The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Law 9 – Win Through Your Actions, Never Through Argument
Any momentary triumph you think you have gained through argument is really a Pyrrhic victory: The resentment and ill will you will stir up is stronger and lasts longer than any momentary change of opinion. It is much more powerful to get others to agree with you through your actions, without saying a word. Demonstrate, do not explicate.
Transgression Of The Law
In 131BC the Roman consul Publius Mucianus, laying siege to the Greek town of Pergamus, found himself in need of a battering ram to force through the town’s walls. He had seen a couple of large ship’s masts in Athens a few days before, and ordered that the larger of the two be brought to him immediately. The military engineer in Athens felt that the smaller of the masts would be better suited to the task, and argued this with the soldiers who had been dispatched to fetch the larger mast.
The soldiers warned the engineer that their master was not the sort of man you’d want to argue with, but he insisted that the smaller mast would be the only one that would work properly with the machine that he was constructing to go with it. He drew the soldiers diagram after diagram, and in the end told them that he was the expert and that they had no clue as to what they were talking about. The soldiers refused to budge as they knew their master would only accept what he had ordered, and at last the engineer gave in and followed Mucianus’ orders.
After the soldiers had left the engineer continued to think about it some more, and asked himself what was the point of obeying an order that he knew would only lead to failure? He therefore changed his mind and disobeyed his orders, sending the smaller mast and being confident that Mucianus would see how much more effective it was than the larger mast.
When the smaller mast arrived Mucianus summoned his soldiers to him and demanded an explanation. They described how they had got into a lengthy and heated argument with the engineer but that he had finally agreed to send the larger mast, and Mucianus flew into a rage. He could not concentrate on winning the siege, instead all he could think about was the engineer who had disobeyed his orders, so he ordered his soldiers to go and fetch the engineer and bring him to him.
The engineer arrived a few days later and explained his reasons for sending the smaller mast, using the same arguments he had with the soldiers. He told the consul it was wise to listen to experts in these matters, and if the attack was tried with the battering ram he had sent the consul would not regret it. Mucianus let him finish, then had his soldiers kill the engineer.
Interpretation
The engineer had spent his whole lifetime designing masts and pillars, and was respected as the finest engineer in Athens. He knew that he was right, that a smaller mast would allow more speed and even though the mast was lighter it would carry more force than the larger mast. He was certain Mucianus would see his logic, and assumed that he could not persist in his ignorance if the engineer showed him detailed diagrams and explained the theories and reasons behind his advice for the smaller mast.
What the engineer did not understand was that words are never neutral, and that by arguing with his superior he was insulting the intelligence of a person more powerful than himself. He also had no awareness of the person he was dealing with, as each man believed he was right, and his reasoning fell on deaf ears as the consul was never likely to come round to the engineer’s point of view. When he was summoned to the consul he only argued more, digging his own grave, as once he had made Mucianus feel insecure and inferior in his beliefs nothing he could have done or said could have saved the situation.
It is not simply a question of avoiding an argument with those who stand above you. We all believe that we are masters of opinion and reasoning, so you must be careful then and learn to demonstrate the correctness of your ideas indirectly.
Observance Of The Law
In 1502 in Florence an enormous block of marble stood in the works department of the church of Santa Maria del Fiore, and although it had once been a perfect piece of raw stone an unskilled sculptor had mistakenly bored a hole through it where there should have been a figure’s legs. Piero Soderini, Florence’s mayor, had thought about trying to save the block by commissioning Leonardo da Vinci to work on it, but had been convinced by others that the marble block was ruined, so it was moved into a storage room to gather dust.
It stood there for some time until some Florentine friends of Michelangelo decided to write to the artist, then living in Rome, as they believed he would be able to do something with the marble. Michelangelo travelled to Florence, examined the stone, and decided that he would be able to carve a fine figure from it by adapting the pose to take into account the hole through the marble. Soderini argued that this would be a waste of time as no-one could rescue the marble, but eventually he agreed to let Michelangelo work on it, and he decided to depict a young David.
Weeks later, as the finishing touches were being put on the sculpture, Soderini went to see the work and, fancying himself as a bit of an expert, told Michelangelo that while he thought the sculpture was magnificent, the nose was too big. Michelangelo realized that as Soderini was standing right under the giant figure he had the wrong perspective of it, so Michelangelo told Soderini to follow him up the scaffolding where picked up his chisel as well as a bit of marble dust that lay on the planks.
