mob interpretation - as to kill you. We see this in a lot of Karate Kid movies.

The interpretation:
1) each level upwards the frame requires more strength to survive. It is easy to be bad
boy when you don't move aside when an old woman crosses you in the street. But can
you remain clear-minded and instantly kill your opponent without any barrier or
hinderance in level 5?
2) each level test is a test towards the highest level. Someone your frame in 2 or 1
because that someone wants to know whether you can protect both of you –
especially a woman, but also someone loyal to you and under your guard and
benevolence - at level 5 or 6, whether you can dominate at work or in your career
path. If you lose on a lower level, you certainly will lose on a higher level.
First deeper consideration: Life is all about struggle over dominance and in the end
you success in life depends on how well you manage to dominate at every instance in
your life. It is of course better to dominante on the lower levels, but going to a higher
level you must be able to dominate still and you may never lose your frame.
Second deeper consideration: Unlike one may think, dominance in this conflict-
focused framework comes from an aura of relaxedness that displays one is ready to
go to level five and one will succeed which is sufficient and strong enough to never
have anyone try going beyond the lowest level. Any form of aggression and
domineering behavior that goes beyond the lowest level will be a test of confidence
and dominance and will reveal that the person that is being attacked or domineered
– or where the attempt to do so is observed – comes from the lack of certainy that
the attacker has that he will lose the fight. There are typically two reactions to any
such attempt: directly over escalate to a level where you are sure the other will not
compete in or follow – e.g. threating death by drawing a gun – or by slowly showing
relaxedness and higher levels of control over the situation than the opponent, which
forces the opponent to increase the intensity of conflict to the next level to try to
attack again. As a simple example: two people meet and do not know each other. One
is kindly looking at the other as to display that everything is fine. The other one tries
to use his stare and body posture, thereby attacking or attempting to domineer. If
there is no need to continue the situation, the relaxed person will simply walk by and
ignore the situation or will isolate the individual from its environment as to make any
bolstering irrelevant. Or the escalation goes to level two, a friendly, subliminal
exchange of words focused on de-escalating the situation. It is a next stage, because
otherwise the two would not have interchanged words at all and the level of energy
and attention to the situation is already an acknowledgement and thereby a slight
elevation of context. Likely, the attacker will feel humiliated by the friendly return and
will escalate more, thereby slowly leading to a higher level of intensity. And so on. The
basic rule is to never escalate a conflict to a level that you are not willing to go to the
end with and if you do end it winning. And at all times, try to prevent the escalation
where possible or manage to de-escalate. A de-escalation is a very good
understanding of true dominance. Someone thought reason to start a domineering
situation due to being threatened – by niceness? – and feeling the need to react with
showing signs of dominance. By de-escalating the attack shows that the attacker failed
to properly assess the non-threat situation as such – making hin insecure and lacking
confidence – and inability to pull through with his own attempt to lead the other –
because following the de-escalation is equal to following the demands of the other.
Both signs of lack of dominace and confidence.
Third deeper consideration: the effect of mastering dominance untill level 5 is that
you are not easily domineered. And if someone is going to level 3 or even level 4, and
he sees the strength of your frame is solid as rock, he will almost surely be frightened
and stop attacking you. Picture some bullies are trying to get at you, and tell you you
are an asshole and they want to beat you up. Stay in the frame, stay cool, don't get
defensive, and if someone even escalates to level 4 simply cut his arm open with a
broken bottle. Are you sure they will still continue to mock you? Everyone with
aggression problems apart from seriously damaged psychotics will not be close to
mastering level 5, which requires an acceptance of death, an absolute absense of false
moral or ethical concerns. When it comes to the Fight over death, you must simply do
it coldly, soberly and without hestitation. Ans hesitation, any moral concern about
killing someone, any kind of fear that you might die and you lost level 5. Many people
will not know whether you are on level 5 mastery. But they surely as hell know this
ladder of escalation and if you frame is dominant in the level they choose, the risk that
you will enter level 5 and kill them brutally is simply too high to make any fuzz.
The third deeper consideration: If two level 5 masters where to ght, it was either by
necessity of the very cause of their existence (as you see sometimes when masters
meet in martial aarts movies), or because they are forced to. But no level 5 master will
ever go to level 5, because when two level 5 masters meet it is mere luck who wins
and who does not. And to lose your life due to a useless ght and randomness is the
last thing anyone of such high integrity would want to think about.
In most cases, these masters are su-ciently successful such that they have followers
and the opponent will know that the death of such an indivudal will lead to
measures by this persons group, such as revenge or eradication of his entire family.
This is why no level 5 master ever fights with another level 5 master and usually no
master of that level is interested in picking any unnecessary fight, which is why you
can be almost sure that anyone that picks a fight on you is not on that level. Which
is why practically nobody in everyday life has the right to dominate you.

While these escalations should never take place and they are only common when
someone rises the ladder faster and more aggressively as socially acceptable by the
one risen against, or out of pure irrationality, they are part of everyday life and one
should always be able to put ones fist where the mouth is when going towards such
escalations. In the end, such escalations become more and more likely the higher in
the power rank and the more ambitious and “nothing to lose” attitudes float around.
As an entrepreneur your task likely is to either not employ such individuals, or given
them enough benefits and checks and balances as to keep them aligned. As a
political leader or someone working the business areas that are not fully protected
by the law, this model is likely one of the most relevant.

5.1.2. Other approaches to dominance

A lot in life has to do with dominance. And having a radar for when people are
trying to dominante and fiercely winning this fight whenever it presents is a key to
status and power. Dominance is not something that can be defined as something in
itself, but it is defined by the mere absence of being dominanted, manipulated or
played with in any situation. In that, dominance is always reactive and not active.
Exploiting others, taking advantage of them, actively overpowering them and being
rude, controlling and manipulative is a sign of power and abuse of it, but dominance
is truly only the power to keep others from dominating or using power against you
where it is not aligned with your self-image, the image you want to portray and the
principles you follow. Looking back at the escalation game in the fight over death,
any level of escalation is a clear failure to settle the dominance game on a level of
lower intensity by both sides. The goal of dominant individuals is to win the fight on
the lowest level of intensity that is acceptable.

Confidence, then, is the clear awareness of when you are being overpowered by
others and the self-efficacy in stopping this dynamic whenever you see fit, without
any rest of doubt. It sometimes is confused with the ability to get what you want –
something that relates to many things such as self-efficacy, experience and skill, but
not confidence.

Coolness is the ability to not be affected by emotional manipulation or ones own

anxiety and to remain in full control over ones confidence and capabilities in
potentially stressful situation. Coolness relates to the ability to control when to show
emotion and react emotionally towards something and being free of involuntary
emotional reactions. This ability relates both to social situations, as well as to life
situations, and is related to emotional independence from the ups and downs of life.
In some sense, cool people are likely understood as being outside of everything and
even being cold. Ideal coolness acknowledges this and plays with being on the edge
of being outside in a normal and somewhat creative and interesting way. This
standing out ability by coolness allows both control over the situation and allows to
be socially relateable.

5.1.3. Polarity of Dominance and Deception

Sometimes, it just does not really have an impact if we give someone else the feeling
of dominance. Such as if we are taking a relaxing stroll in the late evening and
someone is starting to confront us. Telling us we are nothing and he deserved to be
the ruler of the world. We don’t take them serious, even if it might mean he
continues to bully and we might have to revert to actually dominating and saving
the situation. The same happens in work-relationships, where someone might start
to dominate you, even if it is your closest to a friend you have. In such cituation, the
domination game is merely put off to another day. When someone surrendors to
another persons domination, this merely means he has given up the fight at the
moment, knowing it doesn’t play its cards well if winning the particular battle. In
such a situation, the ultimate outcome is that the individual is either truly
surrendering or merely choosing to pretend so, and decept, in order to keep the
other individual off its toes. This is a dangerous situation. First of all, there exists the
possibility in constant relationships that neither chooses to dominate. Such situation
exist. They typically do not last for a very long time. In relationships, these states
never survive, in friendships they are only accomplished in long-distance friendships
where each party equally gains and has respect for the other. In work relationships,
they are very hard to maintain. But maintaining this status is of utmost importance.
Once such a relationship exists and is existing because it is in the mutual benefit of it
to exist, any deviation from this norm and any minor form of domination will have
an impact. First of all, the minor step towards domination will either lead to an
immediate challenge and will destroy the relationship, or it leads to the other person
moving into deception mode, leading towards consistency of the person initially
starting the domination and will lead to a high level of resentment and anger. There
will almost surely be a retaliation if the time permits and the longer the retaliations
waits for itself to unfold, the either less able the other party in counter-aggressing or
the higher the level of hatred and wish to destroy by the person betrayed.
In short, either be sure that the other person has zero ambition and awareness of the
game, or be sure this person will keep all its energy and focus on retaliating when
the time has come. It is similar to an infinitely repeated game where both parties are
better off if they defect on each other in each round in exchanged order, or bost are
best off if they cooperate, and someone deviates from the optimal strategy. It is a
clear betrayal and sometimes there mere narcissism and feeling of superiority of the
one deffactaing will warrant a retaliation.
So the essence: the only case where someone chooses to not dominate is when he
wants to take advantage using deception. In the ideal scenario, both chose to not
dominate. This will never last. And whenever someone is not wishing to decept, but
is forced into it, you have an enemy for life. Because all of a suddon you are worse
an enemy than those that always have been competition.

The memory of dominance

The final takeaway in this chapter is that people can always just chose to leave a
situation or they will try to dominate if they are of the kind. Knowing this is a very
strong power. Understanding who is playing and who is willing to seize his
opportunities makes you more awake of the forces that you have to battle. There is
simply no situation where a person of desire for power will not do whatever it takes
and is at its disposal to win it. And standing on top of the enemy list and being
vulnerable is a bad thing. It requires attention, effort and constant power to save
yourself from being swallowed. The ideal scenario is to make such people pass you
by just as a mugger or bully on the street.

5.1.4. Volume and Frequency

Dominance rarely is identified with anxiety, overly vividly and pervasively distributed
energy. At the same time, it is associated with peak volume, or: exhibiting the
strongest force and energy in an environment directly associated with the situation.

But some occasional outbursts of energy in veery infrequent patterns and low
energy otherwise is also something that doesn’t scream leadership. So frequency is
something that must be in tune with the situation.
So somewhat combining “rather saying too little than saying too much and saying
something dumb” vs being an inactive side participant in a situation combines the
key insight. Asking how to increase frequency in leadership without brabbling the
whole time is coming down to aligning and orchestrating other peoples talk, leading
the conversation calmly and slowly.

As for peak volume, bursting with energy also makes no sense. But rather the
typically Machiavellian behavior of wrecklessness and fearlessness is defining peak
volume. Establishing situation in a way as to display appropriate forms of reckless
behavior is something you can observe almost in all group situations where
someone deviates from the normal either by chipping off to do something entirely
unrelated to the group, or becoming overly passionate about a peak energy
experience or simply starting to toy around with another person in an aggressive
manner. All this is used to serve pings that confirm the frame in the situation.
5.2. The process of spontaneous get-to-know
and APT
A general framework of what happens in any social interaction.

Time to focus on the “mutual benefit” power play and as it unfolds in real life.
Knowing that situations of mutual benefit are no less guided by power plays than
situations where power is clearly visible and the defining factor of the interaction
and that things are just a bit more subtle is the first step. Knowing how to structure
such a situation and how they typically work is the next. Similar to an advanced
persistence threat, where a hacker obtains information without – ideally – being
caught, value extraction and early stage establishment of dominance is equal to
obtaining dominance without the other person realizing it or obtaining it in a way as
to warrant the least risk of retaliation, or becoming a key target on the opponents
list.
Such value extractions are called mutual benefit interactions, because the individual
the value is extracted from does not realize he has been exploited. That is different
to a con (=confidence trick) where the victim at some point realizes value has been
extracted and it wasn’t to his benefit.

This section walks through the get to know from both the social engineering and
APT hacking view to provide a complete list of steps that are taken in any kind of
value extraction.
The art of influencing, however, always walks the same in all scenarios, just requiring
more energy and effort in the beginning. The idea that any conversation and any
social interaction is performed among equals is simply defunct of reality.

Step 1: Mindset and big picture thinking

All deep hacks and complex value extractions start with an understanding of the big
picture of how the space within which the attack is placed is operating. For a hacker,
this implies knowing which parts interact with which other parts under which
assumptions and levels of capability and to see how this opens a patth to extract
something that is of high-level high-importance. Nobody would start an APT attack
to obtain a boring document of a politician from a government computer if there
was no massive impact of having this information. In this book, the entire book is
basically about understanding the landscape of social interaction and power plays.
The actual hack then, or the actual value extraction is done in the moment, when
opportunity and occasion arises and can be controlled. Typically, in a pick up or
seduction environment, there is little big picture but the motive is a thrill or
obsession over the immediate outcome. Spy games would likely focus on larger
pictures while still playing the seduction games. And developing a career and
progressing in the social and capital hierarchy is likely also an advanced-persistence-
threat and requires a very good understanding of the landscape, at least an as good
as possible one at the time when the career is starting to unfold. The key takeaway
from step one is that tools alone are not really what makes and breaks a career, but
the big picture thinking of how every action and reaction leads towards an outcome.
Step 2: Platforms of understanding
While an APT hack against an organization at some point in time is simply either
possible for you or not, the goal of getting there and being able to do so is similar to
the goal of building a career or progressively building skill. The key thing to
understand is that any progress one makes anywhere in live comes in plateaous. An
abundance of skills is being reflected and learned until a new plateau is reached and
new possibilities appear. From the new plateau, the things priorly understood as
complex and hard start to make sense and become way easier. The questions start
changing and the skillsets requires expand. For hacking this is manifesting itself in
the abilities clearly. A starter might be able to install a virus on a vulnerable
computer. Next level he might be able to change execution patterns in executable
files to hack around a security element in the code. At some point, he might be able
to actively take over another computer. And it goes on until someone is able to hack
into a high security system without getting caught.
In sports, the same is true. Without a minimum level of endurance and physical
strengths, the next level in a team sport might simply not be reached. Without the
social skills and leadership skills, the team itself might never get to the next level.
Without a series of wins and becoming more attractive to other good players, makes
the team itself long-run uncompetitive to head for the premier league. As with social
engineering and power plays, the same holds true. Without the right conceptual
skills, the right level of cognitive empathy and the ability to self-control and execute
minor tasks of domination and social influence, nobody will eventually become a
leader in a competitive environment. Talking the talk and walking the walk often and
becoming more and more successful at the walking part is required to get to new
levels.

Step 3: Key aspects to have in the mindset

Having patience, being sturdy in preparation, having deep social skills and being
able to see the weakest link in a target is key in hacking and social games. The goal
is always to get the job done, without being caught or making mistakes – hence the
preparation and patience -, and do get it done in the most effective and lowest cost
way. The game is not about being graceful and subtle to a level nobody understands
you are actually playing the game any more, but in getting milestones checked off.
And naturally, the total level of time and effort required should always be in sync
with the value to be extracted. A typical issue of con men and seduction artists is
that they ignore the value element. There is a too much on everything and slowing
down your life by overobsessing about a particular piece of value can be a bad idea.
Searching the right opportunity or strategy to focus on is hence as relevant to any
value extraction and power play as then going the extra mile to make it happen.
Thinking outside of the box also is something critical for hacking and it is critical for
power plays. Every system of defense, be it physical in nature, or the defense system
of a human being that is trying not to be manipulated and taken advantage of is
thinking in a specific pattern and way about the world, and being able to see the
blind spots of the system and individual is key. Something that more often than not
is only possible to see when one is seeing things in a different way.
And last, but not least, keeping it as simple as possible and not going overboard
with elegance and complexity is key.

Step 4: Reconnaisance / Analysis and Enumeration / Synthesis

Reconnaisance and synthesis is basically the task of fully understanding the space
one is operating and with the time and resources available until one has enough
information to act, and then deciding for the best strategy of engagement. In
seduction in public spaces, there are typically only a few seconds of up to a few
minutes, and there is little side information apart from what is directly observable.
The seduction artist hence focuses on his gut, experience, judgement calls and plays
a numbers game. It can always go wrong, but under statistical laws, he will find a
target.

In work or group situations, critical situations typically last way shorter and occur
within milliseconds to very few seconds. There is no time for reconnaissance and
enumeration. But given that any group dynamic unfolds in such short situations, the
entire success of a long-term group strategy, such as in building a career or rising in
the group, is focused about being prepared when the situation presents itself. This
means having anticipated the situation and pre-evaluated the best course of action
and behavior, depending on the fullest understanding of the group dynamic and
aspects that is available to the individual. This is also on the most likely reasons why
“nerds” are bad in group and social situations. Someone that is constantly focused
on solving problems and learning things is likely to spent no single second outside
of the group on which situations might occur and how to prepare for them. Whereas
anyone that is likely successful in his work career and rising quickly is, just as
relationship-focused teenage girls will be, focused a lot on doing exactly that.
Eventually sitting at home writing journals and analysis of the individuals or
resources available, drawing “playbooks” like a football coach would and playing
certain situations that are likely to arise shortly after over and over. Really not
something that a tech or maths nerd would do.
When projects and exploits are getting more complex, more reconnaissance is
needed. Hacking a government agency or building a life career with reasonable
jumps between critical employers and roles offered by them takes time and energy
and a deep understanding of how things work with each other. Just as a hacker does
not want to be detected in any of his critical exploit steps, a career focused
individual does not want that single brush of the pen ruin his image and picture. So
taking planned steps towards a goal with a clear vision of risks of being detected or
not achieving the goal is critical for anyone planning a complex engagement.

Step 5: Pre-Texting
This is what we talked about in situational pre-paredness. In social engineering -
hacking - this can be if you want to get access to a server room, you should have the
role of someone that has access. Be it a technician role, a boss role, or a cleaners
role. Come in the right role in the right style and behavior, have a story that warrants
the plausibility and legitimacy to be there and be able to back up your role by
knowing how to defend against some critical questions. If you want to pick up a
Hollywood star and want to come off as a failed musician, look like one, be able to
play the instrument and back up your story.

Step 6: Engagement and Value Extraction/Generation in the moment

Since we focus on short-term one-on-ones with mutual benefit, we are taking a step
back from the hacking comparison and get back to the seduction game. Just like in a
confidence trick, the key is to gain trust fast after approaching the victim.

The algorithm that runs behind the first 30 seconds of spontaneous group
formations:
▪ Spontainity: Enter a situation with the open mind, set the frame after the
initial reconnaissance, don’t focus on the outcome, but be in the present and
in the left side of the brain.
▪ Status: Convey enough value to be considered the person in charge of the
interaction. Before actually engaging, make sure you projected value visibly
and that it helps opening the door.
▪ Presenting the case: Engage with the right strategy and the right individual
in the target group, reveal fast and securely that the interaction that will
continue to take place is worthwile attending and establish a dominant frame.
After the initial creation of the pecking order by the displayal of status, the
free-will-driven spontaneous interaction is all about settling the fight or flight
question. People have the option to leave immediately if they are either
unsatisfied with their role in the pecking order and the situation presented or
they think this will not be of personal interest and entertainment. This is a
good thing rather than a bad thing.
1. The one with highest status allows the situation to happen. Anyone not
content with it will leave. And hence allow the group to enjoy the situation.
2. The situation does not take place if it is of zero value for anyone
participating. Leading everyone better off.
▪ The Pacing: Only very high power/status individuals would dare to start
leading the situation immediately. And even then they come off as narcistic
and self-divulged. While the leader of the pack after his status is rewcognized
has to set up the situational context by dropping a few sentences, the first
part is to getting to know how everyone in the situation is understanding the
situation and is going to participate and be aligned. Some might still leave –
although this is typically too late to be socially acceptable -, some may stay
without interest and remain silent during the situation, some will comment
initially on the topic at hand and display both their interest and their demand
for being taken into the consideration.
In the end, even if someone is not leading, this does not imply that he can not
be in control or gaining more out of the situation. This is the classical
situation in what Allesandre Kojeve, a realist interpreter of Hegel, called
master-slave relationship – this has nothing to do with sexual practices or
inhuman abasement, but relates to the disparity of power in a group. The
master can only rule because the slave is participating and benefiting more
than if he would if he would challenge the master and become master
 himself, taking the responsibility of keeping the balances among slaves in
check.
▪ Rapport building: Before leading a conversation, which essentially will be
more dominated and constructed by the leader of the group to further his
own interests and the creation of more status and power or eventually getting
something from the group or an individual in the group, must create such an
amount of trust, status and likability that his audience is drawn in, switching
from rational behavior and having defense mechanisms in place to a state
where everyone follows the situation blindly and basically abandons his right
to challenge the situation, just like in a battle where someone finally admits
his loss.
After max 30 seconds in the game, the show is up for taking responsibility for the
flow of the conversation.
▪ Leading: Leading now means throwing the ball to the loyal participants,
guiding the conversation and keeping an eye on everyone that the situation is
beneficial to everyone. This draws its power from association with the group.
The better the conversation and the less negative ego spills into it, the more
entertaining the situation is for everyone, the higher the power of the group
and its leader.
▪ Closing a group situation: Just like in any sales discussion where a close on a
sale has to be made, the leader is responsible for staying in the conversation
until the peak moment is achieved and a closing argument leads to the end
of the situation. In strong power disparity situations, this can mean as much
as walking away by saying “Interesting talk.”. If there is a risk of anyone in the
conversation losing face by doing so or the situation commands a sober
ending, the leader can cherry pick an individual of the group for an isolated
talk by abandoning the rest of the group, he can cherry pick a few
participants to facilitate networking among them or he can simply call the
entire group to change the setting – “Let’s grab some cocktails” and leave the
decision to leave or stay to the participants, but clearly ending the
conversation. Clear delegation and picking behavior displays more power and
can be used to enter an abandon game with some target participant.
Abandoning the most interested individual can kick in powerful emotions if
the person does not openly lose face, but feels deeply insulted.
▪ If really about seduction: pre-closing.
In pick up, the situation is about building trust and likability as to approach
closer and start physical contact as soon as possible. All plays a role, from
scent – can everyone smell each other – to voice – soothing? Dominant? Self-
confident? Entertaining? –to moving towards and away from the target, to
displaying the right posture and body language, to slowly making more eye
contact and then physical contact with the individual. As everyone remains
relaxed, the situation remains entertaining, emotional reacitons are positive
and physical contact and closeness stirs the lower parts of the brain to start
physical attraction, the closing is getting closer. While this sounds cheesy and
overly-theoretic, almost nobody ever kissed or left home with someone
without having at least a soft bump or touch, and almost nobody accepted
 touch and very close standing and long eye contact if the other factors did
not play in correctly before.

This is how a seduction game works. But if the value to be extracted is to be higher
and eventually visible to the victim, we are talking about a con. In this case, the
game goes on.
▪ Pay-Off or Convincer: In a con, the ultimate goal of the engagement
becomes visible at some point and the “ask” will be high enough as to
warrant an alarm clock ringing in the ears of the victim. This is why the ask
has to prepared by a convicer or pay-off. It is also something found in sales
arguments. The big ask is slowly unfolding as the salesman or con builds the
story of value and opportunity and provides evidence that is to support the
plausibility of the proposition. A pay-off is used when the victim is only likely
to accept the proposal if the offering individual also appears to have
something to lose. This can be a huge rabate when selling a product, or a fear
and pain of the seducer. It ultimately leads to a close of the situation and the
final ask in a take it or leave it offer and a slow pull back from the offer to
analyze how far the victim is following the withdrawal.
▪ The Hurrah: In con games as well in sales, the moment when the victim is
already sold on the offer is the moment when the dynamics change
drastically. It forces the victim to act immediately or lose the possible benefit.
In a con game I read about there was an illegal box fight placed where the
supposed con was to make a lot of money on a set-up box fight for a rich
guy, but the con wanted someone else to put forward his money to make an
even greater bet to rip the supposed winner of the original bet off. All of a
sudden, the fight had to be done earlier and everyone was to meet at the
designated spot in a short time.
▪ The in-and-in: In the same con game, the players had changed and it was
clear that the con against the original winner of the bet was blowing up. The
victim was getting suspicious, but was re-affirmed that everything would be
fine. The bribe of the boxers was there and everything would work out fine.
The victim kept tagging along. The first punch flew and the supposed winner
in the con fell down dead, a doctor confirmed the death and everything got
very hectic. Everyone basically fled the scene and the money was left with the
bookee. And of course everyone was in on the con, except the victim. The in-
and-in in this case was the being there when the murder took place, both
now had something to lose if ever involved in a murder investigation.
Everyone fled. The money was out of the picture.

5.3. Aspects of interaction in more detail

5.3.2. Portraying Status and Power and Stirring Interest
5.3.3. Rapport & Pacing and Leading
xxx

5.3.4. Leading with emotion: Frame Games

Leading with emotion uses the capability of using specific frames combined with
personas targeted to maximize the authenticity of a role play as to control emotional
reactions to a situation via the emotional empathy channel. The emotional empathy
has to be strong enough to outset the filters from cognitive empathy. Easier said
then done. Let’s focus on how frames can construct power, or: a combination of
status and trust that allows people to give in to an authority, thereby lowering their
cognitive empathy and making them more vulnerable to emotional empathy.

Pitch Anything : The animal brain and the power of the stronger frame
Olaf Klaff with his Pitch Anything makes the perfect transition from Pick Up and Con
Atristry into doing sales presentations that simply work. The best pitches honored by
the Toastmaster society, a society on teaching its members the ability to public
speaking, they use frames, too. Con artists use particular frames to lure people into
their world of thinking where they are in control.
Gaming with Frames
When fitting in, we talked about personas and games in the very early beginning. And
somewhere down the line we talked about being super normal in the social
environment you are in. That is true to most extend and a surefire guarantee that your
life will be boring. That does not imply that in many formal and official situations or
when just getting to know someone, you will likely stick to protocol and hide your
personality to simply validate your belonging to the group and staying focused on
satisfying rational expectations of others when your goal is to keep the focus on the
the goal of the meeting. This holds true for professional networking events where you
want to focus on your business, or on cocktail parties where you are to mingle without
placing the wrong people into a shadow, or any occasion where you might represent
a parties interest. But never the less, this approach of blending makes for very boring
situations.
The sociologist Erving Goffmann in his “the presentation of self in every day life”
provided a good analysis of what happens when you leave this game of sticking to
the supernormal frame of the party and start putting up frames to entertain. There are
two reasons why these plays are helpful in this book: one is during power interactions
where frame changes are used to dominate someone by surprise. The other one is
leaving rational and contract ridden environments and opening emotional
connections.
So how do you have fun playing frames
A frame was depicted as something the represents what you are, what you believe,
what level of respect and authority you command and the general goal is never to
lose your superior and long-term cultivated frame. The simplest example of a frame
game is if you picture a head of a national government during a negotiation and
suddenly jumping on the table, forming a chicken posture and singing and quacking
“Do you like them nasty eggs?”. This might never happen, and it would make zero
sense to do so for a head of state. But it is a clear example of a frame change. Everyone
knows similar and maybe more realistic examples. Almost every situational comedy
that happens among friends, within families and whatever are based on such frame
changes that in ther essence are inviting a make-believe game, a “play along and we
have fun” game. A father than suddenly believes that sharks are floating all around in
front of his young child’s bed and they are on the vessel hunting whales.
But these games make up most of the entertaining parts of our lives. Whenever a
good story teller tells his story to gain attention and invite people to share a laugh or
good feeling, he is jumping into a specific frame. Bad story tellers typically do not
manage to make this transition and their listenors fail to make the switch from
listening to an ongoing conversation – which primes each individual to his individual
perception and reaction to the course of the story – to jump in unison into the
participants of a story. Every invitation of a stranger to participate in a conversation is
based on a frame and make believe game. Because they do not want to get to know
you and your life long story and your individual opininions, but want to be invited by
a game that proves that you are entertaining enough to listen to while at the same
time allowing them to trust on your frame or game during the conversation, as to
keep your from starting to talk about personal matters.
The whole art of blending in is hence enhanced by the art of having very strong
alternative frames that form your social entertaining persona and mastering a key
generally acceptable of these games is key to making friends quickly in your life and
during cocktail parties and social gatherings. The goal here is to simply acknowledge
that your individual identity is different from your public persona which is different
from the situational persona or “frame” that you use to lure interest in you and your
story.
The common error people not understanding these three distinctions make is that
they come off as overly rational and cold in social situations. Their social persona
should always be unrevealed until a person has sufficient liking and interest in
getting to know you. And in case you have a hard time to understand this concept,
here are some colorful but socially plausible frames to begin a conversation. The
critical component, of course, is again, to never break the frame or only move into
new sub-frames of the role until you can transgress to revealing your social persona.
Example Frame
▪ Jesus Frame: „Ich bin Jesus“
▪ Bad Boy Frame: „Mafiosi Wacker”, “the killing spy agent,”, “Marquis de Sade”.
▪ Magician Frame:
▪ Intellectual Frame: Think Woody Allen, Jacques Lacan,

To learn new frames that are relevant to your social situations, a few key issues are
important:
▪ Never use negative frames that might offend someone whose negative self
image may relate with the negative impersonation or because someone might
actually be offended by the negative depiction. This includes Stephen Hawking
or people with disability, overaly dark or idiotic humor as Adam Sandler or Chris
Rock; racist figureheads such as Adolf Hitler or supreme leaders such as Kim
Jong Un. The key here is not to make fun of weak people and not chose the
wrong power of association. It is true that some negative frames work in specific
situations, but it requires skill in building rapport and playing the ball.
▪ Don’t over intellectualize. Everyone needs to relate and imitating an exclusively
known figure makes it hard for people to get the reference of your frame.
Winston Churchill might work in some instances, in most it wont.
▪ Don’t use supplicative frames such as “I know the President and I tell you”, “I
have a Harvard MBA”. The frame must be relatable and non confronting the
other. Arrogant frames or want to be important frames do not work. Frames do
not serve the purpose of validating.
▪ Low signature people do not work. It is hard to copy Johnny Depp, George
Clooney
▪ Don’t use generalized personas such as a “child”, a generally rich person,
because chances are that someone is still having one negative association and
may not choose to participate. The same holds true for imitating a comedian,
most likely because their humor is a matter of taste and the ability to relate to
his kind of humor is not univerisal.
▪ Study the most relevant public figures in your target audience that you are sure
are considered positive and emotionally attached.
▪ Learn to cultivate the key personas of public figureheads, which include: famous
and off-the-charts politicians like George Walker Bush and Donald Trump,
strong signature anti-heroes like Mike Tyson, 50 Cent, movie magnats as James
Bond, Arnold Schwarzenegger (among men only)
 ▪ Go into details and non-universal characters only if they are truly shrewed, have
significant signature and you know your target audience very very well.

The most successful frames are backed by more than just a random play. If you are to
play the Woody Allen frame, be sure to have a deep knowledge and actual interest in
intellectual topics that Woody Allen would have. If you play the politician frame, be
sure to be able to talk politics if invited. If you talk James Bond, be sure to exhibit the
manners and etiquette. The frame must still be congruent and related to your actual
persona and identity.

Stable frame games and their application in real life

Last, but not least, since these frame games and keeping frame is overly popular in
the pick up literature, it bears mentioning that situations where you keep the frame
can be used to lure people into domination scenarios. Frames need to be less funny
and more subtle, but must be clearly understood as make-believe games. If the frame
is sufficient to stir up emotions and keep the other person interested in seeing
through the frame and detect the actual individual behind it, this is a strong method
to con people. It is what gets women into bed. And it is what makes people spent
thousands or millions of dollars on con artists. A sort of intuitive disbelief of the game
and persona that sparks curiosity and diverts from what actually is going on. The
stronger the emotional reaction and the stronger the puzzlement of this not being
possibly real, the larger the ability to exploit. Deceptions may even go as far as to
make the other crave for tearing down the mask and see the existence of the
individual as a challenge that needs to be exposed. And this is why pick up is called a
“game”. And it is how many forms of intimidation work, where intent and actual ability
to exert force is clouded by the strong presence of an implausible frame that at the
same time is not possibly assessed to be true. Interrogations and interviews,
something we look for later, also work using the same deception method. The
interviewer is not trying to project a constant persona that fits the situation, but puts
on a frame that is to be considered indistinguishable from an actual persona, but too
surreal to be considered true. This sparks the interest in seeing behind the mask and
ending the game which detracts energy and focus from the person being interrogated
or interviewed. The design of the frame in an interrogation must be fit for the specific
individual interrogated. And of course, poker works using frame games, where both
the powerfaces themselves put on a frame that is meant only for poker and where
everyone tries to penetrate the frame and look behind it to see the actual persona.
The easiest way then if you are still hit is to dryly point out the peculiarity of the other
person which immediately refreshes the peculiarity of you and defuses the situation.

5.3.5. Frame Wars

Frames are somewhat so important, that you cannot stop taking them serious
enough. Another application of frame games that is pervasive in everyday life is used
in direct attacks to the status of someone as well as the defusal of such attacks. This
is best explained by some examples:

Example 1: You are meeting a new group of people, let’s say you are interviewing
some new hires. You are just being introduced, the frame and setting is formal and
polite. Suddenly Jack walks by and goes through your hair. This is a frame break
used to attack status. How do you defuse it?
Now consider Jack is a mignion with bad haircut. Your reaction is at easy as pointing
out the house monkey whose mother was a friend of the wife of your CEO asked for
a favor.

Example 2: You are at the high school prom at a high school you haven’t attended
and are just chatting up two girls that you are very fond of. Jock walks by and says
“Batsi, your stall is open.” No matter what type Jock is, you could defuse by
immediately shifting the frame and talking about you know almost surely when and
where Jock will be in a bar fight and get his assed kicked, because he always steps
out of line and it is only a matter of simple third grader maths to calculate the time
when shit hits the fan.

So these were two very simple examples of direct status hits. They also occure in
relationships among good friends. The typical reaction is always to call the bluff and
shift the frame to not react in the desired way and re-establish status.
Snob Hits: This becomes a lot more relevant in situations where the attacker and
your audience are from a cultural environment you are not truly part in and becomes
critical when you are clearly a snob. The diffusion requires more tact and can focus
on diversion, calling the shot – which at the same time is defensive and submissive -,
while counter attacking in almost any such scenario is regarded overly aggressive.
The typical diffusion is to focus on counter frames focused on universals and
focusing on good outcomes. With girls this can be as much as claiming there will be
more fun this night on your side than on the attackers side and using this to hook a
new conversation.
Heterogeinity: Even more intricate is when the audience is heterogenous and you
are under confusion of who actually recognized the attack and who did not. If
nobody sees the attack, not reaction mostly does the trick. If some recognize and
some don’t it is a matter of who matters in the group. If those that matter notice, it
is up to defuse focusing on a level of subtlety that is beyond their understanding,
because otherwise the counterattack would be a understood as a voluntary break of
the own frame which would be odd and diminish the magic of the situation and
hence value.

Managing relationship expectation: Now there are two troubling things about
these hits. If the person that does the hit knows the person being hit, it implies
weakness in the eyes of this person. Either he tried a lot and got away with it, or he
really has more status and calls the bluff of the person attacked, or the attacker
senses the opportunity to weaken. In any case, such relationships need to be soberly
evaluated to prevent further incidences of this kind from occurring.
Such behavior is typically impossible to defuse or handle when they come from
people of your inner circle and your inner circle is focused on truthful talks about
your lives. Because any sense of negativity shared in a friendship relation creates the
sort of destruction of value that then appears to justify any such hit. Which is why
friends are terrible wingmen and you should never befriend your wingmen. Replace
wingman with associate or colleague you are getting the gist. A wingman in the
general setting is any person that profits from a symbiotic value creation that lives
from not attacking each other in a particular setting.
Managing strangers attacks: When you get these hits from strangers in a particular
environment, something about your adaption and value creation is off. The ideal
learning from every such situation is to keep the cool – keep your frame -, learn to
adapt better – topping it up -, and deflecting by being more flamboyant. If the
environment is difficult, your aura just has to tell a story that that particular attack
vector isn’t suited, because many others stand out way more. And by managing
these particular stand-outs and cultivating them in the specific environment is more
powerful than micromanaging the finest subtleties. Something that pick up artists
call the “peacock” strategy. By very obviously not blending in but being there and
being there socializing with others, you are already out of the space of attack and a
simple backfire on any subtle misdoing of the attacker defuses the situation. The
same is true if you are clearly better in talking stories and creating frames that are
out of the ordinary and you are drawing people in. It is as safe as having a genitalia
shaped button on your suit. It is also one of the key reasons why there are splendid
debates of whether and when breast pocket handkarchiefs are appropriate. Or why
you always wear that turtleneck (Steve Jobs) or Scarf (Scorsese), the off the charts
patterns on your shirt or why you wear a funny pronunciation, why hipsters wear
beards in business meetings and so forth. The most obvious and screaming feature
that doesn’t fit will deflect from any subtlety.

5.3.5. Kino/Haptics and Economics of Space

The pick-up literature is obsessed with creating physical proximity and
touching/haptic feedback called “kino” to create a space of closeness that is
sufficient to end up in bed (Wikipedia: Haptic Communication). There is simply no
pick-up taking place if no touching and very close proximity is taking place to create
a sense of intimacy and deeper trust. But even in power plays the distance to
someone is a key factor that displays dominance. From stare offs in olfactory code
proximity to merely invading personal space in a conversation.

The touching aspect in relationships is something uniquely different, however, from

social influence tactics. Being fast and eager to touch in a comfortable and natural
manner early on is a measure of socialization related to physical contact and comfort
in very close relationships. It is a measure of general relationship intimacy rather
than of power game. A good seduction experiment with a person we want to attract
sexually starts from the beginning with touch and proximity. This is then typically
enabled by showing touch and proximity in the social circle one brings along to the
situation and relates to how close and intimate relationships are among people
someone associates with, also providing proof of being generally more close, trusted
and warm. The overall effect of using such social proof tactics to highlight
socialization and actually moving close to individuals is creating a perplexity or
confusion of the other, using the power politics behind proximity while at the same
time leading the frame of the other person into the world of questioning if one has
been just been socialized as generally more cold. AS long as the proximity is
perceived as non threatening and natural, the overall play of events creates status
and dominance without confrontation.
1. Spacemetrics / Proxemics / comfort zone / personal boundaries / spatial
empathy
Proxemics is a sub space of psychology that goes into detail studying these factors
without the analysis of longing and warmness. Distances in general are divided into
intimate distance – far such as half a meter to close such as 15 cm -, personal
distance, half a meter to almost a meter or far to up to 1.2 meters – to social
distance – 1.2 to far 4 meters – and public distance that ranges up to 8 meters.
What is the meaning: public distance is distant enough to not warrant proximity and
still be considered “general public”, but one is within the ranges of immediate rader
and likely danger. It is just different from being at the other end of the room and a
certain level of attention will likely be directed to the individual. The social distance is
enough to have a general public interaction taking place, exchanged eye contact,
over-hearing words, recognizing each other more than 20% of the time, etc. It is
even possible to talk with a louder voice and having a conversation. But typically it
would not continue for a very long time.
Personal distance is the distance of talking without any deeper meening. Stare-offs
and looking at each other without talking becomes idiotic. The proximity is sufficient
to warrant interactions or leave the space. Unless on is a passive participant within
the interaction of groups. The closer the distance gets, the more attentiton is given
to each other, people move closer to each other to not disturb third parties and not
miss a part of the conversation. A lot of group games where a target is being
identified requires to be within the personal zone prior to the approach unless one
wants to communicate disinterest in the person while talking to other individuals
within this persons group. The arrangement of personal distances within a group
often reveal a lot of about status and confidence. Finally, intimate distances are seen
as a direct signal of a desire to disengage from a group and focus on the one-to-one
interaction with a specific individual. The longer the time spent within this radius, the
higher the pressure to actually separate from the group. Alternative, a pivot back to
the personal distance is required. Just picture standing next to someone with no
direct body language indicating a closed circle. You either awkwardly withdraw from
standing in between the two active talkers or you are being the idiot that just stands
in between or you communicate your lack of approval of these individuals talking.
More interesting, our brains and the amygdala start firing heavily when someone is
in the personal space for a longer time and the whole assessment game starts firing.
It is a space where an unforeseen attack is directly possible and likely imminent and
warrants a judgement of the situation. If the overall density of the space warrants
closeness and no direct interaction is observed, the place is deemed safe and
secured. If there is a clear over-allocation of attion, the individual that does not
follow on the proximity is clearly shy and likely ridiculed or ignored. If the attention
level is higher, the individual can prepare to leave or stay and wait to be approached.
The personal space is the one where the most interesting things happen, as we will
see shortly.
The intimate space is similar when it is being analyzed, the intensity is higher and the
feeling of awkwardness when being surrounded by disinterested individuals
increases. If the overall place density is high, the situation may be accepted but
typically remains within the range of consciously experienced surrounding.
Vibe games in personal distance to in-group
A vibe tactic that typically works is being in an overly crowded space, being very
close to the group with highest attraction and attention and then expressing the
highest form of energy with least level of interest in the group. The group will not
leave due to its status, but will not be feeling attacked due to the disinterest. Being
in the personal zone, the energy will transmit due to the high general level of
attention. And this likely will spill over to all groups that focus on the dominant in-
group, creating a stronger resonance of the vibe. And almost in all cases leading to
starting conversations with the in-group. The situation is different on a more
conservative gathering where the in-group is publicly known and accepted. Vibe in
an extreme form is harder to sell as appropriate, as it would be considered an affront
to the in-group. Just picture a random individual being overaly energetic and
powerful standing next to Barrack Obama and his wife. It would require him to
initiate a conversation and will likely lead to a stand-off that may not be won. If
almost all groups in the room would follow the strategy in the first scenario, it would
completely destroy the vibe of the room due to lack of congruence with perceived
status of the in-group and the remaining individuals. In the Obama environment it
would completely affront him and destroy his status. Going along with the vibe, he
would, however, abandon the demand for dominance in the situation. This tells its
own story on reading situations and vibes in group gatherings in isolated physical
environments such as rooms. Obama would have to adjust to the vibe the moment
when he enters the room or he would appear out of place exchanging cordial
handshakes and leaving.

2. Biometrics
Biometrics is a subset of proxemics and focuses on the following factors that are
somewhat related to NLP and the sensory organs we use to encode the world:
1) Kinesthetic factors: Concerns distance in space close to touching contact.
2) Haptic code: Concerns “how” the touching takes place, with spot and accidental
touching being socially irrelevant and acceptable in close kinesthetic space, holding
being a character traid of warm and caring individuals, feeling being an examination
practice, prolonged holding showing affection to an emotional state and caressing
and sexually or “close relationship” touching being reserved to individuals we trust
and see as part of our inner circle.
3) Visual code
4) Thermal code
5) Olfactory Code
6) Voice loudness
5.4. One on One with groups
One on one in groups with a specific target basically is the art of approaching a
group and isolating an individual as to built a relationship with this group. The
theory was motivated by the seduction literature, but transferred to other situations
such as networking on events, building relationships within groups we are thrown
into – such as the work circles we are suddenly ending up in.

Preparing the Interaction / Distance Game

Obervance: Well, I would not brag about it, because you should not be a thinker and
ponderer when you are out, but well, people attribute this thing called awareness if
you know what's going on and who you pay attention to and who not
The individual: okay, rst nd a girl you like. The
group ierarchy: who is who in the group.
1) Who is the leader? Every, really every group has a leader and a pecking order. Those
that are of leader type and do not want to follow the leader of the group might also
be present, but they are by nature followers as they spent their time in the group
instead of building their own group. They are then just unliked outsiders that
somehow ended up in the group and who display less affirming behavior. All groups
also have their subgroups: or sub-leaders that lead their parts – likely not all – when
the leader is not present. And this goes on until the groups and subgroups disperse
when all leaders leave. The first analysis element focuses on who stands where in the
hierarchy and how everyone behaves to each other.
2) How dynamic and how static is the group hierarchy? Or: how long has who been
part of the group and for what reason? What is his affiliation with the group? Is there
a reason for the group to exist (colleagues at work, a group of students going out, etc.
The group reason to exist typically allows to eliminate impossible causes and hence
ends up with an evaluation that defines the group.
The group homogeneity: The higher the group heterogeneity, the more likely the
group has been involved with each other for a long time and just meets to confirm a
group reason that already has vanished in its essence. Also called a “casual group”.
Homogeneity as an opposite would be the level of body language, behaviours, visual
signals being in sync and aligned with the group structure. Group members over time
imitate each other and form a group culture.
Another dimension of homogeinity is the levels of power and attraction everyone
enjoys. Everyone knows about the medium pretty girl that surrounds itself with ugly
girls to look prettier. Or the group of a bad and mediocre “alpha” that surrounds
himself with losers to appear as a leader, despite no sane individual would hang out
with him
Another dimension is the lack of interest in the group reason. If someone is highly
adapted and congruent with the group, but otherwise falls out of the group and
displays out-of-hierarchy dominant behavior, the individual is likely socially apt and
free-rides the group to built social proof. His reason to be in the situation with the
group might be entirely different from the group. Some colleagues might be called to
represent the company of a forum and stay among themselves, occasionally chatting
up known others, while some guy might use every chance to built connections.
Groups can also differ widely in consciousness and awareness. Or they can fall apart
when it comes to vibe. Many groups have a drag with them which lowers the value of
the entire group : why doesn’t he just leave – loneliness?
Groups can differ in style and social status, projected value and still be very nice and
otherwise homogenous groups. Typically a sign of deep friendships.
The groups meaning and classification:
1) Who are these people? (Students/Workers/Businessmen/Law students,
mathematicians? What are the hobbies of these folks, can you see them, and what did
they do to play with their true self?)
2) The Vibe: (i) Is there a good vibe or is everybody bored?, (ii) What is the vibe like?
It is disconnected from the surrounding? Actively inviting the surrounding? Or general
independent but engaging? (iii) How stable is the vibe? Does it react to internal events
(a drag?) or external events (vibe is played and individuals lack independence and
confidence and have an intent to impress others)?
- Is the vibe heterogenous enough to do
distance calibration? The States:
- Which states are the people in?: Level of excitement, dominant
systems of representation, articulation, body posture, eye-glances,
etc.
Individuals
- What are the interests of who, how does his interest and inuence
aect the group? (po-litical analysis)
- How are the frame reacting to each other? (strongest frame -> most
shit tests and stu, weakest frame -> chatty but evetually LD)
- Who are these people? (full scale analysis: which school, what kind
of socialitation, eating habits, exercise habits, alphaness to measure
social activity)
- Why is everyone here (other individual, happy, sad, doesn't want to
be here, tired, lively, etc.)
3) Body language: Where is everyones feet, who gesticulates in which way and why
does everyone differ? What about the mimics? What is the level of awakeness,
attention? What about the body posture? Is it tense? Relaxed? Are people in their left
or right brains? What about the eyes? Where do they go? Are they imagining,
remembering or discussing a topic?

Calibrating the core individuals

Now that the group structure is analysed and understood, the question is if there is
value to catch, and what strategy works – who to engage in which order with which
game as to isolate the single important and relevant individual? The leader will likely
introduce you if you want to go down? Or you play with the leader by first extracting
a follower? Any intrusion will lead to a reaction by one or two key members of the
group. Leaders are easiest to approach without retaliation, but also can destroy group
entry if the interaction is lost or the interest is clearly in someone else? Which would
raise the question how low of importance you are if you are interested in anyone, but
the leader. Something always to double check: why are you not getting what you want
from the leader? Are you avoiding the leader due to lack of confidence or lack of social
skills? On a career event, you always impress the leader first. Of course it is possible
to extract a lower level individual, but more often than not you are an idiot for seeking
anything but the leader of the group, no matter what the demands. Unless the leader
is the asshole. But then: why are the better individuals standing around the leader?
What will they know about anything that makes them valuable to you? Never chose
people who follow their leader if the leader is bad.
Knowing her language when she is attracted and when not / when
she has noticed you and when not / when she feels good, bad or
indierent / when she is ready for approach and when not (depends
on your approach)

Her favourite moves and mimics (yes, you could try to use it when you approach
her, either openly or rather sideways)
Her body posture (copy or destroy? this question is all about destroying the frame
for your purposes against using rapport -> Never destroy her frame in a bad way.
 If you can't improve, then mimic, this is easier when you have the best frame in the
world no matter what happens)

5.5. One on One With Intent (strong assym.

Information/Perception)
5.5.1. Sales Strategies
Sales relates to what you learned about adapting personas to social environments.
You have to know your client and use the tricks of the trade to built trust and
everything you can to be liked. Everytime I sales happens, you won – it’s either you
selling the yes, or the other selling the no.
Sales is an interesting subject to study by itself for this book, because it focuses less
on power – while it still wants one thing: power over the buyer to buy your product
vs. the product of someone else or no such product at all. It is easy too claim that
the analogy of power to sales is that you have to sell yourself, but I think that is
completely narcistic and misses the point. You have to sell what you are selling, not
yourself. But never the less, you are always selling something. Let’s explore this.

Exploitation. In the exploitation power play, you are not selling a vision or a benefit.
You are selling the option to stay and be exploited vs. the option to leave. It’s a fight
or flight sale with a clear non-benefit for the person being sold to. But never the less,
you are selling the other on accepting his fate. This works mostly via commitment
bias. But before getting into this, let’s look at some other example. There is nothing
as absurd as Mafia people killing people for disobeying them after they have been
part of their wider network. But they do not kill people who never associated with
them for the same simpler reasons. Exploitation works similarly. An exploiter does
not go out and starts to try to exploit strangers when they are easy to leave or
ignore the entire thing. Am exploiter also will not put out a sign of his exploitation to
anyone that does not want to be exploited. He will always have a sign for those who
are looking for the sign. Some sexual practices focus on exploitation, but the
exploitation doesn’t start until the individual to be exploited actually knocks the
door. The issue has been on his radar and he was looking for it. Just as someone
affiliating with the mafia is likely somewhat aware of the mafia and will enter the
wider network with some intent. The same works for some well known sects. They
hardly ramp up people disinterested in their doings to start their abusive business,
but focus on their victims hooking some bait. In work or relationship or group
situations, you first have to knock on the door, before you get exploited. Something
about that group told you you want to get to know more and eventually associated
with the group. That is enough power to try to hook you. Similar to individuals
seeking a very bad type of partner. There is something – a lack of experience,
awareness, protection mechanism – that opens them up for association. This
something cannot be underestimated. There are millions of options a human being
has to choose from in every second, such as moving to anouther country, another
location, meeting friends, going shopping. But soon as as someone actually chooses
to associate with a group that might be focused on exploitation, there is already a
very strong commitment towards the risks and awards of this group. There is already
a “buy”. It is the same buy that any salesman can sense when someone opens the
door to them and doesn’t immediately tell them to fuck off. So, a commitment bias
already exists when a victim reaches out to someone looking to exploit him. The only
goal after the initial contact is to explore the reason why someone opened the
window of opportunity – what does he want – and how to control this want to built a
stronger bias towards commitment. Once the commitment is strong enough, there
typically is a twist going on that focuses on showing the ugly face. It takes a specific
moment, a moment when the individual is vulnerable and simply can not escape. In
this moment, already overwhelmed with other issues, the exploitation kicks in full
force. This is were alarm signals typically blow up and the actual fight or flight
situation is created. In sales, this is where the closing pressure and tricks start. In
sales, you typically try to elicit the thoughts and considerations of the victim, in
exploitation scenarios, you try to measure accurately the likelihood of leaving or
creating an dangerous scenario. The entire art of the exploitation works in this time
window from when the masks have been dropped and the individual is trying to find
a way out, but slowly realizes it cannot. Once the initial reaction has subdued, the
next commitment bias kicks in. All those considerations are somewhat processed
and the total decision parameters are internalized and stay stable. The individual has
given up, having assessed that it can only lose if it leaves, and it will remain loyal to
the person exploiting it. This moment clearly also comes up in sales, when someone
is starting to lower his resistance, starts to buy the arguments of the seller and has
forgotten about the option to leave the table. This is when terms are being
negotiatied and one closing argument is kicked after the other, scouting for the
maximum pain or willingness to pay. One vacuum tube? Two vacuum tubes? Can we
get more addresses and referrals from this guy? Can we increase his buy-in as such
that he will create referrals himself, completely being convinced his decision was the
right to do. But negotiation is discussed at some other point. The key issue in this
sales-focused chapter is in methods of diverting resistance forces of someone in the
phase where he realizes he is forced into making a decision and all psychological
tricks are used to keep the individual from breaking out the force field in which he is
in. Coming back to exploitation, the entire argument sticks around benefits that are
apparently there, lowering the understanding of the costs of being exploited and
working on keeping the pain points that keep the individual from running always
active and strong in his decision making. The person just moved for a job and can’t
forfeit the one year contract without a job? Good argument. The person needs
money within the next two weeks or will be killed? Good. The person has so many
bad experiences with relationships and fear of being alone again that he will accept
the abusive partner? Good. The individual is so lacking the feeling of being accepted
and liked and flattered that it will look forward to the cult exploitation? The person is
so hurt by something that it wants to flee the world it is in and it knows of no other
world to flee into? Good. This is how exploitation works. In the direct situation, as
well as in companies where everyone has his tiny bed of roses to lose and sticks to
the status quo, even if it is terrible. Once the commitment bias is there and the
person is aligned, the entire story is focused on keeping the biases and
misunderstanding of the situation alive that made the person a follower. The need
for financial security and financial income as well as the need to be successful in the
“hardest area where you can have success” is what drives young investment bankers
into throwing their life away. The benefits, the culture, the income, the talks:
everything focuses on confirming that being here means success, that leaving is a
failure, that nothing will ever be as good as it is in the current situation.

