Power

[Weliddryn]

What is power?

Power is the ability to influence behavior?

Yes, you influence behavior through various means.
Identity- You influence a person's behavior simply based on who you are.
Authority- You influence a person's behavior because of the title that you hold.
Reward and Punishment- You influence a person's behavior based on what you can give and take.

What else is there?


Power is belief.

Power can only exist when one believes that another has power over them.

A teacher tells the class to take out a pencil. The students obey. This is typically what happens.

But.

A teacher tells the class to take out a pencil. All the students obey, but one. This one student has rejected the teacher's power over him/her and will not obey.


Which do you believe? Are they really different?

[Ghost1986]

i think everyone has power no matter what. every living being has power. i think the real question is how do they acquire, keep and execute power.

the student may choose to disobey the teacher. that is the power he wields. yet the teacher has the power to punish the student as they see fit.

everyone has power. but not everyone has the same amount of power.

[FacetiousPersona]

Originally Posted by Ghost1986

the student may choose to disobey the teacher. that is the power he wields. yet the teacher has the power to punish the student as they see fit.

The student could think up a trick to avoid the punishment. Plus, the student could confront the teacher and murder him/her with 'power'. However, the student would consequently suffer the wrath of a higher power (the law, police and a judge/jury) or have the intelligence/luck to avert the higher authority's wrath. It is possible to outsmart or overwhelm an authority classified as above you. Does this mean your power is higher? Only your intelligence is? Does it mean that you are capable of outsmarting that teacher, yet maybe not another? Would this indicate each teacher has a different level of power and should be considered on an individual basis? I do not think that 'power' should only be gauged with the status that they have.

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Power only truly matters when you are at the top of any particular power structure. Whenever there is someone above you watching and who can stiffle your actions, you don't really have much.

[FacetiousPersona]

Originally Posted by Inappropriate Behavior

Power only truly matters when you are at the top of any particular power structure. Whenever there is someone above you watching and who can stiffle your actions, you don't really have much.

The command structure is flexible. People switch positions and individuals fall or rise. A person below may overthrow a person above and assume their position.

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Originally Posted by FacetiousPersona

The command structure is flexible. People switch positions and individuals fall or rise. A person below may overthrow the person above and assume his position.

True. Power comes and goes. It only really matters while you are on top because only then do those below have little recourse but to overthrow the power structure.

[FacetiousPersona]

Think of a revolutionist that opposes a government and successfully takes control of it or destroys it. He creates a power to oppose the existing one.

[Weliddryn]

Could power be considered intelligence?

What are your perspectives on power?

What is it?

[Ermine]

Originally Posted by Weliddryn

Could power be considered intelligence?

What are your perspectives on power?

What is it?

I think it's the other way around. Intelligence is power, in various ways. Even if you aren't considered powerful, you can wield more power against the the authorities if you're intelligent. Also, many people look to those with intelligence, and consider intelligence to be authority. For example, people generally listen to someone with a doctorate more than they would a high school graduate, unless the high school graduate proves to be very intelligent.

Another thing that I think is being left out is the level of respect as a measure of power. Even if a person is intelligent, with a high title, and a way of getting people to do their bidding, they aren't very powerful if they aren't liked/respected.

[Weliddryn]

Originally Posted by Ermine

I think it's the other way around. Intelligence is power, in various ways. Even if you aren't considered powerful, you can wield more power against the the authorities if you're intelligent. Also, many people look to those with intelligence, and consider intelligence to be authority. For example, people generally listen to someone with a doctorate more than they would a high school graduate, unless the high school graduate proves to be very intelligent.

Another thing that I think is being left out is the level of respect as a measure of power. Even if a person is intelligent, with a high title, and a way of getting people to do their bidding, they aren't very powerful if they aren't liked/respected.

Intelligence is power. Power is intelligence. What is the difference of those statements?

Do people really tend to listen to those they consider more intelligent? From my experience (and it is very limited experience) people tend to listen more to those that they trust or like, than those who are more intelligent. In fact, they tend to distrust those they believe to be more intelligent.

Respect being used with liked, could that go back to the power of identity? A person has power because of who they are, and who they are is a person who is respectable and well liked. There is of course, more to it, but this fleshes out the power of identity more, I believe.

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Originally Posted by Ermine

I think it's the other way around. Intelligence is power, in various ways. Even if you aren't considered powerful, you can wield more power against the the authorities if you're intelligent. Also, many people look to those with intelligence, and consider intelligence to be authority. For example, people generally listen to someone with a doctorate more than they would a high school graduate, unless the high school graduate proves to be very intelligent.

