According to Hobbes, human beings live in a state of nature that operates under one rule: eat or be eaten. It is this law that governs all things. There is no justice or fairness, there is merely powerful and weak. There is the will to dominate and the will to submit. And in all people, even those who are closest to you, there is the urge to restrict your freedom, while increasing theirs.
And what about those who are disappointed by this brutish nature of man? They have only themselves to blame, for there are nothing but signs all around them, of the destructiveness of man, of his deceitfulness, devilishness, and his disdain for order. The forces of Apollo are manifest, but the Dionysian forces are too numerous to resist.
But the rebellion that man has against authority and structure is only one part of the story. Man also rebels against himself
He designs technology to externalize a part of his rational, orderly being –only to dominate others while expanding his own freedom. A product that enslaves millions to a screen is his golden goose, his favorite sanctuary. And yet, the technologist becomes a slave to his own contraption, unable to escape its demands.
In the same way, the matrix is not a fictional concept, but a playful description of our deepest subconscious desire – to externalize our minds completely. We wish to escape. As divine beings in animal bodies, we are haunted by a cruel joke that has been played on us by nature. And so, our revenge is contained in our own technological blueprints. By mastering nature and technology, we can expand our consciousness outside our own bodies. In line with our destructive instincts, we can use our tools to expand individually, while subjugating the individuality of others.
The pop cultural metaphor of the blue pill vs the red pill is a description of those who choose to ignore what is apparent for them to see, and those who want to go deeper. And yet, those who go deeper, who seek truth, are mere agents for those who have opted for the illusion. The more they try to illuminate others, the more they reinforce the cultural sub substructure that creates this dichotomy in the first place. And the more they worship reason, the more they are subject to misdirection and miscomprehension.
On a practical level, the answer becomes clear. Given the elusiveness of truth, and the inevitable degradation of all value structures under radical uncertainty, there will always be a powerful movement towards the Dionysian, towards destruction.
And then, there is a twist, a realization of delightful irony. Because of man’s destructiveness, he will, in the final event, of externalizing his consciousness, get rid of it. By seeking the infinite expansion of the self, he simultaneously eliminates it. Like the technologist, his plan backfires.
Not only does man rebel against himself, but he moves towards his own annihilation.
Be wary of building a contraption that will enslave you to it. It is one more form of self-deception.
Everything which the enemy least expects will succeed the best. If he relies for security on a chain of mountains that he believes impracticable, and you pass these mountains by roads unknown to him, he is confused to start with, and if you press him he will not have time to recover from his consternation. In the same way, if he places himself behind a river to defend the crossing and you find some ford above or below on which to cross unknown to him, this surprise will derange and confuse him….
– FREDERICK THE GREAT, 1712-86
Vincent “the Chin” Gigante was known as the “Oddfather” of the Genovese crime family. Unlike John Gotti, who wore expensive suits and fancy jewelry, Gigante was often seen in his bathrobe, looking unkempt and babbling – people thought he had dementia. Gotti was terrified of Chin, he knew that Chin was just acting insane to fool the authorities.
For 30 years, Gigante’s insanity kept him safe. Charges against him were first dropped in 1970, when psychiatrists told that court that he was a paranoid schizophrenic. The Chin kept his act up over the years, it was a great way to keep the cops away.
He deliberately stages psychotic episodes to keep everyone convinced. The police once burst into his apartment and found him in the shower, under an umbrella.
After he became boss of the Genovese family, Gigante continued the deception to help disguise his new position. Soldiers were instructed never to use his name, but to point to their chin when they referred to him. He conducted much of the family’s business in the wee hours of the morning when he believed the FBI was less vigilant. The rest of the day was spent drooling and sputtering to himself. “The guy acts like a fruitcake 23 hours a day,” noted one investigator who had tracked the Chin for years, “but he finds one hour someplace each day to run the biggest Mafia family in the United States. Is he crazy? He’s the only one not in jail. Maybe he’s a genius.”