The pick-up scenario. Pick-Up is basically the art of getting two people what both
want – a good night – despite social sanctions and emotional malfunction from over
attachment. And it works on the same fight or flight mechanism. Winning a pick-up
game is equal to winning the situation in such a way that fight is winning against
flight. Once a person is not leaving emotionally or physically, the whole game of
slowly changing power dynamics is started until the pick up artist can lead the
situation and frames of the other. Leading it to places it did not dare to go for a long
time, where the individual feels good and safe, feels attached, trusting, and happy to
be there. And finally, once this achieved, the closing arguments fire by slowly
increasing the sexual tension. The same steps as in a sale: initiating contact,
sustaining contact, eradicating resistence to the proposal, negotiating the deal and
closing it. The different to exploitation is that it does not work on the rational level at
all – while in exploitation it guides rational thinking as to inflict emotional terror -,
but focuses mostly on the emotional states of the participants and their effect on
losing barriers of resistence. Unlike selling value proposition, such as is the case
later on in the section on SPIN selling, or the idea of the outcome, the goal is to
create a situation where the moment is so flattering and entertaining that the
outcome does not even enter the picture. The desired outcome just naturally occurs
as the result of everyone in the situation not wanting to leave the pleasant situation.
As the saying goes: “One thing lead to another”.
Some sales work in the same way. Some people with sufficient money or even those
without are so keen in developing a relationship and a great situation that they will
buy the product. In the context of power, the aim is to recruit a follower or “figure”,
and the emotional “one thing leads to” play leads to a commitment to the
collaboration of both parties. Keeping intents and functions completely out of the
picture. Once the deal is closed, everything focuses again on the commitment bias. If
the situation has been so great that the other individual is indispensable for the
emotional well-being of the other, it creates a followership and a commitment to
continue the engagement. Good friendships develop this way, and co-founders meet
this way more often than not. And the honest picture is that everyone that does not
have a strategic goal in mind is likely the one being played – or strongarmed. Unless
both don’t have an agenda, which leads to typically floating relationships. And make
it hard to leave the floating state. Someone has to lead.

Cialdini

He tried to show that these mechanisms existed and basically his recommendation
was to ignore these games.

Click-and-Wirr: Automatization
A certain piece of information just like the sound of the Bell for some strange dog
calls the automatic process. In human beings, it is a piece of information that is
triggering by the approriate interpretation of the piece of information the entire
sequence of actions. In the lingo of start-ups, that is equal to the value proposition.
Click on the right value proposition and focus on the right pain point, and you have a
click and wirr situation.
It of course depends on the context (mood, environment, etc.), the channel (which
medium, verbal, oral, etc.), in which frame (appelative, suggestive, etc.) and the deixis
(words before and after that make the piece of information a consistent piece relaying
on verbal context). Everyone in a social group watching a hot couple get it on and
eventually feeling lonely will long for a closer connection. Real life situations are not
assessed by many people, but the signal of a visible patterns creates a response
trained over time. The boss laudating the work of an employee. This is where everyone
bows down and shops respect. Someone getting killed by the mob. That guy must
have gotten it going and deserves it. When a situation and its interpretation is trained
and the connection of situation and reaction is stronger than the interest in
understanding what really happened, a click-and-wirr automation kicks in. It is a
mechanism of reducing complexity and putting a “been there, done that” or a “seen
it, same shit different toilet paper” mark on a situation. The good thing about this in
sales is that it completely blends out any difference in the situation and any actual
aspects that define the situation. A key element that visibly presents itself defines the
entire situation. Someone being exploited and realizes “this is the situation where I
don’t get away”, or “this is the situation where I cannot win the argument” is one form.
The exploitation scenario where “this smile is what I always trust in”, “this person
displays everything I want to display in the future”, “this person is a person that can
get me what I want” situation is more effective. The person that authentically hugs
me, or compliments me, is a person that reminds me of my trustworthy aunt, who
never did anything bad not even to a fly. Those click and wirr mechanisms is what
people trying to get something want to identify and use. And especially in the
situation where your attention is on alert. Typically, individuals exploiting click and
wirr will have a sober assessment in place prior to using it – or just a vast experience
– and will have used different prior situations to confirm their assessment of you. They
might have seen a similar mechanism kick of before, or used it several times to
increase your confirmation of the good traits and features of the individual, increasing
your consistency bias.

Reciprocation: Give and Take Commitment and Consistency

We talked about consistency. The give and take is where leading comes into place.
The exploiter wants a bit more, the seller just wants the sale, the pick up artist wants
the hook up.
This is why we have to 5 second rule and why the foot in the door technique works.
Once you have committed, you are prone to stay committed to your
decision
Yes, you already rationalized some strange theory after your intial
decision that makes your decision rational and you recalibrated your
blindspots. You are receptive to the good things, because you choose
good things.
It is regarded a high social value if you stay committed to things.
Committment Decisions are self-perpetuating
You incrementally challenge the product and rationalize the superiority
of your judgement.
Understanding such a commitment
 A woman does not decide pro you, or buying you, she makes a clear
cut decision on where shit is going.
This is basically a free-ride ticket. If she is aroused by you, and invites
you to come to her, this is like being in a shopping center and
entering the shop.
Once you approach, it is like the moment of excitement when she
spotted you and takes you out of the closet. She will look at you,
from all sides, being looking for aws (Type A error), for prettyness
(Tybe B Enabler), the opinion of her friends (Type C) and last but not
least, she will get to the warddrobe and try you an (the phase of
letting you lead her and how you make her feel ((when looking at the
shirt in the wardrobe, she wants to know how good she feels in the
dress, not how good she looks)). When she buys you, its basically the
way home. And unless you tear apart when she gets undressed and
puts you on, she will fuck you madly in love.
Social Proof
For those who never rely on their own judgement, but always have to ask their trusted
advisors – and there are many of them - or the taste of others – everyone wants to
belong as House MD would likely say - social proof is the ticket. If someone else who
is nice and smart is exploited – think Mr Cruise – then the exploitation must be worth
wile. If the ridiculously good looking guy in the corner is kissing ass to the fat guy next
to him, the fat guy most have something going. If my best friends buy an iPhone, then
why don’t I buy an iPhone?
Works most eective when: uncertainty or similarity is involved.
People tend to refer to social proof if uncertainty is in the place. Which is
why you can approach an HB3 with social proof, but more likely not an HB
10, since she doesn't give a fuck what the lower value fools in the place
want and want not.
Similarity again is a similarity in value, in supercial cues (overloading
discussed later).
It is generally a good idea to forget about social proof and just hang with
people you like or that further your interests. The wingman is a classical
example for getting social proof solely for picking up women. Don't go
out with boring fucks that you call your friends to get social proof. It never
works.
Liking
Liking unless running without intent is just another strategy of reciprocity. We like
someone when he manages to give us a good feeling. Enough of a give. Inviting a
take.

Indeed what creates liking: attractiveness, familiarity, similarity-

And of course: excitement
If you are liked, you simply get more
yes answers.

Authority
We mostly like ourselves in control, and presented with an authority we might see
ourselves subjected to its control, forcing us to cooperate to remain in control. Or we
simply believe that the authority will partially be passed on to us – everyone knows
the Milgram experiment. Maybe because we do not want our energy and time playing
against a visible authority. Or because we have been trained to follow authority. In
most cases, where authority is used in a sales like situation, the authority is an
imposter. Somewhat like the “Hauptmann von Köpenick”. But we subdue. Someone
that talks authoritatively and well-educatedly on a particular subject and manages to
impress others – social proof – or just us – for not keeping up -, we always have the
fight or flight option. If we like the authority or do not want to flight, we are already
controlled by the frame of the authority, which will play its frame strongly if it wants
to be an authority. The only way to hit a strong frame that demands authority is to
debunk it or ridicule the authority itself. In a social situation, it typically depends on
the others participating in the situation and our desire to conform. In a sales situation,
the authority frame mostly indicates that only a flight is possible. If we are already
committed to the situation and the individual demanding authority on a subject is
playing its game, we are basically accepting “shutting up and taking it”. Which
increases status of the authority and the level of consistency we display in every word.
Scarcity
Gold watches are scarce to some folks. Inviting twenty strangers to have a dring might
be sparse. Inviting your best friends for a free lunch might be scarce. Someone
walking into a room with five beautiful and smart women following him might be
scarce. A guy on a luxury yacht inviting you for food might be scarce. Having things
other people never had and displaying them in a nice way creates a nice vibe and
shows off scarcity. Something that apparently works for many. Even if becomes
apparent that someone offering his scarcity on display fiercefully and skillfully
disadvantages others around him when they do not “follow blindly” the authority that
the scarcity displays, the scarcity remains attractive. Most likely, because the individual
that likes the scarce object believes to be in higher control of it and feels it is more
likely to deserve access to the scarce object. In any case, although scarcity is the most
idiotic element of creating value inalmost all scenarios where it presents itself, it is
deeply wired in most human brains to create value and status for the individual who
has the possession and ownership of the scarce object (although possession is more
relevant that ownership). Maybe it is because humans want to be lured that
opportunity presents and that deserving things that we do not have have value on
our decision making, but nevertheless it works often. The successful salesperson
coming in an expensive car, the colleague with the stellar reputation and salary, the
guy with the good looking housewife, the guy with the castle and boat, they are the
ones we somehow accept as superior. And maybe, because we know we would be
retaliated against if we deny the power of the scarce object, people follow it and
succumb to the power. We buy the most successful company in an industry believing
it is successful and we deserve it. Even though it might be built on fraud. We just see
the opportunity to get a piece. Even if it may completely devalue us by choosing it.
Limited Number, only shorty available, hardly seen: The act of making oneself missed
and rare in order to gain value. (How primitive!)
Instant Inuece:
Principle Overload: analogy to inforation age vs knowledge age. Vast
amounts of information trigger the requiremnet for fast and suitable
selection and application algorithms. We are forced to rely on these
subsconsciously and cannot make well-thought-out decision, but rather
use au-tomatizations. ( which is why the above methods work, because if
they appear in practice they are attributed good and noble).

5.4.2. Closing Strategies

5.6. Mid-to-Long Term Interaction:

Relationships
Relationships with individuals are characaterized by some unique features. First off,
they are static. There is no specific advantage in the one-on-one situation apart from
the situation continuing. In a group situation, a person can be a chess figure used to
play out. In the general course of life, distinct individual relationships can play many
important roles from stabilizing moods, to re-confirming a positive self-image, to re-
charging energy, to building a family, to having a life-long cushion upon to fall
upon, etc.
But in the one-on-one situation, relationships are static. There is a clear pecking
order that might be challenged at some points, there might be some ups and
downs, but there is no indication that this relationship will lead to anything higher
than what it is already. Some people design their entire lifes around having a set of
one-on-one relationships that are meaningful to them and give up the seeking of
power in larger groups, seeing in their other social interactions merely a chance to
continue their existence and enjoyment of their one-on-one relationships. To some
others, these relationships are only creating spaces of relaxing and getting some
alternative momentum in their life, that their actual pursuits in life can not provide or
are unaligned with.
Depending on individual nature and taste, such relationships matter or do not,
provide different values. In TV series such as house of cards, the relationship to a
single person / the wife creates a space of constant reflection without any deeper
meaning. In typical romance movies, everything focuses on the relationship and
everything else does not exist. In family relationships in the real world, guilt and
responsibility plays a vital role and the concept of “eternal love”.
A realistic approach towards relationships in life is that they serve certain purposes.
Family relationships are required more or less, as we have been born into this world
by people who we owe something to in return and who might might get an endless
source of energy from. There are mating relationships which serve the purpose of
creating offsprings and our expectations towards them are manifold depending on
the design of all other relationhips in our lives, and there are deep human bonds of
friendship, that are likely meant to help us grow, see ourselves as a unity despite
constant change surrounding us. There really is no absolute measure on which
relationships should exist and how they should be or can be. It is entirely up to the
choice of everyone to choose relationships and to choose the nature of and benefits
seeked within them. Most likely, the facts of existing relationships will dictate the
settings. An outstanding and enriching family will lead towards another perception
than a bad family relationship that is driven by guilt and responsibility. A partner
relationship will be defined by the suitability and ability of the partner and our
expectations, whereas the latter will be driven by the quality of other relationships
and our overall perception of the value of relationships.
Our abilities to create new relationships will likely be the most influential factor in
how sane our existing relationships are. The lower our ability to form new
relationships, the more likely will stick to old relationships and ask from them more
than they can provide. The higher our ability to form relationships, the more likely
we will be able to see in the existing relationships what they are all about and to
demand of them only what is possible and meaningful. And, of course, our general
inclination to favour such relationships over group relationships will shape how
much attention we focus on them and how much we want to get out of them.

Understanding what your prime motivator in life is: having great relationships with
individuals, or having a great relationship with strangers that help us advance us in
our career and life goals, will be crucial. Understanding this the preference of both
these areas of focus in life will help us ask ourselves why we are sticking to the status
quo. A careerist who does not manage to build a career and sticks to old friends will
be a lost cause for his relationships. A relationship person who chases a promising
career will lose out on life. A person who wants career progression from his normal
relationships didn’t get the discrepancy of both worlds the same way as someone
stuck with career friends only wishing for normal relationships.

As for us, we have to know what we want from which environment. And then we
need to know how to get it. And thereby learning to be honest to those relationships
and group associates we are dealing with. For those seeking power, understanding
the general confusion of people on these basic human issues is an opportunity and a
source of risk.

Understanding exploitability based on relationship-preference types

The best possible member of a group is a person which is socially able, entirely
committed to the idea that group progression and career matters more than
relationships and a person whose current level of skill and ability matches the
offering of the group. If the offering does not match the skill level, the person will
leave very soon and will create a loss for the group. If the person is socially apt, but a
relationship person, not much commitment is to be expected and the person will be
hard to bargain with, independent of its ability to contribute and level of skills. A
person socially inapt and highly skilled is likely to be the easiest to exploit for the
time it remains inept in forming social relationships. And I believe that most of the
high performance individuals that do not rise the career ladder are of this kind. They
are uncomfortable with their situation, unable to leave due to their issues, unlikely to
leave due to their lack of interest in putting energy into their career and hence show
little leverage for bargaining, and hence are likely to be exploited as long as they
don’t manage to cope. Individuals socially inept and focused no relationships likely
will not participate in high performance jobs and will stay mediocre, taking low-
performance jobs and focusing on their low-quality relationships which they
overburden. They are likely not suitable for anything, not for their friends and not for
jobs.
I think this type of analysis is very relevant for understanding our job markets today
and why real wages are so hard to increase. There is an abundance of socially inept
and career-disinterested individuals that there is an abundance of high trained, high
performing fools to be exploited, which decreases market-wide bargaining power
and hence real wage adjustments. So for any kind of organization, they provide low-
commitment, but easily manipulated into hard work individuals if they commit to the
organization and the organization prevents them from moving towards better social
skills. The entire set-up creates socially isolated and lonely individuals which have
everything to lose if they end the exploitation they are offered by organizations.

5.2.1. Choosing relationships

5.2.1. Relationship Hygiene

▪ Elimination of negative behavior
▪ Reciprocity and re-confirmation of the
5.2.1. Classifications
Lack of Loyalty and non-value frame games
Authenticity and Value tests
Der ideale Frame laut LDS: Ich lebe eigenständig und unabhängig, gestalte mein
Leben nach meinem eigenen Willen und folge Regeln und Prinzipien, die ich selbst für
gut und richtig befinde. Ich bin stolz auf das, was ich tue und bitte niemals um
Verzeihung für das, was ich bin. Ein Fehler ist etwas, das ich nach ehrlicher Selbstkritik
unabhängig von der Meinung anderer als solchen erkannt habe. Ich schätze und
genieÿe die Gegenwart anderer Menschen und fühle mich in ihrer Gesellschaft wohl,
doch ich mache mich weder von Freunden, noch von Affären, noch von meiner
Partnerin abhängig. Menschen, die mir wiederholt respektloses und unangemessenes
Verhalten entgegenbringen, entlasse ich nach einer einmaligen deutlichen Warnung
unverzüglich und endgültig aus dem Kreis meiner Bekannten. Ich helfe meinen
Freunden, wenn sie Hilfe benötigen, doch ich weiß, dass jeder Mensch für sein eigenes
Leben verantwortlich ist und seine Probleme selbst lösen muss. Ich bin daher weder
Fherapeut, noch Anwalt, noch Diener, noch Clown für wen auch immer.

Shit tests: Shit tests sind Micro-Make-Belief Spiele die darauf abzielen folgende
Eigenschaften zu testen:
(i) Spontantität und Originalität im Umgang mit Shit Tests (Erfahrung)
(ii) Frame-Härte und wie stark dein Frame ist, wenn du auf kalten Füßen
erwischt wirst
(iii) Wie gut bist du darin aus einem Shit-Test ein schönes Erlebnis zu machen?
Warten lassen: Das Warten lassen soll als einen Aront im Bereich Respekt und
Erwartun-gen darstellen. Es gibt verschiedene Strategien damit umzugehen.
Andere Menschen kennen lernen und Spaÿ haben. Am Besten dann den dazu
gekomme-nen in die neue Gruppe integrieren.
Etwas Vorbereiten, was sonst nicht möglich gewesen wäre. Etwa: den Boden mit einem
Gedicht oder einem Gemälde zu versehen. Blumen oder Essen zu bestellen, einen
Tisch aufzubauen.
Gehen: Sicherlich immer negativ, aber auch direkt. Allerdings auch etwas faul.
Respektlosigkeiten: In der Regel sind diese nicht ernst gemeint, sondern sind eben
Ausdruck von Ferne, mangelndem Wert deinerseits in ihren Augen, oder einfach nur
eine Einladung zu einer Beleidigungsnummer.
Beleidigungsnummer: Einfach zurück beleidigen, aber bitte kreativer, humorvoller und
herzlicher oder zumindest frecher als sie.
Ferneausdruck: Umarmen, Zärtzlichkeit ausstrahlen, ein Lied anstimmen, den Plan zu
etwas romantischerem Ändern, oder eben dafür sorgen das etwas auffälliges passiert
am geplanten Ort.
Mangelnder Wert: Desinteresse, Disqualifikation von ihr, stehen lassen und mit
anderen quatschen oder die Sache abblasen.
Befehle erteilen: Das kann ja recht lustig zu sein den Befehlen zu folgen. Aber es sollte
nicht der Eindruck entstehen, dass man (a) nicht verstanden hat, dass man gerade
befehligt wurde, (b) man allgemein ein devoter Typ ist der darauf steht erniedrigt zu
werden.
Humorvolle Unterwerfung: Es perfektionistisch tun und besser als zu erwarten und
voller Freude. Aber natürlich dadurch auch die Zeit mit ihr verringern und sie alleine
darstehen lassen und am besten noch einen Freund per Zufall treen und 20 Stunden
später nach Hause kommen.
Gegenbefehl erteilen, aber bitte cocky und funny (Aber nur wenn du heute Abend
duscht, aber nur wenn du auf der Stelle laut furzt, aber nur wenn deine Eltern uns
dafür ein Eis kaufen. )
(i)
Dominanzverhalten: Wenn sie in einem Frame ist, nachdem zu kuschen
musst, niemals reinziehen lassen. Immer challenge und eskalieren.
Sie beabsichtigt dir zu zeigen, dass du keinen Eekt auf sie hast: Einfach einen Eekt auf
sie haben. Nichts einfacher als das. Anfassen, Vögeln, Furzen, Schreien, Tanzen.
Sie beabsichtigt dir zu zeigen, wie egal du ihr bist: Ihr zeigen, dass sie dir nicht egal
ist. Oder sie dazu bringen etwas zu tun, was dir doch nicht egal ist, aber dann bitte
mit Lüge. (Ich wurde gefeuert.) Oder ein Foto von ihr abknutschen.
Salz in die Wunde: Nicht verzagen. Herausnden wieso sie dich auf die Palme bringt
nud loslegen.
Emotionale Entladung: etwas mitmachen, dann aber mit Sarkasmus raus und
freeze out Konkurrenz anderer Männer: niemals aus der ruhe bringen lassen. Wissen
das du besser bist.
Die Eifersuchtskontrollmasche: Das ziemlich blödeste worauf man hören kann. Apell
an das schlechte Gewissen. Aber welches schlechte Gewissen, bitte? Man darf keins
haben, und sollte nur tun was man für richtig hält. Also bitte keine Gewissensbisse.
Umarm die Eifersuchtsqueen oder bums sie, aber hör auf das Spiel mit zu spielen.
Die Hilfsmasche:
Beschwerden:

Psychologically Ill
Drama: entsteht wenn die Gefühle nicht mehr kontrollierbar sind. Wenn der Drang
zu unterwerfen gleich ist mit dem Drang zu dominieren.
Am Besten erkennen das Drama vorliegt, niemals den Frame verlieren, klar
bleiben und das eigentliche Problem erkennen.
Drama stopft man in der Regel durch Penetration. Oder bei einer noch nicht
festen Beziehung nutzt man den Climax um dann einen Freeze-Out zu
produzieren, was das Ver-langen der Frau ins unermessliche fahren lässt.
Manipulation
Ködern und Warten. Beiss in den Köder. Dann lass aber genauso gut warten.
Sprache ist mächtig. Sie kann jeden Frame produzieren. Frauen nutzen diese
Fähigkeit vehement um zu testen und zu manipulieren. Deswegen
verdammt noch mal scheiss auf die Frau und mach was du für richtig hälst.
Double-Binds: Ich will dich. Aber ich will dich nicht. Bevorzugt von LSD-HD
Frauen verwendet. Sie entweder nehmen oder freeze-out. .
Öne dich game: Niemals önen. Kalt werden. Freeze out
Jede Form des zwischenmenschlichen miteinanders ist eine Art Spiel in sich. Man
sollte diese Spiele verstehen und die gesellschatich darauf projezierten Bilder
abschaen.

Boundaries of the relationship

Partnerschaft: Beziehungen sind auf funktionierender Sexualität beruhende
Langzeitkontakte zu Frauen, die dir so gut gefallen und dich so gut behandeln, dass
du sie Tag für Tag neu verführen möchtest! Mögliche über Sex hinausgehende
Zwecke, Regeln und Ziele deiner Partnerschaft legst du selbst fest und verwirklichst
sie mit Frauen, die dich dabei unterstützen.
Diese offene und ehrliche Beschreibung einer Partnerschaft lässt wenig Luft für
Romantik und Seeleneinheitsquatsch.
Heirat: Finanzielle, familiäre, territoriale und rechtliche Gemeinschaften mit Frauen,
die nicht jederzeit problemlos aufgelöst werden können, stellen ein Privileg dar, das
du nach langer Zeit des Prüfens und Wartens ausschlieÿlich an solche Frauen vergibst,
die sich durch ihre unbedingte Loyalität dafür als vollkommen zweifelsfrei würdig
erwiesen haben.
Oneitis und Verliebtheitsgefühle:
Sind in erster Linie Intimitäts-Verursacht und haben wenig mit der sexuellen
Anziehungskraft des anderen zu tun. Blos nicht den Schluss zulassen, das du eine
BEziehung wegen Intimität willst. MEnschen die du liebst sind für Freundschaften gut,
wenn die sexuelle Kraft nicht da ist.
Anima-Seuche: Wenn sie zu deiner Anima wird, projeziere die Anima lieber auf
jemand anderen. Das macht eifersüchtig „Wieso bin ich nicht seine Anima?“

Emotional Blackmail.
(by Susan Forward): people use our fears, our obligational views and our guilt to
manipulate us emotionaly. The movitation can be a schizoid character or some
general LSE type.
Treaten to make things diffcult if we don't go along.
They implicilty assume and make it a reality that you desire them more than you desire
them and once this trick works it has become reality and you will suffer.
Implying their misery is the result of our noncompliance
This is for all the helper characters that believe that the happiness of everyone is their
responsi-bility. Usually has to do with family issues and you should not in any sense
give the impression that you are there only to help and pity her. Listen to Nietzsche
on this one.
Make big promises if we agree to do soemthing which don't ever materialize
You get it. Believing her makes you seem naive, it makes you appear like you wish it
so hard to be true that you ignore the facts which makes you needy as hell, and you
are an easy to play with character because nothing is cheaper than a promise never
kept.
Ignore or discount our thoughts and feelings on something
Yes they implant in you the belief that you are bad and they are good. Which is bogus.
It is an aront against your frame and you self-esteem. It also makes them the parent
gure and you the obedient child, which means you are weak and require guidance,
which is not what a woman wants.
In most cases they don't give you physical contact or aection which is nothing but a
deprivation of your stamina and life force, because your life should be composed of
a) times of struggle to accomplish your goals, and b) time to relax and gain energy.
They obviously don't further your goals when doing so and they sure as hell don't
help you relax or give you energy. So what is it?
Tell them we are bad in some way if we don't give in to them
Use money or affection as rewards to be given and withdrawn depending on
whether we give them what they want
You just became a prostitut, an ass-kisser and a servant at the same time. Happy now?
Do they have something that you do not have and want so badly that you do
everything for them?

Cheaters
Cheaters and people in relationships with us – be it partners or friends – show some
very typical body language and behavior that can be used to detect distachment and
abuse.
Detachment measures
Walking in front of or behind someone: Behaviour indicates that life isn’t walked
together any more. Walking in front means you are already out of the relationship
and someone is not able to walk the steps and pace you walk. Walking behind
means you are still loving, but feel deep betrayal and are unhappy with the situation.
Looking in different directions: Be it a public stroll, be it the walk of shame home
from a bad night, be it the walk to the car. People who bear each other in their
hearts and thoughts are imitating the direction where people look. Curious at what
they might look at and where they might be, or imitating the body language to
mirror behavior and build rapport. Once this is gone, people are thinking about
different things, are somewhere else.

Too much space, too little contact: Walking too far away from each other, barely
touching and being close, or sitting unsually distant at home, less touch during
travel all are signs of detachment.

5.2.2. Game Theory and Chess

5.2.3. Preventing and reacting to negative dynamics

5.7. Some playgrounds

5.4.1. The stage – as performer
Performing on stage is the art of drawing people into your frame and give them the
feeling that you want to give to them
There are several frames that people on stages give:
- The relaxing and drawing away frame: the romantic and funny frame
that makes someone forget the world around him and just enjoy the
time being there. (typical musical perfor-mance)
- The constant domination and indoctrination frame: the entire vibe you
create is that of a massive form of power introding the body, mind and
collective spirit of those listening and observing. (strong political
speeches leading to mass hysteria, or suggestive music that re-calibrates
and brainwashed the audience)
- The logical inquiry method: you draw people into a complex world of
emotional and inter-actions that lead them towards the understanding
of a new perspective or feeling (typical frame underlying classical/Greek
drama and tragedy)
Frames not directly related to entertainment
- The reverse entertainer: you draw the attention of the audience not
towards you, but towards itself. Either by engaging in active talks with
someone in the audience and leading him in front of the audience. (this
happens in group therapy, also in cocky comedy perfor-mances)
 - The reverse entertainer II / the professor: here you engage into talks
with the entire group and talk about their feelings (psychology), their
views (politics), their concepts of reality (economics), and so on. You
focus on them and what they have to say and create a call-and-response
between the members that you lead. (also happens during mediation
talks or in bargaining situations)
Now you should have recognized that in order to be performed, the
institution is required. People come to the therapy, to the lecture or to
the stage. But if you want to play these frame-games in real life, you
need to create power and draw everyone in the game.

5.4.2. The club.

What does the cool guy do in the club? He sells drugs to the idiots. He sells beer
to the bartender. He sells music to the DJ. He sells the vibe to the people that give
him attention. It's all about sales, right?
Who do you nd in the club?
DJs: enthusiastic about music, you can talk for ages if you are into their music,
if you make music and remixes, if you were DJing yourself. They also tend to
have an edge regarding style.
Bartenders: usually student girls, their dress tells you most about who they
are in their private life. The more decorated and irty, the less they want to
reveal. Usually, the less a woman wants to reveal the more she will react to
good behavioural patterns.
The doormen: ghting sports guys. You can talk about Kyosho Jitso, the Dojo
where you got your belts, your trips to Asia, your ghting experience in
kickboxing. People that do martial arts usually have no problems with their
masculinity or their aggressions, so they like to talk real talk like about family,
friends. They also have a very dry and humiliating humor about women. So
once you qualied with talking about martial arts and family, you can denitely
talk with them about nasty women jokes. And the good thing is, you see the
girls when they enter the club. So just leave them for the right girl and
cavemen her to the dance. No time easier to seperate them and do some
animalistic (drop your wardrobe) style than when they enter. They are usually
not yet in the social game mood but raher socialize with their group and are
a lot easier to approach.
The owner: you know these fancy movies where the owner sits in the back,
drings expensive stu, does drugs, has his hookers around. But I tell you, if you
can sell the owner ideas for making more money with his club without giving
him the impression that you want anything from him, he will certainly share
something with you.
The Emcee: occasionally you have some folks that entertain the group. These
usually play a strict role when they are on. They impress by the way they talk
and present themselves and so you certainly don't open with anythign that is
not about the atmosphere they create about themselves. But as playing this
game costs a lot of eort, they will be showmasters and life-slaves.
Usually they are LSE types and they have the AFC type of hobbies. Sports, their
carreer, and women.
The visitors:
- the vibers: these folks come in groups or alone and they never think. They are
purely natural and follow the vibe. lead the club with their vibration.
- The AFCs and loners: Vibe them up to get social proof and dominance. Talking
to them makes you look like you are lacking drive and goal-orientation.
- The LSE-LDs:
- The LSE-HDs: drunken LSEs are the cavemen type.
 - The HSE-LDs:
- The HSE-HDs: you will seldomly nd a drunken HSE woman. And if you do she
will be shy and very suspicious, so it is more the cocky and funny style that you
should play, and there will be less shit games.
- I speculate that 10HBs will actually talk you up just as male 10HBs will talk you
up if you have a certain magic around you.
- The HSE-HD-males: They are the ones that will talk you up. If you are doing
everythign right, they will approach you and you are a dumb fool if you don't
play with them and get friends. Pick up wings is the game you enter here.
The You and the rest game:
Overselling: more sophisticated than anyone you will probably create envy and
discomfort.
C&F Dinstiction: you look humorous and you throw down the armory, making
yourself a joke by the way male individuals perceive you. But you are a wolf in a
sheep costume. And women will rather see your qualities as a wolf. This will
confuse the male and they certainly will submit to you by playing the dorky guy
that you materially express, so you dominate them with your behaviour.
The normal guy: I personally love to be the underdresser. I come with t-shirts,
assics and some worn out pants like the average fucking Joe to the club where
everybody is in dress-shirts. As long you focus on body language and
authenticity, you will take away the I need to play this social game mood.
(Moliere Style humour). The thing is, that you are not entering peoples radar by
your look. But your behavioural patterns and your dominant frame will be
recognized. And when people see that average Joe is doing the business well,
they will start to ask questions they would not ask if everything is perfect. You
are an anomaly by being normal. You make the place your bedroom or your
couch. You are totally relaxed and you don't give a damn. But you of course
need to play hard or you will quickly fall back into the state where people
conceive you as being disintrested in general.
The Games played (transactional analysis)
The dance: Remember the part on transactional analysis. In every situation, what
you are doing is you are playing a social game. When you dance with a girl, it is
ritual that loosens up the situation in order to get kino startet. Hence, starting a
dance is not just: hey, let's stand there and goof o. It is a simple game that you
might want to play. It is the look me in the eyes, react to my body language that
will be faster than in any other situation in the club, it is about touching me and
about letting your full body language talk to this girl. This is about her fantasy,
how she wants to have sex with you.
The talking approach: yes, this is a more verbal thing to do. Dancing you basically
don't talk. It's all about moving. Once you start talking in a dance, you are
destroying the rules of the game. So if you do, do it very cockily and to exclame
that you are breaking the ritual because you are the man to break the ritual to
get it going even faster. When talking, this is the classical game where you just
WANT TO EXPECT shit tests, witty conversation. And of course, if it is a pretty
women, you want to place your neghits 1.Naturally, as talking to someone is
about talking, this will be all about your ability to use your words to get her into
a sexual mood. If you are a good talker rather than a good dancer and body
mover, this is your place. Show o how cool you are by having the coolest lighter
ever, the coolest slang terms ever, the coolest voice ever, the coolest frame ever,
the coolest stories ever, the most condent and C&F style of talking to her.
The bar sitting game: naturally, as you both sit and it takes a lot of knowledge
on how to act, when sitting, she will be more focused on your ability to sense
the situation, enforce new styles of rapport. This is about talking, yes, it is about
the voice, it is about touching and all that stu, too. But this is about using your
body at the same time. It is about communicating the push/pull mechanism,
about getting closer and yes, naturally as it appears more di-cult to readjust
closeness, this is about comfort zones and moving through them.
 The group talkup game: If you approach an entire group, this is no one on one
game. Naturally. So what will be the focus of her attention. Remember that the
rituals are classied into these games. Talking to the group is the group talking
game. She does not expect you to have kino with her. You are asked to engage
the entire group and master it. Namely, the goals are: stay in your frame, draw
everyone in your frame, be a better group manager than the original host.
The enter the place game: Yes, you must understand your entire visit to the club
as a sequence of these sort of games. The enter the club game is about getting
in there without looking ok, I need to get into the mood., ok, i have to check the
place out, Ok, ich have to ... . It is about getting in there, getting seen and
immediately aecting the entire vibe of the club. People pay attention to you,
people see you shake hands with other people, people see where you go (to the
corner? To the wall talking with the group you came? (do you really need to go
your plan through again in the club?) .
Good ways to start are: immediately be approached by people you know,
immediately go to the DJ or the bartender and play the I know you game and
get a nice chat on that maximizes on getting the other throwing sex signals. If
you talk to the DJ, make him smile, nod, and fucking change the track or the
vibe of the music played instantly. Another way is to come in a group and get
on the danceoor, while some of your folks to the other stu. Coordination folks!
If you are all noobs to your group structure, just make a clear strategy before
entering the club.
I go to the toilet game: never go to the toilet straight form dancing or standing
around. That sounds and looks like you are bored and use it as an excuse to
overcome stress. No, you either were just standing with people, or you were
nipping your favourite brew, or you rapidly interrupt the dance. Always have
some gimmick And don't go there and forget about everyone. Use the way to
the toilet to place as many suggestive behaviours as possible. Get the looks, get
the kino, and talk someone up on the way down the stairs.
I get a drink: You never go to the bar and get a drink without communicating it.
Make sure your group knows you get the drink and you buy for everyone that
did not nod o. So make sure your group nods o everytime, unless you want to
get broke. Make the rule: once you buy, next time others buy, if you buy twice,
that means you like the bartender and they nod o. When getting a drink, rather
give a fuck about the people, unless you notice someone that is interesting
enough to approach. Then approach and forget about the drinks.
I stand in line at the front of the club: There are only two rules. The frist rule: Never
stand in line. Just pass the idiots and go straight to the VIP entrance. Of course
you look like money if you do this. The other way is to chat up as many girls as
you possibly can. And yes, the line is where you need to have a good vibe. Mostly
the bad boy style works best. Because people are freezing and they actually
welcome some heating up their emotions so they don't feel so lonely and cold.
Usually people stnading in line are not in the mode of manage the environemnt.
They really just wait!
Club Crashing: Club Crashing is about changing the energy in the club. In a large
club you usally go the DJ , get the microphone and say you awnt to announce a
birthday or something that works and simply introduce yourself in a sensible
manner. In small clubs it usually works well enough if you are just
Remember: the club is not a value chasing game. People come there to dance, to
socialize and have a good time. Forget about the LSE women that go their to chase
value ( the sluts ), to be seen ( the attention seekers ) or to have sex (the AFCs). The
fact that YOU are out for sex is a part of your natural expectation that you can have
sex anywhere you are at any time, not from the fact that you go to a club.

5.4.3. The sitting in the park environment.

The games played
Vibing games include:
- Having a good group and enjoying oneself, and being entire extroverted.
Some people leaving and asking others for small things and sitting down with
strangers helps the group in general.
- Having musicians with you and playing music, focusing on the world around
you rather than on
. Usually, these groups are heterogenous, since not everyone can play an
instrument. It is only important that noone is kissing the ass of the musician and
the subgroups formed are in harmony. Occasioanlly some may go away to other
groups, and vibe them up appropriately, ideally other groups join the group.
- If you are on your own, it sometimes might be better to sit alone where you
can be seen rather than to approach a group of strangers. If you go to the group
of strangers, you are expected to stay if you are welcome and this means you
will be all torn by the group dynamics there. So an ideal thing to do is to sit,
never lose your frame, scrutinize everything and be relaxed. This
 will usually get the attention of any group of girls. Especially if you scrutinize EVERY
SINGLE group you nd in the place, because this will prevent you from being seen
as needy. I usually check out male groups and families and small baby-children
walking around especially. As long as you keep the right mindset, you smile about
the babies, you look indierent to groups that display a very bad vibe and social
structure, everything should be ne and you should be seen. Then it is all about the
approaching game.
Direct approaching games: you usually only take 2 seconds to tell if someone
strolling down the park is in a specic mood. You nd the needy, the arrogant,
the cocky, the family fathers, the annoyed, the ones with low self-esteem, the
ones that want to impress by the way they look, talk and walk. If you are alone,
just be mysterious, condent, and don't fall into any of the previous categories,
unless you want to bang a LSE haidresser with big tits.
Direct approaching games in groups: I think usually it is somewhat strange if
a group of 2-3 people approaches women directly. This immediately reveals
your needyness. You arrive there and just sit down rst. So the ppearace of this
direct approaching game starts with the way your group ts well together, and
how relaxed and un-strategic you take your seats. After that and the rst 15
minutes you would know where you are welcome and who of your group is
welcome.

5.4.4. The café environment.

Classical peekaboo and distance game. You don't usually stand up and go straight over,
unless you have some attraction and you can built it by doing distance game rst. It is
usually more easy than taking the seat in a group. which requires you to intrude the
group quickly which was probably there for some very strange reason and with a lots
of anger going around in groups (I never saw a chilled group sitting in a café unless it
was pairs.
Overloading not also enforces quick irrational decisions, it compresses data:
You only recognize key elements of information that stand out and help
you form your opinion!

- Body Language
- Intelligence
- Humour
- Face, hair, ass, bizeps ;)

So use whatever you can to manipulate the experience of others when

they screen you. Distract from ugly things, cool and style up your face,
for instance, and emphasize what is looked for: humour intelligence and
sexuality.
CHAPTER 6
One on One situations with power
6.1. Negotiations
I remember a negotiation on a merger where one company was running out of favor
of the stock market for not being able to produce the results on revenue growth
anyone wanted. They clearly needed to buy a new company to re-fuel its growth
engine. Unfortunately, there was only a single target on the market that was likely
giving them what they needed and that target was already overpriced. What you
could clearly see was that these guys tried very hard to strong-arm the
negotiations, but they ended up 20 year olds walking out of the negotiation room
and screaming at their lawyers with random insults and someone even putting out a
piece of dogshit during a meeting to tell them they are as able to negotiate as this
pile of dog shit in a bag. That is a form of negotiation where one party has the clear
leverage and knows that there is almost no limit in humiliating the counterparty. The
deal was signed and closed. So negotiations are power plays, and one party always
crossed the other. The question is always who is able to built the level of power and
significance as to have the upper hand in the negotiation. The negotiation is then
always defined by how hard the party with the upper hand wants the deal. And how
far it is willing to got in the negotiation. In almost any negotiations in life, from
relationships to group memberships to job negotiations to M&A transactions, any
negotiation requires to go as hard as possible. If people are not throwing shit at a
negotiation in some form, there is no need to negotiate. If a negotiation is ongoing,
a lot is to lose and and a lot is to gain. If the gain is sufficient, the question is always
about how much of the pie everyone gets. If there is no leverage of anyone in the
negotiation, he is being crossed very hard or the there is no commitment by at least
one party, which makes it typically a bad transaction.
What is clear is that the situation is not one of mutual benefit, but one where the
benefit is taken completely by the one party that plays against a bad negotiator. If
someone negotiates with you but does not be willing to go the full way with you, he
is crossing you and over-powering you. And you are not providing a real value
package so he is very inclined to pass.

Batna
Animal Brains
All-in Games

6.2. Interrogation / High Power Interviews

Character-Qualities of Interrogators.
Altertness
▪ Notes the source's every gesture, word and voice inflection, eye movements
▪ Determines why the source is in a certain mood or why his mood suddenly
changed. The shifts in moods implies the best interrogation technique
▪ Watches for any indication the source is withholding information and uses found
treasrues such as implausible exagerrations and clear contradictions to fish for
withheld information.
▪ Watches for a tendency to resist further questioning, diminishing resistance,
contradictions or other tendencies to include susceptibility
Patience and tact
Required to generate rapport between himself and the source, enhancing the
process of interro-gation.
Displaying impatience may encourage the di-cult source to think if he remains
unresponsive a little longer, the interrogator will stop questioning ; cause the
source to lose respect for the interrogater, thereby reducing eectiveness
Credibility
Rewards must be produced as promised or may adversely aect
future interrogations.
Objectivity
Objective and dispassionate attitute, regardlos of the emotional reactionns
he may actually ex-perience or simulate during the interrogation. Otherwise
distortion of the information may given or the techniques would lose
eectiveness.
Self-Control
The interrogator must have exceptinal self-control to avoid displays of
genuine anger, irritation, sympathy or weariness which may cause him to lose
the initiative during the iterrogation. Self-control is especially important when
emplying interrogations techiques which require the display of simulated
emotions or attitudes.
Adaptability
Must adapt to the many and varied personalities which he will encounter. He
should try to imagine himself in the source's position. By being adaptable, he
can smoothly shift his techniques and approaching during the interrogations
according to the operational environent.
Perseverance
A tenacy of purpose can be the dierent between those who are good and
those who are superior. Being easily discouraged by opposition,
noncooperation or di-culties will neither aggressively pursue the objective to
a successful conclusion nor seek leads to other valuable information.
Appearance and Demeanor
The personal appearance may greatly inuence the conduct of the
interrogation and attitude ofthe source towards the interrogator. Usually a
neat, organized and professional appearance will favourable inuence the
source.
A rm businesslinke manner of speech and attitude may create a proper
environment for a suc-cessful interrogation.
Fairness, strenght and e-ciency should be displayed to make more
cooperative and receptive. Initiative
Achieving and maintaining initiative are essentual to a successful intrrogation
just as teh oense is the key to success in combat operations.

Task-specific qualities.
Enough operational training to take leads
Familiarity with the language (linguistic patterns)
Extensive background knowledge on the subjects culture
 A genuine understanding of the subjects person
and biography Organizational knowledge

Knowledge of his own objectives and methods to use, protocols and how to
transfer the information gathered into practical knowledge
Knowledge of the other ones organization, his modus operandi and so on

Typification of Subjects.
The orderly-obstinate subject
Often intellectual
Tends to think logically and act deliberately punctual, Orderly, Tidy
Rugal, not impulsive vindictive or vengeful stubborn
secretive, disinclined to confide in others considers himself superior to other
people sometimes has his own system of morality avoids any real
commitment to anything!!!!
intensely concerned about personal posessions, often caryying shiny coins,
keepsakes or other objects having symbolic value
history of active revellion in childhood
developed a profound fear and hatred of authority
Dealing with them
- avoid the role of hostile authority
- Threats and Threatening Gestures, Table Pounding, Pouncing on evasions
and lies or any similar tactic will only activate anxieties and habitual defense
mechanisms
- To attain rapport, be friendly
- Exceptionally neat room and
questioner The

optimistic subject
Always happy-go-lucky
impulsive, inconsistent,
undependable Not ably to
withstand very much pressure
Reactos to a challenge by
running away
often the youngest member of a
large family over-indulgance in
childhood
Dealing with them
- avoid pressure tactics or hostility which will make him retreat inside himself
- Reassurance will bring him out. The optimistic subject responds best to a
kindly parental approach
- Friend and Foe techniques
are good

Greedy-demanding subject
 Extremely dependent
and passive connstant
demand for care
Tries to persuade others to defend him
Likely to shift loyalties if he feels his sponsor lets him
down subject to frequent depressions and may even
try to commit suicide usually suered from deprivation
of aection or security in childhood
Dealing with them
- Don't rebu it. Or rapport is destroyed
- do not accede to demands that cannot b met. Unimportant favors statisfy
him. His demands come from an expression of need for security
- any manifestation of concern for his well-being will be reassuring to him
- understanding father or big brother voice will make
him responsive

Anxious self-centered subject

Ussually fearful
engaged in constant struggle to conceal his fears
frequently a daredevil pretending there is no such
thing as danger brags and lies out of a desire for
approval
decorated for bravery or having a history of danger in order to get
rewards and approval intensely vain and sensitive
The desire to impress makes talkative
ignoring or ridiculing him will make him resentful

take advantage of desire to impress

Play upon his vanity or preise his courage is likely successful
The guilt-ridden subject
strong, cruel and uneralistic conscience
often attempts to prove he has been treated unjustly
may have been frequently scolded or punished as a child, or a model child who
repressed all natural hostilities
may provoke unjust treatment to assuage his conscience
through punishment may falsely confess crimes
may commite crimes in order to confess and be
punished masochists belong to this category
and compulsive gamblers
Dealing with them
- avoid accusations which may trigger false confessions to hostile clandestine
activity in which he was not involved
- if punished he may remain silent, enjoying the punishment
- subject with intense guilt-feelings may cease resistance if punished in some
way, because of the gratication induced by punishment
Subjects wrecked by success
cannot tolerate success
conscience forbids the peasures of accomplishments and recognition. Enjoys
ambitions only as long as they remain fantasies
goes through life failing at critical points. History of almost completing a
signicant assignment but something always intervenes.
 frequently projects his guilt feelings and blames all his failures to
someone else strong need to suer and may seek danger and
injury
accident prone
- Avoid questioning impinging on feeling of guuilt or past failures
- Isolate this area of
unrealibity Schizoid subjects
lives in a fantasy world most of the
time often cannot distinguish
fantasy from reality real world
seems empty and meaningless
extremely intolerant of any frustration that occurs in real world,
redrawing to fantasy no real attachment to others
any link to group or country will only be
transitory does not want to feel
abandoned
need external approval
likely to lie readily to win approval. May be unaware of lying due to lacking
distinction of fact and ction
How to deal with them
- avoid accusations of lying or other indications of disesteem which may
provoke withdrawal from the situation
- Truth can be teased out of a schizoid if he is convinced that he will not incur
favor by lying or disfavor by telling the truth.
The exception
Feels the world ows him a great deal
feels that he has suffered a gross misfortune such as physical deformity, early
loss of parent, painful illness as a child
he regards his misfortune as an injustice which must
be rectified claims as his right priviledges not
permitted others
if the claim is ignored or denied, he may become rebellious
likely to demand money, aid or other favour that are completely out of
proportion to the value of his information
How to deal with him
- listen to his grievances within reasonable time limits
- avoid any ambious replies to demands which might be interpreted as
acquiesence
- making no commitments that cannot be discharged fully
- defectors from other services found here, often respond well to the suggestion
that they have been treated unfairly
- remember that he has no sense of
loyality. Average or normal subject

Exhibit most or all characteristics of the other categories

from time to time None is persistently dominant.
Their reactions to the world around them is the result from events in that
world, and no consistent pattern

The Process of Interrogation.

Stage I: Preparation
 Screening:
a) gathering biographical
b) and psychological data from the person
c) as well as knowledge on his belongings
d) and his job and
operations history
Psychological
assessment:
- emotional category
- psychological abnormalities
- degree of willingness to cooperate
- potential vulnerabilities
- views of his potential for surviving the situation
- is revealing the information a personal threat to him or only some other
group
PLanning the questioning
The objective of the questioning
- what information do you want
- why do you feel the subject has the information
- how important is the information
- how can it best be
obtained Resistence
of Subject
- what type and intensity of resistence is anticipated
- is information damaging to the subject in any way
- can the information be gained from others
- which techniques will be most lkely to overcome resistance
- which rationalization will best aid the subject in
overcoming his resistance Questioning room
- Room free of distractions? (No other one around that se looks at)
- furnishing conductive to the desired mood? (adapt your style and
approach to the envi-ronment=
- warning lights to prevent interruptions? (your wingman)
- Provision of refreshments or aid?
(wingman) Timing
- What is estimated time for the accomplishment of goal?
- How much time is available for the questioner for detention of the
subject (when to ap-proach)
- Has a complete schedule of session been planned ? (has she noticed
you? Do you know your set)
Stage 2: Approach
If you are picking up you should consider when a interrogee is best picked
up: in the morning. The stress levels react deeper and more aggressively.
People are awake and fresh and are more responsive in general. This is the
time to start interrogations
The initial meeting is vital to later cooperation. The rst impression.
 Detecting a weakness is vital and each subject has one manifested in
personality traits such as speech, mannerisms, facial expressions, physical
movements, excessive perspiration, etc.
People tend to:
a) talk, espceially after harrowing experiences.
b)Show deference when confronted with
superior authority c) Rationalize acts about
which they feel guilty.
d) Fail to apply or remember lessons they mave have been taught
regarding security if confronted with disorganized and strange
situations
e) Cooperate with those who have control over them
f) attach less importance to a topic about which the interrogator
demostrates identical or relaxed experience or knowledge
g) Appreciate attery and exonertion from guilt

h) Resent having someone or something they respecte belittled, espectially by

someone they dislike
i) Respond to kindness and understanding during trying circumstances
j) Cooperate readily when given material rewards such as extra food, luxury
items of their personal comfort
All interrogations have the following in common, despite every one being dierent
Establish and maintain control over the source and interrogation
Establish and maintain rapport between the interrogator and the source
Manipulate the source's emotions and weaknesses to gain his willing
cooperation

6.3. Leading Individuals

The core belief behind leading individuals is that they want to succeed in life and
that they are helpful in being lead towards their success. Assuming interests of the
individual and the leader are aligned. The goal of the leadership approach is to align
the vision and mission and assume obedience, to mentor on factors that limit the
individuals ability to succeed under the mission and that the individual is apt
enough to perform his function and will lead a state where he will drive his desired
function on his own.
Actively collaborating with desired outcome : maximum success of leader and
individual, reducing required guidance

6.4. Managing Individuals

The core belief behind managing individuals is interests between individual and
manager are not aligned, that the individual is placed under the authority of the
manager and will seek work against the interests of the group and manager.
Management is defined by the steady risk of losing control over the individual and
using self-discipline to keep the managed individual in line.
that Dynamic aspects of keeping risks and threats in check while controlling the
development of the individual
CHAPTER 7
Group dynamics – Short Term
Short term groups are related to the on on one game, but have a focus on working
against a spontaneous group. It is unlike the dynamics and work with a permantent
group where the individual want to be a member of.
CHAPTER 8
Group dynamics – Long Term
Introduction
Permanent groups are related to the social psychology and group psychology field.
And it has to be disginguished from organizational psychology. Organizations are
long-term, mission based systems that individual may choose to enter and leave, but
which in general last for very long. Groups are structures that do not accept people
leaving and entering without it having an impact on the group and without the risk
of the group disintegrating and dying. Also, organizations typically are
institutionalized in way that it allows to host several groups which still emerge and
disappear under the group mantle. Organizations survive the groups within them
and are in general capable of accepting heterogeinity. Groups are fairly non
heterogeneous and the structure they possess cannot be altered to the degree that
organizations can.
Organizational plays, which will be discussed later, are inter-group plays that happen
within a closed social environment – the organization. Groups do not tolerate sub-
groups and inter-group plays.
7.0. The social web of groups

We talked about four kinds of people when talking about realism and sophistry. We
have the sophists, realists, idealists and other. Unlike in organization, where a sober
and functional organization requires a specific set-up of these individuals, groups can
be composed of and defined by the interplay of different such individual types.

The other group. No realists, no idealists, no sophists. Just people that neither
domineer nor dominate nor show any sign of ambition. The average Joe group. While
all types may participate, they all act as others in the group and the group rationale
is just being a group. There is no goal. No particular passion. No particular goal. No
particular rent for a chosen few.
The idealist group. Examples are hacker groups and hackaton participants, coder
groups, etc. All those people that do not pride themselves by dominance and
domineering tacticts but meet and socialize via expertness in their field.
The sophist club. Career consulting clubs, career investment clubs, career design
factories. All kinds of groups that meet to sell their brand and their ability without
requiring anything related to deep knowledge but uses the sales and sophistry ability
to exploit “the others” to make a buck or gain value. Some groups lead by few
sophists may exist where others are lead to contribute to the “con” or sophist game
of the leaders of the group. I believe that most of social groups that exist today that
claim to have a purpose, but are not idealists or realist groups fall into this category.
And almost all unsophisticated friendship groups are “the other” groups.
Realist groups. So far my hypothesis is that most of the other groups are
homogeneous. Although realists, sophists and idealists occasionally apart of any of
these groups, they act under the mask of the core type of the group. Things only
become interesting and heterogeneous when a realist sits at the top of the ladder
and steers the other types to (a) be their true type – sophists, idealists, others – and
(b) work toward a common goal. Realists don’t spent time wasting their or their
groups energy. They drive the group towards a goal that makes sense to most of
them or leave. When realists group form without a mission and merely socialize for
non-goal driven endeavours, they decay to “other” groups and basically just slack off
time or network. As the saying goes: too many realists spoil the soup.

With this very basic but, as I believe, very relevant mixture of group formation and
survival, the following discussions become more relevant.

7.1. Group Dynamics Basics

7.1.1. Group Formation

Value offers of groups

Group cohesiveness. Group cohesiveness is the binding kit in a group that creates
mutual liking. Creating groups of people who enjoy themselves being around.
Impact on performance. Energy, Relaxation, Social Loafing and gaining rents,
Deindividuation.

Groups come with norms and roles. Both are appealing in their own respect.
Obeying norms and analyzing the priming effect of the norms on our own behavior,
perception and well-being is one aspect that makes groups interesting. By imitating
and learning to behave like other members of the group we learn to reflect
ourselves and change our socialization, eventually to become better persons and
thereby satisfying the growth aspect. At the same time, roles can play a part as they
come with their own norms, priviledges and growth effects. Job hoppers hop for
experience, new priming experiences and better roles and titles. Eventually settling
in a role that is getting them to their limits, make them feel satisfied and
accomplished, happy in the group and giving a security in the role that they would
not obtain in another group.