Another thing that I think is being left out is the level of respect as a measure of power. Even if a person is intelligent, with a high title, and a way of getting people to do their bidding, they aren't very powerful if they aren't liked/respected.

I agree with your first paragraph. Intelligence of some sort is a prerequisite of power. Education and intelligence must be kept seperate as they are two different things but it is true that the one with more education is deferred to most often if that education is pertinent (you don't ask a doctor about the law) and the one with less education has to prove hirself.

The second paragraph I'm not so sure about. Respect can be an element of fear as much as liking someone. Examples:

-If you fear my retribution, you would do as I say even if you hated my guts.

-If you admire my judgement or wisdom, you would do as I say because you believe in me.

Either way, you would do as I say and either way it would be a form of respect.

[Weliddryn]

Originally Posted by Inappropriate Behavior

I agree with your first paragraph. Intelligence of some sort is a prerequisite of power. Education and intelligence must be kept seperate as they are two different things but it is true that the one with more education is deferred to most often if that education is pertinent (you don't ask a doctor about the law) and the one with less education has to prove hirself.

The second paragraph I'm not so sure about. Respect can be an element of fear as much as liking someone. Examples:

-If you fear my retribution, you would do as I say even if you hated my guts.

-If you admire my judgement or wisdom, you would do as I say because you believe in me.

Either way, you would do as I say and either way it would be a form of respect.

Is respect fear? Is it admiration? How can it be both?

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Originally Posted by Weliddryn

Is respect fear? Is it admiration? How can it be both?

It isn't both at the same time. These are two types of respect. If you respect the fact that a shark will bite you, you will be afraid to stick your bloody hand in the water.

[FacetiousPersona]

I think that power is defined in an area as the main advantage which is required to succeed in that area. For example, power in academia could be intellect mainly, while power in social circles could be wealth in this sense. Wealth could be achieved through intelligence, but there are other factors that lead to wealth, such as character.

A person might have a brilliant mind, but they could lack essential characteristics which enable them to gain considerable wealth. An example would be an average high-level CEO having a salary above an average PhD scientist. Would the scientist be capable of reaching the CEO's position? Is it only intelligence that has allowed the CEO to become one? The term 'power' is defined with the area in which it is placed. 'Power' could be various crucial traits for success combined, like charisma, eloquence and intelligence for a politician.

[echoplex]

In most societies and situations, power is only really had in numbers...or a better word, support.

The teacher's instructions have power over the students, not because the teacher is particularly powerful, but because she is supported by the likes of the principle and the student's parents. A smart student knows they can't thwart such a multi-faceted power, so they submit, 'cause it's not worth the trouble of disobeying.

Therefore, outside of brute force (as in war), most power lies in persuasion, which can only happen by making the desired action the most logically appealing one to whomever you're trying to have power over. (either by authority, merit, or deception...and possibly other things I haven't thought of yet. )

[Weliddryn]

Originally Posted by FacetiousPersona

I think that power is defined in an area as the main advantage which is required to succeed in that area. For example, power in academia could be intellect mainly, while power in social circles could be wealth in this sense. Wealth could be achieved through intelligence, but there are other factors that lead to wealth, such as character.

A person might have a brilliant mind, but they could lack essential characteristics which enable them to gain considerable wealth. An example would be an average high-level CEO having a salary above an average PhD scientist. Would the scientist be capable of reaching the CEO's position? Is it only intelligence that has allowed the CEO to become one? The term 'power' is defined with the area in which it is placed. 'Power' could be various crucial traits for success combined, like charisma, eloquence and intelligence for a politician.

So, power is subjective?

Thank you for your post.

[MattSeven]

Originally Posted by Weliddryn

So, power is subjective?

Thank you for your post.

I think it must be. So far this discussion is as conclusive as "Which is the best color?"

[FacetiousPersona]

Originally Posted by MattSeven

I think it must be. So far this discussion is as conclusive as "Which is the best color?"

My favourite colour changed from green to orange.

[MattSeven]

I guess if I were to stick my neck out there and pose an idea about power it would be this:

Social power is derived from the number of people who buy into the game you know how to win. The more people who believe/value/commit to the game you can win, the more power you have. Tiger Woods is perhaps the most direct example. If nobody ever cared about golf -- if it was the equivalent of lawn darts - Tiger Woods would likely not have a supermodel wife, lucrative endorsement contracts, wealth, the power to go anywhere in the world he wants, and so on... All because people value the game he knows how to win.