– A Treasury of Deception, Michael Farquhar
In 1990, he was finally arrested at his mother’s house. Psychiatrists again testified for him, claiming that he had “moderate to severe dementia which reflects significant underlying central nervous system dysfunction” (Dr. Wilfred G. van Gorp, director of neuropsychology at Columbia University Medical School). The jury didn’t buy it.
When in jail, the Chin finally dropped the crazy act.
He was captured on tape directing Genovese business in a “coherent, careful, and intelligent manner,” according to prosecutors, and once told a prison guard, “Nobody fucks with me.”
– A Treasury of Deception, Michael Farquhar
U.S Attorney Roslynn R. Mauskopf finally announced in 1997 that “the jig is up” after the Chin plead guilty. She said, “Vincent Gigante was a cunning faker, and those of us in law enforcement always knew this was an act.”
Gigante appeared insane on the surface, but underneath, he was calm and rational.
Most people are the opposite. They seem rational on the surface, but really, there is a lot of disorder and irrationality lurking beneath the veneer. We ache for order, people who act crazy rattle us, they show us that they don’t operate according to the same rules that we do – this unpredictability naturally frightens us.
But these people inspire awe and respect – secretly, many of us wishes they can connect to their inner Mr. Hyde. There is an oppressive need to always be normal.
Hence it came about that I concealed my pleasures; and that when I reached years of reflection, and began to look round me and take stock of my progress and position in the world, I stood already committed to a profound duplicity of me.
– The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Robert Louis Stevenson
But like the Chin, you have to keep your strategic insanity, if you wish to use it as a tactic, under control. if you allow yourself to be deliberately irrational, you should do so sparingly, if you overdo it, then you may be locked up. The occasional flash is enough to keep people off balance.
Randomness is thoroughly disturbing to humans….In ancient times the insane were seen as divinely possessed; a residue of that attitude survives. The greatest generals have all had a touch of divine, strategic madness.
I finally said, “Stop Lying to me! Enough lies. Is everything a lie?”
And then there was quiet. And then there were more experiences.
And then I said, “Ah, but I am also a liar.”
And then there was quiet, and some more experiences.
And then I thought to myself, “Well, aren’t we all liars then?”
I looked at my friend, and it became apparent that he was lying to me. And then at my other friend, and he was lying to himself. And then I looked at my third friend, and he told me about he lied, and at a fourth friend, who told me that he hated liars.
And then I quietly smiled and stopped talking to them.
I started a dialogue with myself.
“How do we lie? How do we deceive? Why do we do it? Is it possible to identify lies, to know an honest answer from a deceitful one, to know the real intentions of others? Is it possible to recognize when we deceive ourselves? Or perhaps I am thinking about all this the wrong way. Perhaps we are meant to lie. Perhaps lying is a necessary part of life, and instead of trying to study it, I should experience it – the beauty and ugliness of it, to embrace all of its sides…”
In The Republic, there is a passage that describes what qualities a judge should be endowed with. The conversation takes place with Socrates.
Socrates: ‘The best way for a doctor to acquire skill is to have, in addition to his knowledge of medical science, as wide and as an early acquaintance as possible with serious illness; in addition he should have experienced all kinds of disease in his own person and not be of an altogether healthy constitution. For doctors don’t use their bodies to cure other people’s bodies – if so, they cannot allow their health to be or become bad – they use their minds; and if their mental powers are or become bad their treatment can’t be good.’
‘But with a judge it’s a matter of mind controlling mind. And the mind should not be brought up from its youth to associate with wickedness, or to run a whole range of crimes in order to get first-hand experience on which to be able to judge them quickly in other people, as the doctor does with diseases of the body: on the contrary, the mind must, while it is still young, remain quite without experience of or contact with bad characters, if its condition is to be truly good and judgments just. That is why people of good character seem simple when they are young, and are easily taken in by dishonesty – because they have nothing corresponding in themselves to give them a sympathetic understanding of wickedness.’
The point that is being made here is that a mind that is not corrupt should remain so to be able to be a good judge, since early exposure to wickedness would disrupt its proper functioning and interfere with it.