Creation of a group by Bruce Tuckmann

The first thing you learn when you experiencing Tuckman in practice is that these
processes take a very long time, ranging from one to two years. This is especially true
in organizations and can be shorted in social group formation.
Initial idea: Whenever a group forms, there must be a reason this happens. It can be
an occasion such as a social event. A common goal attached to the occasion and
rendering repeating meet-ups. Or it is just mere luck and lack of options that leads to
the existence of a group. Only if a group exists the group formation process can start.
So Tuckmans theory does not ask why groups form, but how they evolve into a final
group culture after they have been formed.
Forming: this is the resolution of the storming and is, in effect, agreements about
individual's roles, how they will work together, what are the time-keeping rules, how
will the rules be enforced and so on. When the members of the group are drawn from
diverse cultures, the process of norming is likely to be slower than for a group with a
single national culture. Norming is followed by performing.
Storming: this is the process that develops after forming, where group members
begin to ``ght'' with one another over the roles within the group; who is going to chair,
who is going to have power and inuence. They also need to ``fight'' over how they will
work together; for example, will they work virtually (meeting electronically) or will they
be co-located, present in the same room. Storming is followed by norming.
Norming: this is the resolution of the storming and is, in eect, agreements about
individual's roles, how they will work together, what are the time-keeping rules, how
will the rules be enforced and so on. When the members of the group are drawn from
diverse cultures, the process of norming is likely to be slower than for a group with a
single national culture. Norming is followed by performing.
Performing: only after the previous three stages have been completed can the group
have any real hope of being able to work productively together. During performing
there may be a return to storming.
Extra - Leaving: It is clear by now that anyone that is not entering the performing
stage when the group process has reached the fourth stage has to be abandoned
from the group. Otherwise the black sheep effect takes place which either leads to
the individual becoming a victim to massive exploitation or strongly disrupting the
group performance.
Adjourning:
Cog’s ladder
The polite stage. Members try to get to know each other to form initial beliefs. The
dynamics of “connaissance” is extended by a re-acquiantance stage where individuals
have a first idea about who everyone is and try to affirm their self-image, while
listening to others and their attempt to self-project. The polite stage is defined by a
lack of power and strong group interaction, an avoidance of controversy and limited
self-disclosure, as to keep doors open and stay unreadable for everyone. The most
readable are losers in this stage, and those bonding best win. Typical situation in an
assessment center and during hiring, as well as first initial meetings in group and
dating scenarios pre “closing the deal” or getting into bed. In groups or interpersonal
relationships, loyalties are undecided, mostly because of nobody demanding loyalty.
Prefrences and liking might shine through some individuals and might lead to
exploitation. The game opens the door for everyone liking everyone and anyone not
liking anyone else lost.
Why we are here Stage. Intents, hierarchies and demands start to appear, still being
a bit soft in tone and not fully confrontational. Individuals become more open to
revealing core beliefs and ideas as to see who reacts, who plays along and how social
dynamics are being played in a semi-revealed phase. Some might already be certain
of the loyalty of others, some might be undecided, some might keep the whole game
open and refuse to choose a side, eventually leading to future retaliation or leaving
them with better bargaining positions, depending on their ability to create contracts
and bindings across already formed groups. Also creates a first perception of who is
dangerous, who is playing games and who is a sheep.
Power stage. Now groups actually form with leaders, followers, outsiders, and
different voices. Whoever does not get a chair after this round in one group has lost
and will be exploited. Whoever does not lead a pack or keeps out of negotiation and
tacticts will not be a leader. The affiliations and loyalties created in the first two rounds
of the game will become visible and everyone has to chose a side.
Cooperation. After teams have formed, a new dynamic on final settling intra-group
loyalty and powers take place. A team culture and spirit is created where everyone in
the group gives his own opinion implicitly by the action. The actual leader of the
group, the style of leadership and the style of cooperation within the group are being
bargained for.
Esprit stage. Similar to the performance stage. Now it is the time to sift out who is
part of the group and adheres to his rules and who has to be sorted out. Once the
disbelievers have been put into rank and file, the group starts to work as a unison and
combined force. Achieving its mission.

Belbin's 9 Role Model

Co-ordinator: someone who will chair the team and ensure that all of the necessary
abilities are present and used and that team goals are clear.
Shaper: this person is something of a driver who motivates team members.
Plant: this is the ideas person, who is creative and innovative.
Resource investigator: this role is literally to investigate the resources available to the
group and to ensure that they do not reinvent the wheel
Monitor evaluator: this is the critical evaluative role that questions ideas and plans.
Teamworker: this role is, in eect, the social worker in the team, who looks after
relationships within the group.
Implementer: this person turns ideas into practical implementable plans.
Completer: in the original work this role was called the Completer finisher, and this
perhaps captures the role better than the more recent title. This is the person who
makes sure that work is done in time, ensures that deadlines are met and ensures that
proof-reading is done.
Specialist: this is the ninth role that was added to the original eight. Clearly there is
usually a need for someone with expert knowledge about the task that the team has
to perform.

Summary
On the top:
Naturally, in a leadership position, the goal is to understand these processes and
being able to take the group leadership position.
Entering an establishment:
Entering an established environment, the goal is simply to assess who is playing
which role in the larger group settings, how individual interests and alignments
interplay the dynamics of each group and how to built inter-group and intra-group
relationships.
A start-up environment:
In a start-up environment with little knowledge of the own position and the future
outcome, it is crucial to detect the different stages when they occur, anticipate the
Belbin roles of everyone and lead to a final group hierarchy and dynamic that
acknowledges the capabilities of the group members.

In general:
In any setting, knowing the capability of ones own – leadership or followership – and
the role one plays – Balbin – and having the confidence and skills to engange with
the correct person after the relationships of power have been uncovered is key to
the entire situation, is a key skill area. This does not imply that it should be forgotten
that the own desire to obtain a certain situation is key to all endeavors and that the
ability to attain this state depends on the interests of the others. Understanding
quickly when a situation does not lead to the desire outcome given the actual
situation, the own abilities and the total dynamics of the group warrants the search
for a new group. The search of the new group warrants the best outcome for
searching a new group, which may lead in the promotion within the group or the
attainment of the best state for one self as to be ready and fully motivated for the
next group.

7.1.2. Group Design Dimensions

Weisbord’s core dimensions of understanding groups
(1) Purpose: Mission is clear, purpose and goals are agreed, people support the
organization.
(2) Structure: Division of work, responsibility all ideal to achieve mission.
(3) Relationship: Between individuals, units, departments
(4) Rewards
(5) Leadership
(6) Helpful mechanism

Objectives of groups:
(1) Providing opportunities for people to function as humans rather than production
factors
(2) Providing Opportunity to self-actualize
(3) Effectiveness increases towards a common goal
(4) An exciting, challenge environment
(5) Opportunities for group members to influence how they relate to work, the
organization and the environment
(6) Treading everyone as a person with complex sets of needs, which all are deemed
equally important.

The objectives to attain this:

(1) Increase level of trust emong members
(2) Increase satisfaction and commitment
(3) Confront problems instead of neglecting them
(4) Manage conflict effectively
(5) Increase cooperation and collaboration
(6) Increase organizational level of problem solving
(7) Built empowering processes

7.2. Power in groups

Determined by group dynamics and group member interests. Only when groups
have completed forming and pecking orders have taken place, the idea of power
within the specific standing in the group becomes relevant and dominates the ability
to perform within the forming stage.
CHAPTER 9
Organizational Dynamics
This is supposed to be a black magic book on organizational theory. It provides clear
cut concepts on how organizations work and provides the toolsets that the most
devilish people would use. Including a sober explanation how motivation theory
really works – not to motivate, but to enforce performance by playing with how
people’s motivation can be manipulated.
Organizations exist for one key reason. To provide benefits of those running the
organization. No matter what the purpose or the deemed vision and cause of the
organization are, the realist perspective on it is that it serves the purpose of giving
the large portion of benefit to the individual that runs or own the organization. For
corporations, the term shareholder value became prominent. This chapter will use
some detours to first create a solid understanding of organizations and it will take
the stand of an investor or entrepreneur that wants to govern the organization of
interest.
After the general principles of organizations are understood, the questions related
to this book can be properly answered. How to hack ones own career via
transitioning among organizations, how to build a strategy and career in a specific
organization and how to protect oneself and the organization from the sharks
within.
As a value-add, the chapter generalizes theories around corporate-related theories
to general organizations which includes the mob, political parties,
8.0. Intro: The social web of organizations
We talked about this briefly when talking about realism vs sophistry. Social
organizations – unlike groups – almost always have a clear pecking order among for
clear types of humans. (1) the realists, (2) the sophists, (3) the idealists, and (4) the
other. We claimed that the realists that domineer the sophists are the leaders of the
organization. That they use the idealists to be their eyes and ears towards reality. And
that sophists are the individuals that control and orchestrate the rest for the realist.
In more modern language: realists are visionary and politically able CEOs and
executives. Sophists are strategy consultants and organizational development people
– convincing the rest on the inside of the organization – and salespeople and business
development people – convincing the rest of the outside of the organization. Realists
and sophists drive the OT of the organization. Idealists are the deep experts that drive
in their composition the S in the SWOT analysis. They are the research and knowledge
specialists of the company. And then there is the rest that has no deeper value as to
do the work that needs to be done. Lead by the sophists – or mid level managers –
and it is the interplay of Realists and sophists on the rest that drives the W in the
SWOT of every organization.

8.1. Defining organizations and their difference

from groups
The scientific field is a bit blurry about what organizations actually are and everyone
appears to have a bad concept of it. Almost everyone neglects how important it is to
look at the two defining factors of organizations: the institutional architecture and
the dynamics evolving from inter-group rivalry. This is why we have to dive a bit
deeper into conceptualizing organizations.

Organizations as institutionalized groups

First of all, organizations are NOT institutionalized groups. But: organizations are
what emerge when a group is institutionalized. But at the same time, not every
institutionalized group becomes an organization. An institutionalized group that
survives where otherwise a group would end after institutionalization is an
organization.
So an organization is a group that institutionalized and that created an instutition
that survived the group that it institutionalized. An organization hence is no sooner
an organization until it can prove its survival after the original group that
institutionalized it “died”: or left. And that makes quite a big difference.

Organizations as multi-group groups that last longer

Organizations last longer than groups because they are institutionalized.
Understood, this was described above. More important: organizations are a multi-
group group. And they are not. We realized that organizations are no longer groups,
simply because groups do not tolerate a level of moving against the group structure
as an organization permits. Groups die under certain conditions where an
organization survives. In that sense, organizations are not multi-group groups, but
they are organizations and they host multiple groups. In the moment when the
group institutionalizing itself dies and the organization survives, the organization
splits into several groups. Otherwise it would still be the group that institutionalized.
So not only does an organization require that its institutionalizing group died, it also
does not start to exist before it hosts at least two groups. In within the boundaries of
these sub groups, group dynamics still applies as it does in any group. But the
organization binds these groups together in a way that does not exist outside of
organizations, which is why the “game” and politics of organizations work differently
from that of groups.

Inter-group relations in organizations are simple AND NOT

We accepted the idea that organization are composed of groups that operate under
the roof of the organization and that these groups still operate as groups within
themselves. So all that is left is how groups inter-operate and how the set-up of
intra-group dynamics and inter-group dynamics affects ideal behavior for an
individual.
Inter-group relations are simple, however. Because groups act as entity similar to
individuals when they interact. But they act solely as individuals that cannot or want
not to leave – family, marriage, etc. – so they interact as long-term relationship
seekers.
The goal of every group in an organization is to have a good leader at the top and
have the leader in the organizational hierarchy be the leader of the group of the part
of the organization and have this leader be a good person in a relationship. That is
the ideal case that falls apart on several dimensions:

The leader of the group = the leader of It can be the case that this falls apart
the unit
The leader is good at leading the
group
The leader is good at leading the unit
The leade acts in the interest to the
organization
and that group organization doesn’t
match unit organization.
The group leadership can be effective
and ineffective. Ineffectiveness means
rivalry among the leadership
challengers

It becomes clear that this dimensionality is sufficient to make organizations a mess

very quickly. The disintegration of group and unit leadership and the lack of ability
to lead and the interest of the group and unit can be a difficult thing to handle in an
organization. Leaders at the top of an organization may not be top of the hierarchy.
But ultimately the top of the hierarchy makes the sound of the organization. And
their ability is to focus on the strongest forces – typically groups – and to make them
effectuate the overall organizational objective.
But still, in principle the inter-relations are simple. If we are looking at groups or
organizational units, we are looking at being competitive or uncompetitive (on
competence), pro as in working together or contra as in working against each other
(goal perspective), if the alignment of activity serves the organization or individual
interests (leadership perspective) and if leadership is effective or ineffective.
Since the dimensionality – aspects of evaluation – of both core dimensions –
organizational leadership and group leadership – is generating a higher complexity
that doesn’t work in a simple “map several dimensions to one” way, things get
mathematically complicated and strategy is defined by (a) individuals and their
capability, and (b) the specific set-up of powers in the organization.

Coming from the larger “leadership” level analysis towards what individuals are to
do, there are two perspectives: (1) how to drive the success of the organization in
the complex canvas, and (2) how to advance ones own career in a much simpler
canvas that is defined how the top individual in the hierarchy and his possible
successors are working.

This appears a bit difficult, so let us assess it in more simple terms. As an employee
in the company or an individual in an organization, the optimization problem is to
optimize behavior in the chain of command of the ruling power and possible
successor power. This can be modelled using a simple tree-structure or in the even
simpler case in a binary tree.

Who is the leader now and who will be the leader tomorrow? And related to this
question:

What is the group composition of the organization and who is favoured under the
current CEO. In this case, the green dots are in favor. If the CEO is replaced and he
can choose his successor, he will chose the green below him and the green below
that one will rise one ladder.
In reality, the CEO cannot chose and someone from the red dots could become the
next CEO. This might make the yellow ones green and the green ones red. Using the
analysis before, the group leader choice in the future given the average life cycle of
an organizational leader (CEO in this example) will determine how the positioning
game works for an individual in the organization.

And because companies are such great example grounds for doing such analysis:
what if the corporate advisory board chooses an outsider? What will be the new
coloring of the hierarchy? And which leader to bet on to be the next in line in a
series of promotions? The lower levels have to rely on the capability of the higher
ranks in the organization to estimate who will be the future leader and their ability
to align their group and unit leadership as to position them to make the move
upwards – taking in consideration board interests and possible leaders. Futher more:
the further down the level of hierarchy and the more likely it becomes unpredictable
to see a clear upward movement, the higher the risk – if the individual is smart in
such issues – that the individual has to leave the organization. That is the rationale
of someone rising a corporate ladder or trying to become an organizational leader.
Another strategy is the sit-it-out strategy, where an individual does not want to rise,
but want to keep the status quo. This type of individual will use its distance from the
top-level dynamics of organizational leadership and focus on group leadership to
sustain a defendable and healthier position a few notches down the graph we
showed. We can immediately see in the context of companies or corporations as an
example of organizations how political strategy shapes careers. And this dynamic is
clearly different from group dynamic.
Individuals can protect themselves from group dynamics using their position in the
organization and protect their organizational status using group dynamics. If they
want to rise the ladder, they have to master both and be able to look into the future
to craft an ideal strategy given the risk of the organizational structure that is
controlled and regulated by outside forces and by building their group-related
networks to build a strong alliance and group-based strategy to become
organizationally fluent enough as to adapt to organizational change. It becomes
cleat that this requires inter-personal and group play skills to be sufficiently
independent from being dominated by intra-group and inter-personal power plays.

Leaders and managers in this context

Leaders are those that run groups, managers are those that generate results within
the institutional setting of an organization. The higher the level of position a
manager has, the more power he has to have as a leader by also managing groups,
but he does so as a manager of groups, not a leader of them.
Leadership uses influencing via mutual benefit, smiliarity, liking, admiration.
Management is influencing via institutional power, coercion, incentives. Leaders
inspire followership and the correct action without over-stressing short-term results,
managers must control the environment to produce and orchestrate the results.
In that sense, also group leaders are managers of their group relations.
A “lead-managing problem” starts to emerge when leaders don’t have management
skills and managers don’t have leadership skills to serve their purpose in their
position, be it in groups or institutional units. We will discuss this problem as one
aspect of organizational fallacies.

The investor or outside stakeholder perspective

As an outsider to an organization, you are very little interested in group dynamics or
organizational dynamics, but in the organizational performance – if you are an
investor – or weaknesses and vulnerabilities – if you are a competitor or hacker. And
it becomes very clear why the traditional psychological and business related
accounts of organizational behavior are completely irrelevant to the objectives an
outsider might have. And if we remember that as an individual we are only
participating in groups as to further or our own interest and look at them as
outsiders, the goal is to master both the dynamics within an organization as well as
understanding it from the view of an outsider. But even more important, it should
become clear that yet once again sophists, others, idealists and realists work a bit
different in this setting. Specialists will hop among organizations until they have
found a spot where they can do what they want to do within any organization that
they can access. They are driven by fit to their specialist task. Sophists will try to
maximize their position in any organization and hop to any better opportunity. They
are driven by influence. Others will just try to take the rent their position in any
company provides and will likely stay if it sufficient and play the game on a sub-par
level. Realists likely want to dominate in any organization and will seek to maximize
their learning and capability and will also hop on until they think they reach a space
where their dominance is maximized. Or they will see an opportunity in their skillset
as to optimize the organization and will stick to the organization.
All of the individuals will assess what the value offer of their current position is, how
far they can improve their position to get a better offer and when and how they can
leave the organization as to get a better offer at another organization. And that is
truly different from groups, because people tend to stay in groups if the groups are
sufficiently matching their expectations and wants.

8.2. Taking a conceptual look at an

organization
Organizations institutionalize and hence are institutions. The institutionalization works
using building an organizational architecture or orgchart, enforcing the law of the
organization and forming its culture. Under the setting of the institution, the
organization aligns activities and everyone starts working towards grand scheme
organizational goals. This is the view of e.g. Webers theory of organizations as
beauroucracies.

The organization itself is an entity in itself and onet that has to survive, compete and
grow in an external environment. While some organizations merely exploit their own
members – Ponzi schemes, sects, etc. – the core principle is to understand that
organizations serve a purpose in an external world and that the organization serves
this purpose and by doing this competes against other possible organizations. It
serves this purpose for its own purpose: the survival of the organization and the
benefits of those running the organization. This latter point stresses the fact that
almost nobody created an organization to serve its members but everyone creates an
organization to further his own interest by matching the capability of the organization
and its members with the demand of some beneficiary in the outside context of the
organization.

The institution governs the groups

This concept should underline a first key principle: there is a top of an organization
and there is a bottom and there is always a pyramidical structure between the top and
the lowest part. The top always demands exclusive access to the outside world where
it matters to the organization. And this right is enshrined in the actual organization
level and not on the group level. Who ever is the leader of the strongest group and
has highest power in the organization, he will not be able to challenge the actual top
of the organizational hierarchy. If this is violated, the organization basically collapsed
and becomes a group. Unless the organizational leader is himself the leader of the
strongest group.

This gets us one key insight. When looking at what is more dominant : the
organization or the groups within, it is always the organization. The organization is in
that sense material and the defining factor, whereas groups within the organization
are fluid and adopt to the organizational realties.

Institutional and group architecture:

The next relevant factor when analyzing organizations is that it differentiates between
top managers – here we call managers those that have power from the organizational
architecture and leaders those that lead groups in the organization - that focus on the
strategy of the organization, and lower- or mid-level managers that govern the tactical
level, meaning: they enforce the strategy within the organization to make it as
effective and efficient as possible. Below the mid- and lower-level management, the
specialists managers of small groups and individual workers are left as mere resources
to the organization that produce the output within their role that is needed for the
entire organization to produce anything. So we have a strategic level, a tactical level
and an operational level. It becomes clear why experts that become tactical
managers live a completely different life from strategy consultants that learn to think
the strategic layer from day one and will be prone to become managers with a strong
strategic understanding.
With this layered architecture, we already talked about the organizational architecture
of an organization. It is always concerned about how to structure activities within an
organization and how to organize the transition from strategic choices to effective
implementation of strategy and optimization on the operational level. It is a functional
representation of an organization.

When talking about the architecture of an organization, the other side of the coin is
the group and leadership architecture. As we already discussed, organizations are
“groups of groups” and every organization decomposes into rivalling groups within
the organization. Let’s look at some examples. Every color represents a different
group.

While all members of any group in an organization are also holders of a position of
the organization, they act in these positions only as holders of the position and are
steered toward fulfilling the demands of these positions. But the unregulated and
“magic” kit that actually governs the organization is happening in the group layer.
Change management campaigns and re-designs of organizations typically either
follow a cultural approach on the group level, by re-shuffeling group members and
installing a culture that is then carried through the groups into their neighbors in the
group hierarchy and orgchart, or the company attempts to increase the scientific
analysis of performance and turns towards a process model – thereby focusing on
making the institutional structure and contracts more efficient in keeping people busy
with meeting performance goals rather than building networks and furthering their
interest via group activity. We will talk about the latter when talking about incentive
design.
In this context, organizational management always has to work with the forces at hand
and look at what is dominating: groups and their inter-relationships or the
institutional set-up. The strength of groups over institutional set-up can be measured
for example by looking at the “success” model in the company. (A) Is the company
driven by a star culture? Or a culture that drives from key functional performers? Then
it is likely very successful at promoting and nurturing functional and institutional
structure over group structure, but also very prone to have these stars form a strong
group within the organization that works for its own interest against the remaining
individuals. (B) Is it a team culture? Then it likely fully drives on the organizational level
and promotions are a matter of group activities. But only to the extend where
performance justifies. The ultimate decision on promotions and transitions is done by
functional arguments and the organization is likely to be stable and functional, but
eventually under-performing on selecting the best in a fast way. (C) or is ti a company
where people rise and transition based on their connections with seniors only? Then
the functional and institutional approach is completely defunct and the organization
must be understood as driven by groups. The only regulation on the organization
then is coming from the very top of the institutional hierarchy that has to focus on
keeping the functional aspects of the business running indepdenently from group
effects.
The interplay of groups and the organizational architecture is critical to understanding
organizations. As is understanding that the nature of the business and organization is
designed on the institutional level and this is where performance needs to be
measured and the company steered. Culture and politics, on the other hand, have to
be managed on the group level. This is why setting mission and visionary statements
and running them through the orgchart hierarchy is not effective in enforcing cultural
change but can only serve as an indicative and symbolic means to align groups – not
individuals, who will be aligned to groups, and hence organizational culture
campaigns focus on group leaders and their adherence is enforced not by the
symbolic codification of culture but by the coercive (discussed alter) enforcement of
the codified rules on the group and organizational leaders. And the difficulty to press
new rules and missions to several distinct and culturally incompatible groups is
typically best encountered by keeping rules and cultural campaigns simple.

An example of moving positions often found in consulting companies.

As another example, let’s look at how individuals exploit groups when trying to
make a career. We look at a consulting company, because they drive by such
dynamics and promote swift lateral moves to further advancement. The blue
consultant is initially hired into workgroup A. He immediately realizes that the
organge team leader is more favorable of dragging people along as he moves and
that he is the most likely to move any time soon. So he asks to switch to the new
project team and now works for the orange leader. He quickly becomes his favorite
and most loyal team member and when his boss finally makes a move upwards in
the hierarchy, he follows along. He rose within 7 months and got the promotion and
benefits upgrade. The other team leaders are still at the same level.
The laws and culture in organizations:
Next to the architecture, laws are another dominant part of the organization. We
already talked a bit about culture. And rules exist both in the institutional architecture
and the group architecture. They encode what to do and what not to do, and frame it
by answering the what, the how and the why. The law encodes the official institutional
culture that serves as guidance for the groups and organization as a whole. It must
enforce rules and laws on the institutional side and use politics on group members to
align them to forward the message on the group level.
Some groups need freedoms – in banking, the actual investment bankers enjoy other
cultures as those working in administration, which is an effect of group culture,
although in banking this cultural differentiation between identified groups is
controlled and steered by the organization, and typically the organizationally
designed groups are forcefully hindered from splitting into sub-groups. In a larger
corporate setting, the group cultures compose themselves from very different
mindsets. There may be marketing and product driven individuals with a visionary
touch, there may be strategists and change-management oriented individuals and
groups, there may be classical banking/finance/management consulting based
power-focused groups and so forth. They will likely have their very unique culture and
there is almost no way to govern over them and enforce a common organizational
culture. Or at least: it is harder to really call it a culture based on what, how and the
why.

If we now take a quick look at what a career oriented but organizationally loyal
individual would have to do in a company with strong group rivalry: chose the
dominant group, align with its culture, perform well on the institutional position taken
and use the group affiliations to leap ahead. If the organization doesn’t allow for
group-based advancement: leave the organization. If no move is possible from the
current position, switch as fast and often into new positions until you are within the
radar of a strong enough group leader to become part of his action play.

The fallacy of organizations

We come to the core fallacy of organizations which is the mis-allocation of people
and their skills in the organization. This misallocation is an intrinsic problem of
organizations and not a particular issue of one organization over another. And that
is a key defining feature of organizations that we will have to explore in more depth
throughout this chapter.
The answer of why and and indicator for that this is an issue comes from
organizational economics. There we have three principle theory arms that sum up
the problem.
(1) Agency theory: talks about the problems that arise from assymetric and overall
incomplete information of organizations about its members. Skills are not
completely know and attribution of success may be fraudulent. Motives and
interests are not fully know. And psychological traits and cultural impact of the
individuals personality may not be known.
(2) Contract theory: Contract theory states that you cannot regulate inefficiencies
out of the business world. Complete contracts that handle 100% of possible
inefficiencies and contracts are neither possibly designed – too costly and complex –
and likely will not be enforceable in the actual situation.
(3) Transaction cost theory: Finally, search for replacements is costly and still cannot
ensure a better replacement is found. As for the employee that isn’t a good fit, even
having time tell the truth about the individual and reducing the asymmetry might
not help, since the cost of replacement, as already stated, are too high and the
outcome too uncertain. Which leads to the survival of bad members in
organizations.

These three theory arms all focus on the fit between an employee to its role and
highlight that the “institutional” side of an organization is set-up to eventually fail
and requires people and groups to clean up the organization and keep it efficient.
Funny other examples of organizational fallacies are the Peter principle – everyone
gets promoted to the level where he is most incompetent – and the Dilbert principle
– the worst people are always promoted to minimize their negative effect on the
organization, being promoted up and out, or: promoted to a level where they are
costly but can be isolated from having an impact on the organization. The more
protective the labour laws of a country are, the more likely in the corporate setting
that bad employees will suffer this kind of fate. And in general, the higher the level
of labour protection from being replaced or fired, the higher the risk of a larger
group of ineffective and psychopathic individuals entering the group. We will talk
about the phenomenon of corporate psychopaths or organizational psychopaths in
more detail later.

8.4. Key Dimensions of Organizational Success

Here we start with some simple, but relevant aspects and then focus on the core
issue of culture and toxicity as a measure of politics in the organization.

8.4.1. Leverage
The idea behind leverage is that an individual can make an excessive claim in a
bargaining situation because the loss of not accepting his demands will be higher
than the loss of the individuals performance or loyalty. The very existence of
leverage is a sign of clear mis-management and represents the lack of what
economists call a pareto efficient allocation. Pareto efficiency means that two parties
can not trade any pair of goods without making anyone less well off. In a leverage
situation, this is clearly violated. Leverage situations develop when (a) someone
takes his power to distribute to himself from the subordinate out of self-ionterest
and hence reduces company value, (b) when someone retaliates against bad
behavior of a subordinate, other things equal, or (c) when an individual is under- or
over-qualified. The assumption is that organizations and groups should overall
oprate as pareto efficient as possible. Meaning: leverage is generally bad, but also
will likely not be resolved by the supervisor that created it.
Leverage is strongly associated with the Peter and Dilbert principle. The Peter
principle saying that any person in an organization will be promoted to a level where
he is least qualified. The Dilbert principle goes a step forther than the worst
performer will always be promoted till he is no longer a risk to the organization. It
relates by the reason of promotion being at some part related to leverage created in
the position.
Leverage is a principle that works without groups. It is a structural inefficiency that
works for unconnected individuals that use the reliance of the superior on the
individuals position to bargain for salary or position increases. This of course
becomes way more relevant when the direct option to switch a position exists due
to the network and affialiation with a group. In accordance with demands of a group
leader, the group leader that is hostile towards the current instutional superior can
offer a counter-offer at the highest possible price. The superior that does not want
to lose his “loyal” subordinate and his capacity to a competitor come again with a
counter-offer and elevate the position of the individual. This will make the individual
better off and increase its power to support the group he is affiliated with. If the
value and uncertaintly of loyalty to the group is even higher, the group leader might
come with an even higher counter-offer and might make the strategically unsmart
move of hiring the individual away from the current superior. This is the strategic
play that employees have in intra-company negotiations when a new job is offered –
be the group affiliation openly communicated or not.

8.4.2. The prime dog theory of group structure

Being a leader of a group is not always possible, especially when you are low in
ranks and part of a strong group. The ultimate goal is when being part of a group
within an organization is to build leadership in a group within the group that is
below or equal rank, and to grow the group further. Not for the mere sake of
increasing the group size, but for using this group to sabotage institutional
members that are gatekeepers by their authority from the institution to further the
interests of the group and your direct or 2nd-level group leader. Being successful at
this is the key method to become a prime “footsoldier” or “dog” for your group
superior and for supporting him in fighting his fights in the organization.

How do institutional leaders protect from this? By being successful and part of the
strong group themselves and then selecting the most capable to be their dog that
holds those in bad strategic positions that want to hurt him. If he fails to do be a
strong leader or his dogs are weak, he will likely risk being attacked.

8.4.4. The reversal of group power

We spoke about the lead managing problem as the problem that arises when
leaders can’t manage or manager’s can’t lead. An organization that is composed of
groups that cannot manage will have arbitrary, hardly to control and orchestrate
groups developing power structures that are not working in any meaningful
direction, but take away time and resources from the group, thereby affecting the
overall development of individuals in the group and as members of the institution.
An organization with weak groups can be managed easier, but will not create the
positive competition and dynamics of inter-group conflicts that regulate
organizational adaptability. The organization will become mediocre and must rely on
its management system in place.
On the other side, when an organization has too many managers that cannot lead,
the institutional design and management system in place will be undermined by
group interests. If groups are very strong and stabilize their positions, this will lead
to group members occupying manager positions and lead to a stronger
management system. But if groups are rivalling, not overly strong and in steady
fight, the group impact on the organization and the ongoing bad shape of the
management organization will render the entire organization ineffective and it will
underperform to the purpose it was created to fulfill. Thereby hurting the survival
and competitiveness of the organization.
This provides a solid understanding of the battleground that would indicate why
some supervisory boards are choosing strong self-interest driven and psychopathic
groups to dominate the organization: they will restructure the management system
and make the organization more effective. But, of course, at the perileous cost of
this group’s culture building barriers for other groups to replace them later on and
thereby lastingly changing the organizational culture.

Another side is the total distribution of leadership skills and manager skills.
Organizations that are managed (management system) and lead (group system) by
leaders, will less likely exhibit coercion, and might take a larger toll on leaders during
very stressfull times. Organizations where managers are managing the management
system and leading the group systems, the overall system will be more focused on
coercion and control, thereby reducing creativitity and grassroot developments
within the organization that foster flexibility and innovation. This focuses decision
power from the “crowd” into the hands of group leaders and higher level
management and thereby makes the organization more vulnerable, as it becomes
more reliant on an effective management. Innovative start-ups are more likely to be
leadership cultures and Google might be an example that started this way. Apple, on
other other side, since its beginning and later on under the reign of Steve Jobs was
more of a management-driven organization, despite the threatralic ability of its
founder CEO to juggle with concepts and images that aimed at displaying him as a
“leader”.

This an application of group power against institutional power. It is the typical effect
that a manager of a group suffers when the members of his unit that report to him
are forming a united group to sabotage his performance.
Example. A small team of three people each with distinct responsibilities under one
manager can be regarded as a scenario where power clearly rests in the hand of the
manager. When teams become larger and a manager has to control 3 teams of five
people, for example, the power can transfer from the manager to the team. This
happens for two reasons. The larger the team, the higher the risk of a hard-to-
replace fraction to sabotage the group performance. The larger the number of
teams under a management, the less likely he has the capacity to focus on resolving
these issues. Especially, if he himself is reporting to one superior with again many
other leaders. The larger the number of teams, the harder it is to not favor a team or
favor individuals in each team in a way as to lead to entire teams sabotaging the
performance of the organizational unit. A common way this issue is tackled is by
managers having clear levels of hierarchy in each team and at each level. A manager
managing five teams will have a leader in every team that will obtain sufficient
benefits to defect from joining a group under his rank, and a leader among his
leader board where only the leaders participate. The role of the leaders is then
always to be eyes and ears and a kind of “enforcer” in the group the individual leads.
As groups get larger, the leadership ladder may become longer, having a co-leader
in each team or a leadership team in each team.
Such leaders then have to be able to self-regulate the affairs in each team instead of
reporting issues, because this would again create the need for attention which
would favor bad performing teams.
On the opposite side, if a member of the group that has ties to a more powerful
group or by shere ability to lead and coerve is forming a resistance among the
guided and infiltrated groups and can organize a combined sabotage, he will
dismantle the protection structure of the leader and will create leverage to coerce
either thod dogs of the institutional leader or the leader himself.

8.4.5. Organizations with high levels of coercion

Blogs and news articles and research literature focuses on what is called “toxic”
individuals or work cultures. Such attempts at understanding coerciveness and
power behavior in organizations follows the baseline assumption that ethics should
be honored in workplaces and that ethical behavior leads to better results. But this
disacknowledges the core of what organizations are. They are not groups of
likeminded people – they are not groups!. They are institutionalized groups that
serve a purpose and that use humans as resources to achieve this purpose. And
these institutionalized groups / organizations compete against other organizations
and provide different sets of benefits for different groups of stakeholders. It should
never be misunderstood that groups always follow a principle that is well
understood in economics and related to the theory of firms: organizations provide
“work”, which is equal to pain, and this pain has to be compensated for by providing
benefits such as salaries – allowing to make rational decisions about accepting pain
at work to obtain utility from consumption and leasure time – and other factors. So
when organizations are indeed struggling for survival and operate in competitive
market environments, and are effectively companies, a foundational element of their
existence is to distribute pain to enforce a result that provides benefits to outside
stakeholders. No matter how twisted the rhetoric around this and how much one is
inclined to raise the question of this is the proper way of looking at markets and
labour, organizations do not exist as groups to provide mere benefits to their
members, but they are systems that provide benefits of external stakeholders for
whose purposes they exist at the peril of interests of those that join them,
Companies and organizations are measured by their ability to provide benefits to
their owners or those that have a participation in the interest generated by the
organization. The level of pain is directly related to the level of competitiveness of
the organization in its outside environment.
So on the top line, there is no desire or demand to have non-toxic workplaces. What
organizations in the form of companies do have to provide is their own survival and
income to those participating in the interest they generate, while maximizing the
benefits of participating in this interest. Only those that provide a non-measurable,
and hence non-competitive benefit will likely exhibit less pressure on productiveness
and hence be less likely to inflict pain to their participants which requires them to
compensate less for participation in the organization.

The argument is hence not ethical, but a question of how much output one gets for
the input. This places organizations into the position where they have to retain their
most productive members – motivational theory -, they have to maximize the output
from this members as long as they are there – the efficiency requirement – and they
will choose the way that best leads to this maximization. And – last, but not least –
organizations are also just “people”, or just as smart as they are at the moment. So
even if a non-toxic environment might boost the performance and efficiency of the
organization, the easiest way to control performance might be to remain the toxic
culture.

So toxic organizations in the common meaning are such where bullying,

manipulation, coercion, strong-arming and the likes do happen. This view is partially
true. Because in almost all cases, assertiveness is what leaders or managers in an
organization need to enforce productivity needs. And only because assertiveness is
such a badly understood and untrained capability, coercion, domineering and
discrimination happens in organization.
And because highly competitive organizations typically reward their members well –
more on the top, less on the bottom – and because assertiveness is hard to learn
and most effectively imitated by coercion, it is that highly competitive organizations
attract people that are good at coercion: bullies, narcists, psycho- and sociopaths,
Machiavellists and the likes.
So what is toxicity in the end? For people that are not looking forward for being
bullied, toxicity is clearly the style of management practiced by coercive
organizations and people within them. But coming back to the purpose of
organizations, toxicity is the presence of people capable of using such tactics and
using their capability to negatively change the culture and work against
organizational goals and putting their own interests above that of the organization
and eventually conflicting with the success of the company.
In this chapter, we deal with toxicity as coercive behavior. Toxcity from the
organizational side is a matter that is discussed solely in the context of incentive
design and leadership later on.

That being said, let’s focus on the mechanisms of coerciveness in organizations or

“the toxic” leaders as toxic individuals that just domineer others. We want to write
about organizations with very high levels of coerciveness by groups and position
holders. How they operate, what tactics and strategies they use.

We will start with an instructional, but fictive case that outlines a toxic small
company from the top to the bottom.

The setting: a CEO of a large corporation, among around 15 senior leaders directly
reporting to him, had this one particular guy report to him that essentially was the
boss of the boss of my boss. This as well as the boss of my boss shared the feature
that they had worked in a very abusive financial markets company and that they –
because this is what these types of well known financial markets company do
culturally – thought they were around 200 miles ahead of everyone else in the
corporation I was working in. So the honest understanding was that both used the
company I worked for to essentially rip off the corporation that owned this company
and where I was 4 hops away from the CEO as their money printing machine. So far
to the setting.
The boss of the boss of my boss basically used what is called the “Kick the cat” and
some micromanaging principle. Rarely seen, but always hovering over the decisions
that our CEO – the boss of my boss – did and kicking his ass randomly and strongly
for decisions he took on his own or proposals he made that were supposedly bad
and criticized as to humiliate the CEO. Our CEO himself was a “kiss up kick down”
individual with zero touchpoints in the management of his company aside from
kicking his direct subordinate – my boss. This placed my boss, who had a ridiculous
title and an overall bad package compared to some other key individuals in the
company. My boss, again was a “kiss up and kick down” individual. What is that
exactly? A person that loses all his pride, confidence and smartness when his
superior is starting to unload his anger and toxicity unto him and jumps on his back
and throws up his hands and feet. And on the other side is utterly abusive to the
ones below him. And this is where all the features of a toxic leader started piling up.
Micromanagement: no matter who the other person was, similar in hierarchy or even
higher, being the direct choice of the CEO for any form of kick and being the only
person the CEO talked to, and the CEO having zero interest in anyone or anything in
the company except that it generated money for him, my boss micromanaged
everyone and was appointed this power by being the watchdog of the CEO. He
overruled any decision, added his individual bullshit opinion and went for his own
opinion which lead everyone to basically try to move around him as much as
possible and not argue with him. Fair enough, that could have solved the problem.
On top of that, my boss was trying to network and stay in good terms with everyone
higher in the hierarchy as to to blame his micromanagement to the demands of the
CEO and used this to feed false information or withhold critical information to
everyone as to make everyone form his own opinion and starting to gossip about
where things would be going, because nobody knew. This, of course, lowered the
reciproce perception of everyone in the eyes of every one else as being integer and
discrete. He also used key moments to get individuals to snitch on each other and
on the other hands scouted weak moments that could be used to humiliate the
inferiors or silently sabotage the superiors. He also managed to create a large team
operating under him and managed a few things very well: he over-loaded the
smarter and stronger ones with work to exhaust them and have them make mistakes
and never deliver on all aspects, then humiliating them with all the arrogance and
assertiveness he had to make them feel like they do not deserve to be there. On top,
he was working on dividing individuals by randomly re-assigning tasks – marketing
to a finance guy, finance topics to a strategy guy, etc. – and playing it as if there was
a constant shift of favoritism. The game was played smartly enough as to focus the
ultimate attention on one employee that did fair amounts of work that were way
below his role and qualification, while at the same time building him like he would
be his direct successor, before firing him and getting rid of the dynamic problem.
This was used, however, to observe the interaction of all others and constructively
manage the destruction of trust among the employees. The constant firing of
individuals either in favour or not marked a culture of fear and was understood as a
horror scenario, because the bullying and displacement and humiliation and
pressure typically increased to a level until an individual was standing up for himself
which lead to the dismissal by the means of a “fit in or fuck off” strategy. So people
were not fired without cause, but driven to finally stand up and say they are being
humiliated which triggered the “you don’t fit our culture” rhetoric and lead to the
dismissal. My boss also was not too bad in occasional but effective mobbing
campaigns – someone was told to wear unappropriate clothes despite being in line,
somone was marked as “stinking”, someone was marked as “always late” despite
everyone being in the norm. He also managed to use intimidation effectively,
typically inviting people in his room and throwing fairly illegal threats at people.
Adding other bullying behavior such as aggressive staring, stealing credit and
distributing blame, overworking in general and constant downgrading of individuals
capabilities by attacking their work ethics. Overall smart actions.

The question is: is this machiavelist behavior or psychotic behaviour? Why does the
“in-group” treat itself in this deplorable fashion? And is it effective strategic
behavior? What is the purpose?
In this case, the coerciveness is nonsensical but adopted unreflectedly by the
participants in the command chain. As a unified group, the coercion would likely be
replaced by strong cooperation and coercion would at best be employed when
discussions move out of the group. Observing this well, it is clear that the in-group
splits on every layer and everyone acts as his own group. Communicating to each
other in the way they do, they do clearly communicate to each other that they do
not like each other. And thereby create resentment and inefficiency. The toxicity
here does not even come from applying coercive behavior or coerciveness being
used along the hierarchy, but by the mere lack of understanding of how the
coerciveness affects the organizational command chain and ultimately decision
making. It is most likely that everyone in the chain is an unaware sociopath,
socialized into the behavior and everyone flies solo with its agenda. Even if everyone
was aligned, groups forming around each member individually without any second
group member makes the entire situation symbolically inefficient. This is how not to
use coerciveness and it is a third form of toxicity. When a supposed group
sabotages itself.

Measuring the level of toxicity

We will now run through lists that define different forms of behavior: bullying,
psychopathy, manipulation, etc. But before we start, let’s place these forms of
behaviours and tactics into a classification context.
Why is behavior shown? These lists will define uncommon and unusally aggressive
forms of behavior that typically exist in the real world and especially organizations
for several reasons: (1) socially apt people enjoy dominating and controlling people,
(2) some elements of the behavioural indicators appear when people are threatened
and under high pressure and stress, and (3) some management and leadership
tactics just require this repertoire. This shall mean: it is not per se toxic behavior. The
level of psychopathy and bullying that anyone within the organization uses –
independent of his capability – must depend on the level of coercion in the line of
command on the institutional side and the levels of psychopathy in the group
everyone is part of. Given sufficient capability by all players, playing the right
amounts on the institutional and group level to balance interests and affiliation is
key.
Who are the individuals exhibiting this behavior? A normal person adopting to
the culture of the firm? An overly ambitious individual that learned that these
patterns work well – which would fall into the pattern of sociopathy or learned
antisocial behavior? Or is it deeply routed in genes and character as to look at an
actual psychopath? To understand who the individual is that resorts to this behavior
is somewhat important to build coping and counter-aggression tactics and
strategies. But it also does not define toxic behavior per se, even if the type of
individual may be a non-conforming and thereby toxic individual to group norm
stabilities. If a strong group dominates an organization and has highest forms of
psychopathy in the behavior, the goal is simply to learn the behavior and join the
group. If nobody in an organization displays psychopathic or coercive behavior, it
could be a reason to start the behavior to build leadership in a new group and
exploit the lack of coerciveness of others, or it could be the result of a psychopath
having entered the building. Whoever is dealing with the first incubation of this
behavior in an organization will have to devise counter measures and a reaction of
the group against it. If the group is strong enough as to impact the highest level of
hierarchy in the organization, the group might even start to communicate the issue
to the official institutional leader of the group and consider counter measures from
a top down perspective. Or the group could isolate the individuals within the
institutional architecture connected to the new member and start to isolateand
counter the individual and new group from this level without the leader knowing.

Who is the prime beneficiary of the behaviours? The company and hence is the
behavior effective for the company or the individual and is the behavior hence
negatively affecting the relative distribution among members without positively
affecting the bottom line? That would be selfish behavior. Fitting the second
definition of toxicity.

What is the impact on the organization? Let’s look at toxicity as defined by the
effect of this behavior towards the overall compliance of organizational members to
the organizational norm culture, – is the behavior fostering this culture or working
against it ? And is the behavior effectively over-proportionally benefiting a single
group against the stability of groups in the company?
The first fact is that coercive behavior typically works. If an individual or group is not
banned by being coercive, then it is de facto a dominating strategy in most cases.
Learning the traits and applying them effectively leads to higher effectiveness if the
level of coercion and its visibility is proper set. It is an unfair advantage. This comes
from the ability to manipulate. With manipulation and effectiveness comes early
reward which can be used to change belief systems and personas, and inviting
adoption and imitation. The change in perception makes the behavior be perceived
as even more attractive and dominant and it will likely crowd out other behaviours.
This goes all back to the fight over death metaphor. No matter how kind, well-
ethical and smart you are, when someone punches you in the face strong enough,
you either fall or start to bleed. And it is hard to remain dominant and smart if you
are bleeding or passed out. The only winning reaction against a slowly establishing
and persisting culture of psychopathy is to throw it out of the organization, leave the
organization or isolate the rest of the organization as to throw the group out
without throwing it out and having it move on to seek a more fruitful ground. That
brings another dynamic into play: psychopathic behavior and strong coercion if it
does not work automatically will vanish.
The impact of organization hence depends on the reactivity of the organization
towards the behavior. It nothing is done against it, and it is not banned from the
organization, it will likely grow in power and overtake the culture. If it becomes
successful enough, it will reveal that it is an exclusive culture. Anyone that is not part
of the core group exhibiting the strongest behavior will be entirely excluded from
the rents of the leading group and will be discriminated against. Coercion is
discriminating and no organization will survive if everyone becomes coercive to a
high level.
An example where coerciveness is part of the culture and includes discrimintation is
banking. Having psychopathic forms of behavior in an investment banking unit may
to some extent be desired – lead culture defined by the management – and the
discrimination against the inferior group – adiminstrative staff – may be calculated
as to keep operational costs low by making it clear that admin people do not
deserve the benefits and priviledges of the other group.
An example where this entirely fails could be in a small tech startup with very high
skilled employees. If the company started on a cooperative culture and suddenly
some coercive individuals will take the power, the highly qualified individuals will
simply choose to leave and get another job. Ending the company life.

But let’s now look at the tactics.

A. Bullying
repetive, enduring, escalating behavior with clear intent and power disparity.
Intent can include threat to professional status by using useless opinions and
dominance to challenge opinions, public humiliation, and unfounded accusations
such as regarding lack of effort or competence or intimidation.
Intent to threaten personal standing: undermining integrity, sarcasm, inappropriate
jokes about the target, persisetent teasing, name calling, insults, intimidation.
Intent to isolate includes preventing access to opportunities, physical or social
isolation, withholding necessary information, keeping someone out of the loop of
his workstream and ignoring and excluding him from social gatherings, meetings
and e-Mail trails.
Overwork to set up to fail: creating undue pressure, impossible deadlines,
unnecessary disruptions.
Destabilization:
Tactics
Ice out and silencing out. Staring, glaring and nonverbal
Aggression
Declaring insubordination for failing Uncontrollable mood swings in Unjustly disqualifying or discouting
to following arbitrary commands personal meetings others opinions, thoughts and
feelings
Discrediting work or downplaying Harshly and constantly criticizing that Destructive rumors
work standards are not met
False accusations on errors Made-up rules and death by over
regulation
Sabotaging the work of others
Assigned undesirable work
as punishment

A. Manipulation

Psychopathy
Public humiliation and bullying
Skill: Easily mixes lies and truth in
conversations
Tactic: Encourages others to tormet,
alienate, harass or humiliate
Tactic: Does not acknowledge
misjudgement or errors
Tactic: Uses single person meetings to
reveal different behaviours
Malicious spreading of lies
Skill: Rapid shift between emotions
from positive and negative to install
dominance.
Tactic: Take credits for others work
and shift blame on inferiors
Tactic: Threatens with job loss or
disciplinary action
Tactic: Does not provide adequate
information, context or training for a
task or project
Devoid of guilt and remorse
Skill: Isolation of persons from
resources such as people, positions,
information, meetings
Tactic: Steals and sabotages work of
others
Tactic: Sets unachieveable
expectations and sets up for failure
Tactic: Invades personal privacy and
disrespects others

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_manipulation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political)
 ➢ Game Theory => Framing of the power situation as to enforce a rational
outcome

8.2.4. Organizations with high level of terror

Moving from coercion to psychopathy that works against organizations. The overall
understanding of coercion in this book and in the context of organizations is that it
is a means of power and enforcing activity. Independent from the motivation for
using it or its impact.
But what happens or is the case when coercion stops being a tool of the
organization and becomes a tool of the individual using it to further its own
interests against those of the organization? This is what we will refer to as terror.
The actors: This will become a reality when an individual is truly psychopathic and
strongly oriented only on its self interests and against that of the organization,
without anyone higher in the hierarchy keeping the individual in check. The entire
way the individual will use coercion within the organization will differ and the overall
level of “toxicity” or coercion will become unsusually high compared to anyone
using it as a tool for effective leadership. Moving from mere coercion to what is
labeled “terror” and what we will define as highly coercive behavior that is not kept
in check due to either fear or completely absence of monitoring and monitoring by
those that are supposed to keep it in balance.
The key impact of terror is different from coercion. Terror clearly reduces the
effectiveness and productivity of those suffering from it and the principles that are
meant to keep people in check with organizational goals – such as the fear of losing
income and a career – do no longer work for the organization at its best.
The difference between a highly coercive organization and an organization that
exhibits terror in its ranks is that leaving a coercive organization is a choice against
the style of leadership. Staying at an organization where you are confronted with
terror and there is no way to ending the reign of the group or individual that inflicts
terror is likely the most stupid decision an individual – even a “pawn” – can make in
his life.

The five phase model that psychopaths use to climb the ladder
I think the behavior more fits into a psychopathic pettern and is instrumental and
hence not “pathic”. Babiak and Hare explore the psychopath and how he attempts to
manipulate the work environment to get a promotion and how their behavior relates
to leadership.

The five phase model works as follows:

1. Entry: The psychopath will use highly developed social skills and charm to
obtain employment into an organization. In this stage, it is difficult to spot
anything indicative of psychopathic behavior. He may appear as helpful and
benevolent and effective. This is where concealing aggressive intentions and
behavior that is an ongoing quest is coming to display in the social capability.
 2. Assessment: The psychopath will weigh up every individual in the company
and classify into pawns (no or only some influence and easily manipulated)
and patrons (formal power and can be used to protect against attacks). This is
where the psychopath needs a strong ability in detecting psychological
vulnerabilities of their victims to determine which tactics will be most
effective.
3. Manipulation: They will start to create “psychopathic fiction” where positive
information about themselves and negative disinformation about others is
created. Everyone and his role will be groomed and utilized to fit into the
psychopath agenda.
4. Confronation: If confronted, the psychopaths will use character assassination
to maintain their agenda. This is used to trigger an individual either as a pawn
or as a patron.
5. Ascension: Finally, the psychopaths quest for power will be discarded and the
former patron will be abandoned as the individual takes over the position of
power and prestrige from anyone that once supported them.
Somehow this all reminds of the chess game and other parts of this book. And that
is intentional. We are writing in the eyes of such an individual. Phase 3 to 5 requires
a sufficient level of ruthlessness to have no remorse or qualm about destroying or
harming the victims.

Secresy and dynamic change:

We talked about the life cycle of changes in a company in the chapter on groups.
Belbins model of transition. The fact is: these transitions are emotional and the
stages individuals go through reflect the stress and discomfort they feel when re-
wiring themselves to fit the new situation. This change dynamic that is highly
emotional is easily used by zero-emotion sociopaths that can steer more calmly and
confidently and focus on bullying and preventing others from succeeding at the
change mission. At the same time, they can use secrecy and ill-running
communication processes even better to cause problems by under-providing
information, feeding disinformation to sabotage, and having the problem that
needed to be addressed move away quickly at the velocity of change.

Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terror

LIPT covers actions and their effects on mobbing victims.
• Self-Expression and communication: victim is interrupted, criticized or yelled
at.
• Social contacts: Others are forbidden to talk to the victim or the image is
created that will have others refrain from contact by social norms.
• Personal reputation: unfounded rumors are circulated to either also have an
impact on social contacts or frame the perception on other means and harm
the victim.
 • Occupational situation and quality of life: individual is given meaningless jobs
or tasks or forced to enter situations that all serve the purpose of lowering
the self-esteem.
• Physical health: threats of physical violence, damage to the workplace or
sexual harassment

Dealing with psychopaths in organizations

Spotting psychopaths can be hard. Not everyone is as open and blunt as to resort to
bullying behavior in certain situations. Some chose not to reveal and only work in
the dark. This is why the easiest way to learn about them is to befriend the obvious
pawns and set them as the foundation of trust networks. And to focus to having
superficial relationships with all key individuals in your reach to understand political
relationships among them. Getting people to talk about their successes and
achievements, their setbacks and failures typically can be used to pinpoint key
effectuators of these successes and failures to get an understanding of who is
playing with whom. If no negative moment collects about a particular person but a
person clearly negatively impacted someones career, it might be a very skilled
psychopath. Similar to a serial bully, the psychopath is likely to have a consistent
agenda towards certain individuals.
(1) Become boring: never really show any particular sign of strength and passion
that could be used. Just be too boring to warrant analysis and show any sign that
the psychopath could learn anything from your or get any enjoyment from working
with you.
(2) Remain calm: Never even think about engaging with a fight. Just stay passion
less and unaffected.
(3) Wear a poker face: Psychopaths look at any sign of self-revealing behavior that
can be used to craft a strategy of manipulation. The first aspect is to not reveal
anything that matters to you to not allow them to spot your weaknesses. And to
built strategic vulnerabilities that the psychopath wants to use against you in a key
moment. Be prepared and expect the attempted exploit and break the crafted image
of vulnerability in the right moment as to make him lose his temper and realise his
radar didn’t work. The mis-judgement will raise questions in his ability, the erratic
behavior that does not align with his image and predictions about you make you
“hard to handle” and if you are good you can even use it to compromise his
positions. Depending on the network and power of the psychopath, you can also
use very weird revealings such as that you have various fetishes, that you are a
criminal. Create a story that is so awkward that communicating it would make the
psychopath come off as insane and frame it in a way as to be plausible. If the
psychopath truly believes in the idiotic things, chances are he will try to subtly hint
others at this weakness and it will make their behavior come off as odd.
(4) Be unreliable to the agenda of the psychopath: Build an image in front of
them that projects that you will fail any assignment and agenda item of the
psychopath. If working with you and using you leads to a lost agenda item, the
psychopath will stay distant. Make sure this image is crafted only for the psychopath
and does not communicate to others and eventually swear in others to not defend
you or talk about you in front of the psychopath. This goes of course hand in hand
with trying to impress him, be charming and being taking sides of the sociopath:
that means, when he talks to you alone, of course.
(5) Build a network to work against the psychopathic narrative: Understand who
the psychopath uses to create a negative image about you to build a stronger public
image that reflects who you really are as to defend yourself against his framing of
you. Also use the authenticity and trust generated to make the aggressive behavior
visible to your network and to start framing the image of the psychopath.
(6) Start framing the psychopath with your network: If you are in a very good
standing with other network members, align with them to make comments about
your experience with the psychopath in random occasions in a jokeful manner when
third parties that are also victims of the psychopath, but are above his position can
hear it. Play down the interpretation but acknowledge the joke as to represent a fact.
This will make people re-consider their view. Just make people overhear it and don’t
openly address the issue.
As the psychopath will be typically regarded as valuable contributor, the goal is to
make visible the negative impact on group performance that translates into the
group performance drain being substantially larger than the perceived value gained
from the psychopath. This is likely the strongest argument and will be strong given
that a single individual focused on others perform low will perform lower than
possible himself. The combination makes a strong case for getting rid of the
psychopath.