With Soderini a few feet below him, Michelangelo pretended to tap away at the nose, letting the marble dust he had in his hand fall bit by bit, giving the impression that he was chipping it off the statue. He did nothing at all to change the nose, but gave every appearance of working on it, and after a few minutes of the charade he stood aside to let Soderini inspect his “improvement”, to which he replied, “I like it much better, you’ve made it come alive.”
Interpretation
Michelangelo knew that the nose was perfect, and that by changing it even a little bit he might ruin the entire sculpture. Yet Soderini was a man who prided himself in his artistic judgement, and to argue against him would seriously offend him and put Michelangelo’s future commission is severe jeopardy. Michelangelo was too clever to argue, so his solution was to change Soderini’s viewing angle, bringing him closer to the nose without making him aware that this was why he believed the nose to be too big.
Fortunately for posterity, Michelangelo found a way to keep the perfection of the staue intact while at the same time making Soderini believe that he had improved it. Such is the double power of winning through actions rather than argument: No-one is offended, and your point is proven.
Keys To Power
In the realm of power you must learn to judge your moves by their long-term effects on people. The problem with trying to prove a point or gain a victory through argument is that in the end you can never be certain how it affects the person or people you are arguing with – they may appear to agree with your point of view but inside they may be resentful, hurt, and angry. Or maybe something you said inadvertently offended them, as words have the ability to be interpreted according to the other person’s mood and insecurities.
Everyone knows that in the heat of an argument, we will say anything to support our cause, such as referring to unverifiable statistics or even making some up. Action and demonstration are much more powerful and meaningful, they are there, before our eyes, for us to see, and there are no offensive words and no possibility of misinterpretation. No-one can argue with a demonstrated proof.
Sir Christopher Wren was England’s version of the Renaissance man, having mastered mathematics, astronomy, physics, and physiology. During his long career he was often told be his patrons to make impractical changes in his designs, and never once did he argue or offend, as he had other ways of proving his point.
In 1688 Wren designed a magnificent town hall for the city of Westminster. The mayor, however, was not satisfied, and told Wren the second floor was not safe and that it would come crashing down into his office on the first floor, so demanded that Wren add two stone columns for extra support. Wren knew the columns would serve no purpose and that the Mayor’s fears were baseless, but he did build them, for which the mayor was very grateful.
It was only many years later that workmen on a high scaffold saw that the columns stopped just short of the ceiling, and that both men had got what they wanted – the mayor could stop worrying about the second floor falling in on him, and Wren knew that future generations would know that his original design worked and that the columns were unnecessary. The power of demonstrating your idea is that your opponents do not get defensive, and are therefore more open to persuasion. Making them literally and physically feel your meaning is infinitely more powerful than argument.
A heckler once interrupted Nikita Khrushchev in the middle of a speech in which he was denouncing the crimes of Stalin, saying, “You were a colleague of Stalin’s, why didn’t you stop him then?” Khrushchev couldn’t see who the heckler was, so shouted out “Who said that!?” After a few seconds of tense silence Khrushchev said, “Now you know why I didn’t stop him.”
Instead of just arguing that anyone who faced Stalin was afraid, knowing that the slightest hint of rebellion meant certain death, Khrushchev made the audience feel what it was like to face Stalin, the paranoia, the fear of speaking up, and the terror of confronting the leader. The demonstration was perfect, and no more argument as necessary.
The most powerful persuasion goes beyond action into symbol. The power of a symbol – a flag, a mythic story, a monument to some emotional event – is that everyone understands you without anything being said. In 1975, when Henry Kissinger was in the middle of some frustrating negotiations with the Israelis over the return of part of the Sinai desert they had seized in the 1967 war, he suddenly stopped a tense meeting and went off to do some sightseeing. He went and paid a visit to the ruins of the ancient fortress of Masada, the place where 700 Jewish warriors committed suicide in AD73 rather than be captured by the Roman troops besieging them.
The Israelis instantly understood the message of Kissinger’s visit: He was indirectly accusing them of courting mass suicide, and although the visit by itself didn’t change the Israeli’s minds, it made them think far more seriously than any direct warning would have. Symbols like this one carry great emotional significance.