When you are young, you are yet to be impressed upon by the world. Your assumptions about people are good. It is only when you get older that you see the maliciousness in others, and even in yourself.
But this innocence that Plato talks about, the good person who in their youth seems simple, is not something that is washed away by the transition from childhood to adulthood. There are many people who maintain this innocence of character despite their encounters with malice. They are either not exposed to an extreme enough event, or they are working hard to preserve their mental model of the world.
They prefer to remain where they are, trapped inside a simplistic understanding of people, for such an understanding allows them to trust, to take risks, and to form relationships. There is no good that can be gained from extreme skepticism – even if merited.
You should not distrust people, and avoid them at all costs – it is not pragmatic. You should instead understand them. And once you have acquired a sophisticated understanding of human nature, it is then time to integrate this knowledge into your belief system. To reconcile your cognitive dissonance, to accept that each individual is both virtuous and sinister. That each individual aims for the good, but is selfish and has destructive motivations.
The problem in politics can be summarized as follows: each side refuses to acknowledge their own dark sides. They frame the other side as evil, while thinking of themselves as good. And it is the same in social life. You have those who presume their own innocence indirectly when they cast aspersions on others. Social shaming induces guilt which can lead to reform, so it cannot be said that casting aspersions is altogether fruitless, but when it is done pathologically, without properly considering the situation in its entirety, without holding one’s own self culpable, without taking stock of one’s own lack of self-control and lack of virtue, then there can only be net negative consequence.
The simple, innocent youth who grows up to be an adult does not remain young, nor innocent, but in their minds, they often do. And it is this mismatch between reality (what is) and what is perceived that results in both internal tension and external hostility.
It seems like cliched advice to always look at oneself before criticizing others, but it is necessary to do so, to avoid self-deception. The person you should fear most is yourself, not others who you may or may not encounter. You are permanently attached to yourself, you cannot escape your own mind or body, and so it is important to know what you are, and what you are not.
Be Spotless: the indispensable condition of perfection. Few live without some weak point, either physical or moral, which they pamper because they could easily cure it. The keenness of others often regrets to see a slight defect attaching itself to a whole assembly of elevated qualities, and yet a single cloud can hide the whole of the sun. There are likewise patches on our reputation which ill-will soon finds out and is continually noticing. The highest skill is to transform them into ornament. So Caesar hid his natural defects with the laurel. – Baltasar Gracian (The Art of Worldly Wisdom)
The common, cliched advice is to be open about your weaknesses, but this serves no purpose. If you reveal your weaknesses to others, they will be exploited. You not only unlock the possibility of others exploiting you with the information they have, but they will respect you less. Revealing your flaws signals a weakness of character. They will see that you cannot control your emotions, and this will diminish from your credibility. Napoleon was one of the most accomplished generals in history, and yet, his chief diplomat Talleyrand successfully managed to make a fool of him a number of times. One in particular was when Talleyrand helped spread rumors that he was conspiring against Napoleon in secret.
He knew that Napoleon would reveal his biggest weakness: his short temper. He knew that Napoleon would not be able to contain his anger after he had heard news of a conspiracy against him. And he knew this because the great general had revealed this weakness to him in the past in multiple occasions. He gave away a valuable tell.
The cunning Talleyrands of the world do the same; they pay attention to what your weaknesses are, and then they patiently wait for the appropriate moment to expose them. Everyone is a victim of their own psychology. When you understand someone’s psychology, you can find the right triggers. The only defense is to conceal this information. This requires self-control and self-awareness. The cunning know how to extract useful information when you least expect it, when your guard is down, tired, or unfocused.
After Napoleon’s burst of outrage against Talleyrand, when he resorted to personal insults about the latter’s wife – hinting that she was having an affair, the politicians in the room took note of this character flaw. At the same time, Napoleon’s fit of anger was contrasted with Talleyrand’s coolness and nonchalance. This put Napoleon’s credibility at question, how could a leader of a nation, a person in such an important position, have such little control over their temperament? This was question, when it was pondered over in the minds of observers, dutifully accomplished the goal that Talleyrand had from the start.