8.5. Organizational Politics

We want to define organizational politics as that part of organizations that can not
be regulated using incentives and that require humans to get involved in politics.

Context of Organizational Politics

We will look at this depending on needs of organization to function optimally.

Dimensions of orchestrating activity within an organization:

Assertiveness vs. Smooth Cooperation: In the ideal case, an organization achieves
the highest level of productivity and efficiency by two simple features. (1)
subordinates try to and succeed at reading their supervisers goals and targets and
adapt the best strategy by themselves, thereby making the need of assertiveness
completely superfluous. (2) Groups do form but only focus on (a) helping members
of groups better understand how they can be effective in their institutionals roles,
thereby groups act as mentors and cooperative growth environments in the best
interest of the organization, and (b) reflecting inefficiencies of the institutional set up
and discuss improvements of it. As soon as (2) stops to work this way and the focus
shifts to competition over the distribution of beneifts and (1) no longer works by
itself, the organization will have to increase the level of assertiveness.
Assertive vs. Domineering: Once assertiveness becomes a requirement and levels are
increased, individuals will start to lack the ability to have a good dominance and
level of assertiveness. Arrogance and domineering will become last resorts of
enforcing that people follow orders and act in the best interest.

Domineering vs. Terrorizing: With an increasing use of domineering and an

adaptation of that practice as part of the culture, the overall cooperation level is
reduced and domineering-capable groups will start to take what there is to take,
which – in a non cooperative organization – is the reap of rewards and benefits by
domineering and coercion. With levels of coercion rising and cooperative forms of
group and organizational supervision, the doors stand open for coercive
psychopaths and blenders and will increase the level of terror.

Dimensions of orchestrating activity within an organization:

Fit over form: Fit over form focuses on having people self-actualize in what they do
in an environment where they enjoy being in and where they are given the
responsibilities and freedoms to excel at what they do. The form emerges under
people fitting into the organization.
Fit in form: Once this magic best case is no longer reached, the idea is to help
people fit into their form or position. Motivational theory sets in here. And the
stabilized forms and ways of doing things require people to adapt. But the
assumption still is that these people want to adapt and fit into the forms, and
thereby perpetuate the relevance of the form or slowly transcending and changing
the forms.
Fit by form: Now form has become fully stabilized and people have to fit the form if
they like it or not, if people exist that fit the form or not. Everyone gets put into a
form and then coerced in performing under the form. When neither fit over form or
fit in form still fit the individual, coercion and the abuse of the individuals fear of
losing the position trumps motivational and educational aspects. “Training on the
job” or “in the position” becomes the mantra. Either the individual has been mis-
titled and worked for a few years at the company, its visibility as expert in the
workplace by its title does no longer fit its expertise. Or the individual just has over-
specialized and there is no other employer in the area that would hire him and the
individual does not want to move its family elsewhere. Once an individual realizes
there is no fit and it has no option to leave, the game all focuses on keeping the
individual aligned either by higher forms of manipulation – without the incentivizing
benefits provided in fit in form – or by direct threats, domineering and coercion.

Sources of Power Theory

Within these two frameworks of dimensions, the sources of power can be clearly
defined by different aspects depending on the exact configuration of the
organization and the teams that are to be “overpowered”.
For example, it is clear that a highly manipulative and terroristic leader in a smoothly
cooperating environment where people fit over the form, this leader will have
absolutely no power attributed to him that comes from his leadership. It boilts down
to how tight the individual sits in his position, how little his superiors care about his
lack of fit and how coercive and manipulative the individual is. So from this
background, let’s look at the sources of power that business schools teach, an
extended version of French and Ravens Five forms of power.. IT becomes very clear
that these sources of power without context are quite empty and useless.

Sources of Power Theory

1 Expert power: If you have the ability, training and experience to perform better than
another person, then they are likely to accept what you say. Expert power draws its
power from the positive impact on self-efficacy and learning of those that adhere to
it. By being an expert that is hardly copied and by being sufficient expert in adjacent
areas as to guide and teach others is a strong asset in organizations and groups
focused on a specific goal. The expert always have to remain a bit more expert than
those in whose eyes he is the expert. It is kind of like having a carrot in front of the
horse that likes to learn.
2 Execution power: Sometimes someone doesn’t appear to have all the traits of the
other powers, but he just gets things done and his group is hailed for it. This is another
form of expert power, but not something that can be learned but used to be perceived
as a valuable member of the organization. Those leaders invite the imitation of their
behavior and skills to manage times and deliver results that matter at the right amount
of effort. Strong execution power and getting things done fast also allows individuals
to choose the next topic of interest and this selection of impactful and powerful topics
and problems to solve mixes expert and execution power. If all this is combined with
solid conceptual and reflection skills, there is almost no way that anyone will compete.
Combining execution excellence with energy and health management can lead to
long-term execution that is hardly rivalled, too.
3 Reward power: This source of power comes from the belief of the follower that his
effort and ability is at some point seen and rewarded by the individual observing him
and having the power to reward him. This requires the leader to display the credible
ability to distribute the benefit if earned, to make just decisions based on a metric that
those wanting to perform can see, that the individual is indeed observing them or that
their success can be seen and evaluated and that the promise will some day become
true. Thie relates to the expectancy theory of motivation, where the personas try to
understand if the expected benefit (actual benefit and probability of receiving it given
all relevant information) is larger than the effort and its implicit pain needed. By
keeping the baseline very high and having a high performing team overall, the set of
benefits overall must be enough for all to accept the normal state. Individuals then
can be pushed to even higher levels of performance and effort by having a huge
enough benefit available for distribution. Any leader that is unable to sell over a longer
period that it is capable and willing to give the extra carrot to those that do perform
out of the standard range is vital to this sort of power. If you are not an expert and do
not have anything extra to give to someone, you are likely having a first motivation
problem. Rewards can include bonuses, salary increases, promotions, introductions to
others (network power), more information rights, more responsibility, etc. Being able
to pace the speed at which benefits are granted and keeping people slowly attaining
more while still keeping growth very low as to keep the power as gatekeeper to
rewards is a strong principle that can go a long way in keeping top performers aligned.
A final aspect of the reward leadership is that people feel and understand that giving
a reward requires the reward powered individual to take a step back somewhere else.
While this must not always be true, creating this image creates a higher level of
legitimacy of the reward power-ed person and makes asking for more harder. It hence
aligns expectations for rewards a bit better, something that makes it easier to slow
the rewarding process. Being able to explain the world in gives and takes and making
the takes from others or himself visible and plausible to the one asking for the reward
is what strengthens the acceptance of this form of power.
4 Referent power: Even when you are not an expert and there is nothing extra you
can give, being part of your group and having you as a nice and cool individual as a
superior can be rewarding in itself. The level of constant frustration eventually
experienced under other leaders can be so high that the mere leadership style is
considered refreshing and interesting. There are many possible sources of this referent
power. Either the individual is highly inspirational and charismatic and inspires to work
under him. Or the individual is very human in providing micro beneifts such as leaving
work early, not complying with the dress code, or giving some extra freedom beyond
what the organization would normally tolerate. Or the individual is not coercive to its
subordinates, but displays very high forms of assertiveness and dominance in third
parties. Not necessarily an “executor”, but inspiring by his ability to impress others
and also something the is likely imitated and emulated to learn the skills. As long as
the twists in manipulating others remain strong and the behavior can be observed
and studied, the appeal of such behavior remains. Nothing is less motivational than
an overall powerful individual that loses all his fights against superiors or third parties.
Other factors that may play a role is integrity, overall justice applied in distribution
decisions, fairness in treating good and bad behavior and having balance and skill in
finding the right tone in any direction when it comes to coercion or reward
distribution. In addition, referent power is associated with the ability to spot in groups
and associating with the right people, having a “yes” and “getting things done”
attitude. Not being a naysayer or block to others that should not be blocked is a
mechanism that works for referent power.
5 Connection power: The individual does not necessarily have any of the other
powers, but he is so connected as to be a gatekeeper on almost all subjects. One word
by him to someone else can make or break a career, can make or break the
organizations goals look closer.
6 Information power: nothing weakens as much as ignorance. We can see in
organisations that there are often disputes about access to information. This is often
presented as ``need to know'' you may only access the information that you need to
complete your narrowly dened job. Organisations that are functionally structured into
departments of marketing, research and development, production and so on, often
ensure that the sta within a de-partment are restricted to know only the information
that they need for their department to function. This ensures that the people whohave
access to all of the information in all of the departments, can almost always win the
arguments about strategy and structure.
7 Legitimate power: this source of power depends on the belief that the leader can
legitimately request conformance to their instructions. This is mostly related with
power by appointment – a project lead, a group head, a supervisor position or coach
position, thought leaders on particular topics -, or by group affiliation – being in the
in group on the relevant subject where on is a thought leader and being referred to
as an expert there if one is one or not can be a legitimacy power source.
The legitimacy creates power because those that experience it believe that the power
is rightly so possesses and used in the amount that the legitimacy implies. When we
talked about cooperative environments with little assertiveness, this comes from high
forms of perceived legitimacy of everyone in his position and everyone accepting the
legitimacy of others being in another position, as such that everyone feels the
legitimacy and pride in his own position.
Legitimate power clearly overlaps very much onto coercive power. The person who is
being overpowered needs to believe that the other person has the legal right to
punish them or to withhold rewards. This source of power is not just about the legal
framework of the organisation and society. Just imagine what it would be like working
with a boss who you had successfully taken to court to prevent some of their actions,
or where you had threatened to take them to court when it was clear that you had the
law on your side.
Another aspect of legitimate power is that it should be framed and used as if the
legitimacy has been earned. This is why resumes and former career steps can be a
prerequisite, both from the legal and defensibility of the power source perspective. If
someone has earned his position by cheating or lying, the individual loses the image
of legitimacy and will possibly be challenged more easily.
8 Coercive power: this is the power to make others conform to interests, other than
the ones that they would personally have chosen, because they believe that the
person can punish them if they do not conform. Coercive power, as we discussed also
in othe parts, uses the constant punishment to lower the feeling of deservance and
uses even larger forms of punishments and the threat thereof to ensure conformance.
The big risk of using coercion and threats is to use them in a way as to not become
unauthentic. A otherwise non-coercive individual can be regarded weaker and less
likely to react coercively by simply not being considered a coercive person. This can
even increase the resistance and irrational counter-aggression to coercion if the victim
of the coercion did truly not expect it and sees in the rare application of it against him
an overly unjust and laissez faire act. This can destroy the overall effect and increases
escalation or leaving of the individual. So despite coercion being a strong means of
power if applied consistently and successfully, coercion may also be a hard skill to
learn to perform it in the right way. Especially when it is not the norm.

Example application for those wishing to work against power

Almost all attacks on institutional power require a solid foundation of building group
power. This is more likely defined by the individuals powers itself and how they
address the needs of possible group members. But of course, ultimately, the strategy
focuses on de-legitimizing all sources of power of the person in power one by one
and using the group as a lever to deconstruct the image of power. The power that
most likely is not at the disposal of any group member is that of reward. At the same
time, the deconstruction of reward power can be easily done by altering the
perception of the person in power on those that he can reward. By understanding the
key observations that the individual uses to assess who will be rewarded and by
triggering events of disobedience that the group members do not perceive as such
and by setting the group up to fail in the eyes of the one in power, the decision on
rewards by the person in power will be perceived as unjust und anfair, destroying both
legitimacy and the effect of reward power. By connecting the information resources
of the group and those around, the information power monopoly can be brought
down. With those dynamics in place, the expert power becomes less relevant and
eventually even folds, the overall effect of a failing reward system and strong group
manipulation can sabotage execution. The initial reaction to all those losses in power
will be a change in coercion in the end, which will build stronger isolation of the
person in power. With more coercion and people also being networked, the
weakening position of the individual will become visible in the organization and
invites others to attempt stronger attacks. This will reduce the network power. The
expert power can be saved by increasing the expert power of those that are experts,
be they experts in the friendly group or the hostile group. By isolating networks of
experts from the attacker, the lower performing specialists will likely re-think their
cooperation with the attacking group.

Example application for those in power defending against

aggressors
With all that said, it is clear that a solid combination of these sources of power yields
better results overall. And adapting the weights on how these sources are factored in
the power image of an individual of an organization must both underline his actual
ability to exert this power and the organizational culture and style. With our
dismantling strategy above we can also cleary see that power has to be insulated
against faults in the reward system. The strongest mechanism to protect against a
failing reward system is to refocus the networking strategy on the individuals in the
sabotaging group to elicit pains and problems and building a stronger bond and by
re-thinking the reward mechanisms that govern the system. Using the network power
to also discret the individual in the wider company network can be used to lower the
initial impact and finding the best victim to whom to pitch the individual as a possible
hire Ultimately, the goal is to identify the source of sabotage quickly and focus all
coercive force on the individual and setting the individual up for a case for dismissal
or transferal.

Morgans 14 sources of Power theory and leadership style

Control of scarce resources: when, earlier in this chapter, we wrote about
organisational structures having conflict designed into them as people fought for
promotion and scarce resources, we were anticipating the view that if you control
scarce resources then this gives you power.You are in a position to use coercive and
reward power, as described by French and Raven, by withholding or providing
resources.
The use of organisational structure, rules, regulations and procedures: the
structure of an organisation determines how much power each post in the structure
has; thus, if you have the power to restructure the organisation, whether it is the whole
organisation or just a department or section, then you can change who has power
and how much. Splitting a department into two separate departments will reduce the
power of the existing head of the department. There will be fewer resources under the
control of the former head of the department, fewer employees and fewer areas of
strategy for which they are responsible. As organisations have both formal structure
and cultures, and informal ones that develop as the organisation evolves, changes and
responds to the changing environment, we can see that to enforce the formal
structure and systems may cause the organisation to become dysfunctional. People
may insist that the formal systems must be used, as a powerful lever against others in
the organisation ``let me have what I want or I will disrupt the organ-isation by
insisting that every formal rule has to be used.'' Trade unions used to use such a
``work-to-rule'', where all work practices were according to the formal rules rather
than the informal practices that had developed, to put pressure on the management.
(Google ``work-to-rule'' for a number of good discussions of how a ``work-to-rule''
can be used as a source of power.) Silvester (2008) shows how the Human Resource
(HR) Department in organisations is often a seat of power as they are responsible for
setting lots of regulations around organisational structure, appointments, behaviour,
rewards and other HR issues.
Control of the decision process: if you have power over what decisions are
made and how they are made, then you have lot of power. The decision-
making structure of an organisation powerfully inuences decision making.
An organisation can be any of the following:
1) Technocracy: where science and rationality determine the best decision.
We are unlikely to ever nd this type of organisation, if only because
individual behaviour in organisations is rarely rational.
2) Autocracy: where a single person or a few people at the top of the
organisation make all of the decisions.
3) Democracy: where every person in the organisation has an equal vote
when decisions are made, and the decisions are accepted if the majority
vote for them
Consensus: where for a decision to be made, everyone has to agree the
vote has to be unanimous. This process of decision making clearly may take
a very long time, and that is unhelpful when a speedy decision is required.
There are a number of modied consensus rules, the strongest of which is
 that everyone agrees with the proposal except the dissenters, who agree
not to resist the decision and to co-operate in its implementation.
Bureaucracy: where rules and regulations are used to make decisions. This
results in an organisation that is rather machine-like, but does mean that
the rules still have to be made to cover all decisions, and there have to be
decisions made about these rules, giving the need for political processes.
-> Agenda Building in Dutton 1988

Resistence to Power and its Elimination

Sources of Resistence:
▪ Differing interests (or values): it is obvious that if the interests of the stakeholders
in a decision situation differ, there will be conflict. One solution can be to resort to
power to resolve the conflict. Another solution is the one discussed under Lewin's
Force Field and Johnson and Scholes' approaches, where the resistance of the
resistors to the proposal is lessened through reducing their interests, reducing their
power or by finding something that can be offered to them to re-duce their
resistance (see log-rolling, earlier in this chapter). The differences in value might be
that one stakeholder's main priority is to maintain the level of employment in the
organisation, whilst for another stakeholder the important priority is to maintain
income levels.
Different theoretical analysis about how to reach shared interests;
understanding and predicting the consequences of any change in an organisation
requires a the-oretical model of how organisations work. There are no generally
agreed theoretical models of organisations that everyone can agree are correct.
Everyone tends to have their own theory of organisations, so there is likely to be
disagreement about the consequences of any change, or the way to cause a change.
Some of these theories will have been developed in the academic literature, but
others will be the way that individuals have come to make sense of what they
observe, based on what they have read and have experienced. These ``personal''
theories are called implicit theories. We have already seen that Lewin believed that
resolving conict by the exertion of overwhelming power simply results in increasing
resistance. If overwhelming power is used to resolve the conict, then the ``losers''
may well remember what happened and look for a future opportunity for revenge.
When we think in terms of organisational culture, and the critical perspective, then
we may want to ask what the ``losers'' will have learnt by being overwhelmed. The
lessons will become part of the organisational culture, and that change in culture
may not be in the long-term interests of the stakeholders who used their
overwhelming power. So, if using overwhelming power may not be a good solution
to conict, what can be done when the conict is based in diering theoretical models?
A humble approach by the proposers that says ``We think we are right, and this is
how we arrived at our proposal'' may help by educating the stakeholders who are
resisting. An additional action that may be of further assistance is to ask the resistors
to explain their thinking and their
Different information held by the stakeholders in the decision situation;
in putting forward a proposal for a decision, the inputs are not only interests and
theories, but also information. There may be conicts that have to be resolved, even
when interests and theories are the same, because the information that is used diers
among the stakeholders. What each stakeholder knows about the organisation is
likely to dier between one stakeholder and another. In a motor assembly plant, the
beliefs, attitudes and experiences of the assembly-line workers are likely to be very
dierent that those of their managers, even if those managers used to be
assemblyline workers. As organisations change their processes, and culture is
constantly evolving and changing, the knowledge of the assembly-line managers is
likely to become increasingly out of date they used to know what it was like to be
an assembly-line worker, but with the passage of time this knowledge becomes
outdated. The solution to this problem of diering knowledge bases is to share the
knowledge. Again, it is dangerous for senior and powerful stakeholders to assume
that they have all the knowledge that they need in order to make a good decision.
Low tolerance for change;
change in an organisation can have a major impact on how people do their jobs,
what jobs they have to do, what skills they have to exercise to do their job and what
power, status and kudos they have. Many people may not like change, and they may
not like the uncertainty that comes with change (remember in Chapter 3 we
discussed how the level of uncertainty avoidance diered not only between
individuals, but also between nations). The consequence is that change may be
resisted just because it is change. Even if we know what the change will mean, we
may resist, because we don't want to change. In addition, there is often uncertainty
around the consequences of change, and thus the beliefs that people have about
what change will mean may also cause them to resist. In Chapter 2, we presented
two mini cases of the response of people to change, and you might benet by re-
reading these cases of how some machinists chose to retire or resign rather than
learn how to use computer controlled machines, and how, in another organisation,
process workers were prepared to risk being sacked rather than to sign up to a
compulsory educational course (even though the course was to be of their own
choosing).
Stakeholders may resist changes that they perceive as harming the
organisation
people will resist change that harms an organisation that they care about. They may
care because the organisation looks after their interests or because they have
developed a sense of belonging, of being a part of the organisation. This alternative
way of thinking about conict, as a result of believing that the proposers of change
do not understand the consequences of their proposed change, suggests that
people can develop a sense of ``ownership'' of the organisation, even a sense of
pride in the organisation of which they are a member
Stakeholders may not accept or trust the reasons that are given for
here the opposing stakeholders do not trust the proposers of change. They may not
trust that the proposers have the appropriate theories and information to get the
analysis correct, or they may not trust the motives of the proposers. A frequent
example would be where there is a proposal to merge two organisations so that
``.the joint organisation will be more competitive.'' Often the opponents will believe
that what the proposal actually means is that duplication will be removed from the
merged organisation to cut costs, and this will lead to unemployment
8.4. Motivation, Volition, Empowerment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation
https://contactzilla.com/blog/5-psychological-theories-motivation-increase-
productivity/

We talked briefly about motivation theories in the context of organizational

behavior. But, of course, the goal is to become better at this than anyone holding a
higher position in the institutional hierarchy. Combining better leadership skills with
the anti-psychopath strategy and the psychopath strategy to anyone in your
institutional unit that might be more inclined to support the higher positions than
your group will ultimately create higher group and – yes – institutional power. Not
being a manager, but a leader, and not being a institutionally focused, but group
focused leader is what makes and breaks the progress in building strong networks
within organizations.

Theory Setup 0 : The context of motivation

Performance enablement theory
1. Capability to perform: Is the individual at all, now or in the long term, capable to
perform well in his function. Not necessarily only the job description, but in the
company culture, institutional setting and group dynamics?
2. Possibility to perform: Is the current situation the individual is placed in – in a
group, team, under a boss, in a setting, given his role as defined – at all able to
provide performance and is the performance he is able to show aligned with
capability and his demands? Or does the system inhibit him from performing well?
3. Willingness to perform: Given capability and possibility, the actual willingness
matters, too.

Dimensions in context of motivation

Motives: Is the reason the individual is part of the organization the reason that is
expected? Does the individual want the job? Does it want to do its job well? Is it here
to reap the rewards of good work? Or has it been forced to be here? Was there a
lack of alternatives? Is the individual locked up in other problems? What is the
motive for being here in the organization? All levels of coercion, force and the likes
will not prevent an individual that came to work only to sabotage the company, or to
sit around and get a salary from doing what it does.
Attitudes: What does the individual think about long-hours? Does it believe in
performance being rewarded? Does it believe in the company vision and the vision
of its own part in the company? What does the individual think about
Valences and Norms:
Motivation: How do motives and attitudes create fit? How does the valences fit in
as such that the individual is motivated to try to perform?
Expectancy of effort: All previous given, is the rational calculation giving the result
that the individual can get what it wants and if it only gets part of it, is the net
present value of what it gets sufficient to motivate the individual?
Volition: Does the individual have the drive to actually set an intent on performing
and starting to act to perform?

Reward systems and their relationship to individuals

Typically, systems are separated into intrinsic reward systems: responsibilities,
challenge, feedback, learning, being part of thte organization, of the groups within
the organization, feeling good and having a good comfortable life.
Extrinsic rewards: Is the payment sufficient? Does the company offer job
security/will the organization prevail and continue to provide the benefit? Will the
individual grow and be promoted?

So the design of such systems has to focus on either side. And take into heart the
dimensions discussed. When designing the reward system and choosing between

Theory Setup 1: Content Theories of Motivation

Maslow's hierarchy:
The hierarchy of needs basically asks how satisfied an individual is on an actual
hierarchy as to satisfy the incentive design on the level that the organization works
on it. The lower the level on which an individual is unsatisfied, the simpler the means
of motivation. At the lowest level, paying enough salary as to make a living: having a
roof on the head and being able to afford food is sufficient.

The theor
knowing who is wanting at which level allows you to supply needs and make caring
promises

Herzberg's Theory Motivators

Herzberg acknowledges that two things have to be treated separately: motivating
factors and hygiene factors. Hygiene factors are said to not really motivate, but if they
are absent, they are highly dismotivating and even disengaging. The idea is that
hygiene factors are “sufficient is enough” factors which only motivate to a level of
sufficiency and then lose all their motivational effects. Whereas motivational factors
continuously increase – although in diminishing returns – the level of motivation.

Herzberg talks about the following motivational factors.

Responsibility: Being free to make alternating decisions and working with others
towards a goal.
Advancement: Absence of stagnation. Getting more responsibility, higher salary,
pro-gressing
Growth: Personal Side of Advancement
Achievement: Looking back on a track-record that conveys meaning and success and
at-tributes to condence.
Recognition: Being Ok doing what one does.

Hygiene factors:
Interpersonal relations with peers, subordinates and senior staff
Job security;
Working conditions;
Salary.

The Minimal Viable Institution

When recalling the difference between a spontaneous network and an institution, it is
clear that hygiene factors determine the stability of loyalty towards an institution. An
institution that works well on motivational factors but disacknowledges to satisfy
hygiene factors will at some point lose its employees. So does any group with fairly
risky and hard to see motivational factors in recruiting followers when it is not
institutionalized, but demands the attention of an institution – e.g. 8 hours a day and
the leave of a day job. Minimal viability of the value offer towards any follower has to
be assessed and it is unreasonable to believe either a cult, a social movement or a pre-
incubation start-up or an alliance within a social group will recruit individuals that
commit a large extent of their time towards the common goal of the group if it is
conflicting with hygiene factors and cannot offset any deficiency with a very strong
motivational advantage.

Hygiene in the information society.

Hygiene somehow only works under given factors. An individual without any
attachment to the real world and solely knowing what it can see in front of its eyes, as
presented by an institution or a group, will be more likely to accept the hygiene offer
of the group or institution than someone that is very well aware of the actual way the
world works. Most job security and salary conditions in todays world are entirely
incapable of reaching a level of sufficiency when the individual to be motivated is
aware of the risk of even the most secure jobs and the meaningless size of todays
salaries in the global rat race over sufficient and sustainable wealth levels. In this sense,
hygiene factors do not work really on the individual level any more, but always have
to be understood on a comparable level. Nobody satisfies hygiene factors, but market
factors determine the maximum level of attainable hygiene for every individual.
Striving for more satisfaction on the hygiene level will lead to excessive consumption
of resources and will lower the level of hygiene, which is why many people accept the
best level of hygiene they get and hope to then maximize on motivational factors,
ignoring the lack of hygiene. This is also likely the reason why motivation factors
become more relevant in todays society, because the sheer underperformance of
almost anyone on hygiene factors is so strong that a minor cut in hygiene will not
make much of an understandable difference in hygiene, but lack of motivational
factors make the entire situation dire and depressing.

McClelland:
McClelland thought that we learn needs as we grow up, and that the principal ones
that motivate are the needs for power, achievement and affiliation. Again, these needs
are likely to be met by leaders whose style is Theory Y, participative, employee-
centred and democratic. We could argue that a bureaucracy offers the scope for
motivating staff through promotion that reflects power and achievement and the
possible rise into a circle that is more like oneself. But this is exactly how many
institutions work: they hide the unfavorable elements of a higher status and focus on
creating a feeling that being part of the higher status group would be more satisfying,
while at the same time preventing any such opportunity as to rise to the circle.
Informational control and selective relationship building as in discrimination works a
lot on this level. Excluding others from getting to know the actual state of being in a
specific circle increases the willingness of others to try to be part of the circle, which
creates an opportunity of exploitation.

Theory Setup 2: Process Theories of

Motivation/”Management styles”
Process theories focus on how motivation is being created and how it fades and how
to effectively manage this cycle of hope and disillusionment to keep someone
motivated.

Reinforcement theory
Reinforcement theory uses positive and negative reinforcements to steer towards a
desired behavior and has no problem going into punishment or even extinction
(ignore or threaten) mode.
The idea is to re-act to any visible behavior in a specific way to consistently re-inforce
specific behaviours. Someone performs or behaves well, he gets an extra, a benefit or
a good feeling. If he behaves against it, he gets a frown, not a reward, etc. Both should
be used below excessiveness. But bad reinforcement can be used more often, positive
should be preserved for rare period (intermittence theory) to not become boring.
When people step out of line or even groups start to do, punishment is a more
accurate and more direct response. This can then escalate to the extinction phase
where the behavior of the individual shows no reaction and he is consistently
punished for a longer period.

Operant Conditioning theory (Skinner)

Skinners operant conditioning theory explains how to keep someone interested in an
unattainable piece of suger while experiencing the whip most of the time. The theory
explains how “intermittent rewards” and anchors of achievement are used to very
occasionaly and randomly give something good to someone with the promise of
giving more, while at the same time keeping this good away most of the time. The
mechanics of this is best understood when looking at a gambling addict who keeps
coming back losing his money, because he occasionally experienced a win and dreams
of a big win.
Conditioning to perform well:
- Conditioning of mindsets -> You are an interesting character for loving X.
- Conditioning of performance -> Good Job, the sales increased famously. You are
good at X.
- Conditioning of behavioural patters -> You are always in a good mood and help
others overcome their problems. Distract the individuals focus and make him
underperform on X.
- Conditioning the “intermittence”: Even if you fail to do good at X and hence are not
rewarded, you are talked into believing to again and again hit the Jackpot and get the
benefit for X. Because we all believe in you being good at X and you believe it and
you must be good.

How organizations use intermittent reward theory for their advantage:

This practice is applied everytime someone is consistently not rewarded but told how
valuable he is to the team and that he will be rewarded in the future. Even if someone
gets a larger raise, a large bonus or promotion every once in a while, the overall
mechanism ensures that someone is not getting something every time and hence the
cost of retaining the individual is low. So everyone tells you you are very good at what
you do and this does not stand in line with the level of attention, affection and respect
you get, you are being played using the intermittent reward theory.
What makes this theory very common and dangerous to the individual is that the
receptivity to this tactic can be easily measured. Everytime someone goes into a
negotiation and gets nothing but fancy words and leaves the negotiation without
leaving the organization or threatening to do so by strong underperformance, the
individual has already proven that it operates under this. The individual has a gambling
nature. If the negotiation cannot be won, it is by far better to play it safe and pretend
to be in a good and satisfied position and bargain for more attainable negotiation
goals that can be achieved, the individual will strengthen his perception and
negotiation arm. Because he does not reveal that he is aiming for more, thereby taking
away the risk of him being uncontrollable, while still appearing motivated and still
appearing as asking for what one wants and getting it. If one is aiming high at the
negotiation, does not get what negotiated for and drops cooperation and lowers
motivation and performance, one will prove that one does not adhere to the gambler
psychology, but at the same time one is perceived as a problem candidate that will be
coerced or eventually will leave.

How individuals use intermittent reward theory for their advantage:

The problem child negotiation tactic: On the other side, even if one is not capable of
winning a negotiation, but one has the leverage to use the “problem candidate”
image, this can be leveraged to move to another function or being promoted. The
concept here is to pose very huge demands and be highly assertive that one will need
them met or one will threaten with something. The outcome of such a power
negotiation depends on a few things. First of all, when it comes to a promotion, the
promotion must be available and possible under the current boss. When it is a lateral
move or a promotion above the boss, the network must have been assigned and the
wish to move to another position communicated. And the party that makes the
decision must have already shown active interest or even asked for the transfer. And
at least the asking party must be stronger in position than the current negotiation
opponent and strong enough to commit human resources to the action. The threat
can then lead to the boss proving to HR or any stakeholder involved that a
replacement can be made and the individual is better suited and becomes a sponsor
in order to get the problem individual off his back. Of course, the individual should
have a good standing with HR, know the hiring cycle, the bonus and salary fixing cycle
that enters the next years budgeting. Only if the connections and commitment from
someone else has been elicited before these decisions and the own boss has been
pre-warned about the demands, the escalation during the negotiation would come
off as expectable and something that didn’t just shoot out of the individual. And it
allows the individual too assess the measures taken to support him in his demands.

Bum Rush the Boss tactic: Problem child negotiations do not only work during a first
year or half year interview where they would be regular performance review and
reward provisioning meetings. They also work directly after taking a new job. The
weaker the standing of the boss, the larger the very typical over-selling of the position,
the socially smarter the individual in acquiring relevant information, the easier it is to
threaten quitting again and leading to another potentially long-lasting cycle of
recruitment and a lower respect for the boss from his supervisors for selecting such a
bad ass. If the threat is credible, the arguments are sound and based on the false
premises, this can at least lead to being a prime dog, or most favoured employee and
a stronger position and attention of the supervisor who has to track his problem
employee by keeping his enemy closer. If performance is met, loyalty is proven and
pressure for advancement and remedy remain high and communicated, this can
warrant the boss to search for a possible transfer or at least some warm introductions
too possible future suiters. Such threats can also be a bit more subliminal by
befriending his supervisors or some higher individual in the hierarchy fast and playing
the cards of the higher supervisor and selling it as a benefit to the lower supervisor
and the department.

Excursion on first week on the job problems: Understanding the early move
aggression tactic, the problematic around threatening negotiations and the use of
intermittent rewards as a key tool of organizations creates a clear path to take when
having a new job. When relationship building and political skills are low and/or the fit
for the current position is very high, the optimal strategy is to keep overall
performance and commitment below the peer group to not come off as overly
motivated and ambitious, at the same time delivering faster and more effective to the
supervisor as too still be a prime example to show around – “Look, you colleague
doesn’t stay in long, but he delivers better” (to colleague) or “This guy really doesn’t
seem very motivated, but he is my best executor. He delivers high quality every day,
appears to be relaxed. I think he should be challenged more.” By overperforming on
key metrics, one becomes “shoppable” or marketable. By putting in less effort and
hours, one becomes a problem on group morale. A silent but effective threat when
one remains silent and appears motivated and happy. With this behaviour in mind,
more time remains to sell ones story on fewer items in the right light, instead of solving
too many problems that all can be sold at lower value. And with all this entering a
review or negotiation situation becomes easier to defect and remain on the
“everything fine, but I see some areas of improvement in A,B,C. Should be do this?”
and thereby showing no sign of being susceptible for intermittent reward tatics. Or
one realizes that there is an opportunity to move or threaten and attacks fiercely. And
quits thereafter. With such a strategy, the overall fear that one loses anything if one
loses the job is lower than when more hours and more workstreams give a higher
feeling of being valuable and relevant to the organization. The worst mistake anyone
can make is show above peer-level performance and be a bad politician and
negotiatior. That is almost always opening the door for the intermittent reward tactic
and one is easier targeted as a possible fire and replacement candidate than a less
ambitious peer. And showing high performance while not being rewarded for it makes
on an ideal and idiotic slave. Any attempt to step out of this image will be attacked
with even more fierce attempts of coercion, as the organization has to lose.

Expectancy Theory (Vroom): How likely will my activity

lead to the realization of my goal?
This theory focuses on fostering particular behaviours into people to create the
expectation that this behavior will lead to the result. It structures behavior in the
following axioms.
1. People expect to perform well by putting in more effort. (Effort -> Performance)
2. If people perform well, they will be rewarded. (Performance -> Outcome).
3. If the outcome is sufficiently relevant for the individual (Valence), the individual
will put
in effort.

Example of workaholic culture: A workaholic culture works like this: The image is
created > work hard and get the reward. A few individuals will be highly rewarded
and be the galleons figures that promote the system. The majority will not be
rewarded and their lack of reward will be pinpointed too slight behavioral mishaps
that still need to be corrected. The process does the rest > the next rewarding
session will be in due time. The lack of reward will make individual try even harder
and focus on the forgone reward. Completely ignoring the possible alternative of
getting other forms of rewards and negotiating on more feasible terms. The system
will punish anyone who threatens and goes against the group culture very hard,
giving him even less if he does not comply with the culture. The reward reaping
individuals themselves will be aligned to stay working very hard and being loyal,
because otherwise they are fearing that they will be the ones not rewarded next
time. This will also isolate these individuals.

The discriminatory expectation model: This model is simple in nature. Groups

form their own culture and in some companies that do not use strong behavioural-
based reward systems will have individuals focus on other behavioural goals: being
human, always staying on par with the peer group, forming coalitions with others to
sabotage their superiors, etc. etc. The expectancy theory tries to break these
dynamic forces by focusing on a discriminatory reward system that favors a few and
remind everyone that they first of all want to be treated just: everyone doing the
same amount of work and having the same value add to the company should be
treated equally.
By breaking this expectation and re-focusing it on discriminatory reward systems
gets people to compete against each other on the metrics defined by the
organization.

The actual ideal behavior: The discriminatory system works well in areas where
teams create success and little are so outstandingly over-performing as to make
them a working example. This is why the discriminatory system does not work for
sales. In sales, a goal-oriented reward system is typically used and the behavioural
aspect only enters the dynamic by having those less successful emulate the behavior
of the more successful. The successful themselves will try to hide their true unfair
advantage – a family network, skills in being very manipulative, etc. – and thereby
they start to create a discriminatory expectation model themselves, giving
themselves the unfair advantage and selling a behaviouralist version of their success
to keep others following their footsteps. In engineering, where all engineers have the
same quality and the success cannot be measured, again, things will boil down to a
discriminatory system.
But what if there are truly some A players and some B/C players or other A players
that are less experienced? In this set-up, the actual “ideal behavior” exists and the
emulation of their behavior will be the best strategy. In this context, expectation
theory demands that the organization rewards those provenly better and of high
quality very well and radically reduces rewards for those not fitting this level. This
creates a strong emulation and motivation in the expectation of reaching this level.
This can be used by organizations to steer forces, e.g. by redefining reward sizes to
different groups: sometimes its sales, sometimes its engineering, sometimes its
product development, sometimes its marketing. People will be most attracted by
those that have the highest material benefit over them. And having this information
spill over in the organization. This will align people to emulate and follow these
individuals. Almost no organization rewards all key components that add to the
success the same level of very high rewards. There is always a leading unit that has
the highest benefits and that attracts most rewards and hence attention. Once the
attention shifts, the highest in hierarchy with highest in rewards are losing them,
eventually forcing the best to leave. This will keep the second best in line and likely
good enough motivated for thinking the old past is still valid and they can get there,
too, and allows to re-allocate rewards to a new group. With the behavioural
repertoire of the successor still in the engineering department, the next in line will
likely replace the leaving leader very soon and sufficiently enough. A new hire that
will come at a premium price will set the landmark for all lower-level rats in the
system that now try to emulate his success.

How organizations use this for their advantage:

The goal is always to sort out those that do not show the proper valence and
discriminate them and kick them out of the group, as they will be a problem factor.
The valence must fit the higher reward or the expected reward (highest reward times
probability of getting it + lowest reward and probability of getting it). Those
individuals that are more ambitious and hence may believe they have a higher
probability of getting the big reward will be easier to motivate if the reward is high
enough. The higher the reward expectation overall and the higher the level of
discrimination, the more likely the individual will leave. If the individual has a reward
expectation that is beyond the highest reward, the aim is to keep the highest reward
open end (discretionary and uncapped reward systems) or to flip them soon or not
even get them on board.
If people possess the valence, it is all about setting the ideal behavioral model and
putting a leading contestant into place that almost surely will get the reward. The
individual will be rewarded expecting the reward but also being in fear to be over-
run by a contender, the contenders will put in all their energy to beat the prime
contestant. And this will lead to a fruitful year of rewards when it is about an annual
bonus, or four years of motivation if the reward is a promotion and promotion cycles
are communicated as being “extra long”. The high reward expectation and a delayed
reward period can be countered with a higher base compensation or benefit level
that would provide a loss. As long as the reward is juicy and the waiting and
attempting over and over to get the reward is sufficient, people will accept losing
the reward and stay committed and motivated.
How individuals can use this for their advantage:
The single goal is to understand if the reward is just a decoy and a mechanism to
control motivation or if it is a realistic goal. If it is a realistic goal, the mere goal is to
sabotage the contenders and to manage to perform on the right metrics better
while being focused enough to ignore any other metric that is not measured as to
keep energy levels and overall commitment low. In most cases the mechanism is just
a mechanism and the rewards are a decoy. In this case, the goal is basically accept
that the reward does not exist and play at the lowest possible energy level regarding
goal achievements, focus on learning and leeching as much from the organization as
possible, and focusing on building a network around the reward system to
eventually get a promotion or advantage outside of the reward system. If the system
is aligning individuals very strongly – in banking, for example, people may get
rewards up to half a million at the age of 23 if and hence are very strong motivators
– the ability to step outside of the reward system can be very successful strategies by
refocusing the energy on supporting those on higher positions on things that truly
matter for them and their rewards.

Equity Theory: Cost and benefit analysis

The equity is similar to the expectation theory, but goes into a deeper calculation
into the actual limits of what is being demanded. The theory is based on economic
net present value considerations and articulated very poorly by the original authors.
We will look at it differently.

First of all, there exists moments of assessment. Individuals do not always assess
their situations and expectations and the true costs all the time. This is simply not
feasible and lowers performance and congruence with trying to be goal oriented.
This introduces the concept that individuals use equity theory only in smaller time
windows. And equity theory only works in these moments.
The next step is to understand what equity theory says. It says that the net present
value of being motivated and putting in energy must be higher than in a feasible
alternative situation or organization. What does that mean? The “net” means that
benefits – rewards, enjoyment of being here, etc. – must balance costs or pains. But
not only in the present moment, but over time. This means, even if pain and costs
are larger, if the expectation is that pain and cost will be infrequent or becoming
lower over time, and gains, benefits and rewards will remain higher overall over time
than the costs, this is a good thing. And finally, time structure is important. People
do not stay motivated because they expect a minimal gain in benefits and slowly
decaying pains in 10 years, they will discount the future difference between pain and
benefits into their consideration and will value the net benefit in the future lower.
This is quite complex. This means: for any future event to be meaningful, the net
benefit must be substantially large. Since large current pain would make the
individual leave, the lowering of pain cannot attribute for substantial long-distance
net benefit. So the possible gross benefit of staying at the job, e.g. for 10 or 20 years,
must be substantial: job security, pay increase, promotions, etc.
Secondly, the pain at the moment must be bearable and understood as limited in
time. Nobody will accept a very very high short term pain. Nobody will accept a long
term pain. If there are clear alternatives to it that are lower in pain. Since everybody
has to work for 8 hours, the pain of 8 hour work will be counted as almost zero. The
pain of more than 8 hours will be considered depending on individual preferences.
The pain of being bullied will be and the pain of having a terrible culture will be. Etc.
Next, soft benefits such as learning and perceived advancement will vanish over
time. The advancement and learning feeling and benefit will re-occur after every
promotion. But other from that, such benefits die down, although they can have a
substantial impact on the short term benefit as perceived by the individual. This is as
subjective as the levels of pain described earlier.
Because pain and such short term benefits are valued very differently, almost no
organization manages to manage the effect appropriately. Equity theory is powerful
in this respect as it acknowledges that individuals will likely endure a shorter period
of lowered benefit – e.g. no more learning, but also no salary or position increase to
counter-balance this loss in benefit – if their overall outlook is good – expection
sizable salary or position increases in the expectable near term.
When the equity theory leads to a negative field, the motivation may still be the
hope for a beter future and the loss aversion or the cost of job transition may make
the net present value of accepting the negative Outlook better than an alternative.
This is why keeping unhappy people busy works. Or keeping their self-confidence
low as to not expect to make a profitable transition to a better net present value
employment or organizational membership, or to make it probabilistically less likely
as to lower the net present value of the alternative.
But, of course, the analysis can be so bad for the current position – and it should be
in an aggressive and economically sound organization – that the individual is
actually considering that an alternative employment would make them better off.
Which is the moment when all motivation is gone and the individual will rather just
function – under the expectation theory – than being motivated under equity theory.

This moment is now vital for the final dimension of this theory. We said people only
evaluate in time windows and not consistently. They will likely do so regularly in for
example a 1 year basis, or a six months basis. Less likely in a weekly or monthly basis.
But that is the scheduled based part. The other part is a moment of evaluation based
on excessive pain or appart and substantially low net present value compared to
alternatives. The art of companies or organizations to manage this evaluation period
is either to re-shape the expectations of both benefits/rewards and pain to motivate
a new net present value calculation that makes the company attractive again – the
intermittent reward theory sets in – or to attack the expectation from alternatives as
to increase the relative net present value of the current situation – by over-working
the individual, inciting fear of loss of job and hence loss of being out of control and
destroying the self-confidence to obtain alternatives, etc. – or to simply get the
individual out of the evaluation zone, either by the same methods as before or by a
short-term positive assignment.
How companies use this for their advantage:
Every were assigned a very cool project when you felt very dismotivated? Or
someone offered you a supposedly valuable training when you were rejected a
promotion? Or someone introduced you to someone that might offer you
something great in the near time if you wait a bit and stay motivated? This is not
only an intermittent reward scenario, but also an attempt to re-consider the equity
value of your employment and motivation. Anyone offering you to stay home for a
day? Take a deserved vacation for being such a great value add to the team or
project? If these things happen regularly and because you are being favoured, all
good. If that is not the case, this an equity theory-based approach to lowering your
pain and make you survive the moment of considering your motivation.
………………..

Keeping the belance and understanding the intrinsic desire of someone to accept
and run on pain without becoming too disconnected with the organization or group
is what this theory is all about.
Other than that, the theory uses a simple cost benefit analysis that resembles a net
present value or a bond payout function: lots of small portions of pain over a period
of time will lead to a larger reward at the end.
The inputs are typically: effort, stress, initiative, risk of fatigue, injury, burnout, non-
compliant behavior and its risk of being fired or charged legally, and the acceptance
of a specific level of control of others.
The output focuses typically on money, acceptance, a handshake, satisfaction, growth,
social reward, security, power, or status.
An individual will typically take the task and reward as binding promise and will assess
its own capabilities and ability to eliminate the typical cost factors against others
which will help the individual the come up with a different payout structure. The less
stressfull and burning out a task is to the individual compared to othes, the higher its
net payout of the situation will be. Getting this right allows the person offering the
“game” to assess the limits of an individual and its loyalty. And, of course, the task of
the individual proposing the “situation” is to focus on the rewards while moving
around the probability of the reward and increasing the length of the “game”, as such
that the unkept promise of reward will be deferred as much as possible, and play
down the costs of the reward. If the cost is sufficiently higher, the blame is at the
person accepting the game and will reduce the retaliation, because the misjudgement
is the players fault. If the individual is not performing and the costs are downplayed,
it is very easy to manipulate the individual in accepting its fate, because talking about
the actual cost can be used to play it down again and blame the individual taking the
task.

Example:
The superior drops a line such as “We are looking for a promotion next year, and
given you are doing well in the following projects, I may consider you capable of
advancement.”
This will lead the individual to start weighting the cost of performing well – extra
work and effort and being disloyal to peers – for the benefit of promotion. The
individual will be obsessed about probabilities of success, comparing itself to its
peers, and will create a plan to walk an extra mile every day to outperform. Little
does the individual understand that it is being hustled and tricked. If ready for a
promotion, the individual likely will have been loyal, built leverage and pull a trigger
against the superior, building stronger relationships with peers and eventually being
able to sabotage the superior. But by ignoring all this and being diverted by the “big
dream”, the individual loses all its power against the superior and will likely never be
promoted. Unless someone else is even more dangerous to the supervisor and
someone needs to be promoted, and an external individual on the level they are
looking for is likely to be more dangerous for the superior.

Summary: Once someone gives you a speech about what you have to expect, you
are already completely assessed and deemed someone that is no challenge to the
decision maker. You are to prove your loyalty in this way or lose it. It is not a promise
of promotion, but a threat of disloyalty. The game looks different if the promise
includes an active tactical play against others. But more often than not, if someone
communicates expectations, chances are he takes his expectations on your behavior
more serious than you take your own expectations.

Humiliation
Remember the equity theory and the fishy reductions of pain to keep you away from
thinking about your bad situation? What if you are threatened with even more pain if
you continue to be unmotivated? That doesn’t fit the equity theory? Maybe not from
a rational view where you have the option to leave. But a boss that doesn’t want to
relieve your pain will simply inflict more pain or – more common – withdraws your
benefits and hence reduces your net present value deliberately? He/she just forced
you to reveal that you are not able to leave. That has two effects. First of all, after the
punishment is over, you will think you are better off again and think twice on getting
into this situation again. And the boss knows exactly that you have absolutely no
leverage to complain and demand anything better. This is not intermittent reward
theory, this is NPV used against you to humiliate you and show you that you are
dependent and you should be happy to have the rewards you were offered in the first
place. Selling you that you just didn’t get the reward – intermittence – because you
were so demotivated or rebelling is the same theory at work. Revising your
expectations that you will likely never get promoted or only in years back to what you
thought? Same. You basically lost all games and motivational theory doesn’t apply to
you any more. You are now in the realm of humiliation theory. The things that works
best on everyone that is dependent on the job and chose to demand more. Most
bosses that do not want to get rid of an employee will only use humiliation theory for
a while until they switch back to motivational theories to get you working harder. But
soon as you show a first sign of rebelling again, you are back to humiliation. And an
increasing level of coercion and threats of losing your position overall. This is
motivation by fear and lack of alternative. Something that happens to everyone that
overspecializes, is too comfortable with his real estate purchase in an area where
nobody else lives. A reason why good paying companies that operate from nowhere
are most likely to have highly aligned and managerial cultures. Anyone defecting and
sufficiently well-off before to buy a house has a lock-in to the company that demands
highest levels of loyalty and motivation no matter what.
But it becomes worse when humiliation becomes the common practice and an
individual just doesn’t manage to leave the organization. This is the toxic environment
that in that case can even be perfectly reasonable for a company to use if employees
are completely dependend and subservant to the company demands.
There truly is no real reaction to humiliation but to be simply better than the person
humiliating and using all political skill to get the individual out of the picture or
organization.
Goal Setting Theory
The theory says: the more difficult the goal, the better the performance, unless the
goal is seen as impossible. The idea here is to appeal to the challenge and growth
opportunity of the goal and divert attention from other problems that otherwise
occupy the individual in his bored workdays.
The goal setting theory then plugs into the intermittent reward theory. If someone
can be distracted from his core concerns by giving him a challenging goal, he can be
distracted again and again and is easier to manage. Every loss of attention of the issue
and focus on the goal can then be used to discredit the voicing of lack of motivation
or frustration and demands following it. Claiming – implicitly – that the pain can not
have been that astute if the individual was happy doing a challenging job. The
reaction of course is to ignore the positive challenge – still doing it – in the context
of voicing concerns and problems.
But sometimes, from the management view, giving a little push and challenge can
align people with their true belief that what they do is valuable and that they enjoy
working at the company or being part of the organization.
Combining this with reinforcement theory and congratulating and commenting on
the positive results generated, the individual can feel appreciated and believes to be
liked. This belief will have the individual mis-read clear signs of disinterest for a while,
before it re-emerges from the fluff of the goal setting exercise and starts to realize
again that it is a worthless monkey. As an alternative, the underperformance can also
be used to attack the self-image and self-confidence of the individual. Smart
managers manage to provide both positive re-inforcement – e.g. by assuming more
success that was achieved and creating the expectation for it, making the individual
striving for achieving the unmet goal even harder – and then criticizing and attacking
the underperformance. If this is erratic and hard to predict, the effect is even stronger.
In its pure form: goal setting theory is a “throw the stick and let the dog run” exercise.
And smart managers typically create a goal that means nothing to anyone,
demanding full performance on what is actually relevant. The individual will hence
waste resources for something where he can not hurt the manager when
underperforming – and hence the threat of sabotage on the “important and difficult
project” is empty. The best reaction is to comply with the goal, stay focused on
concerns and threaten those projects and goals that the manager relies on. But the
downside is that once an employee is being motivated with the goal setting theory,
there is hardly any chance this individual is getting anything out of the relationship.
This is because it has to substantially over-perform to have the capacity to perform
on the meaningless project and still was not offered a promotion or meaningful high-
level assignment. This is the clearest sign of someone actually throwing a stick for his
dog that will never be more than the dog. It has to be understood that goal setting
theory does never involve promoting someone into higher responsibility without a
formal promotion.

Theory Setup 3: Group Motivation

Three team norms according to Hawthorne:

While Hawthorne talks about “groups”, the topic of his analysis is business units or
teams, because it applies to behaviours exhibited by teams in organizations rather
than groups within organizations.
The three teamnorms are:
(1) A team member was not to work harder than the team norm/average. Or: there
are no
reate busters.
(2) Team members are not to work less hard then the team norm. There are no
chisellers.
(3) Team members are not to inform supervisors about what was happening in the
team.
There are no squealers.
For an individual, this is career suicide. For the team of undermotivated survivors, this
is the the best rule.
By identifying the “key victim” on which to play the models in theory setup 2, you
already created a rate buster. The rate buster increases the performance of the group
by (2). Because (3) applies, the rate buster and the underperform may not talk to
anyone superior to him – something the is perpetuated by the discriminatory
practices of the superiors to not engange with underlings with their affairs and actual
thoughts –, which creates uncertainty among the group. The supervisor then has to
focus on managing this uncertainty, observing scrutingly how the group dynamics
works, keeping the rate buster in the mode of over-performing by any means
necessary and using his performance to talk down on the performance of other well
performing individuals. This elevates the group performance, of course, on the risk to
lose the rate buster and the entire group on being overly exploitative. Paying above
average salaries typically decreases the risk of anyone leaving, however. The game is
much harder to pull off when people are under-paid and only works if all individuals
are (a) kept busy enough, or (b) are understood as focused on other endeavors in
their private lives, as to take this. We will talk about the investment banking world
later on where a key trigger is social isolation and hence a mix of strategic over-paying
with reducing the effort of over-thinking and reflecting the situation with peers.

8.4. Levels of Loyalty and Alignment

8.4.1. Persuasion

8.4.2. Influence

8.4.3. Power

8.4.4. Motivation

8.4.5. Commitment
8.3. Organizational Behaviour
We talked about motivation. In the next section we talk about incentive design. In
the middle of the battlefield between groups and culture, incentive design and
motivation rests the theory of organizational behavior. It focuses on hiring the right
people, forming them to be successful and then steering them towards productivity
and keeping them away from being overly enthusiastic about group dynamics.