When aiming for power, or trying to conserve it, always look for the indirect route, and always choose your battles carefully. If it does not matter in the long run whether the other person agrees with you – or if time and their own experience will make them understand what you mean – then it is best not to even bother with a demonstration. Save your energy and walk away.
Image: The See-Saw
Up and down and up and down go the arguers, getting nowhere fast. Get off the see-saw and show them your meaning without kicking or pushing. Leave them at the top and let gravity bring them gently to the ground.
Authority
Never argue. In society nothing must be discussed; give only results. (Benjamin Disraeli, 1804-1881)
Reversal
Verbal argument has one vital use in the realm of power: To distract and cover your tracks when you are practicing deception or are caught in a lie. In such cases it is to your advantage to argue with all the conviction you can muster. Draw the other person into an argument to distract them from your deceptive move. When caught in a lie, the more emotional and certain you appear, the less likely you are lying.
This technique has saved the hide of many a con artist. Count Victor Lustig sold hundreds of people around the USA a phony box which he claimed could copy money, and discovering their mistake, people didn’t go to the police, as what they were attempting to do was illegal. However one Sheriff Richards was not the kind of man to accept being conned, and tracked Lustig down to a hotel in Chicago.
Lustig opened his hotel door, and found himself staring down the barrel of a gun. Lustig feigned confusion, saying that the Sheriff must be operating it wrong. The Sheriff was adamant he was operating it correctly, and the argument went in circles, with the barrel of the gun being lowered.
Lustig then went onto phase two in his argument tactic, and poured out a whole load of confusing technical rubbish about the box’s operation, completely confusing the Sheriff, who now appeared less certain of himself and argued less forcefully. He then said that he would give the Sheriff his money back, and would come out to his home to show him how to work the box, to which the Sheriff agreed. A few days later the Sheriff was arrested and convicted of passing counterfeit money – the money Lustig had given him as a refund – and the Sheriff never bothered Lustig again.
My Opinion
We’ve all heard of the phrase “Actions speak louder than words”, and most of the time this is true. What this Law teaches you however is to use this phrase in deception, which is clearly wrong. In the past I’ve tried to argue things with people and lost my temper, slamming down a file on the table for example, and this has worked by putting people on the back foot but isn’t really the right way to go.
We’ve all come across people who can talk for hours and hours, saying they will do something and never do it, when clearly it would have been much better to keep their mouths shut and just gone and done what they said they were going to do, so this Law does have a lot of truth in it but in this case the author is wrong by trying to use it for manipulation and deception.
Any momentary triumph you think you have gained through argument is really a Pyrrhic victory: The resentment and ill will you will stir up is stronger and lasts longer than any momentary change of opinion. It is much more powerful to get others to agree with you through your actions, without saying a word. Demonstrate, do not explicate.
Transgression Of The Law
In 131BC the Roman consul Publius Mucianus, laying siege to the Greek town of Pergamus, found himself in need of a battering ram to force through the town’s walls. He had seen a couple of large ship’s masts in Athens a few days before, and ordered that the larger of the two be brought to him immediately. The military engineer in Athens felt that the smaller of the masts would be better suited to the task, and argued this with the soldiers who had been dispatched to fetch the larger mast.
The soldiers warned the engineer that their master was not the sort of man you’d want to argue with, but he insisted that the smaller mast would be the only one that would work properly with the machine that he was constructing to go with it. He drew the soldiers diagram after diagram, and in the end told them that he was the expert and that they had no clue as to what they were talking about. The soldiers refused to budge as they knew their master would only accept what he had ordered, and at last the engineer gave in and followed Mucianus’ orders.
After the soldiers had left the engineer continued to think about it some more, and asked himself what was the point of obeying an order that he knew would only lead to failure? He therefore changed his mind and disobeyed his orders, sending the smaller mast and being confident that Mucianus would see how much more effective it was than the larger mast.
When the smaller mast arrived Mucianus summoned his soldiers to him and demanded an explanation. They described how they had got into a lengthy and heated argument with the engineer but that he had finally agreed to send the larger mast, and Mucianus flew into a rage. He could not concentrate on winning the siege, instead all he could think about was the engineer who had disobeyed his orders, so he ordered his soldiers to go and fetch the engineer and bring him to him.
The engineer arrived a few days later and explained his reasons for sending the smaller mast, using the same arguments he had with the soldiers. He told the consul it was wise to listen to experts in these matters, and if the attack was tried with the battering ram he had sent the consul would not regret it. Mucianus let him finish, then had his soldiers kill the engineer.