If you have ever experienced regret after an encounter with someone, where you may have said too much then you understand how easily your emotions can get the better of you. The truth is that no matter how rational you think you are, your emotions are much more powerful. When a certain screw has been twisted, you will enter into a frenzied state, where all calmness and rationality has left you.
In fact, losing your cool is such a common phenomenon that people have happily exploited it for ages. If you personally want to find out what someone else is hiding from you, driving them to their emotional breaking point is a very effective way of doing so. Assume that this person harbors hidden feelings of resentment towards you, assume this person is someone you consider a close friend. Because of your history, you will not normally suspect any malicious thoughts from their side and behave accordingly, never provoking them or pressing them. But if one day, you have an argument, and you push them towards the edge, their true emotions will shine through. It is almost impossible for them to remain in control of their words. The more room you give them to maneuver, the more rope you are giving them to hang themselves with.
If you suspect your girlfriend or boyfriend is cheating on you, do not stupidly accuse them of anything explicitly, but patiently prod them until they make an error. They will give you contradictory responses. Women are excellent at doing this, it is almost a natural tendency for them. It is the indirect pursuit of truth, and for the simple minded and naive, it is an inconceivable tactic, yet it is the most effective.
You must train yourself to never say more than necessary. There’s a saying in arabic that translates to: “Say less words, make fewer mistakes.” If you are unpracticed in the art of concealing knowledge and you are the type of person who doesn’t know how to meticulously craft the right words for every occasion, then the best defensive tactic you can use is to keep quiet.
Train yourself to listen. It is a truly underrated skill to be silent.
“Shape clay into a vessel; It is the space within that makes it useful. Cut doors and windows for a room; it is the holes which make it useful. Therefore benefit comes from what is there; usefulness from what is not there.” – Lao Tzu
In the same way, think of a conversation as a physical object like a vessel. How useful and fruitful a conversation is depends on the pauses of silence that both parties are charitable enough to give each other. You do not only want to train yourself to listen so that you can extract hidden truths from the other person but because you want to know what they really think. You want to know what they really think because if lies persist into the future, then resentment will build up, and you will experience much more damaging manifestations of their built up resentment in surprising and undesirable ways.
The remedy is simple: silence. Pay attention to what they have to say, listen to every word. Do not interrupt them. Do not continue their sentences – that is your ego getting in the way, that is just you trying to still feel relevant to the conversation. It is you saying ‘I’m here, don’t forget about me, I have opinions too’! Don’t fall for your own childish compulsions. Instead, focus on what the other person has to say and do not respond until you have formed in your mind a coherent thought. Do not rush.
The other thing you must train yourself to do is to prepare yourself mentally before the conversation. If there is someone who knows how to push your buttons and provoke you, it is only because you trust their opinion. But this is highly irrational. Why take their opinion seriously? Think about how many people there are in the world, think about how many highly intelligent and knowledgeable people fail to agree on even the most fundamental issues. If you take your friend’s opinion seriously, it is not because they are a superior judge of character, but because you have an emotional connection to them. What they think matters to you. But once you acknowledge that your trust in them is purely emotional, then you are now better prepared than before.
Whereas you used to ruminate on what words were said, now you have a more reasonable estimate of their incompetence, you can take them less seriously, and this will allow you to be more calm and rational when speaking to them.
The Prepared Mind
People often get frustrated when the other person is too clam, and this I find very amusing. The irritated and the out of control hate it when they encounter someone who can keep their emotions in check. Talleyrand, the French politician, endlessly amused himself and his colleagues by provoking Napoleon. And he eventually succeeded in getting Napoleon to self-destruct.
The frustrated and the emotional are unprepared, they are untrained. Do not make the same mistake. Alfred Hitchcock used to make sure that every single detail in the film he was shooting was studied thoroughly beforehand. He did this because he hated having to endure the endless squabbles among the people he was working with. So he quietly did his job and once he was confident in the end result, he paid no attention to the bickering and the petty fights that happened around him. He was unfazed because he was experienced enough to expect these emotional outbursts to occur, and he knew that he was getting what he wanted – his own vision implemented.