We now turn to the institutional element of organizations and cover it in a

structured way. The key take away is that it relates around 0% on power politics and
groups and lives in a wishful world that matches individuals to job functions. The key
takeaway in the context of this book is to understand when and where things start to
become politically interesting and where politics enters this organized and rational
world on how organizations, and especially companies and corporations as leading
examples, think that they can organize themselves. The view to take on this part is
that of a hacker of the system and asks the question how to exploit these
mechanisms and what likely roles will lead to a complete waste of time. Another
surprising and clearly visible features of such planned and Max Weberian
Bueraucracies is that they completely misunderstand the nature of organizations and
the power and skills of the individuals that occupy spots in their institutional
architecture. And not less interesting is the fact that it requires dominance and
coerciveness to a larger level to force people to align with their function and
position rather than their unique skillset and creative abilities. For entrepreneurs,
managers and company leaders, it is as clear as it can get that the coercive
alignment and punishment of individuals for any deviation from the organizational
perspective is a key feature and ability that they must bring onto the table to make
the entire institutional “organization” work.

For anyone wondering why this is at all the case and if they ever want to be part of
an organization again: organizations must function this way. Without the
institutional character that organizes activities, any organization would be a massive
pile of chaotic behavior that might or might not lead to the desired result needed to
fulfill its purpose. And finally, of course, the insight is that any applicant to a
company or anyone wishing to join an organization must clearly understand the
position he is expected to fill and must enter the organization by selling his
willingness and ability to fill exactly this position. As a return, the organization is very
willing to use any form of deception and control mechanisms to keep the member
of the organization satisfied and motivated in the position he holds. All motivational
theories that exist serve the prime purpose of decepting the member of the
organization that the position he fills is the one he has to fill and that the reward of
filling it is what motivates him to fill it. There is no intrinsic mechanism that asks
for or demands for anyone changing his position. Unless this is part of how the
company works (e.g. up and out.)

Background: The theory of organizational behavior as taught in most business books

focuses on the institutional side of the organization and how too keep everyone fully
aligned to the mission. It follows the measure and manage principle, is Tayloristic
and void of any belief in the power of the group side and self-organization and has
little to do with leadership and the more with management. Although leadership
does play a role within the institutional setting, too, as it has an impact on the
performance of the institutional sub-graph of the orgchart.
It is clear that any management level position requires a form of leadership. But
management being fully integrated into the institutional structure requires any
leader to adapt his leadership style and management toolbox to align with the
Tayloristic and top-down orders he is provided, which will – due to differences in
leadership skill and … - due to the intrinsic lack of authenticity of leadership being
dictated by a analytical technocrat not be able to rival the leadership effectiveness of
group leaders.

The Hiring Process

To understanding hiring, it first has to be understood what people in organizations
are there to do. The general goal of an organization is to maximize the purposeful
interaction with external and internal stakeholders of the organization in the view of
“holistic stakeholder management” and “leadership”. In every organization, different
positions within interact with different stakeholders. Almost only in the
administrative world within organizations are stakeholders that a position must
satisfy only internal. The goal of administrative workers – no matter what
administratrive means – is to satisfy internal stakeholders and be in effect invisible to
the outside world of the organization. For any non-administrative position in any
organization, the key goal is to maximize the value generation during the
relationship with external stakeholders and using any amount of time and resources
not dedicated to this task to also perform administrative functions. It is only to the
level that organizations believe that they cannot trust the talent of an individual that
they will resort to managing this interaction and use the best means to control the
interaction which typically involves defining processes and tracking measurable
impact of the process or creating a process in a way that it is deemed sufficient with
or without tracking of success metrics.
The worst kind of job anyone can have is an administrative or quasi-administrative
position that is governed by non-measurable processes. Followed by those with
measurable processes. And followed at last by those where actual success is
sufficiently and effectively measured as to have success measured not within bounds
of the process, but the actual result – such as top line or bottom line impact. Any
activity that does not involve measurement on the institutional side of the position is
in practice a non-measured, and hence impossibly incentivized position that bears
little meaning or incentive to perform or be regarded as valuabe in the general
business system. Whenever there is no impact-related metric such as an empty
qualitative milestone, the visibility of the activity to anyone else but the direct
superior is almost zero and hence the job puts performance entirely on the political
perception of the individual in the eyes of the superiors. Without any defensible
position on why one is valuable within the boundaries of the position.
Understanding these simple principles makes it clear when to run from an offered
position. The only reason why HR and managers are still considering ways to select
the right employees is to ensure a cover your ass story can be found when the
individual does not even perform on the simplest assignments and goals set by the
superior. But any individual offered a job in such a position is immediately placed in
a dead end and should have little aspirations beyond being a pawn that satisfies the
goals set by his superior.

EKS and KSAs:

EKSA hacking to enter an organization: EKS and KSAs are some basic metrics used in
recruiting. The most dangerous of which are E and A. K and S refer to knowledge and
skill. Those things that most likely will affect functional fit to a position. E and A refer
to experience and ability. While ability is the strongest predictor of success in any job
function, experience is the strongest predictor of a good cover your ass story.
It is easy to perceive that the mob doesn’t really care about experience or the E. It also
doesn’t measure the A as in ability. Anyone unable will suffer from his own bad
behavior and will be somewhat extorted, abused as a scapegoat or killed. Knowledge
will be what protect the individual from lack of A. Skill is what will ultimately bring
value to the mob.
In a political organization, knowledge is irrelevant, experience can be overlooked, but
ability and skill are the determining factor. Measurements are as unlikely as in the
mob. What matters is the ability to start at the lowest level – lowest risk to anyone in
the political arena – and the ability use S and A to advance fast.
Jobs that do not measure success and are mere “kiss your bosses ass” jobs are most
likely depending on the E as to cover the ass of the HR department that introduced
the individual. High “skilled” job are likely to use E and presented and subjectively
assessed S as a hiring criterion and will lead to success of failure depending on A and
actual S. Etc.
The key things to understand is that A is only possibly measured using standardized
tests and that they can be learned and hacked. E can be spinned and twisted on the
resume and will most likely be supported by having brand names in your resume and
history. The stronger E and A are, the most likely the organization will fail in S.
And what is most interesting, the entire existence of organizations and the incentives
that underly recruiting make measuring K almost impossible.
This is why anyone especially strong in K and therefore lower on A E and S is likely to
have a problem. The optimal strategy is to find way to sell the unmeasurable, but only
verifiable – via score reports, references and letters of reference – by spinning it in the
best way possible, surviving the subjective S test by knowing the questions to be asked
at the skill level of the individual asking, maximizing A if measured by learning to
perform well on typical tesks and using K to ultimately start building a success track
record when inside of the organization.
In the job world: prepare A testing as well as you can, use E to spin the maximum out
your past biography, eventually lying and putting up smoke screen references within
meaningful bounds that are not legally problematic, learn to claim the maximum value
of S in the skill section where you think you can prepare for the interview. And use K
to optimize the ESA and your performance.
If you are networking, E defines your S in building the story that pushes you further.
A is almost invisible, but your lack of sufficient A will kill E and S. K will be impressive
only if you are trained to express is similar to those you want to impress : conceptually
strong and talking to a memory master, you will lose. Etc.
K most likely is effective in networking and resumes if it mimicks the existing
workforce.

Common strategies that you can find in the corporate world is that people maximizer
E as to represent their true self and what they believe to be their KSA. With the law of
large numbers on their side, they will find an institution with low vetting of
applications – no reference, letters of reference and score card analysis – with
someone high in position and low in S and A, with matching K as to sell a good story
and make the move into the position. With all positions likely to be survivable at
reasonable cost and efforts put on identifying the strongest group and using A and S
to bond with the group, careers are made.

So EKSA is the overall utility of hacking recruiting systems and getting into
organizations. Understanding weaknesses and strengths in the EKSA of a recruiting
organization and finding the lowest pain entry gatekeeper of the organization gets
people into the group. Most “excellence” career parts focus a lot on getting a sufficient
early on E and then exploiting the KSA to enter via networking – thereby saving the
ass of the network partner using the E and using the lack of sophistication of his KSA
to get a referral that is strong enough to overrule any counter measure against hiring
based on wrong KSA. That is network based recruiting.

Notably, the EKSA paradigm does not consider fit for function, cultural fit or true
motivation. A systemic weakness of the recruitement problem. And due to lack of
measurability and defensibility of decisions.

EKSA defenses to prevent the wrong to get in:

Fit for function:

No-Brain functions: does the role require the repetitious and motoric behavior of the
old Ford times? Does the system demand highest outputs and enforces them using
Kaizen? Then no space for thinking and personality. Does the role require the fast and
efficient performance of clearly defined processes? Also no real environment to
develop leadership skills or add by experience or knowledge. All knowledge that is
requires is to self-castrate and stop thinking and do the job. Just thinking about
networking ones way up and having an influence from this stand will be idiotic in the
attempt. Any such types of work likely will not appeal to ambituous, creative, socially
apt and driven people and in that sense they are completely out of scope of this book.
But the misallocation of human capital already starts here with HR departments not
signaling the nature of the job sufficiently well and resources available for such
assessments not in place. A lot of energy of applicants and job seekers is certainly
wasted due to under-communication the exact function that the individual will have
to perform. And the incentive schemes are typically idiotic enough as such that HR
departments are incentivized to maximize the attractiveness of the position to keep
inflow high and have a large pool to select from. In the cases where an HR person
completely jumps off the roof and catches a star for an otherwise nonsensical position,
the payment will be low, opportunities to rise are low and the individual will ruin his
career. While certainly no smart and self-confidence Machiavellian will enter or stay in
such a role, a structurally underchallenged individual will be more prone to be a pawn
of a group and hence will work against his function. The clear bias of individuals inable
to discriminate the nature of the job and company culture against his own skill level
is one source of misallocation of human capital to organizational positions. And HR
departments in companies play a fair share in this issue. And naturally, the higher the
misalignment of a member of the organization with the job function, the higher the
need for “Machiavellian” leadership to keep the individual motivated and aligned.
Mid-Level management positions are perfect areas for socially under-developed and
unambitious psychopaths especially if the benefits are good and the HR department
is weak.

High performance functions:

Employee Selection
▪ Fit to Function: Process, Project, Innovation, Details

Measures after recruitment

All hiring and recruitement mechanisms stand and fall with how they cope with
assessing individuals after they got in to the organization. And this is a key problem
the creates inefficient organizations. We focus on the German corporate world. There
are a few structural issues:
• People typically can only be fired easily for the first six months during
“probezeit”. It is very likely that behavior changes after this period and this is
typically too late to get rid of someone easily.
• Privacy protection: most of the analytical and measurement tools that could be
use to assess true ability, behavioural aspects, etc. are likely not prohibited as
they fall under the very protective privacy laws. Spying on computers, using
RFID chips to track movements, reading e-Mails or tracking personal
interaction most of the time is prohibited and hence can easily lead to a lack of
awareness of what the individual is actually doing and assessing if the individual
was the right hire.
• High hiring costs: the overall cost including many decision gremia to run by
and cost of finding a hire increase replacement costs and make it hard to end
something that only provides first indicators of things going sour. The overall
market situation also makes it harder to identify a replacement very fast and
creates operational and workload risk for the individuals that rely on the bad
member of the organization to function. Further reducing the likelihood of
replacement and termination if the individual was a bad fit.
• Ethical aspects: even if someone is a bad fit, removing him again from the
organization will put the individual into a circle of hell and eventually create a
long-term socio-economic impact to the society by making the individual
unemployable and having it do a lot of nonsensical tasks. This further increases
the lack of willingness to terminate an get rid of an individual.
• Labour unions: Futhermore, labour unions typically have entirely different
incentives than organizations. The willingness to accept a candidate with
unusual EKSA profile is lower due to reasonings around equality of opportunity
and once hired the union likely will take an overly protective stand on the
individual hired. Further reducing the ability to hire experimental and then
terminate if fit is low.
With all these issues underlying identifying the best fit employee, the ultimate fit
decreases and hence impact on labour productivity decreases and hence bargaining
power for better compensation decreases, which leads to lower benefits and lower
incentivation and hence overall lower performance of the organization or in this
context companies. This over-regulation for the sake of minimizing unemployment in
a social welfare state hurts the efficiency of companies. But the tendencies outlines
also can hurt any organization.
The friction created also reduces the ability of members of companies (job holders) in
moving up the ladder, and makes companies with lower compliance with these
regulations overall better opportunities for those seeking to advance. Identifying
lower compliant organizations that do not possess the features of friction enhancing
organizational behavior and those that are least hindering advancement due to
coercion are likely the best organizations to advance based on merit and KSA. The
latter are more likely to be efficient organizations from an investor perspective and
more likely to protect and optimize their value creation process. And thereby better
playgrounds for ambitious political figures. Wheras the opposite side of organizations
is a better breeding ground for tired psychopaths and hence more likely suffer terror
in their organization.

Forming Individuals
Forming of individuals happens both after the initial hiring as well as any larger
change campaign where an organizational units needs to adjust to a new course.
The largest lack here in the institutional setting typically is that the guiding and
actual management more often than not takes part in the group processes of an
organization and not within the institutional orgchart. Typically, mentors and leaders
emerge in informal networks and create a misaligned interest between individuals
and their groups and the managers that are supposed to control the process. The
worst that can happen on the institutional side is that people grow out of their jobs
because the group leadership mechanisms outperform the institutional leadership.
And that is the core reason why people with ambition will force a lateral switch
within the organization or leave.
Knowledge and Training: Typically, organizations have their own way of doing thing,
talks that are being talked and that are being not talked. Something typically learned
on the job. For everything else where knowledge is misaligned with the organization,
there are trainings to get someone up to speed. In our times, these training sessions
are either guided freedom from work with a focus on a subject – the training for
managers certainly is a farce from the return on investment perspective, but it does
turn the attention to the thing that is to be learned and reviewed. Certififcations that
require even more work than a one week training session are guiding attention in a
different way and require the self-guidance of the individual to be higher.
In any case, guided knowledge training in our times is most of the time a waste of
effort and only serve the purpose of having a measurable qualification to back the
quality of the department and are otherwise thrown away resources at an individual
unwilling to learn.
Mentoring: Most of the time, organizational members have to pick up what they have
to know on the fly and take their private time to get better to get the performance
appraisals the seek. But such self-organized trips to knowledge and skills most often
have the downside of letting the individual make the mistakes others have made and
taking an excess effort of aligning the perspective and expectation on the subject
matter where others already have this experience and can guide through it far more
quickly. If this guided approach to learning and knowledge transfer is combined with
taking care of aspirations and long-term goals and building robust and realistic
expectations of gain from the learning effort, mentoring is the way to go. More often
than not mentoring is not clearly understood and misaligned incentive can ruin the
experience, however. This is especially tricky when a non-cooperative style is practiced.
Mentoring can also be done by supporting after-work or weekly during-work
collaborative training among peers in the organization and does not necessarily
always require a senior.
Guiding the transition from knowledge to skill: All knowledge makes little sense
when knowledge is not consistently applied and its impact rewarded and
acknowledged. This is certainly one of the key principles that managers have to use
that is far away from leadership. The recognition of effort and achievement that must
first be backed by the role allowing the knowledge to be applied. When managers
don’t find the time to assess the way how to guide and improve responsibility from
trainings and certifications becomes a mere means of projecting “growth” and filling
and growing budgets, the entire effort of forming using knowledge gathering makes
no sense. And last, but not least, the pathway to using knowledge must be done
before training and mentoring starts, as to assess if an individual is at all lacking the
knowledge required to perform. If the knowledge is present in any case or the
individual self-trained, the training and knowledge built-up is a waste of time and the
recognition and certification of such rewards should be put in first place. By .e.g.
adding such achievements to an addendum to the personnel file. This creates a
measure of engagement and guided performance that qualifies the institutional team
development on an individual level.

“Leadership” and changing adoption of attitudes, behaviours

o Communication
o Leadership styles
Motivational Theory
▪ Capability: Intelligence, etc.
▪ Volition, Motivation, Efficacy, Attitude, Satisfaction
▪ Perception, Awareness, Guidance, Coaching
▪ Problem Awareness Matrices
▪ Incentives, Reviews, Performance,
▪ Personality and behavior in groups
▪ Decision Making and Controlling of Decisions Made

▪ Incentive Schemes and Evaluation Strategies

Forming Groups and Teams

▪ Orchestrating group processes within the department or unit
o Work Team design
o Team Composition
o Bureaucracy and mixing tasks, processes and projects
o Shaping culture

Sociology: The study of social systems that focuses on analyzing human

interaction. inuences:
·
Work teams
·
Communications
·
Intergroup behavior
·
Formal organization theory
·
Bureaucracy
·
Organizational change
·
Organizational culture
 Social Psychology: Sub-section of psychology that includes elements of sociology.
It is focused on the inuence of people upon each other.
Inuences:
·
Behavioral change
·
Attitude change
·
Communication
·
Group process
·
Group decision-making
Anthropology: The study of societies aimed at gaining an understanding about the
human species and its activities.
inuences:
·
Comparative values
·
Comparative attitudes
·
Cross-cultural analysis
·
Organizational culture
·
Organizational environment

8.5. Incentive Design

Mechanism and incentive design is a subfield of economics that focuses on
providing motivators. Incentive design provides the toolset that organizations use to
counter the interests of powerful groups and individuals that go against the
organizational interest.
Incentives are different from punishment as the punishment in an incentive always
comes in the form of a forgone benefit that would have been attainable if the
individual would have followed his goals and met expectations. Punishment as
discussed later is a taking away of something granted by almost any group
independent from group performance, but which is taken if group norms are being
violated.

Example: Carried interest. Private equity funds invented something that is known
as a perfect example of incentive design. In private equity, you raise money from
different individuals, let’s say 1 billion. Typically, this money comes entirely from
third party. Only 0.1% (1.000.000) comes from the founders of the fund. Private
equity funds buy companies with lots of debt – reducing the money from the fund
needed to buy a company -, pay back the debt using the revenues of the company
and restructuring the company to get a higher value of the company, and sell the
company with higher effieciency with higher value of their stake. If the fund dues this
with 3 companies and sells the assets bought for 1 billion for 2 billion, it made 2
billion in returns. With their 1-000.000 stake in the fund, they would get 2.000.000
back. But in private equity funds, if the fund is successful enough to pay back more
than having a 8% per annum bearing loan (let’s say 40% of the original fund value),
the remaining money is typically given in a 80% to 20% ratio to the original investors
(80%) and the foundres of the fund (20%). So in our case, the fund made 1 billion in
profit. 40% go to investors. The remaining 60%, or 600 millions are given to the
investors 80% (480 million) and 20% go to the founders of the fund (120 million!). So
the founders made 120 million out of 1.000.000 million they paid in. That is what
makes them do their best to make such successful investments: or their incentive.
And to sell the company at a higher value – which implies buying it at a bargain – is
really all they care about. That is called incentive alignment. Everything is focused
about two numbers: the money paid for buying the company and the money earned
by selling it. Nothing else matters to the founders of the fund. And they use all they
have to make this happen.

In today’s job markets, companies offer up to 20% of the annual salary as an

incentive for every employee to achieve his targets. That of course is a joke
compared to the roughly 12000% of the fund example. Middle managers can get up
to 200% on their base salary. And CEOs can get up to 500% in total excess
compensation. So incentive design is about really making a difference to the success
of someone and using solid goals that are achievable if the individual works hard.
Older company cultures rewarded several years of performance with an office, a
desk, and a company car. Some threw in better pension schemes. Or the ability to
pay off overtime with very long times of holidays on the company clock. In modern
start-ups, typically some form of participation in the company’s stock is granted
which can be worth multiples of the original cost of creating these stocks. But in real
life, outside of legal contracts and actual “incentive schemes”, incentive design is
about promising rewards for performance, after defining performance. Asking for a
sacrifice that will lead to a benefit later on and about keeping the promise when the
sacrifice was made and the mission was achieved.
In personal relationships, the benefit is intercourse, being with the person and being
able to marry that person, having that person follow you eventually when you have
to move. And raising kids together in a harmonic and aligned way. Today, it is a bit
less about being a good partner, moving after someone, and focusing on harmony
as an incentive, which is why some relationships don’t work that well any more: they
lack incentives. Instead, they focus on punishment and consider the cost of changing
relationships as a key alignment factor. At least if you are socially inept. (next
chapter)

Mechanism design and complete contracts.

Practical examples. Not getting the promotion you were offered despite
performance? You didn’t follow the “don’t ridicule your master” issue and became a
threat. Or you were an unwanted asshole and socially inept.

9.2. Punishment & Threats

Incentive design focuses on formal aspects or insulating an organization against
group and individual behaviours. The other side focuses on how institutional leaders
can use leadership skills to keep members and groups within an organization
aligned beyond the regulated designed incentive schemes. On part focuses on
leadership, the other part on coercion and hence punishments and threats.

The core punishments

The core punishments are abandonment – throwing someone out of the group or
organization - , isolation – making someone be the only one left in his group –,
sanctions – public humiliation and making an example of an individual or group -,
and sabotage – having an individual and its group consistently fail in getting what
they want when they go against the group.

Punishment
Forget anything you heard about being a good individual and not treating others
bad. Any group requires alignment of its members. More often than not such
individuals want to be in the group and their very nature as human beings causes
them to fuck up occasionally. And these fuck ups can be so substantial as to make it
hard for the group to keep them in the group. So from that perspective, there
already is a justification of using punishment or negative alignment mechanisms to
keep people on track. But it goes deeper. Morale of a group is only to be enforced
when people not following group norms are punished radically. Otherwise, the entire
belief of any other member that sacrifices for the group will be undermined. Most
great groups require sacrifices to achieve a mission. In a group without sacrifices,
punishment may not be a good option. But almost all groups that obtain anything
or achieve any mission in a competitive environment or one of rivalry requires group
members and leaders to make sacrifices. Punishing bad behaviours is imperative of
keeping the morale of all those high that sacrifice and do follow the rules. Period.
In militaries, punishments can include death: deserters in war, spies and people who
deeply betrayed the interest of their group or state can be punished by death. In
mobs, even entire families can be punished for the misbehavior an individual –
something that the legal systems and “civilized” world has not yet used as a more
severe form of punishment. In prisons, isolation cells, lowering food intake and
priviledges are used. In relationships, the withdrawal of kindness, symbols of love or
sexual intercourse is a measure. ( Surprisingly, emotional blackmail and very negative
psychological abuse is not a form of punishment in relationships, but always comes
with the character.). In groups, humiliation, downgrades in status and position,
involuntary replacements, the assignment of useless tasks or in work relationships
even the requirement to sit at a desk without any equipment can be used as
punishment. Schools and educational facilities use bad grading, dispelling, weird
letters to partents. Society itself charges fines and imprisons people.
Punishments typically get more sophisticated and smart with the level of skill of the
individual that creates the punishment and depends on the level of control and the
inclination to sadism. In families, lower allowances, imprisonment in ones room,
lowering of love and caring, less speaking time and weird chores are used.
Threats typically do not work as punishment. Silent unspoked actual punishments
work even better. Announced punishments work, but not as well as silent
punishments. Understanding the awareness and radar of an individual and smiling at
hime and hitting him hard typically hits alarm bells on most levels. Sabotaging
someones achievements, efforts and depriving individuals of deserved rewards
works often, too.
The most important thing for anyone punished is to acknowledge that no
punishment is done without a punishment is done. If you feel you are being
punished, you are being punished. Situations where you have to ask yourself you
have to be punished typically do not signal what you have done wrong and are
typically a sign that you are being actively attacked by someone and he wants you
gone. Or you are dealing with a psychopath or aggressive leader that just enjoys
inflicting punishment and playing with your head, keeping you busy obsessing over
why you deserve punishment and what you can do to resolve the issue. Strong
leaders know exactly how to use these types of invisible punishments to keep
members of the outgroup lower performing and weak. To their own peril, they cease
to use such measures when their power weakens, which is the time when you should
be able to play your cards and hit.
When Sun Tzu talked about sincerity, he was talking about the need to not engage
with such forms of punishment and remain open and direct with punishment with
clear misbehavior. As a leader in the higher rank or founder, you typically want a
whistle blower mechanism of such behavior as someone is undermining morale or is
reducing the bang for the buck you get on salaries. Individuals who use such
behavior to the disadvantage of group performance typically can only be thrown out
of the group or organization, as it is hard to keep track of insivible punishments.

Example 1. The mobster sends his unfavorable candidate to a high risk mission.
Knowing he is not fully loyal and he has not seen the strong performance he as seen
in others, he wants the individual to eventually take the fall.
Example 2. The new guy has been an over-ambitious threat and didn’t execute on
the task given as desired. He is kept up with time-consuming, irrelevant tasks.

Threats

Secrets
Using someones secrets that may not be revleaed to gain full access and control
over him is something observed frequently in corporations. Especially when
someone broke the law and fears his career going down with a clear risk of going to
prison. These situations happen more frequently than one would expect, individuals
in lack of full power over their own actions were coerced to repay or do a favor and
they ended up sustaining something that will get them into jail. In the head of the
moment and fully trusting on his team, someone will use illegal forms of coercion
and intimidation to get a job done and by knowing this fact you gain power. This
form of secret typically only requires a strong interaction and connection with
lawyers who know what the outcome of a specific legal battle would be. Having the
right lawyers as friends hence helps.

Another form of secret is one that destroys the public image and that is credible
enough to be swallowed. For some this might be a sexual abnormality, to some it
might be a high networth combined with a sophisticated and passionless wife
combined with an affair without a “prenup”. Also, these things do not happen
overaly infrequent to be counted out as secrets that create a strong leverage over
another person.

9.3. Installing Checks and Balances

CHAPTER 10
Exploiting foreign groups: Hacking and
Spying
This part is not about the technical aspects of hacking. Rather I want to understand
hacking as the art of extracting value out of organizations that you are not affiliated
with. This ability is relevant in many areas of life. A company that wants to get into
the heads of a regulation authority to plan its lobbying attempts, an investment fund
that wants to extract non-public information on its investment targets, a networked
individual planning to build networks that focus on organizitational interests rather
than individual relationships on board meeting level or actually hackers that want to
obtain access to confidential information in highly secured systems. I think that
hacking is the most advanced area on this topic where an active literature is easily
discovered – not so easy to find on espionage and lobbyism.
9.1. Summarizing prior chapters in the context
The key goal of hacking is to extract value from an organization you never visited or
actively engaged with or plan to do so. This makes it both deceptive and
deterministic plays. Advanced Persistence Threats and high value targets in hacking
are not exploited by stochastic or open-faced intimidation tactics. And there typically
is a retaliation when being caught. Be it legal, counter-hacking or terrorism, etc.

So how can you play deterministic games with a set of completely indepdenent
groups comprised of very unique team cultures, flamboyant individuals all using
different security measures and systems? Well, you just have to know how to gather
intelligence and must have mastered the chess game. You will not likely stir up
individuals to play games against each other in their organization, but you will have
to detect ongoing games and resentments that create security holes and
opportunities for e.g. social engineering. Nothing works better than having a
hierarchical, authoritarian and caste based culture in a large organization where the
valuable targets do not care and may not care about who the other person is and if
he is valid in what he is doing. These people will judge by the code of the other
group if the individual of the group and will allow an easy pass on anything that
individual is supposed to do. Ideally, the social engineer picks a person that may go
to areas where resources are and where it may withdraw from public attention.
Playing an executive assistant or the HR staff doesn’t play, but being a guy from
infrastructure IT that has to look at the server room might work. But usualy he needs
a pass and clearance to have someone lock it up for him. So he knows how to break
the door or he needs another identity.
So how can you get to know a foreign organization? Well, people are the same kinds
of assholes everywhere and hence letting them be so and assuming they are maps
out group hierarchies and barriers to open-flow communication. That typically
creates the decomposability feature of the organization where different parts are
operating in their very group aligned way. Observing one employee or even a former
employee is sufficient to understand the group process. So why not interview a
disgruntled former employee under the decoy of being a writer that targets high
justice in the organization and needs information. Simple.

Chess. So summarizing the core elements of the previous chapters, we are looking at
a limited dimension space in every action we perform. We clearly can extract the
superposition of the subsystems as to get an overall system dynamic and high level
architecture of the target. Every unit can be sufficiently full scanned on its underlying
dimensions. Such as identifying who was in charge of the physical security systems,
what he eventually installed – bragging about it on his resume or having it noted
down on his personal laptop or having told his wife if it was a big project – and that
opens up the path to read up on vulnerabilities of the system. Etc. As the whole
attack space is limited, there is only a limited effort needed to devise a cheapest way
of attack strategy, assess its risks and execute the strategy with the potential reward.
The psychological concept on “the other” were good to know about general weak
spots, the one on one with benefit was teaching what is necessary to obtain enough
credibility and trust as to attack the weak spots in the weak spots of the strategy.
Group culture and dynamics helped us identify the persons that have the
information we need and the likely weakest and easiest to attack and exploit. With
the sections covering how social value and frames are constructed, we have
everything we need to know to blend into a given situation. Having internalized the
Machiavellian trait and being of category (2) – the thrill seeker -, we lowered our
treshhold to anxiety and lack of presence of mind in the situation as to to enter any
organization premise without sending pings and singals that would reveal us.
So overall, all the chapters provided some deeper insight into what you would
otherwise be taught in a rush in any social engineering book.

What makes the this form of engagement so challenging overall is that in any
situation during a decoy operation you can be called by someone smelling the
decoy. This is where classifications and more power focused plays come in handy. As
a defense mechanism.

9.2. The irrelevance of organizational theory

for hacking
What we learned in organizational theory was important to succeeding as a member
of an organization. Bust of of the aspects create a complexity that are irrelevant to
hacking organizations. Organizational hacking is the art of using group structures to
assesss verification and communication behavior as a result on an attack and
focusing on the discrepancy between group structure and institutional structure to
use the institutional structure against the safety and security mechanisms of the
organization. Groups typically do not create security measures against foreign
aggressors. Institutions do. So the battle field is to exploit the institutional structure
with bearing risks from group structured in mind. The playbooks on exploitation
focus on leveraging instutional inefficiencies, the risk of the strategy is then only
assessed against possible issues arising from group dynamics. If the attacker is
smart, he will use the one-on-one interaction to isolate the individual from the
group. In the sense as to make the institutional make belief game during the hack
plausible and feasible, but making the attack boring and irrelevant or discriminating
enough as to have the individual not resort to consultation of the group. Or to
simply bet on the idiocracy of the group that the attacked individual is part of to
understand risks from the group as irrelevant.
In that context, social engineering a senior individual with strong group ties might
be more difficult than social engineering a play against a janitor or a group member
that does not care about the interaction with the position that the attacker uses.
But this is the only context. The core goal is to exploit institutional fallacies that stem
from the security system and use the authority structure to get a supposedly
meaningless task done and staying under the radar. Choosing the role and position
of someone without group meaning, ssomeone in the lowest level of the food chain,
is hence always simpler than emulating being a very high ranked individual who has
no reason to be conversing with anyone in the lower ranks that might be a gate
keeper to an operational unit that has vulernability.

However, the motivational aspects and especially the process motivational aspects
can be a gate keeper to different plays that relate more to insider training as they
relate to disgruntled employees.

9.2. The world of hacking, espionage, insider

trading and so on
Let’s look at some basic environments where exploiting foreign groups is common
practice nowadays.

9.2.1. Hacking

9.2.2. Espionage

9.2.3. Insider Trading

Trading on exogenous information: Insider trading is the art of obtaining non-
public, reliable information on a company with substantial impact on company
performance and market value via sources that can not be traced. Insider trading can
happen easily when some boasting consultants are discussing their work at a
company and talk about events that will have an impact on the company. It can
happen when analysts of an investment bank are talking about a merger that will
happen soon. But such scenarios are too random and fortune driven to be
understood as active insider trading. So in this book, insider trading has two
components. The first component being the strategic and targeted extraction of
insider information for a deal and hacking the regulatory oversight mechanisms that
make the insider trade visible to observers, while at the same time indeed using
methods of coordination of the trade that are not entering records that can be
obtained (phones) and not showing patterns of behavior that can be tracked
(turning off phones, visiting irregular places, etc.

The interesting part for this book is the art of obtaining insider information.
Something that follows a simple pattern. First identifying opportunities where insider
information could lead to a good trade – observing non-standard grey-area public
information such as employee whisteblows in blogs and something that could work
systematically when re-building a company like Palantir in a legally friendly
environment. Then finding means to extract that information, from legally calling
suppliers, value chain partners, to grey area and illegal acts of calling company
employees that are prone to talk about the company or tapping social hotspots
around the target headquarters. To then eventually making the insider information
public – to cover one’s back -, e.g. by having someone post the information in a
legally tracable way, building a business case on the company that doesn’t rely on
the insider information and finally designing the trading strategy of building and
divesting the book.

Trading on created future facts: That is of course only half of the truth. Insider
trading also can be the art of intimidating decision makers in a company to create
the value difference you are betting on. This is where hacking meets insider trading
and where it becomes clear why proper HR due diligence and a wide-cast net of
security is relevant. Think of a corporate C-level individual that left traces of
affiliations with child pornography and got discovered by an anonymous and almost
untraceable group of hackers somehow paid by the interest network of a hedge
fund that holds a position of the company. Bribery and direct mobster-eqsque
intimidation was one strategy to eventually make the CFO cook the books and make
for a good trade. Intimidation in personal circles among old school friendships was
another. Today, we have the threat of anonymous entities being able to destroy an
individuals life if the lifestyle of an individual permits this. Or if the individual is
possibly moved into doing something incrimidating. What is more idiotic than a
bunch of elite business school people not protecting their laptops and getting a
Trojan on their laptops, pictures and videos being taken, and twenty years later
someone asks for a favour. In this context, this is more of a warning for anyone
interested in being secure, but of course the battlefields today are more complex
than direct personal interactions. A badly secured personal laptop can do a lot of
harm.

Investigation
CHAPTER 10
Other tools
BOOK 3
APPLICATIONS AND STRATEGIES
CHAPTER 11
Landscapes of modern life
We live in a time of globalization that is defined by discrimination. Where we are
born, who we associate with, what accomplishments we have on our resume belt-of-
magic matters more than ever. To understand this landscape is critical to moving
towards positions where being human and playing the games in this book is actually
possible.
11.1. Map 1: The landscape of failing old
institutions

11.1.1. Regular Jobs and Careers

Regular jobs and life-long careers have been a blast for those that experienced it. Lead
by companies such as Toyota and imitated by German companies focusing on
vocational training and slow progression within company hierarchies, these roles do
not matter any more. They are a disfuct reminiscence of the pre-network world where
people lived in small isolated islands. This whole organism view on life and the idea of
progressing via loyalty through an organization somehow started cracking up with the
success of elitism of banking and consulting after the 1968 era when the old boys
networks started falling apart and a new vivid social elite class of capitalism was
starting to emerge. Unloyal, perceived super-capable individuals were sucked up by
these two industries to either advance or slowly move to the client side, providing
continuous business relationships and new sales opportunities by keeping loyalty to
the old firm network well alive. At around this time, when these sort of “elite expants”
started moving into mid level management and slowly taking over the higher level of
professional senior executives, the old boy network in the leadership of public or
private companies started to vanish. Incentive design methods started to be
implemented and the disloyalty of managers to the firm and their preaching of
efficiency and doctrines promoted by the elite financial and consulting institutions
started changing the way things work in the top floors of organizations. Luckily, either
by coincidence or actual relevance of economic theory, these new boys started to
successfully increase shareholder value and hence stock prices, providing more
liquidity and cheaper financing for large and growing companies and eventually
creating a dynamic that worked for the symbiosis of the new manager elite and the
modern corporation. But even this seems something a bit of the past, because the
newer phenomena are even more interesting to observe. Likely due to developing
financial markets around the globe and a fiercer global competition focused on
comparative advantage, and an ongoing problem of financial instability, consumer
power in slow growing markets becoming less attractive than building new and not
yet as loyal consumers, we observe a consistent decline of the social benefits attached
to the traditional jobs, a recently sparking level of “temp” employees that do not even
get a permanent job – a risk for corporations fearing disruption and the need to
downsize quickly – and lastly, but not leastly, the rise of freelancer or project-based
employees, whose organization becomes even more and more efficient. And very
lastly, and least leastly, the rise of artificial intelligence that is highly likely to replace
lots of the untrained workers that are not focusing on the cutting edge of technology.
All in all, the old institution of the corporation is pretty much dead, while alive, and
promoting the strongest form of communism there is: the annilihation of any
difference among all those no longer having a job and only existing on social support
and what they call an “unconditional basic income”. All in all, anyone choosing to
work will lose the competition over education and being part of the new intellectual
elite. So, yes, capitalism and capitalist organizations will likely create more losers than
winners in the mid term.

11.1.2. Social Activism and Social Participation

Where do we humans still learn to be humans? Engaging in shared moments, helping
those people in need and sharing pain and sorrow with each other. Away from
exploitation, in relationships that resemble friendships and family relations? Nietsche
was a strong agitator against pity and feeling sorry for other people. Maybe, because
he had only few selected friends? But the classical sectors of philantrophy, social
participation in sports, social activity clubs and shared interests groups in the real
world are dead under the elites and high achievers. Some conservatively raised and
still somewhat sufficient with what they have, they still might see the more fulfilling
lives in traditional social activities. And they do have a point. But in today’s eat-prey-
love societies with ever-hungry rising high-achievers and the institutions that feed
from them, there is no place for being human anymore.
And those outside of the elite system? They spent their time in shallow social
interactions in snapchats, instagrams and whatever the wind may blow upon them.
Their existence in these new forms of communication are as irrelevant to their social
progression and personal success in the ecomomic world as are any social activities –
unless someone goes into social media -, but nevertheless these younger generation
people see more in the engagement with people that share their tastes and views
more value than in any deep social connection.

11.1.3. Governments and their associated bodies

To me and people I usually associate with, working in government was always
considered as chosing the life of boredom, a road full of frustrations, chains to your
area of assignment. A clear realm of stability. To those I know went down that path, it
has been a road of security. It is true, that some government agencies compete for
the best talent out there – CIA, NSA, BND, etc. -, and that some might copy some
exclusivity and coolness metaphorics seen in other more elitarian systems, the choice
for governments remains that of security. In a globalized world, nationalist
governments just don’t make any sense and are a sure-fire death of any career in
international systems. This doesn’t mean that the global systems don’t have any place
for the high end in this career path. High stake politicians enjoy ties to key lobbyists
and leave for key positions in global corporations and financial players. But given the
amount of ass-kissing in public-facing politics that is needed to head this road, and
given the back-office/keep-your-mouth-shut-and-do-you-job-till-you-reach-higher-
levels-and-pension-nature of government jobs never really appealed to those
believing in their own capabilities. If the low-level positions in corporations are a
replacement for the security offered in the typical modern western family setting, the
government jobs are the first-born equivalent for those kind of people. And that is
about it. Certainly, choosing a government job leaves to an easy-flowing, little-hazzle
life with good and secure pensions. But that is about it. Competition is none.

11.1.4. Identity driven organizations: churches, radicals,

activists, intellectuals
These organizations play one central role and one role only in our modern society.
Keeping people worried about things that really do not matter. Whether you wonder
if Christianity trumps Islam, or you are pondering about leftist or rightist utopia. No
matter where you play in this arena, you will likely not be the next Stalin-y or Mother
Theresa-y figure that transforms the course of history and you are very likely to lose
more than gain compared to anyone not in this sector. Even if there is a political
revolution, chances are the political activists is killed, imprisoned or a loser in the
interal affairs of the movement. Or, more likely, the revolution will not happen. It is
true, if your heart truly believes in any of these things, there might be a shot at making
a living at this. But it should be clear that the life does not involve active maximization
of one’s position in life, realism and political games are almost impossible, the people
at the top are power-hungry individuals that likely would have succeeded somewhere
else, but chose easy prey and you to be dominated and exploited for your attachment
to their defunct visions of their world.
In the rare cases where there is an actual attempt in the collaborative organization of
altruism – as some churches and intellectuals are believed to work on – or you really
believe – and eventually accurately do so – into intellectual and spiritual endeavors,
the chances are that most insitutions and their internal power architectures are not
really serving you well. Once you play by the rules of these organizations, you are
more likely to far away from what you originally intended to do than when choosing
against the organizations and affiliation with them. But of course this mostly doesn’t
hold true when you participate at the bottem of these movements and organizations.
Which is a viable part-time endeavor, if you really need it for your happiness.
But other from that, nobody takes them serious nowadways, and most of them cater
to the lowest social levels and people who never even thought about what the word
“I” might mean. Changing this might be a noble course in itself, of course, too. But
looking at it realistically and without moral judgement, you are more likely to waste
your time spending time with such identity-providing institutions than focusing on
social activism or simply chasing stardom on Snapchat. Places where bored and
undriven people mingle never make a good place to grow and enjoy life. And if you
are lucky, you join one of the exploitative sects that will just exploit you psychologically
to the limit. So why mingle with these people? Aren’t such places ideal systems for
psychopaths to test their strengths? Aren’t they the only places to openly invite
schizophrenics?

11.1.5. Esoterics
Freemasons, various diabolic groups, people that believe in deamons and people that
want to diminish the world population – be their intentions serious or guided towards
the best of mankind, just leave them the fuck alone and die a normal being and end
up in hell. The low rank freemasons might be nice-to-be-around people, the high-
levels might even be influential and good networking opportunities, and the course
they portray on their public websites of course are somewhat out of our time and
humanistic, but what do you want to say on your deathbed? That you drank baby
blood in search of supernatural powers? That you sympathized with a group that never
publicly spoke about the good they were doing? – why would you not want to do it?
Really? For an old defunct sense of sincerity of being humble? Put your black belt in
magic and world exaltation to the trenches and seize power first before you help
others first. Or lay back and enjoy your apolitical life.

11.2. Map 2: the Leading institutions

This section portrays what I experienced with high potentials and high achievers of
today. For someone coming from my own background, this all seems frantic and
insane. But we are living in the fully globalized 21st century and normal people just
don’t matter appear to no longer matter more. What unites all of these paths is that
they are conservative by not challenging the status quo and that they all advance the
overall system stability and progression. They all have seezed to be sycophants,
because their routes are so much focused on personal progression and advancement
that their entire path just does not concern “outsiders” in any way. They do not gain
advantage against a different group. By being or trying parts of their group, they are
already winning against the high percentage of society that chose not to or simply
grew into the position not to compete. But what is most striking is that none of these
roles appear to have any political view attached to them.

11.2.1. Institutionalized, priviledged youth

Helping koala bears in Botswana, building wooden bridges in the Sahara and finding
dinosaurs in Siberia. That is where it all starts. The more idiotic and expensive your
social activities, the more likely you will have the “priviledged and capable” tag on
your west. You don’t go to the local dance club and theatre any more. You fly with
someones plane or helicopter to party in remote islands. After coming home entirely
exhausted and milked and having made new friends that some day will have power
and influence, you might hit the local opera or classical music hall. Sitting in the first
row. That means, if you are not ready yet to hit another day with designer drugs and
impressing low-lifes with your lavishness. During the day, you kick in Ritalin and
MDMA and meet with your private tutor to prep you for the exams. Your parents paid
off your maid to sit into meetings where you next leadership position is fixed for some
local organization and a quick referral of your parents will get you that completely
idiotic venture capital internship at age 12 where you basically serve coffee and
download data from a database – something that other “high potential” suckers get
paid for. Some just pay a tutor to tell you about the industry just not have you walk
into their office and disturb normal course of business. At 500 quid an half-hour you
have experts talk you through the intricacies of industries for hours for you.
To learn about humility and bravery, you engage in normal people societies and try
to fit in, slowly learning to play the rules of engagement. This is not a joke. I have met
people that talked about these endeavors, have been invited to such idiotic helicopter
rides. Pay-to-play spending their money on industry experts teaching them the key
advices they needed to land a job.
Who you are and how you feel does not matter a lot any more. You either have a
decent story of success and experience after your high school graduation and score
those top 2% of the class, or you are out. Just face it. Average school classes having
as much as 50 graduates, with 100,000 schools around the globe, the 5.000.000
students just don’t fit into the top 10 schools and their 3 programs that get you jobs
at the top. With 10 schools and classes of 50 people, you have 1500 top spots, and
your 100.000 top-2% guys don’t stand a chance. Student admittance ratios are 1:65.
Or 1.5%. And in reality, 1000 spots will go for money and connections. That is 0.5%.
Or an admittance ratio of 1:200. Harvard has an admittance ratio of 1:2000 for all
programs. Do the math. Chances of being top 5% again at the end of the 3 year
program? 75 from the top 10 schools, or 750 in total will get the good jobs. That is
0.015% of those that even made high school level. Given that you must pass 30 people
to make it well off, the oddsa re 0.0005. With 6 Billion people that is rougly 30000
people that made it. Assuming 15 others gave up on the walk, that makes a stable
30.000 per age group or people in every generation that matter. Or 1.35 Million folks
that get rich. Seems about right?

The alternative to the resume builders that attempt to get into pedigreed and well-
paying jobs that eventually later enable them to play entrepreneur – that are a mix of
realists and sophists - , are the idealists of our age, or the “deep knowledge” hunters.
Hackers, academics and entrepreneurs and likely many people which will never
amount to something, but think that old schools ideals and the pursuit of knowledge
still matters.

11.2.2. Entrepreneurs and Venture Capital

If you haven’t founded your first business, yet and crossed some decent profit on your
private bank account by the age of 17, you likely suck in life. Banks and consulting
guys hardly look at you any more if you have not pulled this off. If you want to chose
the life of the serial entrepreneur that consistently gets new venture capital financings
and that rolls out one billion dollar company after the other, you must network and
build. Do it from Texas or Souther France? Yes, you will never be part of this league.
The time when ex-marines and bankers founded companies are over. You just don’t
compete if you are not top of the sprout.

11.2.3. The Pedigreed: Banking and Consulting

A good resume today basically has the following properties: influential family, maths
or finance from target school (4 in the US, 6 in Europe, 5 in Asia?, and yes that is in
many cases all it takes to get into this bracket of society that is swarming corporate
management and political positions globally), top 2% high school, top 5% bachelor
class, 3-4 leadership roles that matter in high school and university each, founded a
start-up, trading and consulting experience when you enter university, 4-5 internships
at big brand name institutions by the time you finish university. Varsity or nationally
competitive sports, hobbies including golfing (as opposed to the unsocial cricket or
rugby), sailing (not so much surfing), politics in a relevant organization (not music
making or programming), and some popular sports, assuming you know the money
ball statistics by heart, you speak the right tone and language. You also have to look
ridiculously good in Consulting. Or be ridiculously hard working in banking (15+ hours
a day including weekends await you).

11.2.4. The Smarts: tech giants and engineers

Yes, you also should have some key milestones in the grades and top of class
department, but you shure as hell need to have some valid open source projects on
your record, be a MVP at a tech start-up, and won maths Olympiads, solved very
difficult and weird maths problems in university, and always made money on the side
solving technical problems for others. Not doing websites, but breaking paradigms.
Again, once you are in, everyone does decently simple stuff. But, buy is it hard to get
in. The acceptance ratings at Facebook have been harder than at Harvard for quite
some while.
The knowledge these people harnish is the knowledge of very large technological
solutions and how these technologies are used to approach massive markets. With a
mix of market strategy and technological these individuals lead the technological
innovation of society in a star topology away from their educators – the tech giants.

11.2.5. Publish or Perish: The academic progenies

Academics is the government of the 21st century. It’s ass kissing and protégé-seeking.
Wrong advisor or mentor? No budget to network on conferences? No one feeding
you insider information on who to smooze with? The game is no less crual and non-
sensical than politics, a bit less arrogant, cocky and ambitious as the banking world.
But the world of academics is basically one of pissing against each other on every way
and about leveraging networks and connections. One more reason to take everything
serious in this book? Maybe.
But this strand of people is what will eventually disrupt most of the world. Really strong
scientists go into covert military research, become lead researchers and educators at
universities or found the really disruptive start-ups if they every make the right
connections that allow them to see the business value of their research.

11.2.6. The Antimovement: Hackers

Yes, they are the wild west of the modern way. But this game is probably the hardest
when it comes to intellectual challenge. While their path is also the one most difficult
to leave. As a hacker, you resume just doesn’t exist. And your life is around completely
getting rid or minimizing your commitment to the capitalist world. You might work,
but if you do likely in a 9 to 5 or remote job, grinding about technological and
psychological issues all day long. You focus on being better than the others in every
way. Outsmarting the systems of those that are paid by institutions that want to be
secure. The lucky part of everything is that while cyber security is on the rise and
everyone takes it serious, the people in cyber security still suffer the “cost center”
predicament and people are treated like inferior beings compared to the profit center
individuals. This wears even the smartest guy in the room down. There simply are no
such incentive designs as “carried interest” that you find the finance world to get
security risks off your back. Really great IT security specialists at really big corporates
cross as much as 200k in base salaries. But even if you hire 20 of these people, that is
4 million and a spending of maximum 20 million on cyber security and these people
are still human. If you are into hacking, any organization if you reasonably exploit it
and know how to use your exploit on the financial markets and using industry
espionage will cross you 100 million plus. With two to three years for a good attack,
you earn 30 million a year with an organization of 10 people while being haunted by
a 40 billion dollar industry and another 30 billion in government funding. The worst
odds. But hell, this is a lot of fun and it is the most intellectually elite circle you can
work in. So it is worth the effort. Luckily, the really good hackers are not commercially
motivated, but

11.2.7. The 95% unemployed

Time for some science fiction.
Looking a bit further ahead and assuming the pervasive power of A.I. to perform most
of current labour tasks humans enjoy will likely create something new. A large crowd
of unemployed people who suddenly have two core issues at their hand. First: what
to do with their time. And Second: what to do with their comparative standing against
others. Assuming that work does no longer correlate with capital possessed, the
immediate outcome of having no one working any more is injustice between those
that have capital and those that do not have it. The only meaningful way society will
work against this problem is that some might want to be part of the 5% working class
and focus on education. This will lead towards some percent of the unemployed class
trying their best to be members of those 5% and some other percent of society
enjoying the life without jobs. If the success depends on intelligence and giftedness,
there is a likely chance that those with capital will not keep it forever and slowly lose
their status, increasing their pressure to be part of the 5% and making them try even
harder and spent more of their capital to be part of these 5%. But in the end, the
likelihood appears large that normal people will not compete on the 5%, and they will
be forced to reside in the the non working class. Which will create its own form of
hustle and competition to sustain power relationships. Contrary to all other leading
institutions displayed, these new dynamics will likely have little to do with priviledge,
entrepreneurship, pedigree and massive production of research, but things will focus
more on what is depicted in this book. If legal systems and property rights remain the
same, likely there will be a rise in rents for those focusing on entertainment.
11.3. Map 3: Navigating social systems
Luhmann style
11.3.1. The traversal of social systems

Humans live in social networks and are connected to other people and hence live a
larger web of social nets. This implies that humans cannot live socially without being
connected to other people and in every point in time we are part of our own social
network.

Furthermore, humans are parts of social systems in which they participate in. Namely,
a social system is a group of people that belong to that social system knowingly or
sometimes unknowingly. Each social system is halfly closed in the sense that not
everybody may enter the system or leave it and people in the group partially bear
similarities both in who they are in the current situation and how they evolve.

Humans interact with other people in general using personas, or: they carry masks to
play certain roles which define what they can do to increase or decrease their value in
within the group. Namely, if you fart loudly in a group of boys at the age of 14
watching football, your value increases, but if you do so in court as a lawyer your value
decreases. Hence actions and the value generated by them not only depends on the
situation you are in, but each social system has its own rules and laws that determine
whether someone did something good or bad.

Each individual hence cultivates a set of personas which he needs to use in certain
environments and his success in these environments critically depends on how well
he plays the role he has to play in the situation.
The alternative to utilizy maximizing buyers: Now, since we compete in every
situation given the laws and games that the situation enforces on us. Competing we
try to gain value and collect units of value which increase our power in this
situation[Sloterdijks Zeit und Zorn Writes about it]. This means that humans maximize
value in social interaction in the current moment, as well as over the course of their
live in a sequence of situation depending on their long term goals. Since our ability to
perform well requires our concentration and energy, we may not always maximize our
value in every situation. We may be moronic to maximize our beauty in every situation
if we want to be good mathematicians, or we lose our energy when we try always to
cheat ourselves to be the first in line in the grocery store. Rockefeller is attributed to
have said: “singleness of purpose is key to all sucess in life”. A political figure may
increase his value by playing well in public situations, but he will not concentrate on
using the toilet effectively and aethetically when alone or to be the most elegant
gentleman when at home with his wife.

We also maximize our emotional well-being. A good model for this is to say that
we have several emotional potentials such as “need for love”, “need for the release of
frustration and stress”, “need for release of anger”. To live sustainably well emotionally
we need to find a balance of accumulating such potential - which we do normally in
every situation we are in - and releasing this potential. This gives the background on
which to analyse how we maximize our emotional well-being by participating in social
activities or by being member of smaller social systems. Eventually we want to do
kickboxing to release our anger, rather than release our anger in front of our family or
at the work place. And we do not want to meet sexual pleasure at work, either, but
rather when going out, when picking up women or when at home with our partners.

In general humans have certain needs that are abstract: like continuous growth,
the absence of feeling being stagnated, and being goal-oriented and having meaning
in our lives. To generate meaning, we usually use Plato's noble lie concept. While we
generally need to be realistic about the world to be self-actualizing (see Maslow), it is
very well a good idea to invent beautiful lives that give meaning to our existence. The
stronger we are, the less we need to believe in god or some higher purpose to accept
the existentialist viewpoint that has become natural in our society. At the same time,
if our rationalizations don't hinder our functioning, it is very well and indeed good to
invent a dream world where everything makes sense. Our happiness here depends on
our ability to invent our live as something meaningful.

In the long term humans move in the social network and through social systems
that maximizess all these characteristics. Namely, we want a certain aspect of security
by having su-cent income, we want to maximize the power to an extent that we believe
that we fully capacitate our potential (Power in the Nietzsche'n sense), we want to lvie
somewhere where we naturally have an emotionally sustainable lifestyle and where
we enjoy each activity for its own sake rather for its benet on our ecology. We also
want to live a lifestyle that is adapted to our rationalizations and inventions about why
we are here, why it has meaning what we do and so on. So if we believe we need to
be morally superior, we might be lecturers, if we feel like giving something to the
world, we might be entrepreneurs. Etc.

Life become a struggle for social position. We try not to get this position by
accumulating assets as is commonly believed. But the acquisition of these assets shall
enable us to live in the social spot in the global social network that maximizes our
utility given the above considerations. One has to understand that being in a specic
spot in the social network is not only good in the sense that we have the right friends
and know the right people. The position in the network has the features that maximize
our utility. If we are for example well-known IT entrepreneurs with a political
connection, we know politicians and have a lot of money, we can be creative and use
our power in the mind, and we naturally get the financial ressources we require to feel
safe. The social position is exactly a representation of all these aggregates .