Interpretation
The engineer had spent his whole lifetime designing masts and pillars, and was respected as the finest engineer in Athens. He knew that he was right, that a smaller mast would allow more speed and even though the mast was lighter it would carry more force than the larger mast. He was certain Mucianus would see his logic, and assumed that he could not persist in his ignorance if the engineer showed him detailed diagrams and explained the theories and reasons behind his advice for the smaller mast.
What the engineer did not understand was that words are never neutral, and that by arguing with his superior he was insulting the intelligence of a person more powerful than himself. He also had no awareness of the person he was dealing with, as each man believed he was right, and his reasoning fell on deaf ears as the consul was never likely to come round to the engineer’s point of view. When he was summoned to the consul he only argued more, digging his own grave, as once he had made Mucianus feel insecure and inferior in his beliefs nothing he could have done or said could have saved the situation.
It is not simply a question of avoiding an argument with those who stand above you. We all believe that we are masters of opinion and reasoning, so you must be careful then and learn to demonstrate the correctness of your ideas indirectly.
Observance Of The Law
In 1502 in Florence an enormous block of marble stood in the works department of the church of Santa Maria del Fiore, and although it had once been a perfect piece of raw stone an unskilled sculptor had mistakenly bored a hole through it where there should have been a figure’s legs. Piero Soderini, Florence’s mayor, had thought about trying to save the block by commissioning Leonardo da Vinci to work on it, but had been convinced by others that the marble block was ruined, so it was moved into a storage room to gather dust.
It stood there for some time until some Florentine friends of Michelangelo decided to write to the artist, then living in Rome, as they believed he would be able to do something with the marble. Michelangelo travelled to Florence, examined the stone, and decided that he would be able to carve a fine figure from it by adapting the pose to take into account the hole through the marble. Soderini argued that this would be a waste of time as no-one could rescue the marble, but eventually he agreed to let Michelangelo work on it, and he decided to depict a young David.
Weeks later, as the finishing touches were being put on the sculpture, Soderini went to see the work and, fancying himself as a bit of an expert, told Michelangelo that while he thought the sculpture was magnificent, the nose was too big. Michelangelo realized that as Soderini was standing right under the giant figure he had the wrong perspective of it, so Michelangelo told Soderini to follow him up the scaffolding where picked up his chisel as well as a bit of marble dust that lay on the planks.
With Soderini a few feet below him, Michelangelo pretended to tap away at the nose, letting the marble dust he had in his hand fall bit by bit, giving the impression that he was chipping it off the statue. He did nothing at all to change the nose, but gave every appearance of working on it, and after a few minutes of the charade he stood aside to let Soderini inspect his “improvement”, to which he replied, “I like it much better, you’ve made it come alive.”
Interpretation
Michelangelo knew that the nose was perfect, and that by changing it even a little bit he might ruin the entire sculpture. Yet Soderini was a man who prided himself in his artistic judgement, and to argue against him would seriously offend him and put Michelangelo’s future commission is severe jeopardy. Michelangelo was too clever to argue, so his solution was to change Soderini’s viewing angle, bringing him closer to the nose without making him aware that this was why he believed the nose to be too big.
Fortunately for posterity, Michelangelo found a way to keep the perfection of the staue intact while at the same time making Soderini believe that he had improved it. Such is the double power of winning through actions rather than argument: No-one is offended, and your point is proven.
Keys To Power
In the realm of power you must learn to judge your moves by their long-term effects on people. The problem with trying to prove a point or gain a victory through argument is that in the end you can never be certain how it affects the person or people you are arguing with – they may appear to agree with your point of view but inside they may be resentful, hurt, and angry. Or maybe something you said inadvertently offended them, as words have the ability to be interpreted according to the other person’s mood and insecurities.
Everyone knows that in the heat of an argument, we will say anything to support our cause, such as referring to unverifiable statistics or even making some up. Action and demonstration are much more powerful and meaningful, they are there, before our eyes, for us to see, and there are no offensive words and no possibility of misinterpretation. No-one can argue with a demonstrated proof.
Sir Christopher Wren was England’s version of the Renaissance man, having mastered mathematics, astronomy, physics, and physiology. During his long career he was often told be his patrons to make impractical changes in his designs, and never once did he argue or offend, as he had other ways of proving his point.