Don’t allow the Talleyrands of the world to get the better of you. Always be cooler than they are. And like Hitchcock, never leave things to chance. Do not get involved in petty politics, it will only distract you and cloud your judgement. Make the tendency to become emotional, to say more than necessary, to lose your temper a fault that you can exploit in others, rather than a personal vulnerability. This can happen through repeated exposure and a changed mindset.
A novice poker player can’t help but react to his hands. He will sit relaxed with a joyful attitude through many rounds, leaning back on his chair and stretching his legs out nonchalantly. But once two aces show up, he shoots straight up, his hands automatically fold on each other, the smile on his face is immediately replaced with a somber look, and he suddenly becomes very quiet, making as little conversation as possible. He means business!
In life, you start out as a novice poker player, revealing everything that you think and feel. Children are notorious for spilling the family secrets because they are untrained. Yet many adults are no better, and worse, the secrets they know about are more dangerous. But they cannot contain themselves, they have not practiced enough. Don’t make the same mistake.
In the game of deception, no character is more potent and deadly than the weak link. You should not only be wary of those that strut their feathers proudly, they are obvious targets and have obvious weak points. You should also be wary of are those who are quiet, disgruntled, and weak-willed. They craft a delicate facade that convinces everyone around them that they are powerless, and that they are constantly preyed upon. These Machiavellian naturals only feign weakness to fool you.
The weak link is irrational. He only acts out of selfish instinct but has convinced himself and others around him that he is not selfish – that he is in fact virtuous. Finding himself losing the power struggle, the weak link must find a chink in the armor of others, and this is often compassion. If the weak link can garner empathy from others, then he can gain in stature and political strength. He does so by appealing to principles that he neither believes in nor follows, but he knows that these principles are universally recognized. He does not have a personal philosophy, but understands which values the gullible fall for. He tries to believe in his bullshit but he fails to do so as his regular behavior does not exhibit any adherence to a philosophy of compassion. The weak link regularly spends his time pursuing selfish modes of action but he is suspiciously uncritical of his own behavior. In fact, this lack of self-awareness and personal responsibility is the reason he has become a weak link.
His master strategy is to appeal to fairness. Since it is in everyone’s best interest to play a fair game, it is difficult to reject the weak link’s call for greater fairness. And yet, even under fair conditions, the weak link refuses to play the game because he lacks competence, focus, and resolve.
The weak link is a perpetual seeker of shortcuts. By victimizing himself, by appearing to be the biggest loser of a rigged game, he garners sympathy from other big losers. You should avoid these people, do not associate with them, for if you do, they will eventually corrupt your mind. It is naive to believe that you can change people, but it is more naive to believe that you cannot be changed.
There is a character in society that has for thousands of years evoked outrage and envy – the courtier. This character is very much alive today. Who is the courtier? He is the king’s companion, the teacher’s pet, the adviser, aide, henchman.
The courtier’s strategy is extreme pragmatism. The courtier understands that the king has the power and he has learned that defying the king would only lead to negative consequences. So he implements his subtle mastery of interpersonal skills in his interactions with the king, flattering him while at the same time disclosing valuable information.
The courtier believes that it is necessary to get the king’s blessings, but knows that he is expendable. He knows that the king is powerful and has many other potential courtiers at his disposal. Thus the courtier constantly feeds the king a steady diet of information and flattery. This information needn’t convey the real interests of the courtier for he is not interested in his own entertainment, but predominantly seeks the satisfaction of the king. Likewise, he needn’t be sincere in his use for flattery, for it is used as a device of manipulation.
The courtier’s main battle is to prove that he is irreplaceable since this is counter to reality. Here is where his genius is most required, but also where his frailties are most deeply exposed. When the courtier tries to impress the king, he takes a risk by doing so. There is the possibility of failure. If the courtier does not succeed in carrying out the mission he promised, his reputation will be tarnished in the eyes of the king, and there can be nothing more debilitating and embarrassing to him than this.