Even in the fields of science there are researchers who enjoy influence because, in the world of ideas, they have more clever thoughts. Because others buy into that field of play, and few know how to win on it, they enjoy power of influence.

But it's important to note that people receive power from others. Congregations make a dangerous egomaniacal preacher dangerous. He's nothing without the followers. And the changing of heart across large groups of people is a phenomena that remains a matter of great study and experimentation.

This is why we are hearing "trust" is THE most important component of the financial markets. Without it, you might as well strap on a gun and backpack and head for the woods.

[Ermine]

Originally Posted by Weliddryn

Intelligence is power. Power is intelligence. What is the difference of those statements?

They're different because you can be powerful without intelligence, by virtue of identity, title, and authority. However, intelligence adds to power if you have identity, title, and/or authority.

Originally Posted by IB

If you fear my retribution, you would do as I say even if you hated my guts.

Fear isn't as powerful as admiration. A huge example would be the French Revolution. The king was powerful, and was feared for his retribution, but he wasn't powerful enough to avoid being beheaded. If he were liked/admired, he would be much more powerful.

[Sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Ermine

Fear isn't as powerful as admiration. A huge example would be the French Revolution. The king was powerful, and was feared for his retribution, but he wasn't powerful enough to avoid being beheaded. If he were liked/admired, he would be much more powerful.

On the other hand, one could argue that Stalin invoked even more fear than Louis XVI, and he was never beheaded. There is some speculation around his death, of course, but the uncertainty around it still indicates that open defiance was out of the question. In any event, he was head of state for a longer time than Louis, if that should account for anything.

Perhaps fear is only effective when applied in the right amounts. Too lenient oppression will give room for rebellion.

Conversely, admiration doesn't necessarily get you far if you don't have enough of it. Would you go far out of your way to help the much admired top of your maths class (if it weren't you)?

Thus, the amount of power derived from admiration and fear might depend more on how much you have of them than which of them you have.

I don't think Stalin would have been more successful if he commanded extreme admiration.

[Ermine]

Originally Posted by Sugarpop

On the other hand, one could argue that Stalin invoked even more fear than Louis XVI, and he was never beheaded. There is some speculation around his death, of course, but the uncertainty around it still indicates that open defiance was out of the question. In any event, he was head of state for a longer time than Louis, if that should account for anything.

Perhaps fear is only effective when applied in the right amounts. Too lenient oppression will give room for rebellion.

Conversely, admiration doesn't necessarily get you far if you don't have enough of it. Would you go far out of your way to help the much admired top of your maths class (if it weren't you)?

Thus, the amount of power derived from admiration and fear might depend more on how much you have of them than which of them you have.

I don't think Stalin would have been more successful if he commanded extreme admiration.

It wasn't Stalin himself that the people were most afraid of. It was his regime, and it fell too.

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Originally Posted by Ermine

It wasn't Stalin himself that the people were most afraid of. It was his regime, and it fell too.

[Artifice Orisit]

Is the ability to control people power? No.
Is the ability to direct energy power? No.
Is the ability to manifest change power? No.
Then what is power?

The power of your will is manifested in the choices you make.
All actions, reactions and implications are the result of choice.
But without the will, you cannot make the choice.
So without the will to power, there is no power.
Thus will is the source of power.

[Oblivious]

You Tube

You Tube

[Sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Ermine

It wasn't Stalin himself that the people were most afraid of. It was his regime, and it fell too.

You'll have to explain that one. Stalin controlled the regime - as far as any single person can be said to control a whole government - and thus the fear.

There was a cult of personality surrounding him, and some russians still seem to remember him as a great leader, so admiration might have been a factor. I do realize that many dictators can be revered by the population and still utilize fear. The whole idea of fear and admiration as a dichotomy might not be applicable to reality.

Examples aside, my point is that both extreme admiration and extreme fear may be sources of great power.

Slight admiration will only get you that far, and slight fear may cause aggression rather than obedience.