In 1688 Wren designed a magnificent town hall for the city of Westminster. The mayor, however, was not satisfied, and told Wren the second floor was not safe and that it would come crashing down into his office on the first floor, so demanded that Wren add two stone columns for extra support. Wren knew the columns would serve no purpose and that the Mayor’s fears were baseless, but he did build them, for which the mayor was very grateful.
It was only many years later that workmen on a high scaffold saw that the columns stopped just short of the ceiling, and that both men had got what they wanted – the mayor could stop worrying about the second floor falling in on him, and Wren knew that future generations would know that his original design worked and that the columns were unnecessary. The power of demonstrating your idea is that your opponents do not get defensive, and are therefore more open to persuasion. Making them literally and physically feel your meaning is infinitely more powerful than argument.
A heckler once interrupted Nikita Khrushchev in the middle of a speech in which he was denouncing the crimes of Stalin, saying, “You were a colleague of Stalin’s, why didn’t you stop him then?” Khrushchev couldn’t see who the heckler was, so shouted out “Who said that!?” After a few seconds of tense silence Khrushchev said, “Now you know why I didn’t stop him.”
Instead of just arguing that anyone who faced Stalin was afraid, knowing that the slightest hint of rebellion meant certain death, Khrushchev made the audience feel what it was like to face Stalin, the paranoia, the fear of speaking up, and the terror of confronting the leader. The demonstration was perfect, and no more argument as necessary.
The most powerful persuasion goes beyond action into symbol. The power of a symbol – a flag, a mythic story, a monument to some emotional event – is that everyone understands you without anything being said. In 1975, when Henry Kissinger was in the middle of some frustrating negotiations with the Israelis over the return of part of the Sinai desert they had seized in the 1967 war, he suddenly stopped a tense meeting and went off to do some sightseeing. He went and paid a visit to the ruins of the ancient fortress of Masada, the place where 700 Jewish warriors committed suicide in AD73 rather than be captured by the Roman troops besieging them.
The Israelis instantly understood the message of Kissinger’s visit: He was indirectly accusing them of courting mass suicide, and although the visit by itself didn’t change the Israeli’s minds, it made them think far more seriously than any direct warning would have. Symbols like this one carry great emotional significance.
When aiming for power, or trying to conserve it, always look for the indirect route, and always choose your battles carefully. If it does not matter in the long run whether the other person agrees with you – or if time and their own experience will make them understand what you mean – then it is best not to even bother with a demonstration. Save your energy and walk away.
Image: The See-Saw
Up and down and up and down go the arguers, getting nowhere fast. Get off the see-saw and show them your meaning without kicking or pushing. Leave them at the top and let gravity bring them gently to the ground.
Authority
Never argue. In society nothing must be discussed; give only results. (Benjamin Disraeli, 1804-1881)
Reversal
Verbal argument has one vital use in the realm of power: To distract and cover your tracks when you are practicing deception or are caught in a lie. In such cases it is to your advantage to argue with all the conviction you can muster. Draw the other person into an argument to distract them from your deceptive move. When caught in a lie, the more emotional and certain you appear, the less likely you are lying.
This technique has saved the hide of many a con artist. Count Victor Lustig sold hundreds of people around the USA a phony box which he claimed could copy money, and discovering their mistake, people didn’t go to the police, as what they were attempting to do was illegal. However one Sheriff Richards was not the kind of man to accept being conned, and tracked Lustig down to a hotel in Chicago.
Lustig opened his hotel door, and found himself staring down the barrel of a gun. Lustig feigned confusion, saying that the Sheriff must be operating it wrong. The Sheriff was adamant he was operating it correctly, and the argument went in circles, with the barrel of the gun being lowered.
Lustig then went onto phase two in his argument tactic, and poured out a whole load of confusing technical rubbish about the box’s operation, completely confusing the Sheriff, who now appeared less certain of himself and argued less forcefully. He then said that he would give the Sheriff his money back, and would come out to his home to show him how to work the box, to which the Sheriff agreed. A few days later the Sheriff was arrested and convicted of passing counterfeit money – the money Lustig had given him as a refund – and the Sheriff never bothered Lustig again.
My Opinion
We’ve all heard of the phrase “Actions speak louder than words”, and most of the time this is true. What this Law teaches you however is to use this phrase in deception, which is clearly wrong. In the past I’ve tried to argue things with people and lost my temper, slamming down a file on the table for example, and this has worked by putting people on the back foot but isn’t really the right way to go.