But the courtier is shrewd and will not take unnecessary risks. He will constrain himself to the realm of the achievable. It is not so much the extent of what can be achieved, but rather, the fact of achievement itself that the courtier is after. Remember, he wants to build credibility with the king and this requires a consistent streak of victories. The courtier’s eternal rival is the indentured servant.
The indentured servant also exists in the king’s royal court, but he is treated badly. He is given the mundane tasks and unnecessary work. The servant despises the skilled courtier because he sees in him an unfulfilled ideal. The servant has convinced himself that by being obedient, he will gain favor with the king – that all his good works will be repaid in kind. But the servant inevitably discovers that this is not the case. As he neglects his himself further for the service of the king, he sees that the courtier is being showered with gifts, attention, and trust. Here the servant’s blood boils and he begins to seek revenge, not on the king, but on the courtier.
On the other hand, the courtier sees the servant as an unrighteous version of himself, an undeserving, lazy, and stupid imitation of his art. The courtier cajoles and plans and entertains while the scornful servant merely does what he is told and expects the same benefits.
In your own court, whether at work or in your relationships with people, take note of who the king, servant, and courtier are. They are the archetypal characters of the power hierarchy. Whenever there have been kings, there have always been courtiers and servants.
Blindly furious diligence, for example, the typical virtue of an instrument, is represented as the way to riches and honour, and as the most beneficial antidote to tedium and passion : but people are silent concerning its danger, its greatest dangerousness. Education proceeds in this manner throughout: it endeavours, by a series of enticements and advantages, to determine the individual to a certain mode of thinking and acting, which, when it has become habit, impulse and passion, rules in him and over him, in opposition to his ultimate advantage, but ” for the general good.” How often do I see that blindly furious diligence does indeed create riches and honours, but at the same time deprives the organs of the refinement by virtue of which alone an enjoyment of riches and honours is possible; so that really the main expedient for combating tedium and passion, simultaneously blunts the senses and makes the spirit refractory towards new stimuli!
– Nietzsche, The Gay Science
Don’t get stuck in one path for too long, especially if it gives you what you want. The most powerful form of self-deception is the one you trust the most.
Nietzsche describes an individual that is too familiar; the lawyer who has spent too many years honing his craft, training his mind to think and feel a certain way. Careful and analytical, he becomes blind to life’s pleasures, and to the things that can justify his sacrifices.
The foregoing of too much for too little is not a typical problem – it is usually the reverse for most people. But if you belong in the former category, you usually have no way of knowing how you are being blinded by your own diligence. An instrument is suitable for this kind of intensity, but not so much an agent – that is, if you wish to remain an agent. The person that wants to be free must not be too efficient, otherwise, they become nothing but the tool. Their identity becomes inseparable from their function.
You may be effective to society and gain the material rewards you crave, but you have forgotten how to enjoy them. Your laborious lifestyle has subdued your senses. This doesn’t mean that you should not work hard or pursue a challenging career, but it is important to routinely break away from routine.
When you disrupt the regular flow of activity that you are engulfed in, you gain a fresh perspective, and a new appreciation for life. It is the antidote to one of the most pernicious forms of self-deception.
A man said to a Dervish: “Why do I not see you more often?” The Dervish replied, “Because the words ‘Why have you not been to see me?’ are sweeter to my ear than the words ‘Why have you come again?”’
– Mulla jami, quoted in ldries Shah’s Caravan of Dreams
The Assyrians commanded upper Asia for hundreds of years. The people of Medea (north western Iran) rebelled against them and broke free. The Medes had to form a government and wanted to avoid dictatorships. They feared making one man too powerful. But without a leader, Medea was in chaos. There was constant fighting between the villages. But one man, Deioces, who lived in one of these villages was building a reputation as a fair arbiter of disputes. As the Medeans relied on him more, he became more powerful.
