I can definitely see where you are going with this: That the ‘laws’ are really just vague descriptions of social situations designed not to outline a strategy, but to be a lightning rod for creative thinking. I identify with your sentiment. They are certainly vague, and I have struggled for years to define the borders between these so-called laws.
However I must ask you if you think our very own Sequences differ very much. For example, plenty of posts in Mysterious Answers to Mysterious Questions I find it hard to distinguish between. Each has one core idea that the post could be distilled to, but when read through they have nearly the same message.
One of the key strengths of the Sequences is that they are there good for reference. They can be used as a physical (ok, well virtual) touchstone to get a point across to someone else or to yourself. You can meditate on them. The same is true for all of Robert Greene’s books about strategy.
...
I’ve spent the better part of today trying to decide exactly how to react to the fact that someone posted the 48 Laws up on Less Wrong. I think this is going to be something I’ll need to come back with a larger, more well thought out post for. The two main things I want to say about the books are these: One, if you’re any kind of social awkward at all, after you read these books then you will realize just how far away from the ‘other end of the spectrum’ you really are and if you are a rationalist you will also realize that it is extremely hard to find evidence of the sort of power games described by Greene in the world around you. Two, I am convinced that the practices of seeking power and being rational can be reconciled (indeed they must be, or we’re screwed) but it would likely take a smarter man than I to do it.
I actually wasn’t talking about the “48 laws” in this comment—this was talking about RawPower’s post about them, based on my suspicion that he found the idea that “real life works like this” plausible because he didn’t think of things when he tried to think of things that didn’t work like this. For what I think about the “48 laws,” see here.
Feel free to use me to project onto though, if an interesting post comes out of it :D
Ah! I apologize! I thought that you were making a general statement about how the ‘Laws’ worked their ‘magic.’ I assumed you were treating them like they were horoscopes or something.
I can definitely see where you are going with this: That the ‘laws’ are really just vague descriptions of social situations designed not to outline a strategy, but to be a lightning rod for creative thinking. I identify with your sentiment. They are certainly vague, and I have struggled for years to define the borders between these so-called laws.
However I must ask you if you think our very own Sequences differ very much. For example, plenty of posts in Mysterious Answers to Mysterious Questions I find it hard to distinguish between. Each has one core idea that the post could be distilled to, but when read through they have nearly the same message.
One of the key strengths of the Sequences is that they are there good for reference. They can be used as a physical (ok, well virtual) touchstone to get a point across to someone else or to yourself. You can meditate on them. The same is true for all of Robert Greene’s books about strategy.
...
I’ve spent the better part of today trying to decide exactly how to react to the fact that someone posted the 48 Laws up on Less Wrong. I think this is going to be something I’ll need to come back with a larger, more well thought out post for. The two main things I want to say about the books are these: One, if you’re any kind of social awkward at all, after you read these books then you will realize just how far away from the ‘other end of the spectrum’ you really are and if you are a rationalist you will also realize that it is extremely hard to find evidence of the sort of power games described by Greene in the world around you. Two, I am convinced that the practices of seeking power and being rational can be reconciled (indeed they must be, or we’re screwed) but it would likely take a smarter man than I to do it.
I actually wasn’t talking about the “48 laws” in this comment—this was talking about RawPower’s post about them, based on my suspicion that he found the idea that “real life works like this” plausible because he didn’t think of things when he tried to think of things that didn’t work like this. For what I think about the “48 laws,” see here.
Feel free to use me to project onto though, if an interesting post comes out of it :D
Ah! I apologize! I thought that you were making a general statement about how the ‘Laws’ worked their ‘magic.’ I assumed you were treating them like they were horoscopes or something.
Now where would I get that idea?
Also, I am faced with the truly daunting task of asking myself if believing Robert Greene is really rational or not. It’s not looking pretty.