[Mud~Eye]

If you love (respect, fear, admire,...) something let it go, if it's yours it will return to you, if it doesn't it never was yours at all ( or you were'nt meant to have it). Forgive the lack of precision in this quote, I believe I have verbalized the essence of it. All things being debatable here, who knows? If it is power one desires, perhaps letting it go is the difference between what it is and what it isn't. If knowledge is one type of power, perhaps sharing it is one way to let it go, and thereby leave the integrity of its existance in tact. If manipulation and control is over people, places, or things is desired, then one must consider that if the first statement is true, then only a temporary use of power is possible, as it will eventually lose its integrity and disintergrate within its container, or burst out, ultimately destroying it's container. The misuse or abuse of power versus respect for its existance and properties which may be defined by its purpose. Ha, may the force be with us. Believing power does not exist does not make it non-exisitant, just as living by candlelight doesn't prove there is no electricity to be harnessed. But which practice, if either, is ultimately better. I think that may be the subjective aspect of the question of power. Perhaps, in this case, the surrender of power is ultimately more powerful?

I'm starving, gotta go eat. The power of my hunger driving me to decide. See you guys.

[Wisp]

So, has the question turned into, "How much use of power is acceptable?"?

[Artifice Orisit]

Ah the abuse of power, or rather the excessive appreciation of it.

[anemian]

People "naturally" trust me, that's a power of a sort I guess.

[Mud~Eye]

I wasn't trying to get into the "acceptable" use of power. I'm sorry, I'm not very good, these days, of communicating the string of thought out loud, and bringing it to a clearly defined point. I am new and here to practice.

It seemed to me that the orginal question was what is power? And, the leading questions were about its use as a defining element, and whether or not belief defines it.

In a round about and not very organized way, I was challenging some of the posts that seemed to lean toward defining power soley by its use. Because perspective of cause and effect is very subjective. (i.e. The student that obeys the teacher, may not actually be the one with less power than the teahcer or the student who does not obey). I don't know that we've considered power from a standpoint that can clearly define what it is. The teacher can have authoritative power on a superficial level, while not having personal power over the child (the ability to effect a change within him by her request or even her teaching). The poster asked what is power? But the string of questions and answers seemed to be leading toward a more concentrated examination of the use manipulation of power using tools of fear, respect, etc. Which could lead one to assume (1) that means the person weilding these tools or possessing these qualities actually has true power (whatever that is) or if they have some borrowed, stolen, cloned and/or illusion of it (adjectives not aiming for precision, merely example); and (2) power itself is subjective. I don't know whether it is or it isn't, but I have my doubts.

Not very eloquently, another thing I was trying to say is that power may exist whether one believes it or not. Further, that its possible that it has properites that make it what it is. This is what I believe about power. Like electricity (being another form of power). So, if we're going to define what power is based on the manipulation of its properties, then okay. I just needed to say out loud that that is what it seems like we're doing. And, ask, rhetorically, if that is sufficient enough to come up with something that allows us to begin to understand and recognize power?

I hope I've made more sense this time.

[Astridian]

There are several, I think useful, ways of thinking about power.

Power is typically regarded with a particular purpose in mind. In different contexts, intelligence, physical strength, social status, and social influence might be regarded as a source of power. In other contexts, those same sources might be regarded as a sort of anti-power. External objects can also be thought of as sources of power in certain contexts. Wealth, guns, control over a particular commodity, each of these can be thought to provide power to those who possess them.

It is interesting that external objects do not seem to provide power unless possessed by a being with a will. What do we mean when we say a river, waterfall, or storm is powerful? Does such a comment implicitly ascribe some will to nature? Perhaps, the power we ascribe to natural phenomena is only thought of as power because it, on occasion, opposes or furthers human will.

It seems to me that the degree of power that a thing possesses depends entirely on its instrumental good (which depends, in part, on the purpose of the instrument). The intricacies of warfare aside, the gun more capable of killing is thought to provide more power to its user in most cases; the typical purpose towards which a gun is used - is killing. Of course, a gun can be used for other things, in which its power to kill is a detriment, rather than an asset.

I like the story of Oedipus; it seems to reveal some interesting things about power. Oedipus was, for the most part, a very powerful man. He was a strong warrior, seemed to be beloved, and was intelligent/clever enough to answer the Sphinx's riddle; however, despite this apparent power, or perhaps even because of it, he was powerless to change the fate given to him by the Oracle at Delphi. It seems to present the almost paradoxical situation in which great power causes powerlessness.

I'm inclined to believe that power cannot exist without will. If there were no wills there would be no power. On the other hand, insofar some wills are objectively real (which is, perhaps, trying to assume too much about the noumenal), power is not subjective but relational (existing in the relationships between objects).