Deioces was overwhelmed with how much work he had to do. He stopped to tend to personal affairs. But his absence brought about chaos once again, and the Medeans quickly learned about the value of the arbitrator. They asked him for help and he agreed, but under strict conditions. He was not to be approached directly, but through messengers, and he had a palace built for him in the capital city. Everyone worked according to his schedule.
The Medes gave him everything he asked for, and he ruled for 53 years. His reign brought peace and prosperity. His grandson Cyrus inherited this power and developed Medea into the Persian empire. This is a story that Greene cites in The 48 Laws of Power; the lesson from this is that Deioces became powerful only after his absence was felt. Before he went to tend to his personal matters, the Medeans took him for granted. The law of scarcity in economics also makes this point. When something is withdrawn from the market, it increases in value. In seventeenth-century Holland, the elites wanted to make the tulip the most valuable flower, and they wanted it to be a status symbol. They pulled the tulips from the market and this sparked tulipomania – the flower multiplied in value.
Use absence to create respect and esteem. If presence diminishes fame, absence augments it. A man who when absent is regarded as a lion becomes when present something common and ridiculous. Talents lose their luster if we become too familiar with them, for the outer shell of the mind is more readily seen than its rich inner kernel. Even the outstanding genius makes use of retirement so that men may honor him and so that the yearning aroused by his absence may cause him to be esteemed.
– Baltasar Gracián
Abundance breeds complacency. Marketers never tell their potential customers that the reduced prices will remain low, or that they will never run out of stock – it’s always ‘only 1 left!’ and ‘limited time offer’. It is human nature to take things for granted. When things are going right, when supplies are plentiful, and when time is abundant, you will not feel compelled to change your behavior.
People become addicted to gambling because of the existence of intermittent rewards. A reward can motivate behavior, but a normal reward is not as powerful as an intermittent reward.
The gap between getting the reward and waiting for another one is the element of scarcity that gets people hooked. The same is true for social media. An example is notifications. Users get notified of ‘likes’ and ‘replies’ after variable time intervals. When 10 people like your post, you won’t get notified of about this as it happens, but you will get delayed notifications of the likes over the course of the day.
In his book Influence, Cialdini tells us the story of a Native American jewelry store catering to travellers to Arizona. The owner of the store noticed that her turquoise jewelry was not moving, so she moved them to a different location. But the change of location didn’t help. One day, she was leaving on a business trip and left a note that instructed her employee to halve the price of the jewelry display. Her employee misread the “1/2”, she thought it said “2” – so she doubled the price instead. When the owner returned, all the turquoise jewelry had been sold.
The perception of customers changed. When they saw that the jewelry was expensive, they figured that it must be valuable.
Going back to the example of scarcity. When an object is rare, it becomes expensive – as the laws of supply and demand dictate. And when something is expensive, it is valuable in the eyes of the people.
The implication isn’t that anyone can be absent and make their absence felt. It is only after that person has created value in a tangible way, that he is missed when he is not present. But after your value has been established, even if taken for granted, your absence will interrupt a pattern of automatic behavior that depended on you.
The Medeans automatically went to Deioses for help, but when he wasn’t there to settle their disputes, this pattern of behavior was interrupted. The trigger in this scenario is the dispute, without which, people would have forgotten about Deioses.
In the jewelry store, the trigger was the increase in price. Usually, things that are more expensive are higher in quality. This correlation has developed into a mental heuristic or rule of thumb. People will assume that anything that is expensive must also be high in quality. Of course, this isn’t necessarily true, but such a simplification of reality can save a lot of time and energy.
The lesson is that we are victims of our previous patterns of behavior. We look for practical shortcuts, even if imperfect. We will trust the rule that expensive is good, and we will give Deoices whatever he wants if he resolves our disputes. It is easier to rely on Deoices than to find a more sustainable long-term solution. This isn’t always bad. There are cases when using shortcuts is wiser than over-deliberating. But becoming aware of how scarcity appeals to the lazy part of our psyche is important to avoid being deceived.