We’ve all come across people who can talk for hours and hours, saying they will do something and never do it, when clearly it would have been much better to keep their mouths shut and just gone and done what they said they were going to do, so this Law does have a lot of truth in it but in this case the author is wrong by trying to use it for manipulation and deception.
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
Law 9 – Win Through Your Actions, Never Through Argument
Any momentary triumph you think you have gained through argument is really a Pyrrhic victory: The resentment and ill will you will stir up is stronger and lasts longer than any momentary change of opinion. It is much more powerful to get others to agree with you through your actions, without saying a word. Demonstrate, do not explicate.
Transgression Of The Law
In 131BC the Roman consul Publius Mucianus, laying siege to the Greek town of Pergamus, found himself in need of a battering ram to force through the town’s walls. He had seen a couple of large ship’s masts in Athens a few days before, and ordered that the larger of the two be brought to him immediately. The military engineer in Athens felt that the smaller of the masts would be better suited to the task, and argued this with the soldiers who had been dispatched to fetch the larger mast.
The soldiers warned the engineer that their master was not the sort of man you’d want to argue with, but he insisted that the smaller mast would be the only one that would work properly with the machine that he was constructing to go with it. He drew the soldiers diagram after diagram, and in the end told them that he was the expert and that they had no clue as to what they were talking about. The soldiers refused to budge as they knew their master would only accept what he had ordered, and at last the engineer gave in and followed Mucianus’ orders.
After the soldiers had left the engineer continued to think about it some more, and asked himself what was the point of obeying an order that he knew would only lead to failure? He therefore changed his mind and disobeyed his orders, sending the smaller mast and being confident that Mucianus would see how much more effective it was than the larger mast.
When the smaller mast arrived Mucianus summoned his soldiers to him and demanded an explanation. They described how they had got into a lengthy and heated argument with the engineer but that he had finally agreed to send the larger mast, and Mucianus flew into a rage. He could not concentrate on winning the siege, instead all he could think about was the engineer who had disobeyed his orders, so he ordered his soldiers to go and fetch the engineer and bring him to him.
The engineer arrived a few days later and explained his reasons for sending the smaller mast, using the same arguments he had with the soldiers. He told the consul it was wise to listen to experts in these matters, and if the attack was tried with the battering ram he had sent the consul would not regret it. Mucianus let him finish, then had his soldiers kill the engineer.
Interpretation
The engineer had spent his whole lifetime designing masts and pillars, and was respected as the finest engineer in Athens. He knew that he was right, that a smaller mast would allow more speed and even though the mast was lighter it would carry more force than the larger mast. He was certain Mucianus would see his logic, and assumed that he could not persist in his ignorance if the engineer showed him detailed diagrams and explained the theories and reasons behind his advice for the smaller mast.
What the engineer did not understand was that words are never neutral, and that by arguing with his superior he was insulting the intelligence of a person more powerful than himself. He also had no awareness of the person he was dealing with, as each man believed he was right, and his reasoning fell on deaf ears as the consul was never likely to come round to the engineer’s point of view. When he was summoned to the consul he only argued more, digging his own grave, as once he had made Mucianus feel insecure and inferior in his beliefs nothing he could have done or said could have saved the situation.
It is not simply a question of avoiding an argument with those who stand above you. We all believe that we are masters of opinion and reasoning, so you must be careful then and learn to demonstrate the correctness of your ideas indirectly.
Observance Of The Law
In 1502 in Florence an enormous block of marble stood in the works department of the church of Santa Maria del Fiore, and although it had once been a perfect piece of raw stone an unskilled sculptor had mistakenly bored a hole through it where there should have been a figure’s legs. Piero Soderini, Florence’s mayor, had thought about trying to save the block by commissioning Leonardo da Vinci to work on it, but had been convinced by others that the marble block was ruined, so it was moved into a storage room to gather dust.
It stood there for some time until some Florentine friends of Michelangelo decided to write to the artist, then living in Rome, as they believed he would be able to do something with the marble. Michelangelo travelled to Florence, examined the stone, and decided that he would be able to carve a fine figure from it by adapting the pose to take into account the hole through the marble. Soderini argued that this would be a waste of time as no-one could rescue the marble, but eventually he agreed to let Michelangelo work on it, and he decided to depict a young David.