So what we ultimately do as human beings is we acquire value (assets) to be visible

by others accordingly” habits and abilities to utilize our brain function in a way that
we do not think bad thoughts, we 0engage in social activities that are meaningful for
our emotional ecology and we develop plans how to go from a starting point - being
a child of a carpenter in Bangladesh - to our goal - being a lecturer on quantum
physics at CalTech.

The planning of this path is the taking place in the macro-environment and hence the
first part of this book shall enable the reader to understand the many concepts that
he needs to understand how the world works and how he can plan such a path
successfully. Only when we know su-ciently well the macro-scale we can ask ourselves
how to actually succeed in living this life in every small situation that we encounter,
for which there is the second part on Micro-Social Dynamics.

▪ The shortest path

When we are born, we do not really know the or our path in traversing systems and
what are goals are and which path will lead to the fastest result. The more experience
and insight we get from our parents, the better we are prepared and the more insights
and experience we get from people we meet, engage with as friends or mentors, the
more we learn about how to proceed in every given situation given that we are who
we are. Finding the shortest path and knowing the prerequisites we need to claim this
path and being able to claim it using sophistic methods is what allows us to move fast
towards the social system we want to be in – given our hypothesis that it is what we
want – and that we fit – given the experience of being in that system. That is the
shortest path finding problem we need to solve if we do not want to get stuck on
some side road while competing with others who seek the same.
▪ Knowing yourself is hard: how do you know the right path?
We surely cannot chose our parents and we have little control over our early childhood
friends. We do not know where they lead us and where they will end up and how it
feels like to be where they are. And nevertheless we are expected to know early on
where we want to go. This makes it simply for those who seek some path and direction
and early success to shoot for the best star we find. Knowing early which path to take
and taking it certainly always puts us at an advantage. But it also entails the risk of
chosing the wrong path. While it is always easier to go “downhill” from one path if it
is the wrong one to a simpler path, it also can lead to loss of life time, which after all
is the most precious thing every human being has: time.
From what I observe and experience, almost nobody nails the right path and chances
appear high that there is no right path, since people in our times continue to change
rapidly even far beyond the age of 30 which was – as academics found – was the age
of stability where people stopped to change. That might have been true for older
generation, but my and the later generation will likely be more adaptable and flexible,
changing more drastically while having – throughout the course – having the
experience that identities are way more inflexible at their core. The problem when
change itself is a constant rooted deeply of your character is that our current social
system and the world we live in is not really open to or supporting such drastic change,
which leads to millions of individuals being stuck in rigid social lifes that do not fit
them. That, however, is the exact task that the “knowing yourself” really brings. If
entropy is constant or very slowly increasing, this only can mean that things do not
get simpler, although some problems that others before us had might seem simpler,
the nature of today and the characters that our time produces implies that nothing
gets ever simpler. The quest for knowing yourself becomes again – and under
exponentially growing change and innovation according to Rei Kurtzweil – more
intricate and a quest of re-defining what it is that you understand as yourself and
learning new methods while you are living the life. Because whatever reference you
put on yourself to evaluate yourself and who you are, chances are you have to chances
and you continuously have less chances to rely on the opinions of others. Which is
exactly why identities and institutions providing them are likely florisihng. Because the
easiest way out is again to abandon the whole search and stick to static, never
changing principles. Which is easier than searching for changing opinions that no
matter how fast they change and adapt continue to farer and farer away from our
reality.
▪ It’s always too late
Because of the dynamic described before, it is always too late for anything. Less
dynamic and more static individuals will remain favoured by static and non-evolving
systems whose status quo is maintained by older generation individuals who are not
undertaking the same rapid change. For example, in my current, nevertheless current,
work environment, nobody knows how to code websites or simple web applications
on modern cloud architectures. I, for myself know a lot of old technology, because by
the time I was young, it was en vogue and I lacked the oversight over developments.
The latter technologies, that are viable for business opportunities today, are mastered
by younger generations. But they, too, have abandoned learning the new stuff, which
I happen to understand on a high level and very quickly. But we both – the younger
generations and my generation – somewhat acknowledged that without a specific
depth of knowledge on a specific technology domain that was still capitalizable today,
nobody knew what was going on and nobody was following the recent trends, except
from a few individuals there tried hard to do so and devoted most of their time to it.
Us all being very quick to pick up new things, this was a clear symbol that nobody
cared anymore to pick up something in the fast pacing environment. It was a clear
unforeseeable opportunity if someone not following everything chose one particular
technology and happened to exploit it to a sufficient level at the right time. In no way
was it still predictable or was anyone able to follow it from scratch if it was not building
on his prior skills and he was not timing the development in the right way, which most
of the time was pure luck. That made it still possible to capitalize on it. But it was
impossible to keep pace with the actual development, (Which is why we all either bet
on A.I. to keep on the race or the exponentiality breaking down at some point –
because the likelihood in a continuously faster growing and deeper branching
evolution path that anyone hit it right declined and the likelihood of anyone betting
correctly on it, did, too. The other option being new opportunities arising out of timing
the slowest trajectory out of many to make a decent bet on the future.)
▪ Life is life : maybe that whole competition thing isn’t for you
11.3.2. The four economies

11.4. Map 4: Jump and Run – Jumping from

Leadership to Target to Elites
Humans maximize their utility over a vast set of parameters
First of all, we compete in every situation gives to the laws and games that the
situation enforces on us. Competing we try to gain value and collect units of value
which increase our power in this situation. This means that humans maximize value in
social interaction in the current moment, as well as over the course of their live in a
sequence of situation depending on their long term goals. Since our ability to perform
well requires our concentration and energy, we may not always maximize our value in
every situation. We may be idiotic to maximize our beauty in every situation if we want
to be good mathematicians, or we lose our energy when we try always to cheat
ourselves to be the rst in line in the grocery store. Rockefeller is attributed to have
said: singleness of purpose is key to all sucess in life. A political gure may increase his
value by playing well in public situations, but he will not concentrate on using the
toilet eectively and aethetically when alone or to be the most elegant gentleman when
at home with his wife.

We also maximize our emotional well-being. A good model for this is to say that
we have several emotional potentials such as need for love, need for the release of
frustration and stress, need for release of anger. To live sustainably well emotionally
we need to nd a balance of accumulating such potential - which we do normally in
every situation we are in - and releasing this potential. This gives the background on
which to analyse how we maximize our emotional well-being by participating in social
activities or by being member of smaller social systems. Eventually we want to do
kickboxing to release our anger, rather than release our anger in front of our family or
at the work place. And we do not want to meet sexual pleasure at work, either, but
rather when going out, when picking up women or when at home with our partners.

In general humans have certain needs that are abstract: like continuous growth,
the absence of feeling being stagnated, and being goal-oriented and having meaning
in our lives. To generate meaning, we usually use Plato's noble lie concept. While we
generally need to be realistic about the world to be self-actualizing (see Maslow), it is
very well a good idea to invent beautiful lives that give meaning to our existence. The
stronger we are, the less we need to believe in god or some higher purpose to accept
the existentialist viewpoint that has become natural in our society. At the same time,
if our rationalizations don't hinder our functioning, it is very well and indeed good to
invent a dream world where everything makes sense. Our happiness here depends on
our ability to invent our live as something meaningful.
 In the long term humans move in the social network and through social systems
that maximizess all these characteristics. Namely, we want a certain aspect of security
by having su-cent income, we want to maximize the power to an extent that we believe
that we fully capacitate our potential (Power in the Nietzsche'n sense), we want to lvie
somewhere where we naturally have an emotionally sustainable lifestyle and where
we enjoy each activity for its own sake rather for its benet on our ecology. We also
want to live a lifestyle that is adapted to our rationalizations and inventions about why
we are here, why it has meaning what we do and so on. So if we believe we need to
be morally superior, we might be lecturers, if we feel like giving something to the
world, we might be entrepreneurs. Etc.

Life become a struggle for social position. We try not to get this position by
accumulating assets as is commonly believed. But the acquisition of these assets shall
enable us to live in the social spot in the global social network that maximizes our
utility given the above considerations. One has to understand that being in a specic
spot in the social network is not only good in the sense that we have the right friends
and know the right people. The position in the network has the features that maximize
our utility. If we are for example well-known IT entrepreneurs with a political
connection, we know politicians and have a lot of money, we can be creative and use
our power in the mind, and we naturally get the nancial ressources we require to feel
safe. The social position is exactly a representation of all these aggregates .

So what we ultimately do as human beings is we acquire value (assets) to be visible

by others accordingly habits and abilities to utilize our brain function in a way that we
do not think bad thoughts, we engage in social activities that are meaningful for our
emotional ecology and we develop plans how to go from a starting point - being a
child of a carpenter in Bangladesh - to our goal - being a lecturer on quantum physics
at CalTech.

The planning of this path is the taking place in the macro-environment and hence the
rst part of this book shall enable the reader to understand the many concepts that he
needs to understand how the world works and how he can plan such a path
successfully. Only when we know su-ciently well the macro-scale we can ask ourselves
how to actually succeed in living this life in every small situation that we encounter,
for which there is the second part on Micro-Social Dynamics.
CHAPTER 12
Practical Examples of exploitation
12.1. The Investment Banking world
The world of investment banking provides a very vivid and recent example of
exploitation at its best. It emulates the core model that you would find in slavery –
such as in Willie Lynchs “The negro” - , but is a bit more adept to maximize on
every level of the stakeholder system., including the slaves – also called monkeys –
the perpetuators – also called managing directors – and the buyers – also called the
pedigree hungried and over-worked CEO.

12.1.1. The sales model

The sales model in banking rests on three pillars. Pedigreed monkeys, polished
information and personal relationships.

The pedigreed monkey

A pedigreed monkey is a low level employee that is hired into the bank to be hailed
for his intelligence – as associated with superior knowledge, skill and performance -
and paid like he was a diamond – because that accepts and re-iterates his worth. The
pedigree comes from exclusivitity. Investment banks like to hire people with hobbies
that no normal individual can afford : “Helping khoala bears eat their food in China”,
“helping African children built a well in the desert”, “protecting the rainforest while
being in the rainforest” and things than no sane person would actually do if he had
not too much money and time at his hand. They also like people with excessively
high scores, because they are known to correlate with expensive tutoring or
excessive learning. They also like to hire people that founded companies that went
nowhere at the age of 15, because no sane 15 year old founds a company and goes
into banking if he hasn’t just been financed and supported by his parents. They also
like to hire individuals who went to elite colleges, because nobody keep up with the
requirements being a boring person any more when not coming from a good
background. And they add to the whole thing by only hiring from “target schools” –
which there are 5 to 10 elite schools, because nobody else would get in unless he
satisfied all the bullshit criteria mentioned earlier. Feeding of the elitism of these five
institutions and their own selectivity on these target schools – which drives every
non-sane and well-off individual to go for this school and the desired program. All in
all, it becomes almost impossible to get into the industry unless you come from an
affluent background, really want to be a monkey – an individual that has no
intelligent word to say on the company decisions and that works like an actual slave
for a long time. And being so impossible to get in and being paid so unusual
amounts of money, this creates a feeling of “scarcity” and hence greatness among
CEOs. They all never made it into this industry – the jealously and belief system – or
they were part of the industry – the loyalty and self-belief system – and this
perpetuates the status of the system. Very smart?
How did it happen? Because the 68 generation was somewhat anti-system, and the
old “old boy/old money” recruiting in banking failed to work and banks shifted
towards this new pedigree system.
50 years later, all these suckers of this time being CEOs, the system pays off and is
working.

The polished information

The hardest phrase on this subject was in “monkey business”. It goes something like
“write a few random numbers into Excel, format them nicely, have a designated
visual design team make them even prettier, print them on a 100 dollar a piece of
paper paper and bind them as a book with golden and pressed lettering and you get
a pitchbook”. Combine this book with the pedigree of the team and the sales
experience of the managing director, and you land a deal with the CEO to run his
campaign. Add a car parked in front of the CEOs house and drink some highly priced
scotches on a yacht on a summer vacation and you are a friend for life. Maybe this
gets this CEOs dumb kid into the right college and into banking? You won.

Personal Relationships
The mantra of relationship management is that institutions don’t buy contracts with
institutions – or companies don’t buy contracts with investment banks – but that
fools buy from stars – or that CEOs buy from trusted advisors.
The fruitful relationship starts with the nature of the CEO and his supervisors, the
board. The board consists of senior bankers of people that never got into banking
and who basically just want to get their board salary and be saved from being kicked
off the board. In the boards eyes, the CEOs only role is to secure the board seats of
the board members. The CEO again basically enjoys drinking expensive wine with
external stakeholders of the company while cashing in his paycheck and keeping the
powers and checks and balances under him in check. These folks – according to Carl
Schmidt again – feed him only high level information to not waste his time, bore the
CEO to death wishing for meaningful personal relationships. A relationship nobody
from competition will open up to, nobody in his idiots childs school board will live
up ton. So he seeks a trusted advisor who keeps his silence and loves to book
hookers with him. The senior banker. The senior banker goes to the strip club with
the CEO and answers to all financial and M&A problems of the CEO when he is in
need. This is how CEO-Banker relationships form. In the best case, both make the
projects a success and reap some good bonuses. And the banker might tell the CEO
where the next company lurks where he can be placed and give him business again.
Why is this interesting? Because it shows how lonely it is at the top, that it is hard to
have friends when you work too much and because oversight and incentive designs
don’t really work there, and politics at the top really only is politics: the value drivers
are the mignions under the CEO.

All in all, the system isn’t too interesting. Let’s look at the mechanisms of monkey
exploitation.
12.1.2. The monkey
The investment banking industry works with incest. Everyone starts as a monkey –
analyst or associate -, eventually becomes a vice president or senior vice president
and depending on golfing and schmoozing skills becomes a relationship manager or
“managing director”.

The hierarchy
The vice president kisses the butt of the managing director, all actual work is
delegated to the Vice President or senior Vice president. He himself does little work
but ensuring quality, being a last line of defense. Under the Vice president, or VP,
there are a lot of associates which manage the inter-relationships between the
investment banking department and all external advisors of a deal. In some cases,
the vice presidents also do this, but only the ones who don’t really want to focus
their work on becoming an MD. Relationships focus on bringing together all other
departments of the bank. Apart from that, Associates keep all stakeholders in a deal
on a deal-by-deal basis in check. This includes external advisors on legal, financial
structuring, business and operational analysis, etc. Among each associate, there are a
few junior monkeys, or analysts, who focus on gathering all information, reconciling
it, putting it into a nice form – the pitch book – and do all the shit work around
building the sales material to actually do the deal. Once the deal is signed off, the
same hierarchy applies. Most work is done by external advisors, the associates are
project managers of all the advisors and supervise their low-level workers – the
analysts which otherwise would be called experts – and the entire process is
monitored by the VP who gives all the material that the managing director gives to
the client.

That all makes perfect sense in some light, but overall: the analysts are 21-25, the
associates are 25-30 and the vice presidents are 30-38 and the managing directors
are monkeys in a suit older than 35. This leads to analysis and data prepared by 12-
25 year olds (earning 120k +) being fed via a 40 year old (making 2m+) in a nice suit,
relying on polishing skills of a 30 year old (making 1m+) who relies on an associate
(making 300k+) to a 50 year old CEO (making 8m+) who rather eats shit than
listening to their 40-60 year old senior advisors (making 250k+) in the company to
make a decision. Makes sense, right?

This hierarchy still makes no real fun, the real fun is how the lowest level works.

12.1.3. The game of recruiting and aligning junior monkeys

BOOK 4
Classics
CHAPTER 13
Classics of Strategy
13.1. Machiavelli – The Prince
Alright, let’s run through Machiavellis work.

New powers against old ones

New powers in general have it harder to maintain their power. Old powers typically
have established their power and only need to fight back those who try to seek it.
When an old ruler is bad, in general, people like to dream of better times.
The worse the old power is established and perceived, and the higher the pareto-
inefficiency in the society is, the easier it becomes for a new rule to take over. The
pareto inefficiency refers to the staticness of the old rule and the possible fact that
within this static environment, the individuals under the rule are not living upon their
full potential and ability: the Peter and Dilbert principle are strong. Maintainging just
distributions of power and elevating the strong ones leads to higher distribution
fairness and allows everyone to be happier among the rule. But, even under full
efficiency, if the regime or culture of the group is bad under an old ruler, the new
ruler has easier play. Typically, it is the lack of distribution fairness that opens
opportunities. Less likely relevant is the unfitness of the hierarchy and role system
itself, which would create larger satisfaction under equal allocation of people to the
roles. Something that is refereed to as the “local culture” in the works of M. and
explained later on. But it may matter to establish a stronger bonding later on, if the
the system is introduced. In companies, following an aggressive change
management and merely kicking out individuals in the hierarchy, opening spots for
the next in line, is not sufficient to increase the group distribution fairness. People
have to be overstepped and distribution of power needs to fit capability to allow a
fair and meaningful change. But changing pecking orders within groups, of course,
also opens the threat of key individuals satisfied with the current hierarchy from
leaving. The lower the likelihood of anyone leaving the group, the higher the ability
to radically re-distribute power among its members.

Conquering power

The weaks: Weak or non-political beings or victims like to join forces with the new
individuals seeking power, because they just want to rebel against the old powers.
Their relationship to the old power is likely driven by experiences that create
unsurmountable grief and a static pecking order and they hope for a fresh start.
Their effort is focused on giving the rising star less power or no power at all.
Machiavelli says there should be no rewards and honors given to those weaks. But
they should be exploited and managed appropriately to remain meaningless. Power
people fight against power people with the help of the underlings and weak. The
goal, according to M. is to keep them aligned as quickly as possible and prevent
outrages and rebellions later one from the start. The worst thing to do is to give
them too much power. Supporting anyone in getting more power is detrimental to
ones own standing, because it makes oneself suspicious and a threat that needs to
be handled. As a leader, aligning and keeping track of aspirations of the followers is
critical. As a follower observing other people’s power play it is vital to remain
invisible and out of the power play, to advance when it is settled and to advance out
of disguise, having mobilized ones own power outside of the range of the ruler.
The visible supporters are typically mobilized to denounce, humiliate and play out
the prior ruler. That is their only function and role and they are measured against
this capability. If they are allowed to do this and don’t recognize that they make
themselves vulnerable in the future, it increases their self-confidence and support of
the power transition.
The weaks refer to those that are figures in the chess game. Those not actively
playing the game and having their own figures under their control are by definition
weak and are hence fitting the definition in M. Anyone with an active group of
resources he controls is more likely to be a player than a weak.
The selected few: A very few and selected ones of the weak have to be over-
proportionally favored, as to be understood as the loyal followers that have a clean
gain from the movement. They have to be lead to believe that they are guarded and
favored under the new rule, as to motivate them. Those are likely those with higher
aspiration, but with lack of skill to challenge the new rule. They are being aligned
with their wish for fame, new status, and – eventually, but not tolerable – powers.
Those selected ones will typically have some figures at their disposal, but are in no
way able or inclined to use them to outgrow the power of those in the higher
hierarchy of the group.
Friends are in general more difficult to manage than strangers.
The ability to get results and play the game of power is typically rewarded more, a
means to keep them close and under supervision, while using their ability for the
own purpuse. Those that have great aspiration, but no talent, are typically required
to be underminded and ignored. Once someone of the capable is understood as too
high in ambition and too high in talent, the person has to be put down and taken
out of the circle of power. Every leader likes sufficiently strong and little ambitious
people. Being too able or too ambitious almost always requires to be extinguished.

In any case, suppression and domination should be done without unnecessary

humiliation and over-powering, as this stirs general dissatisfaction and the feeling
that revenge is necessary. If taking someone down and depriving him from status, it
should always be done in a way as to minimize the level of energy this person is
willing to allocate to plot against ones own plans. M doesn’t talk about everything,
but taking too much rice of the poor peasant, or taking his wife, taking his children,
that is something that doesn’t add to the mission and just creates forces against the
mission.

Johne Greene’s rule #1: Never outshine your master: While the weaks almost never
fall into this trap, the selected few are more likely to do so. Admitting that any ruler
is just a human being with his fallacies is the first step. Never to misunderstand the
powers and willingness this person will take to eradicate you from the map if you are
attacking him is the second step. The goal of the selected few is not to outshine their
master, but to stand in the best possible light that doesn’t make them a competitor
to ones superior or the master, but that is sufficient enough to make oneself a
strong asset for the master. Anyone with power and an inferior will know of the
fallacies of having to much trust in the loyalty. Knowing exactly the limits of ability
that overshine the loyalty shown will make oneself a threat. Acknowledging that
being the best can be detrimental to being courted by the superior is the hard part
here. Instead of being overly able, the focus should be on understanding the
weaknesses of the direct superior and where ability needs to be hidden, and to
understand how the superior is inferior to someone else or a higher power, and how
to serve him in this context. And, of course, only to the level where it is advisable to
follow. When the superior is failing, the opportunity to eradicate him has to be
taken. Otherwise, the relationship drifts into friendship and a bizarre form or loyalty
that discredits, too.

The first attempt to conquer must simply work out

Whenever a takeover fails, the slaves and weaks will return to their former masters,
being taken over by fear of retaliation. The former master will likely have to radically
eradicate anyone that worked against him and will spare only those that re-proved
their loyalty and shown relevance to his mission. This dynamic makes a new attempt
very much harder, as former and new loyalties to the old masters arise and remain
for a while.

Just right after seizing power

The conquered typically still have to be convinced that the new rule is better for
them and they have to be woed. They might be disappointed if things don’t work
out better for them. Those that helped in the transition cannot be relied on, yet,
since it is unclear if they will accept their new inferior role. Most likely, they will not
be given what they thought they can attain and what they deserve, which is why they
have to be managed closely. It hence appears more plausible to focus on supporting
those that accept the new rule early on and believe to be clear winners of the
transition, before helping those that supported the transition, but give the
impression to be unsatisfied. Those latter have to be scrutinized and managed with
care.

Maintaining a new rule

Use the familiar and present state of things that already exist: Slaves are accustomed
to being slaves and this should be used to continue their enslavement.

• Gleiche Sitten: Dagegen sollte man nicht viel mehr nehmen, as sie davor
besaßen. Und die Sitten und Bräuche zu den eigenen erheben.
• Ausrotten: Die Familie und Netzwerke der alten Herrscher müssen eliminiert
werden (Ausrotten)+
• Vor Ort sein: Ist es notwendig die Gebräuche zu verändern, so muss der
Eroberer seinen "Hauptsitz" zu den Eroberten verlagen. Diese Nähe
erlaubt es ihm alle Widerstände direkt zu erkennen und im Keim zu ersticken.
 • Die Beamten: Verlässt man sich auf die bereits vorhandenen
Herrschaftstrukturen (Beamten), so werden diese die Absenz des Herrschers
nur nutzen
um ihre eigenen Vorteile daraus zu ziehen.
• Nahe am Volke: Man muss eben gerade ein offenes und waches Ohr für die
Untergebenen haben, um sich ihnen gegen die Beamte zu versichern
• Kolonien : Alternativ kann man über Anreizsysteme die Loyalität von Top
Beamten sichern, welche das Fremdsystem dann beherrschen. Dann muss
man diesen
jedoch besondere Vorteile abgeben. Was dennoch einfacher sein kann, als
nur zuzuschaun. Wichtig ist es, Widersacher zu denunzieren und zu
exilieren/zu vertreiben.
Dies gilt für Beamte ebenso wie für alle reaktionären Kräfte.
• Keine Besatzung: Eigene Heere hin zu beordern und wieder abzuziehen
funktioniert hingegen kaum.

Insight 1: Gütlich behandeln oder Vernichten.

Insight 2: Wegen geringer Unbillen vergehen sie sich, wegen großer falten sie
aber zusammen. Die Rachfähigkeit bei jeden Ungut muss also geprüft und
beherrscht werden.

Die Arten des Herrschens

• Art 1: Beamten oder eine Herrschaft Form mit einem König und vielen
untergebenen
- Die Beamten haben keinen Bezug zu ihren Untergebenen und werden
regelmässig ersetzt.
- Sie sind beständig von der Gunst von Oben abhängig, ohne die Stärke von
unten zu besitzen

=> Schwer zu erobern, leicht zu erreichen

- Es ist schwer über die Beamten ins Land zu gelangen und die Gunst des
Volkes an sich zu reichen.
- Die Beamten werden untereinander einig sein und den Fürsten decken
- Der Angreifer wird sich also auf eigene Kraft beruhen müssen, anstatt auf
Uneinigkeit seiner Gegner
- Umgekehrt wird er, sobald der Fürst ermordet ist, keinen Widerstand finden,
da er beliebig die Beamten ersetzen kann und diese
keine eigenen Heere und keine Sympathien bei ihren Untergebenen besitzen
• Art 2: Adlige, welche alle aus ihrer Herkunft her ihre Ländereien besitzen,
erkennen einen Herrscher über ihnen an, sind aber nicht abhängig
- Hier muss man die Gunst eines der mächtigeren Unterfürsten gewinnen um
sich politisch in die Reihen des Machthabers einzuordnen und das
Land zu infiltrieren. Man erobert die gesamten Untertanen mit der
Eroberung des Unterfürsten, der andere für einen erobern kann
 - Anders kann man allerdings nicht nach Ende des Fürsten einfach die
Unterfürsten ersetzen und bleibt von diesen und ihrer Gunst abhängig.

V. Die Eroberung freier Staaten, die in sich einige geschlossene Gebilde bilden
und nach ganz eigenen Gesetzen leben

• Drei Arten des Herrsches:

(1) Vernichten : denn wenn die Menschen in Freiheit lebten, so sind sie nicht
anders zur Raison zu heben, (DTSI)
- Sonst drohen vereinigte Aufstände
- Jede Wohltat wird vergessen
(2) Selbst dort zu residieren, (New Boss)
- Um sie zu zerstreuen und gegeneinander aufzuwigeln
- Die alte Verfassung und den alten Namen vergessen machen
- Der starke Lebenswille der alten Bande, der Hass gegen das Neue und der
Durst nach Vergeltung können stark sein => Zerstören
(3) Sie nach eigenen Gesetzen weiter leben zu lassen und auf erhebliche
Renten zu verzichen,
wohl aber den Ruhm der Eroberung nach Aussen dar bieten (M&A)

VI. Durch Waffen und Tapferkeit erworbene Herrschaften

1. Es bedarf fortweg der Gelegenheit, die in den Umständen liegen muss: Moses
Sklavenvolk; verweiblichte und unzufriedene Perser unter Cyrus; zerstreute
Athener unter Theseus
2. Die Schwierigkeit: eine neue Anordnung der Dinge zu finden, welche den
ureigentlichen Konflikt (vermeintlich, aber hinreichend) lösen
3. Wenn man sich aber als neues Haupt etablieren möchte, so gilt:
Dichotomie 1:
- Manage den Verlust derer, die unter der alten Ordnung profitieren
- Manage den Vorteil derer, die sich neuer Ordnung sehnen und in ihr ihren
Vorteil sehen
- Diese müssen auf eigenen Füßen stehen, und dürfen nicht von den
Reakitonären abhängig sein
- d.h. können sie die Neuerung durch Zureden ihrer Untergebenen oder nur
durch die Gewalt durchbringen?
- Im Zweifel muss man eine Wankelmütige Masse, welche der neuen Sache
unsicher gegenüber steht mit Gewalt die neue Wahrheit beibringen
=> Sonst:
Dichotomie 2:
- Manage die Furcht derer, auf dessen Seite die Gesetze und die alte Ordnung
stehen
- Manage die Ungläubligkeit derer, die nicht eher an die neue Sache glauben,
bis sie diese vor eigenen Augen sehen (Crossing the Chasm)
 4. Tüchtigkeit in der Kontrolle über das Schlachtfeld mit allen Mitteln ist
oberstes Gebot bei der Eroberung, denn danach wirkt die Frucht der
einfachen Behauptung

VII. Durch Glücke zur Eroberung aber mit Mühe zur Behauptung : Tüchtigkeit,
Mühe, Mühsal,

• Betrifft solche welche durch das Geld (oder Pedigree, Lebensläufe, etc.) oder
durch den Willen eines Gönners an die Macht kamen
- Durch Gnade eines höheren
- Durch Bestechung der Soldaten (oder Gate Keeper mit Geld, Verführung,
etc.)
• Das Problem:
- Glaubwürdigkeit: Der Privatmann, der von Tüchtigkeit und Gabe geprägt ist,
wird nicht verstehen, wieso der ihn Regierende nun ihn regieren soll.
- Loyale Soldaten: Ihnen unterliegt auch keine loyale Soldatenriege, welche
ihnen den Rücken frei hält und welche sie zu ihren Zweck nutzen
- Wurzeln: Wie alles, was schnell kommt und keine Wurzeln hat, verfliegt es
schnell im ersten Sturme
- Regeln: Er kennt die Regeln, Gepflogenheiten und Bräuche nicht, die seinem
Volke anheim sind, und verstößt so gerne und schnell gegen jene,
was weitere Unbill und Unglaubwürdigkeit schafft
• Alexander musste seine Kinder zu Söhnen der Kirche machen
- Entspricht heute dem erlernen der Kulturcodes und Bräuche des jeweiligen
Kulturkreises (Banker, Techie, Quant, Jurist, Berater, etc.)
- Die Kultur so aufzusetzen, dass sie dem Herrscher entspricht und jedem
anderem widerspricht ist Teil des Machtanspruchs und der Methode,
alle nicht mitspielenden zu unterdrücken.

VIII. Über Verbrechen zur Herrschaft gelangt

13. 2. Sun Tzu – The Art of War

Sunzi or Sun Tzu focuses less on real politics and defending power, but more on how
to run an army or organization. Many aspects were already covered in other parts
and can be reflected with this old classic. But what Sun Tzu and the context of
military covers particularly well is the question of moral of a group. Or the ability of
the leader to move the chess pieces to work out a superior battle plan. He also has a
fairly abstract, but relevant way of looking at roles in an organization and aligns this
concept with the chessboard concept, where the leader operates on his generals
who in term operate on their lower level leaders until th entire army is moving
according as planned. In that sense, similar to logistics, but more focused on
logistics of enforcing a desired behavior in an organization.
5 Factors of war
Sun Tsu talks about chess in three ways. Heaven, earth and the structure of the army.

Heaven: Night, Day, Coldness, Heat, Daytime, years seasons. Understanding the
rhythms and blues of humans in their different phases of life, of the day, of the
current context and situation they are in. The factors that drive the team and group.
Also slightly impacted by the set of cards one is dealt regarding team structure and
how this is used to develop efficient hierarchies. So it is about uncontrollable
phenomena that form the power and capability of the team. The effect of
randomness and seasons.
Earth: Large and small distances, danger and security, open plains and narrow
passes. This is about knowing the battlefield, knowing how to play the figures on the
chessboard, having done sufficient reconnaissance as in APT hacking. Curtailing the
plans, milestones and steps to the facts that are present in the situation. And
reacting correctly to these exogenous forces. Partly focused on uncontrollable, but
navigatable circumstances, partly focused on understanding the dynamics of these
forces well enough as to navigate with success.
Methods: The structuring of the army into meaningful sub-units, the pecking order
among officers, keeping the streets freed to ensure logistics supply, and keeping an
eye on whatever can be understood as spending. While most of this sounds trivial,
how often have you thought about what “logistics” means when you are actively
building a network in an organization that you want to steadily utilize to make the
moves your strategy require? What is juicing the right behavior? What is ensuring
the decision and target activity is reaching the figures on the chess board and what
is needed to give them the resources, energy and safety that they need to actually
perform the acts demanded from them. Thinking about group dynamics with such
an understanding of “keeping the streets free of clutter” is certainly helpful. The
distribution of power and pecking order among officers is something we will discuss
later on as pareto efficiency of a group and its impact on leverage over or from the
group members. The structure of the army must be designed as such that each unit
is able to fulfill its function, while the chain of command is set up as to support the
leader of the group to act quickly, effectively with a small set of officers at direct
hand. Looking back on chess figures, the question is how to assemble the own
relationship with people around one as to not manage every member of the group
individually, but using middle men. While all these issues appear trivial, you see the
rules broken in almost any group or organization you are encountering.

Moral: He also talks about being one with the ruler, something we discussed in the
context of Machiavelli. Not to outtrump, to be aligned with his interests and being
loyal to death, or being loyal to the maximum level as to earn trust. Fighting the
prime dogs war for his master. But the art of moral is the art of aligning interests and
communicating expectations, and enforcing their adherence using incentives and
punishment. The key understanding is that the army is not what it is pictured as in
movies, but it is still a group of people that all have the potential to no feel like
following a plan. Nothing sucks more in a battle than soldiers not feeling like
fighting, running away or giving up too early and being torn down by the enemy. To
keep everyone at his highest capability and on his toes and fully aligned to the
mission in the critical moments of a battle is critical.
Leaders: Even a highest morale group lacks direction and mission without
leadership. Wisdom – intuition, fast-paced decision making, right levels of focus as in
Facebooks “one single goal” -, sincerity – intellectual and intentional honesty, being
open and naked in expectations, but unrevealing on motives and skills -, well-
meaning – being confident and powerful enough to not fight micro battles and
losing the eyes on the mission -, courage and strength – being in the trenches with
the warriors, being at the front with the troops, Napoleon or Wellington style, going
the extra mile and pushing people when things are tough.

Measuring capability
Sun Tsu talks about comparisons or paraboles. But what he is discussing is timing of
activity.
Who acts in unison with law and moral? This question relates to what Machiavelli
discussed as the rule and customs of the conquered land. It says that success
partially requires an understanding of Moral and Sentiment (Adam Smith) rather
than categorial imperatives (Emmanuel Kant), as to lead effectively in a group is first
to understand the unspoked rules and laws of the group. While the above
arguments on the moral design using incentives and punishment is something that a
leader needs to think about to devise optimal morale enforcing behaviours and
principles, this will only work if the group is understood as it is and lead with its
unique strengths and weaknesses in moral and sentiment.
Who is the more able? Obviously, this refers to the ability of the leader to play the
game as e.g. set out in this book. Anyone less apt in understanding what is going on
– anyone blind to the circumstances – and anyone unable to control his chess figures
or anyone with a lack of understanding of the system he operates on –
reconnaissance and APT again – is likely not to win against a stronger competitor
with comparable resources.
Who owns the advantage of heaven and earth? Who understands the game plan
better and who has found the better team and is able to fully utilize its power? This
one is likely to have an edge.
Who is more successful in enforcing discipline? Anyone that is not able to make
his chess figure move when he wants or requires it to move is obviously at a
disadvantage. Teams need to act upon their leaders orders or they are not really
teams.
Whose army is stronger? All else equal, the stronger army itself will win a fight.
Who has more figures with higher levels of loyalty surrounding him?
Who owns the better officers and warriors? The more aligned and capable the
officers and the more aligned and capable the warriors in their position, the better
the army.
In which army are wins highest rewarded and wrongdoings most fiercefully
punished? This is likely the most aligned and incentivized group. It doesn’t say who
has more passion. Passion is great in loosely coupled chaotic systems. But in an
army, you don’t want hot headed solo-shots running any part of the operation. You
want a passionless, but highly incentivized army.

Timing of Attacks

13.3. Tao the King

13.4. The book of the five rings
CHAPTER 15
Moderns of Strategy
13.5. The strategies of War – Robert Greene
SELF DIRECTED WARFARE
Step 1: Become aware of the weakness and ilness that can take hold of the mind,
warping its strategic powers
Step 2: Declare a kind of war on yourself to make yourself move forward
Step 3: Wage ruthless and continual battle on the enemies within you by applying
certrain strategies

1. Polarity Strategy: Declare War on your self - Being in the moment

Life is battle and struggle,e and you constantly find yourself facing bad situations,
destructive relationships and dangerous engagmeents. How you contfront these
difficulties will determine your fate.
If you feel lost and confused, unable to tell friends from enemies and seeing the
direction of your course, the fault is on you.
Prerequisite: People are rarely directly hostile. An upfont enemy is a blessing. Instead
of being actively against you, they use politics and deceit. Many use friendship as a
way to mask aggressive desires. They come close to you to do more harm.
They offer assistance and alliance. And may seem to be providing help, but in the
end it is their interest against yours.
Your enemy is everyone that is not under your control and actively furthering your
interest.
Step 1: Identify your enemies as they reveal themselves
- They are subtle and evasive, disguising their intentions, pretending to be on your
side
- Smoke out your enemies via signs and patterns of hostility
- Once these signs are visible, insidely declare war. Once you realize someone is
playing the game, play against him.
In the words of this book: Dominate anyone that wants to dominate you.
Step 3: Those who want not to confirm their opponency, poke them with a stick and
rattle the grass
Poking individuals
- Disobey your friend in a moment when he needs you with a plausible believe, and
the level of anger he displays will reveal him.
- Provoke tension and argument. Take an extreme position and see how people take
it.
- If you take a very strong argument with someone and he remains on your side, you
look at a dangerous chameleon. If he flips and becomes aggressive, being hit on his
core position, you just revealed a snake.
Poking networks:
- When the top of the network is not clear, poke the highest spot you know and put
him in danger and the spotlight. Once the individual is starting to struggle, he will
call for help from his superiors, forcing them to reveale themselves.
Step 2: The war is everything
- Understand that people who attack you are your life battle ground.
- Being attacked is a clear sign you are considered a worthy opponent
- Declare war and win. Have an apptetite for battle.
- Knowing your enemies and having the public know your enemies can distract from
what is really going on.
This is true also for having your enemies know your supposed enemies. But it is
even more important to
have your team know your enemies to keep them distracted from troubles inside
the own group. That has
become
such public knowledge that is claimed for any statesmen that uses war to distract
from interior conflict.
- Stay on top of who really is an enemy and do not get caught up in paranoia,
fighting everyone fierclefully

2. Guerilla-War-of-Mind Strategy: Don't fight the last war / Drop pre-

conceptions
The power of re-thinking your beliefs and not see patterns where they are not
existing. Relationships often a develop a tiresome predictability. You do what you
usually do, other people respond the way they usually do, an it goes. Try breaking
the course and see a new dynamic unfold.
Overcome past fights
- Never re-live an old moment in a present one. Focus on the present case
- The best policy is to have no policy. Prior to the moment.
- There is always a discrepancy between our plans and what actually happens: called
friction.
The best focus on the moment and act upon in.
Don't use old playbooks
- Old victories and defeats do not matter any more
- Dont repeat tired formulas over and over, be liquid and unpredictable. Never take
old victories
and strategies for granted.
- Sometimes strike out into new directions even if they involve risks
- Don't let people know your
Be adaptive to the moments
- Acknowledge that it never was a lack of knowledge or recipe that made us lose a
fight
- It always was not reacting correctly to the moment that lead us to lose
- When in the moment, don't rethink old thoughts, don't listen to your own
thoughts,
but react to the moment at hand.

Death-Ground strategy: The strategy of focusing on the now and strategy in the
context of the situation rather than looking ahead of fighting already lost battles.
The death ground is the place where you back is against the wall and you are in the
moment fighting. Overcoming daily habits and routines and focusing on the forces
that be and stop being caught in the routine of today’s work that bears no value.
Strong adversaries with power over us try to keep us busy doing useless tasks. The
goal is to decrease our performance and retain our focus on what is pressing.
Knowing that anytime we fuck up something that isn’t really relevant to our own
goals is a problem of someone else who is more likely to brush it under the carpet.
The worst thing we can do is to focus our effort and attention on b

3. Counterbalance Strategy : Stay calm and keep presence of mind . The art
of having gumption.

• In the heats of battle (Pressure, Chaos, High Risks and Fear), minds tend to
lose their balance. Too many things confront - setbacks, doubts, criticism
from allies.
There is a danger of responding emotionally with fear, depression, frustration,
thinking too much with our emotional side, which leads to confusion and
impatience - from discomfort.
Understanding that our minds are weaker than our emotions and tightly
controlling the experience of intense emotional situations to basically reduce
the effect of what causes the emotion
is a key step to becoming more enduring and remaining the presence of
mind.
• It is vital to keep presence of midn and maximum mental powers no matter
what the circumstances. We have to learn to actively resist the mental and
emotional pull of a situation.
Staying decisve, aggressive and focused, no matter what is hitting us. Our
greatest weakness is losing heart, doubting ourselves, becoming
unnecessarily cautious.
• People who are methodical and rational in normal course might lose control
in the heated situation. The question is how people react in heated situation.
We have to have learned that the momentum of the situations and the fact
are there to to carry us through.
• The goal is to make the mind tougher by exposing ourself to more and more
stress situation, exposing us to adversity, learning to detach ourselves from
the chaos that
surrounds us.
- Expose yourself to conflict
- Be self-reliant: don't feel dependent on another person. Being dependent
opens us to feelings of betryal, disappointment, frustration. Bad for mental
balance.
- Suffer fools gladly: Taking people less serious and letting them run or play,
as if they are children, allows us to detach us from the follies of other people's
thinking and action.
Since the world is full of fools and battling them each will lead to exhaustion
and frustration, this can lead the presence of mind. Never fight the fools.
 - Crowd out panic and focus on simple tasks: Just as we are overwhelmed by
large projects but eventually master them by following simple milestone
plans, we can crowd out the fear of an
intense, overwhelming and potentially life threatening moment by focusing
on what we have at hand and the small steps that it takes to achieve the
ultimate goal.
- Trained calmness by rituals: The tea master who was challenged by the
samurai and had only to remain his calmness of the tea ceremony when
confronting the samurai as to intimidate him and have him flee.
A method of reducing imagination and anxiety.
- Unintimidate yourself. Never feel intimidated by anything.
- Fingerspitzengefühl: Having the deepest knowledge of the battle field and
all, you require less brain power for processing the situation. That combined
with calmness will help you have the intuitive feeling and steering
that allows you to control a situation. Learn to make lightening quick
decisions based on your gut feeling.
• Focus on the doable in any situation, don't lose to the risks and issues
• Learn to lose your presence and how to overcome the situations. It will also
teach you how you can stir these losses in others.

Hitchcock and Tesla

Both mastered their domain in such a way that they had a memory and imagitation
that was able to cover the tightly constrolled space of their work to the fullest.
Hitchcock visualized all aspects of every scene in his movies to a degree that
required noone to add any of his own thoughts to make the movie complete. He
had baically watched the movie over and over before it was created. Tesla on the
other ende was known for being able to simulate entire machines on every scale, as
a whole and all its parts to a level of accuracy that his creation of the prototype
required little testing and measurement. He did all of this already in his head.
They are both examples of thinking things through in a controllable and limited
environment: in shooting a film and creating machines.

4. Death-Ground Strategy: Create urgency

• Don't dream to far ahead, don't reminisce about the past. Make it your
priority to undrestand the moment as the moment of no return, where your
back is against the wall.
Fight as if you cannot lose, and you will not lose. Fight fearless and fierceless
in the moment
• The no return tactic: Put yourself in the situation where you can not return
from your course. Where you embrace in a cheerful moment death as the
ultimate consequence when you
 lost this battle and that it requires all your mental and physical power to be
present in the moment and acting like there is no time to retreat and buy
time, but now is the time when
it has to happen.
• In any situation, your risk of losing is almost always your fault, and not the
fault of the situation or people around you. You need to be determined.
In our minds, there are always escape routes, crutches, fears of what happens
when things go bad.
• We always have a strong powerful believe in something that will be your safe
haven and that merits your full force in the moment. But this is a curse. It
divides our attention.
Only if we have nothing to lose are we at our best in fighting the moment.
• Stay restless and unsatisfied without being cognitive dissociate and depressed
• Make it you against the world
• REVERAL:
- Keep others from having their back against the wall, it will also push them to
new limits
- Never bark up the wrong tree. Know who you are dealing with before you
have an insane enemy for life.
- Try to find people that have options, where you know they know their cause
is not just, where they have a leader they do not respect.
Destroy their s pirit and watch their commitment crumble with every
setback.But keep their urgency low. Make them think they have all the time,
all the options, a

TEAM WARFARE
You may be a brilliant strategist, with a strong vision, unbeatable game plan. But if
your team or the group you lead doesn't execute your plans by being unresponsive
or uncreative, by putting their own agendas first,
your ideas will mean nothing. Also speaking with Sun Tzu: It is the structure of the
army, the chain of command and the relationships as part of the whole, that give
strategies force.
If the primary goal in war is to build speed and mobility into the structure of your
army, you have to have a clear authority over your troops, avoiding hesitancy and
confuction of divided leadership.
Give people a goal and give them the leverage and power to run towards this goal.
Motivate the soliders, create an esprit the corps that gives aggressive irresseistable
momentum.

The key idea is that this works in any group. Before formulating a strategy, know
your group and get the best out of them.

5. Command And Control Strategy : Avoid snares of groupthink

 • Everyone has his own agenda. That will always be the case. To align groups,
you have to balance between (L) being a hated dictator, by constraining
everyone too much, and (L) being too leniant and easy going, having
everyone only pursue his own goals.
• 1) The goal is to put the right people in the right level of hierarchy and
command where they are not dead automatons that execute your task, but
where they run on their own leadership.
2) Divide the group into teams with shared interests and agendas and an
accepted leader. Then provide orders that appeal to the group, not to its
leader or you as the supreme leader only.
But make commands clear and inspiring.
Create a sense of participation, but do not fall into group think.
3) Be fair and inclusive, but never relinquish the unity of command.
- Never be too harsh, don't treat people as mindless executors of your
wishes.
- Don't be too hard. The harder you tug people, the less control you have
over them.
• The chain of command is holy - and built on trust.
- Sort of like silent post, information gets colored and mixed the further down
your order goes. Especially if a weak link in between is given the freedom of
interpretation, he will interpet the way that fits
his agenda and meaning best. Giving clear orders and securing the
information traverses the chain of command in the right way is critical for any
operation.
- Re-Create yourself down the chain of command based on trust, shared
vision and shared language and expectation. Having a skilled team with
shared goals and values is critical.
Such a team gives advantages such as spirit, motivation, self-reliance of the
subordinates, and creates the scene for fair and democratic leadership.
- These kinds of teams make up for your own deficiencies and focus on the
strength that binds you, rather than the weaknesses that make everyone
vulnerable.
- Don't be blinded by ego, sheer intelligence and expertise. Character, the
ability to work under you and with the rest of the team matter equally, and
the ability to
accept responsibility and think independently are equaly key.
- Always look beyond the resume and biography, but look at the
psychological makeup of this individual.
• The chain of command is still of commanding nature: The head makes the
decisions unilaterally.

Stories
• Remote Control: Building a chain of command
Marshall, appointed by Roosevelt, was to lead the war department amid world
war II and came into an egomany driven department that didn't show much
cohesion. He decided to replace the leadership with people he personally
trained when he was young. Among them, Eisenhower, someone that
belonged to the most ambitious, revealed after Pearl Harbor that he thought
similarly about the world and that he was straightforward
and efficient. Marshall made him the key man to head the European Army.
Once there, he also had to establish himself, inviting Major General Bradley,
someone he knew well and trusted, as his leader.
With this leader sync in place, Marshall was able to retreat. Together,
Eisenhower and Bradley were able to play the role model of how they wanted
to run the unit. They cut down number of people from 60 to 6, narrowing the
people circle they heard reports from. They then enforced everyone to stay
focused, refrain from bullshitting, and keeping things short and to the point.
By simply looking away once people started reporting too excessively, they
trained
their 6 ones to adopt their way of thinking clear, focused and based on
relevancy. Finally, they had a chain of command working from Roosevelt
down to Marshall, Eisenhower, Bradley and the 6 deputies that reported.
Below of the level of
deputies, the things were functioning well enough and were run by the
deputies in a way that the overall strategy could be planned and enforced.
Apart from reporting efficiency, when Brigadier General Leslie R. Groves
approached him to get a $100 million project budget for the Manhattan
project, he spent several minutes reviewing notes, untill finally looking at the
request and signing it
immediately. Without say a word he gave back the request. When Groves left,
Marshall replied "It may interest you to know what I was doing: I was writing a
check for $3.52 for grass seed for my lawn". Hence, without scrutinizing the
request,
thereby granting full trust to Groves, Marshall was able to communicate his
expectation that every penny was turned and looked at with scrutinity, that he
wanted the operations to run economically efficient.
• Martin van Creveld: The reports when passed from bottom to top get suger
coated. Reports can only indicate the highest in command which questions he
has to ask. He has to find a way to look then at the front line to get questions
answered.

6. Controlled Chaos Strategy : Segment the forces / Divide your troops and
conquer
 • Speed and adaptability matters, for this you need losely coupled groups that
are coherent inthemselves, effective and follow a simple order,
doing the rest themselves.
- Napoleon invented it. After having armies run as a single unit for millenials,
having 200.000 men at his disposal, he divided the army into corpses of each
15000 to 30000 men. Each lead by a minitiature version of himself
and operating independently under his central order.This reduced the back
and forth time of information and allowed everyone to operate fully on his
own.
- Guerilla warfare and terrorist warfare goes even further. Independent cells,
centrally trained and aligned in their way of thinking, operate completely
independent on achieving the overall mission.
• Simple rules strategy
• Evolutionary approach: one part evolves at a time

The key of strategy goes back to Chess. Positioning your forces in such a way, that it
does no longer matter what your enemy is doing. You will win the game in any way.
You moved towards check mate in a few steps no matter what happens. The way to
do this to have isolated groups that target different aspects of the overall strategy as
own key figures on the board themselves.

7. Morale Strategies : Transform the war into a crusade

• Make people think less of themselves or you, but of the group

• Involve them in a cause all understand, a crusade against a hated common
enemy
• Tie their survival to the success of the army as a whole

8. Economic Warfare: Pick battles carefully and spent wisely

• Don't fight every war, fight the right ones

• Fight fast, fight fierce
• Plunder and reward with taken over resources instead of your own

9. Counterattack Strategy: Turn the tables

 • Moving first can be of a disadvantage by exposing your strategy and motives
and it limits your options
• Instead hold back and let your enemy move first, giving you the ability to
counter attack

10. Deterrence Strategy: Create a threatening presence

• Best way to defend is tbe known and have an a reputation for being
aggressive and strong. Being a bit crazy.
• Fighting you is not worth it.
• Uncertainty can also be better than an overt threat. If noone knows what
messing with you will cost, they will not want to find out.

11. The non-engagement strategy: Trade space for time

• Running away from a strong enemy is not a sign of weakness, but of

strength.
• By resisting to respond as an aggressor, you buy yourself valuable time. Time
to recover, time to think, to gain perspective
• Sometimes you accomplish most by doing nothing.

OFFENSIVE WARFARE

12. Grand Strategy: Lose battles, but win the war

• Look beyond the battle and calculate ahead

• Focus on ultimate goal, plot to reach it
• Get others caught up in the twists and turns of the battle, relishing their little
victories
• Have the last laugh

13. Intelligence Strategy: Know your enemy

 • Don'T target the army, but the mind of the individuals who run it
• Understand how their minds work, and have the key to deceiving and
controlling it.
• Train yourself to read peaple, picking up the signals the unconsciously send
about their innermost htoughts and intentions

14. Blitzkrieg Strategy: Overwhelm resistance with speed and suddenness

15. Forcing Strategies: Control tthe dynamic

16. Center-of-Gravity Strategy: Hit where it hurts
17. Divide-and-conquer strategy: Defeat them in detail
18. Turning strategy: Expose and attack soft flanks
19. Annihilation Strategy: Envelope the enemy
20. Sickle Strategy; Manouver them into weakness
21. Diplomatic-War Strategy: Negotiate while advancing
22. Exit Strategy: Know when to end

UNCONVENTIAL WARFARE

23. Misperception Strategy: Wavea a seamless blend of fact and fiction

In war, the truth is so precious, that she should always be attended by a
bodyguard of lies.

• We can never, by deception, persuade someone of anything that is not

according to his own expectations, which usually are not far from him hopes.
by knowing expectations and hopes, we can hypnotize people into thinking
and doing what we want - what THEY want.
• The key traditional method of warfare was to have armies obtain as much
information as possible about the other side, in order to get into their heads,
assess their capabilities and reason about possible moves. For this purpose,
more and more sophisticated intelligence and spy tactics were being used.
At some point, everyone realized that the very methods of surveillance could
be used to feed a wrong image of the truth and to lead their enemy astray.
The method of deception was born.
• The deception relies on some key criteria:
- The information gathering and intelligence capability of the other. If it is
low, the rules are different, of course.
- Understanding the capability of the intelligence system and how it
constructs an image of reality that is plausible and definite to the enemy.
- To understand the decision makers of the enemy that act upon the
deception. Their own desires, expectations and wishes - e.g. to be superior
leaders
that know what the opponent is doing - as to create a level of uncertainty at
the moment of the attack that is using the certainty of interpretation of the
person deceived. The uncertainty must be fed in such a way as that the other
player is forming consistent believes.
- Also, in the moment when the play is taking place, the sensory organs of the
enemy have to be blinded. The intelligence channels must be chosen such
that
they use the least trusted source of information.
• Key effects of a deception include:
- A lack of focus of resources on the right reaction strategy. E.g. by having
several possible attacks ready and now letting the enemy know which one he
needs to
to focus on. Thereby forcing him to focus resources on several areas.
- Destroy the cornerstones of truth and trust among the enemy forces that
make up the intelligence apparatus. As to make the enemy react to the right
signals,
and be kept waiting assessing and looking for more confirmation.
-
• Learning deception is critical and playing the play in everyday situations is,
too. Some methods include:
a) The false front: Appearing weaker, running away from the enemy and
leading them into an ambush. The appearance of weakness after a direct
threat or battle
brings out aggression and makes people drop strategy and prudence for
an emotional and violent attack.
Such weakness can be panick, indecisiveness and scaredness.
- In real life, being a bit less smart, strong and competent is often wise and
gives breathing space to lay out plans and deceptions.
- In politics, virtue, honest and uprigthness is often a perfect cover.
=> Goal: Disarm people's suspicions. Never get caught under-handed.
=> Wisdom: Always display your opposite.
b) The decoy attack: Deceptions left alone, moving your army to several
distinct posts will force anyone to move along with you. It does not matter if
you are doing
a decoy and are deceiving or not, the fact that you move troops towards a
goal requires them to act to not be foolish. Thereby still disguising your
actual tactic.
 - In real life: Make moves towards goals that really do not interest you.
c) Camouflage: In military, quite obvious.
- In real life: Mimicking beliefs, behaviour, blending in and not creating a
noise around you.
when ready for an attack, appear to show no movement prior
to it.
d) Hypnotic Patterns: People use patterns to observe unfolding things all the
time, reducing complexity of the situation and forming clear expectations.
Knowing these patterns and following them up untill the moment when
you break it and lash out is critical.
Also, once you deceived, people typically expect you to not use the same
trick again. Which is exactly the reason to use it again.
=> Always work against their expectation to generate a moment of
surprise.
e) Plant information: People believe what they discover far more than what
they are directly told. Lead the paths where they can discover.

