How to use the 48 laws of power

I’ve been following Robert Greene more closely than probably 99% of the world’s population. As part of an extremely in depth research project I’ve read all his books, listened to nearly all podcasts he’s been on, I’ve even transcribed some of them, I’ve read most of his interviews, most of his blogs, and I’ve watched a lot of Youtube videos he appears in. It’s an enormous amount of work that’s probably overkill even by the standards of someone seeking a PhD in Robert Greene-ology (which I’m not), but some public figures just deserve more attention and closer examination than others. I followed a similar path with Gary Vaynerchuk and will soon apply the process to other monsters in the intersecting fields of authorship and entrepreneurship, but with Greene I might be nearing stalker-level.

With all that said, this is going to be by far the most informed and well thought out review of his work that appears on the whole fucking internet.

Probably.

Greene gets accused of The High Crime Of Evility by a lot of, well, to put it as kindly as possible I’ll call them psychotically stupid shitheads who deserve to die in a thousand fires. They cry about him being Macchiavelian when they don’t even understand the word. They bitch about his works being immoral. They call them guides for sociopaths and dictators.
Sociopaths and dictators don’t need a fucking book to do what they do. They’re naturals at it. It’s who they are. This book is written for people like you and me: nice people; people who’ve tried to believe that everybody should just be nice and get along.

Yeah, sure. Maybe people should do that, but they… fuckin don’t, and so we nice people need to — at the very least — know these laws in order to understand how they’re being used against us. (And if we want some ammunition, that’s in there too. )

The intro might be the best part of the book. He exposes all the arguments against using or trying to gain power. It convinced me almost totally of the central argument behind the book: everyone wants power; you do and I do. Maybe you or I only want power over our own life. Or maybe we want power over others. Every single person on Earth wants some form of power, and people will try to dominate you, so you better know how to respond.
We all want some form of power, and when we don’t have it, it makes us miserable.

People who pretend to be naive in the ways of power are making a power play. People who say it’s bad to have power are making a power play. People who like to pretend they are nonplayers in the game of power are making a power play. People who pretend their powerlessness makes them virtuous are making a power play.

In my opinion, you should crush those virtue crusaders on principle alone; unconscious hypocrisy is still hypocrisy, and it’s even more offensive to the intellect because they pretend to be the most highly moral people.

Greene’s book is hugely influenced by Eastern philosophies: taoism, zen buddhism, etc. Those two in particular stress seeing the world as it actually is. Part of seeing it how it is involves understanding that the world and everyone in it are constantly changing. You have to react to each moment and circumstance and person based on the specifics of the moment, the specifics of the person. You can’t possibly apply every single one of the 48 laws in all circumstances. You can’t even apply most of the laws at all times.
What worked on one person will not necessarily work on the next. The same law might not even work twice on the same person.

Use the book as a reference. Come back to it from time to time. Look for a few laws that seem to fit whatever situation you find yourself in. Some laws are unbreakable, others aren’t. It’s not black and white. Don’t be rigid in your thinking.

Understand: Most people are too stupid for this book. Go check some of the one star reviews. They’re all written by incredibly stupid people. Or maybe “stupid” is too much. Maybe they’re naïve. Maybe they’re idealistic. Maybe they’re just helplessly locked into a dualistic view of the universe. Good, bad, black, white, up, down.

That’s unfortunate for them and for all of us. The old bleeding heart in me would lament the fact and wish for it to change. The old bleeding heart in me would say, “with an educational campaign, we can help people understand X, Y, and Z issue.” But that’s just not true. Some people are too stupid to be helped.

Most people will never believe something that they don’t want to believe (or aren’t ready to believe). You can’t change that, I can’t change that. Don’t waste time wishing people were different.

As I said before, the book has so many things in common with taoism. Most people are too stupid for taoism and they’re too stupid for Greene’s book.

Taoism often gets accused of being elitist. There’s a saying associated with taoism that’s something like, “rules are for people too stupid to live without rules.” If you don’t like that quote or don’t get it, then the quote is talking about you, and you’re probably better off following some modern liberal strand of Christianity because navigating the long dark tea time of the soul is just gonna be too hard for you. If you need to take everything you read literally, then you’re too stupid for taoism and the 48 laws. (BTW, I don’t call myself a taoist, but I also don’t care if people think I am one.)

Another common criticism is that the book was written by a sociopath. A majority of Greene’s content involves understanding human emotions, desires, fears, etc, and being in tune with others. All individuals have both good and bad qualities. It would be prudent to understand that and to know how to defend yourself.

According to five seconds of Google research I did, sociopathy is learned while psychopathy is natural or inherent in certain people.
Does learning about human nature, or writing books about it, make you a sociopath? Would a sociopath have a better and more objective understanding of human emotion than a “normal” person? Is learning about human nature something that we all should do? (These are just some questions that I think are semi-interesting. I’ll just leave them there for your consideration. I’m not going to explore them any further.)

I don’t think Robert Greene is a sociopath or a psychopath. I think he’s a guy like me: Someone who was very idealistic and wanted to think that people should just be nice and get along and cooperate. But then he started seeing people for who they truly are, not how he wanted them to be. I think that’s a good thing. I think it’s good to stop being naïve. And I think that’s what happened to Robert, based on his own accounts of his pre-writer life. It doesn’t matter whether or not he’s a sociopath. It doesn’t matter whether or not the process of understanding human nature makes you a sociopath.

It doesn’t matter because the laws of human nature that he lays out in his books are self evident. When you read the books you start to see that everyone is applying at least one or two of his laws of power or war or seduction at almost all times. He’s not a moralizer. He treats the reader as an adult and expects you to bring your own morality to his books. He’s just laying out the laws of human nature as he understands them.

I think it’s a good thing to learn to stop taking everything so personally and getting upset every time somebody does something you don’t like. I think it’s a good thing to understand human nature. (I don’t care about the giant debate around “What WhetherFore Ever Is Indeed The Human Nature Indeed?” Everyone in all cultures at all points in history want power over their own life. I think Greene explains it better than any academic bullshitter ever could.)

Greene’s critics would rather be comfortable than face difficult things and overcome them. Other critics are making their own power play, claiming to be above such nastiness. They’re proving Greene’s points for him.