23. Extraordinary Straetegy: Take the line of least expectation

24. Righteous strategy: Occupy the moral higher ground
25. Void Strategy: Deny them targets
26. Alliance Strategy: Seem to work for theinterests of others while
furthering your own
27. One-Upmanship Strategy: Give your rivals enough rope to hang
themselves
28. Fait accompli Strategty: take small bites
29. Communication Strategies: Penetrate minds

31. Inner-Front Strategy: Destroy them from within

• Outside attacks against fortresses either took a piercing attack to the weakest
spot in the defense wall under casualties or using the isolation to cut off
supply lines and having people starve and surrender.
- In reality, the walls might be tight, but the people within feel trapped,
isolated, desperate.
- "Opening an inner front" by making interior players that you identify as
potential figures start a revolt, increasing the pressure, create discontent and
eventually betray the forest itself.
- The key is to get under the skin of the easiest penetrable member. This also
works in breaking up relationships, but it also works in groups and in
organizations.
 - When you hit the easiest spot that is critical to the overall stability to the
structure, you can make it collapse by its own weight.
• In practice
- Befriend your enememies, gain trust, make them talk openly about their
fears and weaknesses
- Tapping into their needs and insecurities and the soft interior they try so
desperetaly to hide, they will reveal themselves to their friends.
- Even after you start to use them to stir discontent and your strategy unfolds,
they will be confused and aligned to friendship: they have something to lose
that is deeper than their group.
- You can continue to toy with their emotions and create over-reactions.
• Resolution:
- Keep your troops satisfied, engaged in their work and united by their cause.
They will police themselves and turn in any grumblers who are trying to
foment trouble from withni.
It is only in unhealthy and decaying bodies that cancerous cells can take
root.
- The only way to keep a secret among three people is to have two of them
dead. Never release information that is relevant to your cause.

32. Passive-aggression Strategy: Dominate while seeming to submit

• The passive aggressive is defined by a few simple steps: he fully aligns to the
mission, is fully compliant and offers no resistance. As to not give any reason
to retaliate under sane circumstances.
But they are low in commitment, appear helpless and thereby control the
situation and the attention of their superiors.
• Some people see through this, but you have to stick to game plan and
plausibly deny the existence your passive aggression. Making the accuser feal
bad for accusing you.
• The ability to be constantly projecting yourself as weaker as you are, to a level
where you are even hitting the Peter and Dilbert principle that might make
you move upwards,
just to get you out of the area of trouble, might work for you.
• The goal is to be a river for the powers of others, but to built dams, when they
are not looking. Behind the scenes, you are sabotaging their behaviour by
playing dumb, you
are checking their progress and slow downfall under the eyes of their
superiors, you isolate them more and more from them, and eventually lure
them into dangerous moves that
make them victim of scrutiny and dependent on your support.

Counter measures
• Typically we focus on the most simple explanation of it. Somewhat following
Ockhams Razor. Someone is good or bad, nice or not, noble or nefarios.
Nothing in life is every so simple.
People are always a mix, strong and weak, good and bad. Their intentions of
them doing something can harm or benefit us.
This makes it easier for us to process, but it also means we always trade reality
for a simplified, idealized version of it.
This is why you shall love your enemies and skilled adversaries more, and
reduce the total complexity by focusing on those who lead and leave marks
of what they are up to.
Passive aggressive people are dangerous in every way.

33. Chain-Reaction Strategy: Sow uncertainty and panic through acts of

terror
CHAPTER 15
How does this all relate to investing
This is likely not for everyone, but part of what I am exploring for doing HR DD
during equity, late stage or venture capital investment.
Afterword
This entire book was concerned with what you could call the “X Theory” of power.
Assuming that the world is full of people willing to use everything they have in hand
to pursue their own interest. A “Y Theory” would assume that everyone does it only
for the greater good and stops being aggressively using power to dominate when
the ideal or at least best state achievable by their action has been obtained. A Y
Theory appears utterly optimistic and defunct of reality, but also closer to what
Machiavelli officially intended.
But I also don’t want to end this book with a pessimistic and negative view on the
world. And therefore we want to discuss what I came to understand to be the crown
jewel of politics.

What politics is is equal to define. The art of the strongmen protecting the weak.
What politics desires can also be easily defined: to obtain the best possible state of
mankind that is possible only when the best of all rulers is ruling the world.

There are two core problems of politics: (a) the fact that this best individual, in order
to enforce the best of all worlds against worse worlds by less able leaders, needs to
use any means necessary to dominate and rule, (b) and that even the best will not
know if he is best or if his view is best.
(a) refers to the principal dilemma of power: that in order to enforce the best
possible rule and its laws, the hypothetically best and most ethical ruler has to resort
to immoral behaviours to win against the less ethical competitors. A ruler that knows
better and ceases to dominate another ruler who does harm is doing more wrong
than the ruler who does everything to dominate over the worse ruler.
(b) refers to the the principle dilemma of ethics: Nobody can ever know for sure if he
is indeed a better ruler than the ruler that he is dominating or if he simply believes
so.
(c) is the final shot against the moralists: a ruler that is overly obsessed with (b),
understanding if he is indeed of higher quality, ethics and capability than the other,
will never dominate the other ruler and comply with (a).
All these fallacies combined make the political calling very hard to follow. There is no
justification out of ethical grounds for a ruler to rule. And still, not fighting the fight
for the better world against evil with evil means to obtain an overall better rule for
all is equal to accepting the status quo.
There is always a moral obligation to rule for the person with a political calling. And
it justifies to know the rules and play according to them. Maybe this isn’t much
better than the theory x of power. But it is as close as a realist can get to theory Y.
APPENDIX A Executive Summary

The basic lines along which your development takes place

Accepting reality and getting a natural viewpoint:
Nietzsches Slave Moral Abandoned Reflecting the “Gewissen”
The overcoming of fear, discomfort, anxiety
Risk Aversion and the natural way to confront risk: Risk-A-ne Body,
Risk-Averse
Mind Naturalism vs. constructivism: The world you live in
Knowing the mechanics of your own psychology and manipulating it
(micromanagement)
Self-Awareness as Healing
Finding pathological traits and overcoming them
- Self-Sabotaging acts
- Auto-Aggressive Patterns
- Irrational acts and long-term consequences
Finding unreected determinancies from your past and overcoming them
- Shadows, fears,
- Patterns, habits and behavioural units created by traumatic experiences
and bad external inuences
Maturation and aligning your self with society
- Accepting the limited time you have and knowing when to concentrate
on what
- Projecting the age-specic outward image and maintaining interior stability
Outside-In and Inside-Out: How to put yourself into perspective with the rest
of society
- Frames of Reasoning: More frames and their interreation
- Bigger Pictures: The ability to see how things t together
- More detailed view in the micro-scale: the ability to understand each chess
piece.
- The control of body and mind:
Dimensions of Growth (Interior and
Exterior) Extending the comfort
zone
- Knowing that you do not yet know some things and that your prior beliefs
are wrong
- Facing the risk and getting to know what you do not yet know
- Experiencing that you are in control of the new frontier and that it works
out well for you Mastering new frontiers:
- Knowing how you and others perform in this frontier
- Knowing the dynamic interrelations in the new frontier and learning the
rules of the games played
- Mastering these rules and becoming a good player in the frontier
Reecting the dynamics and structures in the new horizon: nding naturalness
and denign yourself
- Helping others and suppressing others and why you do it
- Find the behavioural pattern that allows you to swim with least energy
while still main-taining your status
Putting the new frontier into perspective with your world
- How to integrate your knowledge and possible actions in the new world
to your overall world concept
 - How to decide whether the new frontier is worth integrating or should be
abandoned
-
Key Games to play good

The Awareness Game

The Competitive Social Game: Social politics, social dominance, social
competition The empathic social game:
The pickup experience: When competition meets empathy
The partnership game: seperating competition from empathy, yet once again
Planning for success
Planning your
psyche Planning
your day
Planning your
life Main elds of interest
Pickup literature and how to attract women
Leadership skills and knowledge of social system taught in business schools
Authoritarian techniques of manipulation and communication: interrogation,
interviewing, lie-detection (forensic psychology)
The basic idea:
Get a goal
Learn techniques
go into the eld
Use other people unawareness and pathologies to manipulate their
behaviour:
- using direct domination
- using vision and motivation
- etc.
A critical review on the books
UNrealistic superhuman expectations
Selling the idea that you can achieve anything when in fact many factors may
hinder your dream to become true. They sell their stu based on your belief that
you can become anything
APPENDIX B Psychological Classics
Adler
Inferiority complex: the peoples complexes of inferiority gathered in the youth and
childhood continue to shape the entire biography of that individual
Birth order: the birth order determines mayor deciencies such as inferiority due to
being the smallest, the oldest and most neglected, etc.
Chracacter = the need for power + the need for acceptance + the need for social
feeling (Gemein-schaftsgefühl)
Goal striving: all individuals are moving towards a goal in order to get a perspective
in which they may act. Ambitiousness can be a pathology if a large set of inadequacies
is in the mind)

Adler
Fear a mayor indicator of violence and danger. Use it to know when to be carefull
and to not lose control
Violent types in everyone. Characteristics are: (1) Justication: Violent types justify their
actions by coming up with some kind of evil or unjustice done by others. (2)
Alternatives: Violence seems the only way forward for justice. (3) Consequences:
violent people decide they can live with the consequences of their actions. (4) Ability:
condifendce they can use their body or bullet or a bomb to achieve their ends.
Note that this is interesting for the frame-issue, as a highly ill-tempered individual will
go through these stages ans escalate no matter what frame you have. But: there needs
to be justication. Namely, you either act like someone that treated him bad before, or
like someone who deserves being punished.
Note that this psychological model explains mostly why frustrated chimps can be
controlled to become suicide bombers.
Traits of violent maniacs: reckless and bravado, single-minded, not being shocked at
things that would appall other people, being weirdly calm in conict, need to be in
control (this is what a frame emulates in conict with a stranger, conveying him you
are dangeour). People also hide these traits by: being too nice, talking too much,
approaching us and never the other way around, typecast or consult us in order to
engage with them, forced teaming using the word we, they nd ways to help us so we
wfeel in their debt, they ignore or discount our no no matter what (beta Verhalten,
dass Gefahr an andere ausstrahlt.)

Bolton (Communicating well)

Most of our traits learned in family and early childhood. So if there is any misalignment
to social norms there we carry them on.
Common pitfall: Classication and roadblocks: if we assess people too quickly, we
destroy our ability to emphasize wit them, which is a mayor contribution to good
communication.
Listening = Hearing and waiting in suspense. It is truly attentative listening and trying
to understand. Following the conversation: using hits that you are there. Commenting
on facial expression, asking
for more, ordering for more, body language,
Rapport: Reective responses, paraphrasation, assertiveness. Assertiveness is the ability
to produce change without aggression. Simply rephrasing slightly dierent and
commenting to lead towards a new way of reasoning.
Conict prevention and control: apart from the active part of providing good
experience using empathy and rapport, it is key to avoid negative potential to build,
like confrotation, transportation of bad feeling into the longer course of the
conversation, etc.
Burns - Feeling Good + Ellis
Feeling good is an active part of living, not just a state. Feeling bad just indicates
bad thoughts!!! We tend to dene our self-esteem by bad feelings we have, but not
with good feelings. To accept this
inclination and to cherish good thoughts and feelings is vital.
Ellis reports if we catch ourselves feeling bad and thinking bad thoughts, we feel
like we should be punished. We need to watch our internal sentences and check
them for internal errors.

Erikson
Teaching tales: using tales to generate a deeper belief of deservance and
yielding the results Manipulation in talking: rapport, mirroring, reframing, etc.
Identity crisis are important to gain a deeper understanding of our selves and a
stronger self-image.

Viktor Frankel - Accepting

Goleman and emotional intelligence

First notes
Listening and communication skills
Adaptability to change and ability to get
over setbacks Condence, motivation, wish to
develop one's carreer Ability to work with
others and handle disagreements Wanting
to make a contribution or be a leader
`Emotional Intelligence involves: the ability to perceive accurately, appraise and
express emotions; the ability to access and/or generate feeling when they
facilitate thought; the ability to understand emotion and emotional knowledge;
and the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual
growth.'
Clustering EI
Salovey and
Mayer
- identifying emotions: Which emotions are there
- using emotions: If I have and display this emotion, what reactions do I provoke?
- understanding emotions: Where do they come from?
- managing emotions: How can I control the displayed and felt emotions?
Goleman
- self-awareness
- self-management
- social awareness
- social skills
Bar-On
- intrapersonal skills
- interpersonal skills
- adaptability
- stress management
- general mood
Second notes
Self-awareness: awareness of own feelings and ability to use them as a guide to
better decision making + knowledge of shortcomings
Self-Regulation: Being conscientious and delaying gratication in order to
achieve our goals Motivation: Developing an achievement or goal orientation,
so frustration and setbacks are put into perspective and qualities suchas
initiative and perseverance are rened
Empathy: Awareness of what others are feeling and thinkings and in turn ability
to inuence a wide range of people
.... Close relationships : Building trust and relying on trust and sharing
something mutual ; social politics - Knowing the deceptive forces that
underlying social relationships
Third notes - what distinguishes the best (soft skills)
Capacity for big picture thinking. Ability to chart future directions accurately
from the mass of current information
- Knowing the character of some worker, and his achievements and his errors,
can we tell where he might end up later?
- Knowing that stock markets do this and that, implies knowledge on what will
happen
Political awareness: having a picture of how certain people or groups interact
and inuence one another
- Knowing how the presence or absence of some gure in the life of someone
else will determine his fate
- Knowing
Condence: Bandura called self-a-cacy to describe a person's belief in their
potential and ability to perform, aside from actual ability. The belief is an
excellent predictor of how well you actually do in a career
Intuition: studies of both entrepreneurs and top executives indicate that
intuition is at theh eart of every decision-making process. People need left-
brained analysis to convice others of their view, but it is the subconscious
analysis that brings them to correct decisions

Some unnamed authors summarized

Harry Harlow: Bonding and warm love is signicant in childrens development and so
is it in later life.
Sheeleys Life Stages and Crisis: 20s are about unrooting ourselves and commiting
to a new life. 30s are about realizing that life is more dangerous and serious than
one expected and 40s are about is this everything in life? it is midlife. These crisis
can be deterred but get more sever the later we have them.
Barry Schwartz: Happniess may lie in the limitation of our choices rather than in their
increase.
Rogers: A good conversation = you are comfortable being yourself in it + the other
sees
your potential and appreciates it
People always have reasons why they go here or there. It takes time to built the
trust so they can drop their masks and talk as the people they are.
Milgram prisonner experiment: the results should be well known. What is
interesting is the question on how apply the frame model to it. A dominant frame is
both socially compatible, but also disobeying to authority. It is what I call a resolute
frame, when it is deciding the level of conformity with outwards expectations and
still is able to maintain its own responsibility.
The main issues were a desire to be competent, which appartenly can only be
satised by the opin-ion of authority. Also the moral responsibility was
transferred to the leader, which is child-mode behaviour in the context of
transaction analysis. Individuals also held the belief to contribute to a higher
goal. This is a deciency in the sense of Maslow, not accepting the reality of the
situation and escaping into an idealisation of the world where one's own action
bears more meaning than actually is the case. Also a serious devaluation of the
person receiving the shock was observed, which is a lack of empathy towards
any human being in any situation, which is nothing but a defense mechanism.
We do not want to see ourselves in the same position and are not willing to
accept the randomness and arbitrariness of life's paths. Hence, the entire setup
focused on revealing common pathologies in the experimenting environment.
The rst question to ask if there is an occasion than demands you participation
is : why should you be the one participating and does the participation and its
goals really belong to your con-cept of life and your ultimate goal? In any case
when you get randomly drawn into an endeaver, you should ask yourself if the
cooperation on this endeaver is something that is consistent with
your life path and your competence, or whether it is going beyond your competency
or distracts you from your actual life course. In that case, simply don't get into the
experiment. Hence, also, there is a clear bias in the study. It only takes into account
behaviour of individuals that want to participate in psychological studies which is
more or less a bias towards the irrationality mentioned earlier.Psychological studies
should be focused on appointments and not request for cooperating with the
experiment. The entire design of the experiment is awed.It is not humans that obey
authority. But is people willing to participate in an experiment that are especially
obedient to the experimenters design, as they know they lack the competence to
disobey. Outch, Mr Milgram.
Laing and schozoid anxiety
A schizoid is dierent from a schizophrenic in the sense that his mind has not yet
split the incongruent worlds by inducing a psychosis
Schozoid people's unique forms of anxiety include
1) Terrifying experience of interaction with others: don't want to be loved,
because being known by someone so clearly means being exposed. To avoid
being absorbed into another person through love, shcizoids may go to extreme
isolation
2) The feeling of impingment, that any moment the world may crash into their
mind and destroy their identity: a clear indication that they built a rationalization
of the world that gives their life a meaning. Usually a great feeling of emptiness
precedes this inclination.
lack a sense of 3) Depersonalization: the feeling that they may
the
turn to stone, self.
whishing to deny other people and their feelings of reality so that
they become an it that does not have to be dealt with.
Shakespeare, Kafka and Becketts work have characters that are highly schizoid,
who lack motives
as they
The big picture is that you need to explore who you are even if these
explorations are risky adventures. Otherwise your option is either to become
schizoid or to conform blindly to the mindsets and norms of society.
Melanie Klein and object relations and neurosis
Usually we learn as childs to see things as objects that can or cannot satisfy our
needs. As we do not understand other people as who they are, we become
neurotic in the sense that we either learn to accept what we are given and enjoy
the love, or we are getting greedy, aggressive and envious.
if these errors (the latter case) are not resolved, we may always see people as
objects and treat them good to the extent as they give us what they want, n ever
seeing them as
individuals and people that might want our shared love.

John Grey - Men are from Mars, Woman are from Venus
Points
Just accept dierences in men and women. A woman aims to improve a man, but
a man only wants acceptance. Her unsolicited advice is never welcomed,
interpreted as criticism. Rather than presenting a problem to a man, which is
often taken to mean that he is the problem, a man should be approached as if
he may embody the solution. Men are focused on their competence and if they
cannot solve problems they feel as if they are wasting their time. Women, on
the other hand, actually like to discuss problems even without a solution in sight,
because it gives them the all-important chance to express their feelings.
Women are like waves, rising to peaks, falling into troughs. In down time women
need men most. Be supportive and don't try to get the woman out of the trough
immediately => she feels validated.
Men want to feel needed, woman want to feel cherished.
 Men alternate between the need for intimacy and the need for distance. Women
want constant intimacy. He needs his freedom.
Males focus on the point of the argument. Women focus on the way the
argument is made. Is it insulting, is it well-meaning? What is the point of
argumenting rather the point of the rational argument.
Often, women expresses a worry and men tell there is nothing to worry about. This
invalidates her and gets her upset. He then gets mad because she seems to be getting
angry at him for
nothing. He will not say sorry for something he believes he has not done, so the
initial argument goes into cruise control for hours or days.
Men will argue because they do not feel trusted, admired, or encouraged and
are not spoken to with a tone of trust and acceptance. Women will argue
because they are not listened to or put high on a man's list of priorities.

Maslow - Hierearchy of Needs and Self-Actualization

The hierarchy of needs:
the physiologicalair, food and
water the psychologicalsafety,
love, self-esteem self-actualization.
Maslow in short
Clear perception of reality (including a heightened ability to detect falseness and
be a good judge of character).
Acceptance (of themselves and things as they are).
Spontaneity (a rich, unconventional inner life with a child-like ability to
constantly see the world anew and appreciate beauty in the mundane).
Problem-centeredness (focus on questions or challenges outside themselvesa
sense of mission or purposeresulting in an absence of pettiness, introspection,
and ego games).
Solitude seeking (enjoyed for its own sake, solitude also brings serenity and
detachment from misfortune/crisis, and allows for independence of thought and
decision).
Autonomy (independence of the good opinion of other people, more interest in
inner satisfaction than status or rewards).
Peak or mystical experiences (experiences when time seems to stand still).
Human kinship (a genuine love for, and desire to help, all people).
Humility and respect (belief that we can learn from anyone, and that even the
worst person has redeeming features).
Ethics (clear, if not conventional, notions of right and wrong).
Sense of humor (not amused by jokes that hurt or imply inferiority, but humor
that highlights the foolishness of human beings in general).
Creativity (not the Mozart type of genius that is inborn, but in all that is done,
said, or acted).
Resistance to enculturation (ability to see beyond the connes of culture and era).
Imperfections (all the guilt, anxiety, self-blame, jealousy, and so on that regular
people experience, but these do not stem from neurosis).
Values (based on a positive view of the world; the universe is not seen as a jungle
but an essen-tially abundant place, providing whatever we need to be able to
make our contribution).

Coming to the self-actualizing:

Traits 1: realistic perception and comfortability with the truth
1) Ability to detect the spurious, the fake, and the dishonest in personality +
ability to see concealed or confused realities more swiftly and more correctly
than others
=> in general more accurate and complete predictions of the future + less based
upon wish, desire, anxiety, fear, or upon generalized, character-determined
optimism or pessimism
Not truly a better judgement, but a better perception (of what was really there)
It was found that self-actualizing people distinguished far more easily than
most the fresh, concrete, and idiographic from the generic, abstract, and
rubricized. The consequence is that they live more in the real world of
nature than in the man-made ~ass of concepts, abstractions, expectations,
beliefs, , and stereotypes that most people confuse with the world, They are
therefore far more apt to perceive what is there rather than their own
wishes, hopes, fears, anxieties, their own theories and beliefs, or those of
their cultural group. "The innocent eye,"
Our healthy subjects are generally unthreatened and unfrightened by the
unknown, being therein quite dierent from average men. They accept it, are
comfortable with it, and, often are even more attracted by it than by the
known. They not only tolerate the ambiguous and unstructured (135); they
like it.
And yet we all know how many scientists with high IQ, through timidity,
conventionality, anxiety, or other character defects, occupy themselve~
exclusively with what is known, with polishing it, arranging and rearranging
it, classifying it, and otherwise puttering with it instead of discovering. as
they are supposed to do.
Since for healthy people, the unknown is not frightening, they do not have
to spend any time laying the ghost, whistling past the cemetery, or
otherwise protecting- themselves against imagined dangers. They do not
neglect the unknown, or deny it, or run away from it, or try to make believe
it is really known, nor do they organize, dichotomize, or rubricize it
prematurely. They do not cling to the familiar, nor is their quest for the
truth a catastrophic need for certainty, safety, deniteness, and order, such
as we see in an exaggerated form in Goldstein's brain-injured or in the
compulsive-obsessive neurotic. They can be, when the total objective
situation calls for it. comfortably disorderly, slopply, anarchic, chaotic,
vague, doubtful, uncertain, indenite, approximate, inexact, or inaccurate
(all, at certain moments in science, art, or life in general, quite desir. ahle).
Traits 2: Acceptance of self/others/nature
lack of overriding guilt, of crippling shame, and of extreme or severe anxiety.
Our healthy individuals nd it poso sible to accept themselves and their own
nature without chagrin or complaint or, for that matter, even without
thinking about the matter very much.
They can accept their own human nature in the stoic style, with all its
shortcomings, with all its discrepancies from the ideal image without
feeling real concern. It would convey the wrong impression to say that they
are self-satised. What we must say rather is that they can take the frailties
and sins, weaknesses, and evils of human nature in the same unquestioning
spirit with which one accepts the characteristics of nature.
simply noting and observing what is the case, without either arguing the
matter or de-manding that it be o,therwise, so does the selfactualizing
person tend to look upon human nature in himself and in others.
see human nature as it is and not as they would prefer it to be. Their eyes
see what is before them without being strained through spectacles of
various sorts to distort or shape or color the reality
 Those self-actualizing people tend to be good animals, hearty in their
appetites and enjoying themselves without regret or shame or apology.
They seem to have a uniformly good appetite for food; they seem to sleep
well; they seem to enjoy their sexuaUives without unnecessary inhibition
and so on for all the relatively physiological impuls
these people are inclined to accept the work of nature rather than to argue
with her for not having constructed things to a dierent pattern.
Closely related to self-acceptance and to acceptance of others is (I) their
lack of defensive-ness, protective coloration, or pose, and (2) their distaste
for such articialities in others. Cant, guile, hypocrisy, front, face, playing a
game, trying to impress in conventional ways: these are all absent in
themselves to an unusual degree. Since they can live comfortably even with
their own shortcomings, these nally come to be perceived, especially in
later life, as not shortcomings at all, but simply as neutral personal
characteristics
What healthy people do feel guilty about (or ashamed, anxious, sad, or
regretful) are (I) improvable shortcomings, e.g., laziness, thoughtlessness,
loss of temper, hurting others; (2) stubborn remnants of psychological ill
health, e.g., prejudice, jealousy, envy; (3) habits, which, though relatively
independent of character structure, may yet be very strong, or (4)
shortcomings of the species or of the culture or of the group with which
they have identied. The general formula seems to be that healthy people
wiII feel bad about discrepancies between what is and what might very well
be or ou~ht to be
Spontaneity, Simplicity, Naturalness

Martin Seligman - Authentic Happiness & Learned optimism

Authentic happiness has to do with personality and character and how it suits you
to enrich your environment with what you deserve and need.
Learned optimism
Cultivation of an optimistic mindset signicantly increases your chances of health,
wealth, and happiness.
Pessimist people think that their misery is their fault, hence they believe to be
antagonized and deserve the bad things and they are unwilling to change
(ugliness, stupidity, etc.)
Optimism creates success . Optimists persevere and break barriers where
pessimists simply retreat and fall into oblivion.
Pessimism does make more realistic, however.
Pessimism as depression: depression as anger turned against oneself (Freud), as
chemical imbal-ance or as being caused by bad thoughts (Ellis and Beck).
=> Individualism gives us innite possibilities and whenever we are incapable of
using these, we bear the responsibility all on our own, which creates a tendendy
for self-blame and bad thoughts, which is why depression is so omnipresent in
today's society.

Eyseneck
The actual fact that there are extroverts and introverts is pretty boring and well-
known. More impor-tant is the biological basis according to Eyseneck.
Extroverts inhibit emotional responses to situations
Introverts increase the intensity of responses to
situations
=> the likely premise is that both types naturally have equal tolerance towards
the level of stress they encounter, saying the population of extro- and intoverts
are normal distributed around the same mean average intensity!!!
 Given this, we can claim the following
Increasing the tolerance for intensity, the introvert can behave extrovert.
However, he will feel a higher intensity and hence requiers a stronger
control of his own moods and emotions!
The naturally extrovert generally is little aected by most situations, most
likely not at all by thoughts and mindwork. He hence is required to develop
discipline from early on to achieve e.g. grades in school. Hence extroverts
in general are possiby understood as emotionless beings that have an
inclination to do nothing. They hence develop a strong ability to create
plans and develop the discipline to realize them. e.g. good grades and
learning behaviour, or friends and networking behaviour.
=> this discipline benets them in the later course of their lives where they
have to make rational choices.
=> Introverts that may have been able to enjoy learning during school
years, now have to entirely unlearn followign their emotions and
inclinations and develop this discipline later on. They underperform
academically, professionally and
Apparently, extroverts require less energy to master their social
environment. They also need stronger excitement individuals, people with
even more drive, in order to feel excite-ment at all. Which is why they are
more inclined to be ambitious and growth-oriented.

Introverts hence may outperform extroverts in anything mind-related and

regarding emo-tional intelligence, once they manage the intensity that
such involvement brings

Thayer - Moods
Mood = a background feeling that persists over time. Moods have no identiable
cause such as emotions.
Moods emerge out of two basic dimensions: energy and tension.
Depression = Low energy, high
tension Optimism = high
energy, low tension
Four basic moods
1) Calm-Energy: Feel-good state, condent, energetic, optimistc, ideal for working
2) Calm-Tiredness: not stressed, not energetic. Low egerny, low tension
3) Tense-Energy: what you feel before a deadline. Urgengy, rasied heart rate,
adrenalin, tightness, ght or ight mode.
4) Sense-tiereness: all uses up, empty, physical tiredness and nervous anxiety or
tension, negative thoughts (afternoon)
Daily rhythms: circadian rhythm is daily ebb and low of natural physical and mental
energies. (Owls and morning people)
Regulating the moods
Seek social interaction or withdraw (depending if introvert or extrovert) +
Exercise!!!
Try to control your thoughts / positive thinking
Engage in pleasent activity : hobbies, shopping, humour
 Don't use drugs: Read / drink alcohol / cigarette / chocolate and cake / coee /
televosion
Rather:
1) eat healthy (low suger doesn't require you to shoot up energy every once in
a while)
2) sleep well, long enough und regulary.

Jung and the Archetypes

Anima: the female form of life. What sucks life out of us and gives us a feeling of
anxiety and being
alive to the fullest.
The anima is usually projected onto another being and leads to infatuation and
feeling of losses when-ever the individual retreats from us. It makes Life crazy and
meaningful at once and communicates to our subconscious as it allows us to live
vibrantly rather than according to rational ideas and how life should be lived.
The mother: Mother, Grandmother, step-mother, mother-in-law, nurse, governess.
Mary Mother of
God, Sophia, the mother who becomes a maiden again in the myth of Demeter and
Kore. The church, the country, the earth, the woods, the sea, a garden, a plowed eld,
a spring, a well.
Again we project the mother onto objects and persons around us. There is the case
of the mother complex, which may lead to a desire to please all women (Don
Juanism), or it can make people revolutionary in their spirit: tough, persevering,
extremely ambitious.
Purposeness and Flow (See Flow on Wikipedia)
The best moments usually occur when a person's body or mind is stretched to its
limits in a voluntary eort to accomplish something di-cult and worthwhile. Optimal
experience is thus something that we make happen.
People enjoyed themselves for specic reasons. Usually they were experts -
singleness of purpose as Rockefeller called it - expertsartists, athletes, musicians,
chess masters, and surgeons- in other words, people who seemed to spend their
time in precisely those activities they preferred. This are of course simple expert-
classications. More complex careers are experts in consulting, sales pitching,
political advisory, politics, marketing, actors, brand-managers such as Steve Jobs or
S. Combs.
Over the course of human evolution, as each group of people became gradually
aware of the enormity of its isolation in the cosmos and of theprecariousness of its
hold on survival, it developed myths and beliefs to transform the random, crushing
forces of the universe into manageable, or at least understandable, patterns. One of
the major functions of every culture has been to shield its members from chaos, to
reassure them of their importance and ultimate success
Religions basically solved the problem of meaningfulness 600 A.D. but are no longer
valid. So untill we have a new religion, we need to answer the vital question of our
existence for ourselves.
APPENDIX C Self-Help Classics

Radical Honesty
This book is placed rst, because it forms the basis of understanding the sequent
ones.
The truth in this book refers to the idea of a a concept, a judgement of your mind.
Two modes of communication: 1) diplomatically introducing your thoughts on
the world, in order to convey that your picture of the world is accurate and the
right one. 2) blatanlty shouting out your beliefs in order to share your thoughts
with others, in order to allow them to assess and criticize them, in order to shape
your belief.
The idea is to use your evaluations and judgements in order to nd truth, which
is only possible if you are accepting your valuations, and you are willing to
share them openly, in a way that they manifest themselves in your
environment and become your reality
Telling the truth is about using expressive and emotional language, regardless of
shame, self-pity, judgements by others.
Honest people speak simply and more descriptive than evaluative language.
Truth is also to accept ones sexuality (which leads to an enjoyment of power and
control, and over-natural rationality), ones anger ( leading to the enjoyment of
grief and depression).
The general denial of excitement and the forces that are there usually leads to
neurosis and an aggres-sive stand against what is real
The centers of awareness: what is happening around him, the sensations of his
body and his dreams and fantasies
Sacrices: when a private jumps on a granade, taking his life for the lives of others,
it is heroism. We all have this deep feeling of love for others that makes us want
to protect them. But so often in life, some idiot hero sacrices himself for what ex
post is a mediocre or illusionary threat, and becomes an idiotic maniac. We all
too often sacrice for people and for reasons that are not solid and we need to
sacrice for those we love and this are those that love us, too.
Intention (= throwing your full force at something), Responsibility (=willing to
accept yourself as the cause)
Shouldists (Men of Principle) are like sadists
Realize that who you can actually be is meaningless and you will see that it does
not matter whether you are a jerk or not.
Positive thinking is bullshit. thinking yourself positive requires you to think of
yourself as bad in the rst place. Allow your negative thoughts to be real and heard
and rely on the crticitism of others to overcome the intrinsic belief system that
shapes you believing that you are being bad.
Escape: when we see some project as impossible and we tell ourselves to give up,
we create meaningful illusions in our mind that sshall keep us going. The ultimate
end of the story is that we are chasing from one illusion to the next untill it breaks
rather than accepting that we must not fail in the meaningful things we choose
to do.
To avoid this pitfall, surround ourself with peopple that are in this deep trouble
everyday and that embrace the uncertainty of their actions.

James Allen - As A Man Thinketh

We are our thoughts: Noble thoughts make a noble on e, unnoble one makes a
miserable one.

And we attract not only what we love, but also what we fear. This happens because
both good and bad thoughts enter our subconsciouss and hence A person is what
he thinks all day long. (Emerson)
Circumstances do not make a man, but reveal him. Each of the situations we are
in, oers an opportunity to grow. Hence the circumstances which we are in reveal
us in how we choose to deal with these circumstances. This is why the early life in
one's years are often most fruitful in determining the later course of his life.
We need to learn to process our past and our failures in a way that we may make
progress and not in a way that hinders us to become who we are.
The best people are calm, relaxed and purposeful in their
It is obvious, that he has a teleologic vision of getting rid of bad thoughts. This is of
course not an enouragement to rewire and rewrite our brain. It is an encouragement
to accept that the radical honesty concept is required to force us to be true to
ourselves. When circumstances reveal a man, then because they make us exit the
every-day bullshit reasoning patterns we are enslaved to and because then we are
forced to ask us who we really are. Do this every day, and you shall be revealed
everyday. Allen also invites us to join in the path of experience over thoughts. We
need to be alive and acct alive in order to shape our thoughts with good experience.

Andreas and Faulkner - NLP

Just reprogram yourself to work perfectly. (NLP originally from Bandler
and Grinder) Neuro -> The nervous system and how it processes the
pathways of our ve senses
Linguistic -> the reection of our mental world by language such as words
and spoken language, body language, habits
Programming -> borrowed from computer science

This is a systemic approach towards decomposing your behavioural patterns and

changing the pathologic pat-terns rather than changing the personality as a whole.
It provides a discriptive view of the veryday routines and makes accesible the areas
that we need to focus on.

Marcus Aurelius - Meditations

Basic essence: accept people as who they are, not who we want them to be . This yields
an understanding of unity. Knowing to see the world from someone else's eyes is an
extension of own's own worldview and leads towards an understanding of the unity
of mankind, one's people.
All things fade into the storied past, and in a little while are shrouded in
oblivion. Even to men whose lives were a blaze of glory this comes to pass; as
to the rest, the breath is hardly out of them before, in Homer's words, they
are `lost to sight alike and hearsay'. What, after all, is immortal fame? An
empty, hollow thing. To what, then, must we aspire? This, and this alone: the
just thought, the unselsh act, the tongue that utters no falsehood, the temper
that greets each passing event as something predestined, expected, and
emanating from the One source and origin
Be like the headland against which the waves break and break: it stands rm,
until presently the watery tumult around it subsides once more to rest. `How
unlucky I am, that this should have happened to me!' By no means; say, rather,
 `How lucky I am that this has left me with no bitterness; unshaken by the
present, and undismayed by the future.'
Survey the circling stars, as though you yourself were mid-course with them.
Often picture the changing and rechanging dance of the elements. Visions of
this kind purge away the dross of our earth-bound life

Martha Beck - Finding your north star (direction)

Essential self vs. social self: Who you are dened by your desire and dreams vs. who
you are due to restrictions that others place on you. Assess who places which
restrictions on you and overcome a) the restrictions if they are real, or b) the rhetoric
of these that dene the way they look at you.
When you nd something that gives you joy and at which you seem easily
productivewhat in eastern philosophy is called non-actionit is probably close to your
North Star
The essential self is like the daimon or soul image that James Hillman talks of in The
Soul's Code. It can't speak, so it nds all kinds of ways to be recognized. Many of Beck's
clients come to her complaining that they self-sabotage: They u exams or interviews
that they had to do well in, not really knowing why. Yet what seems like an
inexplicable failure may actually be in harmony with your true desires in the long
term. One of the most vital aspects of regaining your essential self is to learn how to
say no again. The

Your body and your brain will happily tell you when the essential self has been
ignored, be it through illness, forgetfulness, numb hostility, apathy, Freudian slips, or
addiction. Listen to your body!
When we contemplate change (having a baby, quitting a job, taking a year o) we
make protestations to ourselves that everybody will think I'm an idiot, everybody will
hate me. This is terrifyinguntil we come to understand that everyone is composed of
just a few people, some maybe not even still alive. Psychology describes this as the
generalized other.

Once we see that there are in fact millions of points of view on everything, we can no
longer be beholden to an imaginary everybody, and are free to pursue what we feel
to be right.

The Bhagavad Gito

If we must throw ourselves into life, what should be our guide? There is action
motivated by desire, and action undertaken out of a sense of purpose

Allain de Botton - How Proust can change your life

Instead of seeking to make our lives a sort of Disneyland of fulfilled aspirations, it is
better to find ways in which we can be “productively unhappy.” Suffering always
seems to surprise us, when maybe it shouldn't.
Proust was loved by many of his peers because
to keep a friend and to get the most out of their personality, you had to let them
do the talking.
he believed that friendships should be light-hearted and non-intellectual
conversation was an opportunity to amuse the other person and to make them
feel special
Proust deliberately excised truth and the intellect from the friendship equation,
allowing him to express his laser-like powers of analysis in his writing thereby
keeping his friend
The message we can glean from this master of friendship is to have lower
expectations of your friends, and generally not to depend on other people for your
happiness.
Get a grip on your deeper passion or love (which is usually not a person but a thing
that cries out for fulllment or pursuitin Proust's case, writing) and live according to it.
This puts friendships and bondings into a proper perspective the object of reading
him is to come away with a heightened sense of perception that can be employed
wherever you are and in whatever time you live.
At one level, Proust's work is about appreciating the moment, the tiny details of life.
He wanted us to feel the luxury of time, to revel in it, and his writing style famously
reects his obsession
Proust used the past to describe a vision of how things are separate to time. Events
are in the past, but the deep understanding of people, of love, and of life that Proust
provides is not tied to time. De Botton was inspired to write his book because of this
very timelessness in Proust

Robert Bly - Iron John

Learning to take ancient malehood seriously and incorporate it into our modern life.
Similar spirit: Baudrillard compared the Romans and Greek and basically claimed
the Romans wore heavy armory to pretect themselves from dangers in war, but also
psychologically they wore masks to play social images correctly without being seen.
The Greek on the other side fought naked, throwing their entire vulnerability into
the eld and believing in the Gods to help them if they were the stronger ghters to
receive. They were also naked in a psychological sense that they carried their hearts
inside-out, like a torch that guided them through the darkness of life. To live naked,
vulnerable and still strong and self-condent is the way of the Greek ideal that
Baudrillard proposed.
Wild man vs savage: savage wrecks the environment, abuses women, and so on,
his inner desperation being pushed out on to the world as a disregard or hatred of
others; the wild man has been prepared to examine where it is he hurts; because of
this he is more like a Zen priest or a shaman than a savage. The wild man is
masculinity's highest expression, the savage man its lowest.
In modern world childhood is being over-protective, children are held in cocoons
and hence they never are exposed to danger but also never learn about power. In
a bare ght against external forces, there is no rule or institution governing fairness,
but it is an interplay of force and power. To learn to deal with this is a vital
awakening and initiation.
Males do love warrior gures because there is such a thing as warrior energy. Jung
said that American families are so poor because man do play warrior at work only,
becoming pussycats at home. This is bad.
Coming to ground: A man may spend his twenties and thirties as a sort of ying
boy; in his imagination, nothing can hold him down. But for a man to be made
whole, there has to be something that rips him open, a wound that allows his soul
to enter. In many myths, a wild animal gets close enough to a young man to gore
his leg; in the Iron John story, it is a knight who chases after the prince and stabs
him in the leg. As he falls o his horse, the golden hair he has hidden from everyone
underneath the helmet is revealed. Until then he has seemed two-dimensional.
Appreciation of pain and sorrow, Bly says, is as vital to a man's potentiality as is
having the ability to soar through the air.

William Bridges - Transitions

Human life is about constant changes. And if you are encountering a transition, you
have to accept it. It usually means:
disidentification with the old self: you have to distance yourself from liking your
old lifestyle, because you cannot come back to it. You need to adapt to the new
circumstances.

disenchantment: realizing that you have been living in a bubble before. (Well, we
always deal with new circumstances by partially building rationalizing a new world in
which what we have to do is good. For instance, you phantasize about money made
and a big car when you get itno the job world. Which partially may be realistic,
partially it is an exagerattion and it will take time to adapt to the new reality where
you will be working hard time without making a lot of money.)
The neutral zone: realizing that an old phase of you life is over usually makes you
quick jump into a new stage in order to remain balanced. But Bridges considers the
option to seize the opportunity of silence to think about life and rethink about future
obligations and actions, because the neutral zone allows us to.
1) Make sure you find time to be alone and think.
2) Make sure you reflect about your experiences in the neutral zone and take time
to reinvent your story.
3) Try to discover what you really want and what your purpose in life is.
=> Going into retreat, into the desert or into the woods has been a vital part of all
great men for ages.

Shakti Garwain - Mental Visualization

Think about things you want to achieve and visualize them. Quiten you mind and
get alpha waves, the ones you have after waking up or before going to bed.
How can creative visualization work?
The physical universe is energy. All matter, when you break it down to smaller
and smaller bits, is made up of particles of energy that when put together in a
specic way create the illusion of solidity.
Dierent types of matter have dierent levels of particle vibration. A rock, a ower,
or a person is energy moving at dierent vibrations. Energy of a certain quality
or vibration tends to attract that of a similar vibration. A thought is a form of
light, mobile energy that tends to nd physical expression.
When we creatively visualize or make a-rmations of positive outcomes and
states, we are radiating thought energy into the universe. The universe responds
in the form of matter or events. Creative visualization is literally sowing the
seeds of the life we want.
Some further points include the following:
A-rmations. You don't have to actually see images to be a creative visualizer.
Some people aren't very good at this and nd it more eective merely to think
about what they desire, or turn it into an a-rmation (e.g., I deserve the best and
the best is coming to me now.) A-rmations, Gawain says, make rm what you are
imaging. They must be in the present tense and should include verbs. Power
also tends to be added if you invoke God, innite intelligence, or the universe.
Accepting your good. You may feel that you are unworthy of getting all that
you'd like in life. Before you visualize, make sure that you are willing to accept
what comes to you. Love yourself rst.
Belief. You donft need to believe in any spiritual or metaphysical ideas for
creative visualization to work; all the power you need to do it successfully is
already in you.
Health and prosperity. You can heal yourself and others through visualizing
perfect health, and begin to gain an awareness of the true abundance of the
universe through picturing all that is constantly being created.

Norman Vincent Peale - The power of positive thinking

Every day, in every way, I am getting better and better is Emile Coué's famous
positive thinking mantra, which to most ears is supercial and even idiotic.
The source of positive thinking
“If God is for us, who can be against us?” (Romans 8:31) “If thou can believe, all
things are possible to him that believeth” (Mark 9:23) “According to your faith, be it
unto you.” (Matthew 9:29) Peale's theme was that we don't have to depend on
ourselves; there are incredible sources of power open to us if we only believe in
their existence. We make life hard, but an appreciation of the universe's ability to
make good and to provide would lead us to see life as growing and abundant. Life
seems diffcult because we only believe in ourselves
“How to have constant energy” Peale revealed the secret source of energy of every
great person he had known: attunement with the infinite. The knowledge that what
one is doing is supported outside oneself and is serving a divine end provides a
 constantly renewable source of energy. Working only by oneself and for oneself
leads to burnout. “Try prayer power” Prayer is difffferent to what you may have
thought. It is a space to say whatever is on your mind, in whatever language you
choose. Instead of asking for things, give thanks in advance for what you desire,
leave it in God's hands, and visualize the good outcome. The Peale formula is
“Prayerize, Picturize, Actualize.” Be surprised at its effectiveness. “Expect the best
and get it” Fearful creatures that we are, we tend to expect the worst. But an
expectation of the best has a way of organizing forces in your favor. You are less
likely to keep anything in reserve. The subconscious, which regulates many of our
actions, merely reects your beliefs. Alter the belief about an outcome and your
actions will seem to be shaped in order to achieve it. Peale's phrase is: Doubt closes
the power ow. Faith opens it. New thoughts can remake you Use only positive and
hopeful language for a 24-hour period. Then go back to being realistic the next day.
Repeat this over a week and you nd that what you considered realistic a week ago
now seems pessimistic. In golng terms, discover that the rough is only mental.

Philipp C McGraw - Life Strategies: Do what works, do what matters

Get realistic about yourself and smart about the world. No one can do this for you.
1) The laws governing life are there. Hate em or love them. They cannot be changed.
2) You either get it or you don't. You can only be successfull if you study the rules
well enough to apply them and get success.
He quotes Mark Twain: “We do not deal much in facts when we are contemplating
ourselves.” Yet your life clearly does rest on facts (who you are with, what you do, the
conditions in which you live), and while it may be fashionable to say that “the most
important thing is that you tried,” the world will only take note of success
Common issues
Become a realist and stop creating your extra-vagant experience: whatever is
wrong in your life, it is your own damn fault. Stop making excuses and see
it as it is.
People do what works: if you are doing something unhealthy, there still will be
some reason e hidden. Uncover the reason and solve the problem. For instance,
a woman who was abused when she was young, had a eating problem.
Everytime she lost weight, the looks of people reminded her of the awkward
experience. Once she knew this way of operating, she stopped being fat.
Start acknowleding your problem. Just like anonymous alcoholics. You need to
stop being ok with your choices, but face the reality.
Do things. Honestly, the world couldn't care less about your ambitions, thoughts
and dreams. It is all about what you do. Do something. The winners are those
that do what the losers don't want to do. Simple as that.
There is no hard reality in our minds, it is all distored by perception. First of all,
be open to see that others look at things dierently. And the lters you use and
the perception you cultivate should be based on hard facts and gains from that
ltering.
Life is managed, not treated.
We teach people how to treat us
There is power in forgiveness
You have to name it to claim it

Thomas Moore - Care of the soul

Care of the soul is “an application of poetics to everyday life,” bringing imagination
back into those areas of our lives that are devoid of it, and re-imagining the things
that we believe we already under-stand. Rewarding relationships, fulfilling work,
personal power, and peace of mind are all gifts of the soul. They are so difffficult to
achieve because the idea of soul does not exist for most of us, instead making itself
known through physical symptoms and complaints, anguish, emptiness, or a general
unease.
Conventional self-help and psychotherapy are problem solving. The literature on the
soul, exemplidied by Moore, is “problem-noticing and wondering.”
Some Concepts
Love
We should try not to see love in terms of making relationships work. Rather, love is
an event of the soul that may have surprisingly little to do with who you are with.
Love is relief from the mundane, sanitized nature of modern life, a door into mystery,
which is why we seize it with such force.
Jealouy
Moore had a young client who had whipped himself into a frenzy about his
girlfriend's suspected affairs. Yet the man also believed that romantic attachment
was not modern or acceptable. This purity of ideals had shunted out the possibility
of real attachment, and the result was an ugly externalization of jealousy.
Nevertheless, jealousy is not all bad, serving the soul through the creation of limits
and rootedness. Flying in the face of modern ideas about “co-dependency,”Moore
says that it is OK to find one's identity in relation to another.
Power
The soul's power is quite different to the ego's. With the ego we plan, direct, and work
toward an end. The soul's power is more like a current of water: Though we may never
understand its source, we still have to accommodate it and let it guide our existence.
With the soul we have to abandon the “consumer logic” of cause and effect and the
efficient use of time.
Violence
The soul loves power, but violence breaks out when the dark imagination is given no
outlet. When a community or a whole culture lacks soulfulness, the soul is fetishized
into objects, for example guns. As Oscar Wilde suggested, virtue cannot be genuine
when it sets itself apart from evil.
Depression
Moore says that any culture that tries to protect itself against the tragic side of life
will make depression the enemy, but that in any type of society “devoted to light”
depression will be unusu-ally strong in order to compensate for its unnatural covering
up. Moore describes depression as a gift: It unwraps our neat little values and aims,
giving us a chance to get to know the soul.

Carol S. Pearson - Heroic Archtypes

Her basic message is that we should instead of looking up to heroes, become heros
ourselves and she says we should do this by using the frame of these six archetypes.

1) The orphat (Life is suering -> Survice di-culty) (e.g. Bunyan's endurance in
times of trial.) Ever felt betrayed, abandoned, victimized? Pearson tells us not to
despair, for such experiences are a mythic event calling you to the quest.
the job of the orphan is to face life head on instead of becoming attached to
the victim mindset and states of dependency. You have integrated your Orphan
when you stop craving protection and security and are willing to let others be
freer as well; when you can balance wariness with hope, avoiding the conclusion
that life is suering. You know about pain, but you also assert that it is not
everything.
2) The wanderer (Life is an adventure -> Find yourself)
misunderstood, alienated or in an unknown situation? It's a call to move into
another life that is less restricting and more us.
We need to nd out whether we are just escaping responsibility or whether we
are in search of a new life path. In the latter case, don't hesitate to break with
the current situation.
3) The warrior (Life is a battle -> Prove your worth)
 Each time we use the warrior well, we are not so much ghting battles as
awakening the King ; Warriors today are less engaged in active competition but
struggle with themselves to overcome limitations and achieve excellence.
4) The altruist (Committment to the greater good -> Show generosity)
5) Innocent (Life is joy -> Achieve happiness)
6) Magician (Creating the world I want -> Transform your life)
Also: She obsreves we are moving from a warrior towards a magician culture.
Magicians envision and blieve their vision will create a dynamic that inuences the
future course.

Robert Peck - Road less travelled

Once we admit life is diffcult, the fact is no longer of great consequence. Once you
accept responsibility, you can make better choices.

Discipline: With no discipline, no problem is solved. With mediocre discipline,

mediocre problems are solved. With great disciplines, every problem is solved.
Most large problems are the result of us being unable to encounter small
problems in the beginning or a lack of being dedicated to trutgh. The big
mistake is that we believe that problems go away by themselves or that we can
relieve ourselves from responsibility by submitting to authority.
The road and its rewards:
Observation: Few are willing to take the road. Most prefer life on autopilot.
People are less often mentally ill as perceived, but anguished about missed
opportunities.

Anthony Robbins - Unlimited Power

Either you shape someones opinions, or they shape yours. Power is everywhere.
Power is the ability to produce the results you want and create value for others in the
process. Real power is shared, not imposed. It is the ability to transform your life and
yourself to achieve the things you want rather than chase them.

Power came from physical and intelligent power, towards power of the royals, the
king and his followers (institutional power), to capital power (power of money and to
dictate behaviour accordingly) and today it is from specialized power. We are no more
in the money-empowered industrial economy (Galbraith), but in the information
society, where all you do is manipulate and control information and knowledge.
The level of sucess that you feel in your self is the direct result of how effective you
communicate with yourself.
How you feel is not what is happening to you in your life, but how you interpret
it. It's not about what happens to us, but what we do about what happens to us.
Emotions and feeligns do not happen to you, you create them.
Take massive, congruent and focused actions and get the results in
transforming your life. The steps
1) Know you desired outcome, write it down.
2) Actions. Take the actions you believe will have the highest probability to take
you where you want to go.
3) Actions don't always produce results. So you need to analyse reactions to
your actions and whether your actions are bringing you closer or draw you
further away from your goal.
So note down the results you have gottten from your action, such that you can
learn from expe-rience.
 4) Once enough knowledge is there, change your behaviour to get where you
want.

Florence Scovell Shinn

Life as a gamble => you are a sole fighter, there are no rules, you must not lose. Life
as a game => There are rules, and you just have to learn the rules and then how to
apply them successfully to get happy and successful.
Divine design: whenever you had a vision of who you could become and how happy
you would be, if. Then this was a calling from the universe.
Divine right: Is the woman we are with for us by divine right? Is this job ours by
divine right? Are the decisions we make to us by divine right? Which of our
achievements came from our divine right to have made them? This gives you a good
perspective of what is important and what is not.
Follow what is known to work instead of battling what you dislike. Wish without
worrying, pursue without doubt and send love out so you be protected.
Faith over fear: cast thy burden onto the Lord. It is he who is troubled with your
future and capabilities. You just have to do your best and leave worrying to the
creator.
Real love: One of shinns clients was a women whose love had decided to marry
someone else. She was furious and he told her to simply love him selessly. Only later
in the years a letter from her arrived saying that once she truly loved him wherever
he was, he suddenly came back to her and they got married and happy.
The power of words: Don't underestimate them and use them to manipulate
yourself and others into thinking good.

Thoreau - Walden
It comes as no surprise that Thoreau dismissed the Benjamin Franklin style of up-
by-the-bootstraps hard-work heroism. Social standing was unimportant and
prosperity was less something to be achieved than to be witnessed in the bounty
of nature.

To work only for having time to read, write, and enjoy nature.
Finding the self, unscattered and manipulated by social reflection and contingency.
The isolation of the man that only lives with the physical reality under his feet. That
is the archetypical indvidual of individualism, the man that cares about nothing but
his connection to nature, a personal one, and that does his life's work to enjoy this
connection. In an extended way, a connection to God once you have found the
beauty and holistic essence of your surroundings.
“If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a
different drummer. Let him step to the music he hears, however measured or far
away.”
Marianne Williamson - Return to love

special/ego relationships vs holy relationships: unconditional love does not see

mistakes and therefore catalyzes the good in the other, while special relationships
focus on the other's problems and faults, which makes our reaction to them
conditional, which the other perceives and reacts to.
Relationships are assignments, providing us with a maximum opportunity for
growth. In that sense there are soul mates, but not in the well perceived way, but in
the fact that people exist that capacitate our growth. Learning to be patient, humble
and to love more is the mayor direction of growth for Williamson.
The people who make us angry can be important teachers, whereas the ego chooses
people htat give us the most pleasure and the least problems, which pulls us away
from paths where we can make great relationships and grow.
Applied to jobsearch and career, it may be the easiest way (the one matching our
interests and skills) that we choose if pay is su-cient, but the deeper sense of life is
achieved if we are listening to our calling, which is a matter of temperament. She
explains the wrong tendency by the same argument Tulip explains our attitude
toward risk. We oversize the fear of failure and downsize the chance of brilliance
resulting from this lifestyle.
The act of goalsetting is to her an act of the ego as it tries to nd the easiest path. It
is not related with happiness-.
Miracles: When we decide to have a certain openness of mind and are committed
to change, anything that seems beyond us can be oered up for transformation. If it
is not an ego want but a genuine part of that transformative frame of mind, the
miracle will happen. Where once we saw our partner as guilty on a number of counts,
today we see their 50 SELF-HELP CLASSICS 291 innocence and treat them
accordingly. Where we had an addiction, fueled by fear and self-hate, today that
hole is lled up

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin - Self-Help by metaphysical prophecy

Today's evolutionary biologists have ample evidence that the human brain has not
changed in thou-sands of years, but merely because we have the same brain
structure does not mean that we are the same beings. Teilhard believed that when
humankind began living in the state of reectiveness, our progress was inevitable; we
would enjoy not only survival, but super-life.
Though he delved into the physics of the cosmos and the subterranea of the earth,
Teilhard always came back to the human personality. In an address to UNESCO in
1947, discussing the possibility of a new Declaration of the Rights of Man, he urged
provision not for the autonomy of individuals, but for the incommunicable
singularity of being which each of us possesses. This sounds lofty, but means that
the human race is never going to progress by people seeking to transcend it, or
through individualism, but rather that we will move forward as a race by making
room for everyone to express their personalities to the full.
The noosphere
the noosphere is its mental counterpart, an invisible layer of thought around the
earth that is the sum total of humankind's mental and spiritual states, all culture,
love, and knowledge.
The noosphere concept has clearly come of age in the networked society. It has
had a huge inuence on computer and internet theorists, who recognize that
Teilhard saw the internet 50 years before it happened. The concept also
preceded James Lovelock's Gaia concept, by which we understand the planet as
one living organism.
Teilhard said that as humanity became more self-reective, able to appreciate its
place within space and time, its evolution would actuallystart to move by great
leaps instead of a slow climb.,
We would move irresistibly toward a new type of existence, at which all potential
would be reached. Teilhard called this the omega point. (This is his goal for
humanity)
Norman B. Scherer - Thoughts on the meaning of human existence
Similar in spirit than de Chardin, although a lot more speculative and trivial, but also
answering the question of where to go.
Scherer picks up the thoughts from Ken Wilber on the evolutionary arrow at
whose right side point is man. He claims that all evolution in the universe could
be interpreted as an evolution towards complexity in very small spaces. The
human brain, so he hypothesizes, is the smalles and most complex aparaturs of
a specic structure that follows from physical laws.
This evolution does not end at this point, but it is the end in the physical world
that is deter-mined by physical law. It is like evolution is stepping through a door
from the physical into the consciousness.
Because, as humans learn to understand the universe and its underlying laws,
and the mathemat-ics that govern it, man itself makes itself slave to lawful
thinking and hence the evolution of ideas and mechanisms of control over
physical entitites follows the same laws as the observed universe. WHich is why
the laws in their structure continue to form structures in the minds of the human
being.
And then the mirroring of physical evolution takes place, where from man right
back again into the cosmos evolution begins to create even more complex and
ner structures composed of matter. Namely, he says, suhc a thing as a house or
more explicitly, the exact form of the white house, would never have emerged
in the universe not even by the slightest chance, if there has not been emerging
such a thing as the human being that designed this structure and allowed it to
exist for a longer period of time. The white house is an idea created in the
human mind and materialized by human action in the physical world. And hence
all material creations of mankind are part of the evolution of the universe itself,
yet part of that evolution that is not determined in its complexity by the laws of
the universe, but those of the mind.
The very simple implication of this mirror interpretation is that of course from
our current point of view man will eventually transform the entire universe into
its playground. It will enable life and intelligent evolution in the universe.
At the same point, he argues, that one could claim that evolution starts with
man, or the spirit, the soul or whatsoever. And that from the point of the brain
outgoing, evolution goes from the complex to the simple in both ways. Namely,
the creations of the mind are just as much the result of year-long social
interaction and thinking over generations, as is the universe itself the result from
the cycle of life.
In his views, a spiritual and entirely living entity creates a space as it dies and
leaves parts of its energy in a space that is excluded from communicating with
the higher-dimensional space the spirit lived in. The universe is like a large
dumping ground of energy lost from a larger structure as entities within it died.
And combinding this concept with the above, that intelligence may transform
the universe into life in the common sense, it also transforms it into life in his
own sense, namely, it dissolves itself entirely.

Deepah Chopra -
Wayne Dyer - Real Magic
Teilhard de Chardin: “We are not human beings having a spiritual experience, we
are spiritual beings having a human experience.”
 In this state of higher awareness, your purpose in life becomes very clear,
relationships become more spiritual, work endeavors begin to ow, and decisions
are made with ease.
Enlightenment through purpose
The thread running though Real Magic is the need to become aware of our unique
purpose in life. People learn or become enlightened about life and themselves in
three main ways:
Enlightenment through suddering. This might also be called the why me? path.
Events occur, suffering takes place, and something is learned. But when
suffering is our only teacher, we shut off the possibility of the miraculous.
Enlightenment through outcome. In this path we have goals and ambitions that
make sense of life. While superior to enlightenment through suering, we must
still be reactive and struggle, missing out on the higher awareness that creates
magic.
Enlightenment through purpose. Everything in the universe has a purpose, and
by living according to our true purpose we begin to walk in step with it,
magically creating what we want instead of battling against life.
good indication that you are on purpose is if you lose track of time while doing
your task, if it gives so much pleasure that you would want to do it even if you won
$10 million tomorrow.
Creating a miracle mindset Apart from purpose, we create a miracle mindset through:
Withholding judgment (you do not dene people with your judgments, your
judgments dene you).
Developing intuition.
Knowing that intentions create your reality.
Surrendering to the universe to provide for your needs.
Purpose and relationships
Purpose also extends to our love life. Dyer says that all our relationships are part of
a divine necessity; they were meant to be, so make the most of them. Spiritual
partners go beyond what they may supercially have in common to see that their
relationship has to do with the evolution of their souls. With this basic insight, we
treat people as a gift, not a chattel. We try to be kind, rather than right. We allow
people as much space and time as they need, which renews the relationship. Lastly,
since we know that each person is a wonderful mystery, we no longer have to
understand them. We honor the incomprehensible!
Purpose and the prospering self
Dyer is particularly valuable on prosperity. Mostly we worry about whether we have
money or do not have it, but his conception is that we must not try to get anything:
There is no way to prosperity, prosperity is the way. Prosperity is chiey a state of
mind, just as scarcity is. It is not about getting, but being. Prosperity consciousness
is about the knowledge of how much we already have in abundance; as the biblical
phrase has it, To him that hath, more will be given. In contrast, poverty
consciousness is based on feelings of lack, which are manifested in your
circumstances. Dyer echoes James Allen in saying that circumstances do not make
us, they reveal us. This is obviously a sensitive area, as it could be interpreted that
the poor deserve their situation. But Dyer makes a crucial distinction: While most of
us have had the experience of being broke, poor is a set of beliefs that are
strengthened each time we blame circumstances for our plight. Living out our
purpose is a sure way to enter the stream of prosperity, as it involves constant
giving. Another way is automatically to give away at least 10 percent of what we
earn, even if that is not much.
Who am I meant to be?
Real Magic also covers personal identity. The chief point is that until we see that the
personality we have now is not set in stone, that we can reinvent ourselves, we will
not have a magic-lled life. The faint intuition or nagging inside about your
possibilities knows more about you than you are willing to admittreasure it and let
it grow. Instead of focusing on what we lack, this growth should come from a
knowledge that we are it all already. Reinvention of our personality simply means
exposing more of our true and greater self to the air.
Inner treasure
 These are the nal lines of Self-Reliance: A political victory, a rise of rents, the recovery
of your sick or the return of your absent friend, or some other favorable event raises
your spirits, and you think good days are preparing for you. Do not believe it.
Nothing can bring you peace but yourself. Nothing can bring you peace but the
triumph of principles. This speaks to the very heart of the human condition and the
ideas about fortune by which we live. Yet Emerson believed that all happiness was
ultimately self-generated. It was not human nature to be permanently hostage to
eventswe are quite capable of detachment or transcendence.

Benjamin Franklin's Biography

Creating the best possible self
Franklin believed that virtue had worth for its own sake, whether or not it was to the
glory of God. His background was Puritan and culturally he remained one, self-
examining and self-improving. In his famous The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism, Weber names Franklin as a key exponent of this ethic. Franklin was a
printer by trade and believed that character was the result of correcting the errata
that prevent us attaining perfection. Life is not something we must suer through,
but is ripe for endless tinkering. This is why Franklin is seminal in self-help
literaturehe disregarded any religious conception that we are naturally bad or good
people, but saw humans rather as blank slates designed for success. Seavey notes,
It was always natural for Franklin to be trying on a fresh identity, as if he were putting
on new clothes. He was truly modern in seeing that the individual was not a xed
proposition at all, but self-creating.
Franklin's law of constant self-improvement
Franklin wrote the Autobiography as an old man, considered a great man. He had
arrived in Philadel-phia from Boston with a couple of shillings and three bread rolls,
two of which, characteristically, he gave to a woman in need. Instinctively knowing
that mastery of words would be his ticket out of mediocrity, he would persuade a
friend working at a booksellers to lend him books overnight, devouring them
between nishing his day's work and starting another. Franklin would have agreed
with the phrase leaders are readers: Read at least a dozen non-ction books a year
and your life will be immeasurably enriched and improved. Nevertheless, as a young
man Franklin never dreamed of becoming an independence leader or ambassador
to France. The reader of his life should not dwell on his actual accomplishments;
they are less important than the eorts to achieve self-mastery that he described.
Franklin's message is timeless: Greatness is not for the few, but is the duty of all of
us. We protest that we are not that special, that we don't have the talent or the drive,
but Franklin knew that an ethic of constant self-improvement is the yeast that makes
an individual rise.
Franklin and the self-help ethic
The famous example of Franklin's self-help ethic is what has become known as The
Art of Virtue, in which he listed the 12 qualities he aimed to possess. By a system of
graphs and daily self-appraisal, he claimed to have (mostly) achieved the desired
virtues, having some di-culty with Order, or what we might now call time
management; but realizing he was too proud at having lived up to his own standards,
he created a thirteenth, Humility!
1 Temperance. Eat not to Dullness. Drink not to Elevation.
2 Silence. Speak not but what may benet others or yourself. Avoid triing
conversation.
3 Order. Let all your Things have their Places. Let each Part of your Business
have its Time. 4 Resolution. Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform
without fail what you resolve.
5 Frugality. Make no Expense but to do good to others or yourself; that is, Waste
nothing.
6 Industry. Lose no Time. Be always employed in something useful. Cut o all
unnecessary actions. 7 Sincerity. Use no hurtful Deceit. Think innocently and justly;
and if you speak, speak accordingly. 8 Justice. Wrong none, by doing Injuries or
omitting the Benets that are your Duty.
9 Moderation. Avoid Extremes. Forbear resenting injuries so much as you
think they deserve. 10 Cleanliness. Tolerate no Uncleanness in Body, Clothes
or Habitation.
11 Tranquillity. Be not disturbed at Tries, or at Accidents common or unavoidable.
12 Chastity. Rarely use Venery but for Health or Ospring; never to Dullness,
Weakness, or the Injury of your own or another's Peace or Reputation.
13 Humility. Imitate Jesus and Socrates.
morning questionWhat good shall I do this
day? evening questionWhat good have I done
today?
The secret of inuence Finally, Franklin's built-in skill at winning friends and inuencing
people did not escape the attention of Dale Carnegie. As a young man, Franklin
believed himself to be highly skilled in argument, but came to the conclusion that
this skill actually stood in the way of getting things done. He developed the habit of
only ever expressing himself in terms of modest Di-dence, never saying words like
undoubtedly or trying to correct people. Instead, he used measured phrases such
as It appears to me... or If I am not mistaken... The result was that, even though he
was not a great speaker, people focused on his ideas and he was quick to gain
credibility.

C.26. James Hillmann - The Soul's Code: In search of Character and Calling
We are a story, not a result
The idea of a soul image has a long history in most cultures, but contemporary
psychology and psychiatry ignore it completely. Image, character, fate, genius,
calling, daimon, soul, destiny – these
are all big words, Hillman admits, and we have become afraid to use them, but this
does not lessen their reality. Psychology can only seem to break down the puzzle of
the individual into traits of personality, types, and complexes. The author mentions
a psychological biography of Jackson Pollock, which stated that the rhythmic lines
and arcs of his paintings were the result of being left out of his brothers'
competitions of creative urination on the dust of their Wyoming farm! Such
interpretations kill the spirit, denying that inner visions, rather than circumstances,
are what drive people. The way we see our lives, says Hillman, dulls them. We love
romance and ction, but don't apply enough romantic ideals or stories to ourselves.
We cease to be a creation and become more a result, in which life is reduced to the
interplay between genetics and environment. Another way in which we restrict our
existence is in how we see time, or cause and eect. That is, This happened, which
caused me to... or I am the product of... The book looks rather at what is timeless
about us, whether we are just born, middle-aged, or old.
Who are our parents?
 Hillman is brilliant at exposition of what he calls the parental fallacy, the belief that
the way we are is because of how our parents were. Childhood, The Soul's Code
argues, is best understood in terms of the image with which we are born coming
into contact with the environment in which we nd ourselves. The child's tantrums
and strange obsessions should be seen in this context, rather than trying to correct
them in therapy. Yehudi Menuhin was given a toy violin for his fourth birthday, which
he promptly dashed to the ground. Even at this age, it was an insult to the great
violinist-in-waiting. We treat children as if they are a blank slate, without their own
authenticity, and the child is therefore denied the possibility that they may have an
agenda for their life, guided by their genius. In terms of our daimon, a parental union
results from our necessity: The daimon selected the egg and the sperm as well as
their carriers, called parents. This certainly turns the tables, but Hillman suggests
that it explains the impossible marriages, quick conceptions, and sudden desertions
that form the stories of so many of our parents. He goes further to point out the
poverty of seeing our mothers and fathers as, literally, mum and dad, when nature
could be our mother, books our fatherwhatever connects us to the world and
teaches us. Quoting Alfred North Whitehead, who said that religion is world loyalty,
Hillman says that we must believe in the world's ability to provide for us and lovingly
reveal to us its mysteries.
I must have you
The Soul's Code shows how the daimon will assert itself in love, giving rise to
obsessions and torments of romantic agony that defy the logic of evolutionary
biology. Identical twins separated at birth are often later found to be wearing the
same aftershave or smoking the same brand of cigarette, but in the most important
choice of choosing a mate there can be great dierences.When Michelangelo
sculpted portraits of gods or of his contemporaries, he tried to see what he called
the immagine del cuor, the heart's image; the sculpture aimed to reveal the inner
soul of the subject. Hillman says that the same heart's image lies within each person.
When we fall in love, we feel super-important because we are able to reveal who we
truly are, giving a glimpse of our soul's genius. The meeting between lovers is a
meeting of images, an exchange of imaginations. You are in love because your
imagination is on re. By freeing imagination, even identical twins are freed of their
sameness
The bad seed
The Soul's Code is engrossing when it comes to love's opposite, the bad seed.
Hillman devotes most of a chapter to the phenomenon of Adolf Hitler. Hitler's
habits, reported by reliable informants, give evidence of possession by a bad
daimon. The principal dierence to other lives discussed in the book is the
combination of acorn and personality: Not only was Hitler's acorn a bad seed, but it
was wrapped in a personality that oered no doubts or resistance to it. From a single
seed, we can see how the fascinating power in this man charmed millions into a
collective demonic state. We can apply the same idea to modern psychopaths like
Jerey Dahmer to understand how they can enchant their victims. This is not to
suggest in any way that the terrible actions arising from a bad seed are justied.
However, appreciating the criminal mind in terms of the daimon/acorn gives us a
better understanding of it than our conventional idea of evil (that is, something to
be eradicated or loved away). What makes the seed demonic is its single-track
obsession, but its ultimate aim is glory. As a society, we should be willing to
recognize this drive and nd ways of channeling it to less destructive ends. We live in
a culture of innocence that despises darkness. American popular culture in
particular, with its Disneylands and Sesame Street, cannot accept seeds that are not
sugar coated. Nevertheless, innocence actually attracts evil, Hillman says, and
Natural Born Killers are the secret companions of Forrest Gumps.
The soul mystery
Having spent the book looking at the lives of the famous, Hillman raises the question of
mediocritycan there be a mediocre daimon? His answer is that there are no mediocre
souls, a truth reected in our sayings. We speak of someone having a beautiful soul, a
wounded soul, a deep soul, or a child-like soul.
We do not say that people have a middle-class, average, or regular soul, he notes.
Souls come from the non-material realm, yet they yearn for the experience of this very
physical world. Hillman recalls the lm Wings of Desire, in which an angel falls in love
with life, the normal life of regular people and their predicaments. To the angels and
the gods, there is nothing everyday or ordinary about our lives.
Final Sentence
Picasso said, I don't develop; I am. Life is not about becoming something, but about
making real the image already there. We are obsessed with personal growth, reaching
toward some imaginary heaven, but instead of trying to transcend human existence, it
makes more sense to grow down into the world and our place in it. Hillman is not
surprised that the people we call stars often nd life so di-cult and painful. The self-
image that the public gives them is an illusion and inevitably leads to tragic falls to
earth.

Samuel Smiles - Sheer will and persistence

The myth of the artist is a person of wild genius who produces masterpieces in
creative bursts, while the common denominator in Smiles' lives of the artists is their
singular industry and never-say-die application to the task, almost equal to their
artistic talent. In showing that many of the methods they pioneered were the result
of years of trial and error, he explodes the belief that the most famous artists have
the most talent. In fact talent is not thinly spread; what is rare is the willingness to
put in the back-breaking labor to fulll an artistic vision. Michelangelo would not have
painted the Sistine Chapel ceiling if he had not been willing to lie on his back on
boards for months on end. It took Titian seven years to produce his Last Supper for
Charles V, yet the viewer might assume that it was created in a burst of genius.
It is not eminent talent that is required to ensure success in any pursuit, so much as
purposenot merely the power to achieve, but the will to labour energetically and
perseveringly. Hence energy of will may be defined to be the very central power of
character in a manin a word, it is the Man himself
Character is power, more than knowledge is power. - Sir Humphry Davy: What I am
I have made myself: I say this without vanity, and in pure simplicity of heart
Davy's admission spoke of courage, not as part of exciting tales of derring-do but of
small daily decisions that rea-rm independence. This is the primary ingredient of
Stephen Covey's highly eective people.
Business = integrity of word and deed. It follows that lasting success will be attracted
to those who can be trusted
C.34. Richard Carlson: Don't sweat the small stuff
(1) Don't sweat the small stuff: When caught up in everday life we kind of focus on small
steps and blow them up to huge problems.A stranger cutting in front of trac that
gets us all excited, a diplom thesis which we believe to be the ultimate answer to our
problems in job search.
Put things into a larger perspective. First of all, the driver had no inföuence on your
life, second, you know how it is to be in a hurry and people are in a hurry all the time.
If you observe a new drama or melodrama coming, just tell yourself: “here i go
a gain, my soap opera started”. And you will be more content and amused by
the situation.
(2) Don't overdo perfectionism: most perfectionists never live a calm life. You need to
be a bit of both and deal with imperfection. Rather than being unhappy with what
we have not yet solved or achieved, as the perfectionist, we should cherish what we
already have and enjoy it.
(3) Stop thinking that relaxed people can't be super-successful. It is despite our fears
that we have success, not because of them and because they make us cranky
and hard-achieving suckers. (I have learned the important lesson: When you have
what you want (inner peace), you are less distracted by your wants, needs, desires,
and concerns. It's thus easier to concentrate, focus, achieve your goals, and to give
back to others.)
(4) Stop snowballing yourself: thoughts and especialyl bad thoughts create bad feelings
and chains of bad thoughts, so just don't throw the first ball, at all.
(5) Develop your compassion: the feeling of being with someone else and having his
problems be your own. Not overwhelmingly, but calmly and bondingly. We can draw
great energy and friendship out of this. Smile at people on the street, be nice. Mother
Theresa: “We cannot do great things on this earth. We can only do small things
with great love”
(6) Manage your in-basket: The idea of the in-basket of unfinished job is not to ever be
empty. Sometimes you feel like you cannot go home from work until you have done
everything that laid on the desk so you can be satisfied. This leads to an obsession
and it hurts other people that are waiting for you to come home and relax with them.
You will die with your in-box full of requests and so you must accept going to bed
everyday with unnished task. It says: what you can accomplish today, don't delay
untill tomorrow. But the focus is on can. It does not say: don't sleep untill everything
on your to do list is accomplished. Your inner peace and your harmony with yourself
and loved ones is over that. Also remember that life is not an emergency and the
little things are not too.
(7) Stop interrupting others: when you do so, you don't only think your own thoughts,
but his thoughts as well. This is energy-consuming and it increases the speed of
conversation. It makes people nervous, irratable and annoyed.
(8) Do something nice for others, but don't tell anyone.
(9) Let others have glory. Don't always respond to other people's stories with your own,
just give them the time to shine and appreciate their success.
(10) Live in the moment. Don't think about tomorrow, or yesterday, or where you could
be. Be where you are at the time where you are there. And focus entirely with your
positive energy on what you are doing.
(11) Every invididual around you is here to teach you. Your job is to try to determine
what the people in your life are trying to teach you. You'll nd that if you do this,
you'll be far less annoyed, bothered, and frustrated by the actions and imperfections
of other people
(12) Stop being right all the time - People hate to be corrected, nobody gains from an
argument, and it costs hell lots of energy. Just appreciate, embrace the other and
enjoy the evening and don't get too focused on proving anything to anyone. Unless
it is needed.
(13) Be patient and practice being patient: it is the ability to remain calm and relaxed and
focused when your everything is going against the current situation and you
become dgety. Just calm down and don't let anything annoy you. Practice standing
in line for long. Or simply standing unannoyed at the corner of the street.
(14) Reach out and forgive and love rst. It always pays because our happniness must
stand above our positions
(15) Ask yourself: will this matter one year from now?
(16) Surrender to the fact that life isn't fair
(17) Allow yourself being bored, to get back from being a human doing towards being
a human being. After nishing our rst day together, I asked my instructor, "What is
there to do around here at night?" He responded by saying, "What I'd like you to
 do is allow yourself to be bored. Do nothing. This is part of your training." At rst I
thought he was kidding! "Why on earth would I choose to be bored?" I asked. He
went on to explain that if you allow yourself to be bored, even for an hour - or less
- and don't ght it, the feelings of boredom will be replaced with feelings of peace.
And after a little practice, you'll learn to relax.
(18) Lower your level of stress: When your mind is clear and peaceful and your stress
level is reduced, you'll be more eective and you'll have more fun. As you lower your
tolerance to stress, you will nd that you'll have far less stress to handle, as well as
creative ideas for handling the stress that is left over
(19) Once a week write a heartful letter - Even if you don't have people in your life to
whom you feel you can write, go ahead and write the letter to someone you don't
know instead - perhaps to an author who may not even be living, whose works you
admire. Or to a great inventor or thinker from the past or present. Part of the value
of the letter is to gear your thinking toward gratitude. Writing the letter, even if it
isn't sent, would do just that. The purpose of your letter
(20) Use your backburner - don't always x a problem right at hand. Just bear it in mind
and see how over time your solve the problem from alone.
(21) Spend a Moment Every Day Thinking of Someone to Thank. Anyone really, like
someone that left you a spot on the parking lot, someone that smiled to you or was
friendlier than expected. If we fail to appreciate the good things done to us, we are
feeling like we deserve everything we have and even more, which leads to
frustration and a lack of appreciation of what we have.
(22) Smile at strangers, look them into the eye, be nice to them and think nicely of them.
Most often the way we perceive others correlates with our own hapiness.
(23) Quiet time everyone and every day. Standing up earlier or being up late gives you
time for yourself without interruption.s
(24) IMageine people in your life as infants or giantly old dinosaurs.
(25) Seek to understand and be a good listener: understanding others is more vital than
being understood by others.
(26) Choose the battleelds of your life
(27) Be aware of your moods and don't be fooled by low ones. Bad ones trick you into
believing your life is far worse than it actually is.

(28) Practice random kindness and give it to people ; don't get fooled by judgements of
others, it's impossible that more than 55% of the people around you are on the
same page as you, just look at elections ; life is only a test, a game, don't take it too
serious
(29) Loog beyond behaviour . And understand motives and imperfections . And
embrace, accept and tolerate them. So you can forgive other people their faults. For
this to work you should also be able to make your own happiness independent from
the behaviour of others. Lower your expectation that people do as you want. And
don't be hurt by their actions and feeling.
(30) See the innocent rather than the guilt of thers ; choose kindness over being right.
(31) Tell three people (today!) how much you love them. Also regularly tell people what
you like, appreciate and cherish about them. WHat makes them interesting and
fascinating for you?
(32) When it's not clear who does the dishes today. Do the dishes. Simple.
(33) Avoid weatherproong. Weatherproong a house is checking a house for it's ability to
shelter in the winter or in the storm. Finding aws and things to be xed. Don't do that
in a relationship.
(34) Thinking of someone to love everyday. We usually see the negative traits and hate
people and get irritated and hence we get frustrated and chersih a negative world
view. Think the opposite. How was worth loving.
(35) Find helping rituals and cultivate them. For the author it was picking up litter during
daily walks and strolls or when on the road. It may also be giving water to homeless
people, a smile to the cashdesk woman or simply the dropping o of a book at a
charity organization. Just do it regularly and feel good.
(36) Criticizating . It says nothing about the person we criticize, but about our own
tendency or need to be critical. Which may be motivated by a fear of making wrong
choices. When you are being critized, just accept it and it goes a away.
(37) Write down core beliefs or positions and soften them up. Women are lazy. Women
spent money all the time. Fat people are poor bastards ... just notch it down a little.
(38) Expect glasses to break. It is natural in life. Everything will fall down. Come to an
end. Hence, just enjoy the time you have with it.
(39) Breathe before you speak: increased patience, added perspective and more
appreciation and respect from others. Win-Win
(40) Ups and downs are natural: When you are in a good mood, enjoy it. When you are
in a bad bood, don't fucking care and be ready for the next good mood. It's always
changing. Don't ght it o with work or something.
(41) Do one thing at a time and stop multi.-tasking. Be in the moment.
(42) If you are angry, count to ten. Even better: breath deeply in and out, and say one.
Do this untill then. If you are very angry do it untill twenty ve. And every big problem
becomes miniature.
(43) Enjoy di-cult situation. They challenge you by remaining calm. Use breathing
patterns. Careful listening. Comment if someone is being bright and give them their
glory. Just remain calm and a symbol of peace.
(44) Be exible in your plans. Of course, perseverance counts to success. But being overly
inexible in following your goal creates a lot of tension and stress. Use extra-
breathers and chillouts and do something else, just make sure you come back with
the right energy.
(45) Think of what you have instead of what you want. This is like plan global but think
local. Focus on managing what you have and steering it towards your goal rather
than wishing your presence away and hunting the goal.
(46) Practice ignoring negative thoughts.
(47) Be happy wherever you are at.
(48) You become what you practice most. It's all about habits.
(49) Quiet the mind. Pascal said humanity's problem stem from the inability of men to
sit quiet in a room alone.
(50) Make service a part of your life
(51) Do a fvaour and don't expect it to be returned. Reprociticy is lame both when you
feel obliged to return and when you expect return.
(52) Get comfortable not knowing. We don't know what the future brings. Planning too
much is idiotic.
APPENDIX D Classics from Sucess Literature

Cheryl Richardson - Take Time for Your Life,

Idea : Achievement is more meaningful when it springs from a base of physical,
emotional, and spiritual well-being.
People who have the following traits
They generally have di-culty putting themselves rst.
Their schedule does not reect their priorities.
They feel drained by certain people or things.
They feel trapped for monetary reasons.
They are living on adrenalin.
They don't have a supportive community in their life.
Their spiritual well-being comes last
Yet Richardson's book is less concerned with time management than it is with
self-management Tipping the scales in your favor
Regular downtime is important for your sanity. At rst you may feel very edgy in
doing gnothingh but, as Richardson puts it, We all need a holiday from thinking
too much
Pay people to do services you normally do. Though it costs money, gsharing the
wealthh allows you to care for yourself and think at a higher level, both of which
can bring you greater success.
Go through old stu and papers and throw much of it out. This makes way for
what you really want to come into your life.
Don't fret over spending a little less time working. The world has a way of
rewarding those who are focused and make better use of their time.
Identify the drains on your life; that is, the people, places, and situations that tax
your mental and physical energy. Eliminating or lessening their impact is the
beginning of successful living and abundance.
Stop running on caeine and adrenalin. Fuel your body with premium fuel and it
will provide you with the strength and stamina to live well. Caring for your body
is essential to living a high-quality life.
Consciously engineer more amazing moments into your life: bring back the soul.
Tell people when you are grateful for what they have done.
Write a journal.
Notice your dreams.
Follow your intuition.
Have the courage to seek your highest purpose instead of simply looking for
another job.

David Schwartz - The Magic of Thinking Big

the key factor in personal success was simply the desire for it.
Rather than there being too many chiefs and not enough Indians, the opposite is
true. Choose to lead and you can lead.
Benjamin Disraeli: Life is too short to be little. So don't waste time pointing out or
believing you cannot make it. You can.
you must spend time alone with your thoughts. Decisions arrived at in managed
solitude, he says, have a habit of being 100 percent right. Action drives out thought,
whereas leaders set aside time for solitude to tap their supreme thinking power.
Belief is everything There is nothing mystical about the power of belief, but you
must draw a distinction between merely wishing and actually believing. Doubt
attracts “reasons” for not succeeding, whereas belief finds the means to do the job.
Excusitis, the failure disease Never depend on luck to get what you want. The only
vaccination against excusitis, as Schwartz calls it commonly known as failure's
diseaseis conscious self-belief. Schwartz knew that as soon as you hit a rough spot
your thinking is likely to shrink back to its normal size, yet this is exactly when it is
crucial for it not to do so.
 Staying big While it is said that a large vocabulary is a big determinant of success,
what really counts is the eect that your words have on how you think about yourself.
Instead of trying to use long words, Schwartz says, use positive language, and see
how it transforms your mood and the perceptions of others. Don't see yourself
merely in terms of how you appear now. You may have an old car, dingy apartment,
debts, job stress, and a crying baby, but they are not truly a reection of you as long
as you are working on the vision of what you will be two years from now.
Improving the quality of your environment Or as Schwartz phrases it, Go rst class.
This does not mean always getting the most expensive ticket. It does mean getting
your advice from successful people, and not giving the jealous the satisfaction of
seeing you stumble. Spend time with those who think on a large scale and are
generous in their friendship.
Most importantly
Don't wait until conditions are perfect before starting something. They never will
be. Act now.
Persistence is not a guarantee of success. Combine persistence with
experimentation.
Goals, once in the subconscious, provide energy and an invisible guide to correct
action.
Walk 25 percent faster! Average people have an average walk.

Eric Shackleton - Shackelton's way (the explorer of the South Pole)

He had bravado and vision, yet he was not careless.The safety of crew members
came above everything. Flexibility and teamwork have become jaded
management terms, but in 1914 this approach to management was daringly new,
and though Shackleton respected the dierences between the seamen, the
scientists, and the o-cers under his command, he tried to make the atmosphere as
egalitarian as
possible
Be more advanced in character and good heart than anyone in your league

Optimism is courage
Top leaders are set apart by a calm wisdom. It is gained through experience,
obviously, but also through active knowledge gathering. Shackleton loved nature
and adventure, but he also loved books. He had traveled the world in the merchant
marine, but nothing opened his mind to the vastness, richness and complexity of
the world the way his books did, Morell and Capparell note. His voracious reading
had given him a sense of perspective that would prove crucial on the Endurance
expedition.

Thomas J. Stanley
Vocation: Do work that you love to do. The more you love your work, the more
likely you are to excel at it, and the more rewards will accrue to you.
Risk: Stanley notes the strong correlation between willingness to take financial risk
and financial success. While most of us would see starting a business as a great risk,
the financially successful see working 9 to 5 for someone else as risky.
School: A good proportion of self-made millionaires worked hard in school but
were not the top students. What they learned most in school was how to judge
people well and get along with them, and that hard work could bring a surprising
level of success. Many were judged not intelligent enough to succeed because they
lacked the high levels of analytical intelligence or IQ to get them into medical school
or law school. Yet later in life, most of the millionaires admit that these judgments
only made them more determined to achieve. Knowing that they would never run
with the “beautiful people,” They sought to prove their worth in other ways. They
became very good at dealing with people and scoping out opportunities. People
often put success down to good luck, but Stanley's millionaires rate luck quite lowly
on the scale of success factors. The harder you work, the luckier you get seems to
be a consensus view.
Spouse Nine out of ten married millionaires say that their marriage has been a
signicant factor in their success. A spouse provides on-tap psychological support
and advice that is likely to be honest. After love, attractiveness, and sharing common
interests, most millionaires chose their spouses for a certain x-factor: small things
they noticed that indicated self-worth, integrity, even compassion. It turns out that
millionaire spouses have the sort of qualities that would be helpful in running a
business: intelligent, honest, reliable, cheerful. Millionaires choose their lifelong
partners astutely, knowing that it will greatly aect their own success
Every little helps Becoming wealthy involves a set of habits and ways of doing things,
some of which seem of minor importance or common sense, although many of us
don't do them:
Acquiring antique furniture or quality reproductions, which can be
reupholstered instead of buying cheaper pieces every few years.
Investing in better-quality shoes and getting them repaired or resoled when
necessary, instead of buying a new pair.
 Buying household items at bulk discount stores. Half of the millionaires
surveyed always make a list before going supermarket shopping.
The typical millionaire from the survey has never spent more than $41,000 on
buying an auto-mobile (a good proportion buy quality used cars at much less
than this gure), nor spent more than $38 on a haircut.
Millionaires are frugal, but are not into DIY. They get other people to paint their
house because they know their time is better spent focusing on their
investments. They employ top experts to sort out their tax and legal matters. Big
accountancy and legal firms cost more, but their better advice and contacts
make their cost low over the long term.

Sam Walton
The Sam Walton way in business and life .
Copy other businessesf ideas and successfully adapt them (almost everything
Ifve done Ifve copied from somebody else,h Walton wrote). .
Competition forces refinement. Welcome it. .
Embrace technology, but only to reduce costs and serve the customer. .
Never stop looking for ways to save. Wal-Marts executive oces are cramped,
and Wal-Mart executives famously sleep two to a hotel room when traveling.
Never pass up a market because it looks too small.
Treat your employees (Wal-Mart calls them associates) well. Happy associates
will treat cus-tomers well and customers will come back. (Wal-Martfs profit-
sharing program has made a lot of associates well off, while
gshrinkageh.stealing by employees or their friends.is half the industry average.)
.
Never be satised with how things are. gTo succeed in this world, you have to
change all the time.h This, not money, drove Walton. .
Your job in life is to create value where there was none before. To gain money,
enrich the world in some way. .
Donft be afraid of being wrong, and never worry about changing your mind.
Walton enraged other managers by going back and forth on big decisions. .
Speak to people before they speak to you. Acknowledge them. .
Have goals and set them high. .
Retain an underdog attitude

Richard Wiseman - The Luck Factor

Idea: Successful people are lucky people, but luck has little to do with chance .
The lucky personality Wiseman discovered four principles that were present among
the lucky.
Lucky people create, notice and act upon the chance opportunities in their life.
Good fortune can be attributed to their psychological makeup.
=> “Being in the right place at the right time” happens to people going out
frequently and meeting new people, which increases their chances of having
positive encounters; each one could be life-changing or simply provide good
work leads.

If you classify yourself as lucky, you are much more likely to start conversations
with people while standing in a queue. More contacts, higher chance of getting
to know the right people. (understanding that networks and contacts matter)
=> “90 percent of success in life is just showing up.”
Lucky people have a more relaxed attitude to life. Being relaxed means that they
are more likely to see opportunities that the worried person will not.
 Wiseman's experiments found that Lucky people see what is there, rather than
trying to find what they want to see. They realize that openness to new
experiences takes them out of mental ruts; if you only ever see and do the same
things, you will only ever get a certain amount of opportunities coming your
way.
Intuition and luck
Lucky people have a better relationship with their unconscious mind. They trust
their intu-ition.
Intuition is created from millions of cues in our environment that our mind and
body take in
Unlucky people get the same cues, but do not trust them. In our left-brain-
dominated world trusting intuition is downplayed, but it makes a huge
difference. They cultivate this ability by contemplation and mediation. They put
themselves in mental states that reveal possibilities of how to act and what to
do.
Expectations and reality

People's lives show a remarkable degree of fit with their expectations. People
who consider themselves lucky tend to get what they want from life as part of
a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Feel that they deserve good things ; feel some amount of control over making
them material-ize.

Unlucky people tend to think that they are at the mercy of events, and are not
prepared to believe that they deserve a lot of breaks. Wiseman's further
observation was that lucky people persevere to achieve their goals. While the
unlucky give up at the rst obstacle, the lucky keep going even if the chances of
success seem small. Lucky people bring things into being because, simply, they
believe they can. Here we are reminded of another famous success writer,
Napoleon Hill, whose motto was What the mind of man can conceive and
believe, it can achieve. Precisely because the positive person expects great
things, they work harder to make sure that these come into being. (This, of
course, is the principle behind goal setting.)
Everything works out for the best

Wiseman asked some subjects of his research how they would feel if they were
waiting in line in a bank and, in the course of a robbery, were shot in the arm.
The unlucky people in his surveys said it would be a disaster, while those who
had identied themselves as lucky only noted how lucky they would feel that they
were not killed!
This is what Martin Seligman in his book Learned Optimism (see 50SHC) calls
explanatory style, the ability to explain away misfortune so that it is not
indicative of a whole person's being. Lucky or optimistic people also experience
bad timesbut they never consider them permanent. Instead, they look at the
benets that came from their ill fortune, often saying that a divorce or a job loss
was the best thing that ever happened. Everything, they believe, works out for
the best. 50 SUCCESS CLASSICS 303 One other thing that lucky people often do
in a di-cult situation is to compare themselves to people who are much worse
o.

Ziglar - See You at the Top

Idea : Strong values of hard work, spiritual faith, and service will take you a long way.
Service
▪ YouThecan
book's
havemantra is: in life if you will just help others to get what
everything
they want.
Goals You are born to win, but must commit your goals to paper to give them force.
People do not wander around and nd themselves on Mt. Everest, Ziglar says: if you
are not planning to get anywhere in particular, you will not get anywhere in
particular. Have plans that stir your soul and be specic about them, but work toward
them gradually, as condence is the handmaiden of success.
You are what you take in Whatever goes into your mindtelevision programs,
conversations, pornog-raphywill come out manifested as action or words. Most
people live under the illusion that they are in control of their mental life, when their
physical circumstances suggest otherwise. Knowing that you are the sum total of
what goes into your mind is scary. Once you realize it, however, you have the rare
opportunity to remake your life. As Benjamin Franklin knew, personal development
is a daily thing. Read good biographies of successful people and the Bible, and use
your time in the car listening to empowering tapes.
Attitude To keep life fresh you must avoid hardening of the attitudes. The right
attitude is all-important, because in life the distance between winning and losing is
often innitesimal, and the right attitude allows you to cope with all the seconds and
thirds you seem to have to go through before winning. Desire and persistence mark
you out from the rest.
APPENDIX E

Other books of interest

Superior Man Guide (see book with the same name)

Clear on emotional push/pull mechanism that rests intrinsically in the way women
process reality.

Stop Hoping for completion of anything in life

It's never going to be over. Stop Waiting for better times to come. Take
some rest and spent 1-2 hours a day on what you love
This also requires you to know who you are in the deepest. Your core
value and personality. You need to know it and embrace it. If you are
willing to die for one cause and idea, then this is your core. Tailor your
life around it. And don't fear rejection or lack of success. It is just you.
The hazard and danger is your only hope for an adventurous life.
As you change and your eventual desires and purposes may change, be
willing to change radically everything in your life. Don't become a slack
and a servant to your habits. If you feel particularly unhappy with a
situation, forget the sunk costs and get over it.
It also requires you make excuses by saying you have this or that
obligation. Don't blame your family or obligations. And don't fucking
overload yourself with worthless obligations and committments.
Certainly there are things you enjoy for a higher purpose and things you
enjoy for pathological reason. If you are all about meeting new people
and getting into their lives you probably lack personality, if you are all
about domination, you feel insecure, if you are all about pleasing people,
you feel like nobody cares for you. Usually your purpose has something
to do with a higher goal that transcends the inter-personal level and is
trans-personal in some way, and a general a-nity to grow.
A sober definition of politics is a good way to approach the problem of
purpose. If you are going into politics because you want to change the
world, you are probably living in an idealized world. If you are going there
to prove yourself, it is probably that you are in politics for idiotic reasons.
If you are believing you are simply more capable than others, it is a first
step, but still you might think you may be able to achieve anything. Politics
is about understanding that every decision bears a good and a bad side.
Since political activity always involves the interest of many people, there
is always a trade-o. Politics is about knowing that you will bear guilt with
every decision you make, and knowing you cannot possibly know that
your decisions are better than those of others. But you both have the
ability to succeed in politics and you believe to be more closely linked to
the higher realms of human thinking and insight, and closer to Gewissheit.
If you adapt this to your purpose in life, it has to do with acceptance of
your limitations - knowing you cannot be the best and achieve a certain
goal -, but you enjoy, master and excel in what you do and it is the best
way for you and your capacities to contribute to what I would call your
truth.
For me it was both politics (not party politics) and economics as a practical
implementation of philosophical views. For you it might be acting, or
 entertaining people, or simply running a business and providing jobs
while having fun competing with other companies.
Live with an open heart, even if it hurts
Breathe deeply, open your chest and relax in a stress situation. It is not
only psychologically relaxing, it makes you more agile thinking.
Baudrillard on his comparison of the romanesque and the greek way of
life portrayed the romans as being all protected behind gear and fighting
wars with shields and heavy armory. While this was good for war, it also
made them cowards. The greek were going to battle naked and the entire
culture was about naked men. Stand in life nakedly, facing the cold and
warmth of the moment, being vulnearble to the fullest and don't fear
defeat. You don't hide behind anything. Regarding relationships, this
means you are bluntly authentic and you shoot out your entire emotional
and sexual energy. Be open and don't be afraid to be hurt. This is the
prerequisite of a strong frame, which is later introduced as authenticity. If
you hide behind anything, you are not authentic but play role.
Always be yourself. And if your true personality is not strong enough to
encounter the world, work on it. In the long term, it is all personality that
will make you the man.
Kill your parents / Live as if your parents are dead
As said earlier, speak to your parents as you would to your inferiours in the
tone of your voice. Most of us are still bearing in mind the fear to be
rejected from our parents. We don't want to get into conflict. Kill your
parents in the mind, think they are dead and you no longer need to please
them.
This is the most important thing you can do in your life. I mean, this is not only
about getting rid of their expectations. You learned your nonverbal
communication skills, your verbal communication skills, your eating and
sleeping habits, you appreciation, your virtues, your character, your emotional
household, and all the incongruences in the relation in between all these fields
from your parents. If you visit your parents frequently and you are not dominant
in your frame in a way that you can be happy and comfortably well with your
parents, then every visit is drawing you back into your old behavioural patterns
and it will be exhausting.
Don't lie to yourself and know your worth / edge
If you are bad at something or you have fears then state them openly to
yourself. Embrace them. Change, accept or leave the bad things
Honor your hedge, your choices, and be honest withourself about it. Be honest
with your friends about them.
This also includes you never change your mind for someone else or a woman
to please them. You are you. You deserve to be seen as you are and people are
to like it.
Succesful people and mass murders share the trait that they never feel guilt. At
the core, they believe they deserve what they want and that what they do is just.
It is always the others that make mistakes.
This also implies that you purpose comes over your relationship. If you lost your
purpose, you will be willing to take compromises everywhere and every woman
in the world will see this is a weakness. You are no longer willing to get what
you really want. You get what you can get. This is the biggest weakness a man
can have.
Furthermore, when you love do it with love and the entire power of your desire.
If you want to fuck your woman from the back, if you want to beat her, slap her
 in bed. Do it for God's sake. Pure nakedness. Pure masculinity. It is the truest gift
of manhood a man can give a woman.
The comfort zone
Leave it. Every damn day. Go further, grow, and don't be afraid to push yourself
over the edge.
Your fear is the sharpest denition of yourself. You should know it, feel it virtually
constantly. It needs to become your friend. To learn to like fear and understand
it as an opportunity. Your fear is there to play with you, wants you to overcome
it, and it is the only hope for adventure in your life. So don't fear !
Some stuff about women
Stop taking women seriously. What they say barely means what they say. They
usually uctuate around closeness and distance and most of the things they say
is about reecting and exposing this feeling where they are at. If they say they
don't know if they want to go to the bar or movies, although you arranged it, it
just tells you she feels distant from you. Just use the opportunity and get closer.
But decide that you will do it anyway.
But don't take them seriously. You decide on what is good and what you want.
Don't care about her.
Praise her. For things that you like about her. Things that she means to you. And
do so not with the intention to generate a change in her feelings, but just
because you openly feel that way and you are someone that talks about your
feelings openly.
Tolerating her leads to resenting her: the whole point of intimacy is to serve
each other in growth and love and hopefully in ways better than we serve
ourselves. It's about the art of mutual gifting. This means you spill value, you
give her something that without it you she cannot do equally well without. At
the same time, you need to require this from her. If she is not giving you
anything, you need to resent her.
So when she is feeling bad, cheer her up and make her feel better. But don't
fucking stand there and let her treat you indierent when she is feeling good.
She really needs to give you something that she herself understands as a gift
she gives.
In most situations relationships are made of times of loving surrender (easy
moments) and stress
 situations where you are tested whether you can open her. This cycle never
ends with women. You and her need to realize the
Don't make her x her problems: don't make her do anything. you need to decide
for what is best for her and get her into a better mood. Order her.
The ocean metaphoer: She is like a owing ocean, that is steadily owing over
anything coming into her way. Building a bathtub for her ocean is like
calming her to boring death. So you need to build partial walls to save her
from falling with the ocean that she carries, and to protect your both lives
from destruction. But at the same time you need to let this ocean remain
wild and owing, as not to suocate her.
Males are more like a ship that sails from a to b emotionally, and there is a
direct route. Women in that sense are endless numbers of ships that go
into all direction and you need them to get enough power to steer that
mass of ships into the prosper direction.
The best way to make her a swimming pool is to make her think like a man,
make her think rationally.
A reason why women like soap operas and romantic movies is this that
they enjoy owing along and feeling the vibe in the relationships on the
screen. This is exactly how women navigate through their environment.
Whenever she is in a bad mood, don't fucking run a way. YOu need to get her
back into equilibrium. Smile, take time for her, be with her, and storm her back
to the normal state by kissing, by holding her. The big game is to nd a way to
steer her back in any given situation. That is what this is all about .,
Again: Don't force her to make decisions. YOu must decide.
But don't be a freaking dictator. If she ask which dress she should buy, don't say
you do not care. You need to decide. But be nice. I like this dress very much. I
would buy that one. But if you like this one better, that is equally important. It
will t you well, too.
Extensions on WOmen from LDS
Again and again: it's the biology
women do (a) select (the alpha and most benecial gene structure) and (b) beta-
ize (bind).
Women loose sexual interest in males that are beta-ized. This happens when
she thinks she is in control of everything in you.

Sloterdijks psychological treatments

Humans can be understood as machines which have a set of emotional potentials
(anger, desire for love and affection, desire for accomplishment, aggression) and
they accumulate potential during their everyday lives. It is vital for their internal
balance to be able to release these potentials into their environment in order to feel
satised or in harmony.
Examples:
The father being violent to his children lacks some institution to release his
frustration from work or his life's lacking accomplishments. He should do sports,
martial arts or get into some form of debating club.
The partner that cheats often on his partner can have dierent motivations. Either
he is not challenged or bored, or no sexually satised, or whatsoever. It has to do
with the fact htat he is unable to
The big picture:
Society can be viewed as a big map of relationships that we move through. We
are always attachted to several social systems and our obligations to the systems
and we are restricted by their standards on how we can act and how we can act
not. No single system can help us have a sustainable ecology of these emotional
potentials. We hence need to nd time and space to enter systems that help us
stay stable.
 Behavioural patterns to be observed in the environment determine our emotional
cycles and society as a whole tends to put emphasis on strategies and behavioural
patterns that optimize our performance under the current paradigm of society,
which could be the rational agent nowadays. In the context of intrapreneurial
thinking it must be our aim to focus on the cultivation of behavioural patterns that
complete this one-sided development and learn how to implement these in our
lives. For example a very sterile working environment should be changed into one
where you can share feelings and warmth with your colleagues and it is exactly this
what intrapreneurial thinking demands.

My own work on programs and daily rites

Thinking forward from Sloterdijks world and the need to manage our own
development on a day-to-day basis, a good design of everyday life rituals are
important. (Sloterdijks Zeit und Zorn)
 Examples include: a cup of coee in the morning shared with the family and a
newspaper and the sharing of personal matters and aection ; the regular invitation
of friends to an evening dinner and the focus on genuine and authentic bonding
rather on pure cliché ; the regular exercise ; the cultivation of a solid bathroom habit
to create a suited day-lasting freshness and soberty
The architecture of space and how it enables our life (e.g. Richard Sennetts Fleisch und
Stein)
It is not only the rituals and behaviour alone, but the memories and the meaning
attached to both the ritual and the space where it takes place. The seperation of
sleeping room, bathroom, salon, kitchen nad dining room do have a meaning and
the accumulation of trophies, memories, articles, books and so on do have the
purpose of perpetuating an inner set of beliefs about ones own personal worth and
achievement.
It is hence vital to not be one sided and to use triggers and anchors in the
environment to move your through a vast set of mindsets that you need to remain
emotionally stable. A picture of your wife and children is not just something you put
there because it has to, but because it reminds you of what you have achieved, and
who you love and the picture should share this impression of genuine happy
moments shared, rather than obligationary moments such as marriage pictures, and
so on.
The books should give you the impression that you have studied hard and deserve
what you have; just as they trophies that symbolize your youth, strengths and
perseverance. Or the selection of plates and kitchen arsenal that reminds you how
delightful you have cooked and feasted together as a family.
The ecological design of time
Another aspect is the fact that you are living in the moment, you strive towards a
goal and you can relax looking back and being lost in memories. Your workplace
should be adapted to who you are now, and what you are willing to do now. It should
not be there to get your dreaming about your past or worried about things that
negatively aect your mood.
Bordieu and the theory of capital related to this matter
Just read his book and you get it. A mater of taste or die feinen unterschiede.

Fooled by randomness (Talib)

(1) Numbers Game: Je mehr Approaches man macht, desto grösser die Wahrscheinlichkeit
für einen Erfolg. Man hat zwar den einzelnen Approach nicht in der Hand (da Zufall), sehr
wohl aber sein Gesamtschick-sal in Sachen Frauen (auÿer man hat extremes Pech und
wird immer und immer vom Pech getroen, was aber unwahrscheinlich ist). Bedeutet also:
wer viel approached, der wird Erfolg haben.
(2) Kausalitäten: Bessert das Inner Game das Outer Game? Oder bessert vielleicht doch eher
das Outer Game das Inner Game?
(3) kleine Samples: 3 mal KC-Block bei schneller Eskalation heiÿt nicht, dass man zu schnell
eskaliert hat. Es könnte passieren, dass man trotz schneller Eskalation bei den folgenden
3 Versuchen immer erfolg hat. Erst bei 20 Blocks in Folge könnte man mutmaÿen, dass
man was falsch macht.
(4) falsche Ursachenzuschreibung: nur weil das Mädchen aked, heiÿt das noch lange nicht,
dass man zu wenig Rapport hatte (was im Forum ja gerne behauptet wird). Es kann
hunderte andere Ursachen geben.
(5) vom Vergangen auf Zukünftiges schlieÿen: nur weil man mit einem bestimmten Opener
3 Mal erfol-greich geönet hat, bedeutet das noch lange nicht, dass dies auch beim
vierten Mal klappt. nur weil man in der Vergangenheit einen bestimmten Fehler getant
 hat, heiÿt das noch lange nicht, dass man bei dessen Korrektur dieses mal Erfolg haben
wird.
(6) emotionaler Impact negativer Events oft gröÿer als positiver: man hat 4 NCs, 2 Flakes
und 2 Nummern sind gut. Statt sich über die guten Nummern zu freuen, ärgert man sich
über die Flakes (die eh ein Zufallsprodukt sind)
(7) statt wichtige Informationen zu ltern, beschäftigt man sich zu sehr mit "Lärm"
(unwichtige In-formationen bzw. zum Teil falsche Informationen, bei PU verschiedenste
Tricks und Routinen und Techniken)
(8) den eigenen Erfolg im Vergleich zu anderen beurteilen: Peter ausm Lair hatte schon 5
Lays, ich nur 2. Hans ausm lair hatte nur 1 Lay. Somit gehe ich lieber mit Hans sargen.
Da fühle ich mich besser.

"Hard work will get you a professorship or a BMW. You need both work and luck for a
Booker, a Nobel or a private jet."