Weeks later, as the finishing touches were being put on the sculpture, Soderini went to see the work and, fancying himself as a bit of an expert, told Michelangelo that while he thought the sculpture was magnificent, the nose was too big. Michelangelo realized that as Soderini was standing right under the giant figure he had the wrong perspective of it, so Michelangelo told Soderini to follow him up the scaffolding where picked up his chisel as well as a bit of marble dust that lay on the planks.
With Soderini a few feet below him, Michelangelo pretended to tap away at the nose, letting the marble dust he had in his hand fall bit by bit, giving the impression that he was chipping it off the statue. He did nothing at all to change the nose, but gave every appearance of working on it, and after a few minutes of the charade he stood aside to let Soderini inspect his “improvement”, to which he replied, “I like it much better, you’ve made it come alive.”
Interpretation
Michelangelo knew that the nose was perfect, and that by changing it even a little bit he might ruin the entire sculpture. Yet Soderini was a man who prided himself in his artistic judgement, and to argue against him would seriously offend him and put Michelangelo’s future commission is severe jeopardy. Michelangelo was too clever to argue, so his solution was to change Soderini’s viewing angle, bringing him closer to the nose without making him aware that this was why he believed the nose to be too big.
Fortunately for posterity, Michelangelo found a way to keep the perfection of the staue intact while at the same time making Soderini believe that he had improved it. Such is the double power of winning through actions rather than argument: No-one is offended, and your point is proven.
Keys To Power
In the realm of power you must learn to judge your moves by their long-term effects on people. The problem with trying to prove a point or gain a victory through argument is that in the end you can never be certain how it affects the person or people you are arguing with – they may appear to agree with your point of view but inside they may be resentful, hurt, and angry. Or maybe something you said inadvertently offended them, as words have the ability to be interpreted according to the other person’s mood and insecurities.
Everyone knows that in the heat of an argument, we will say anything to support our cause, such as referring to unverifiable statistics or even making some up. Action and demonstration are much more powerful and meaningful, they are there, before our eyes, for us to see, and there are no offensive words and no possibility of misinterpretation. No-one can argue with a demonstrated proof.
Sir Christopher Wren was England’s version of the Renaissance man, having mastered mathematics, astronomy, physics, and physiology. During his long career he was often told be his patrons to make impractical changes in his designs, and never once did he argue or offend, as he had other ways of proving his point.
In 1688 Wren designed a magnificent town hall for the city of Westminster. The mayor, however, was not satisfied, and told Wren the second floor was not safe and that it would come crashing down into his office on the first floor, so demanded that Wren add two stone columns for extra support. Wren knew the columns would serve no purpose and that the Mayor’s fears were baseless, but he did build them, for which the mayor was very grateful.
It was only many years later that workmen on a high scaffold saw that the columns stopped just short of the ceiling, and that both men had got what they wanted – the mayor could stop worrying about the second floor falling in on him, and Wren knew that future generations would know that his original design worked and that the columns were unnecessary. The power of demonstrating your idea is that your opponents do not get defensive, and are therefore more open to persuasion. Making them literally and physically feel your meaning is infinitely more powerful than argument.
A heckler once interrupted Nikita Khrushchev in the middle of a speech in which he was denouncing the crimes of Stalin, saying, “You were a colleague of Stalin’s, why didn’t you stop him then?” Khrushchev couldn’t see who the heckler was, so shouted out “Who said that!?” After a few seconds of tense silence Khrushchev said, “Now you know why I didn’t stop him.”
Instead of just arguing that anyone who faced Stalin was afraid, knowing that the slightest hint of rebellion meant certain death, Khrushchev made the audience feel what it was like to face Stalin, the paranoia, the fear of speaking up, and the terror of confronting the leader. The demonstration was perfect, and no more argument as necessary.
The most powerful persuasion goes beyond action into symbol. The power of a symbol – a flag, a mythic story, a monument to some emotional event – is that everyone understands you without anything being said. In 1975, when Henry Kissinger was in the middle of some frustrating negotiations with the Israelis over the return of part of the Sinai desert they had seized in the 1967 war, he suddenly stopped a tense meeting and went off to do some sightseeing. He went and paid a visit to the ruins of the ancient fortress of Masada, the place where 700 Jewish warriors committed suicide in AD73 rather than be captured by the Roman troops besieging them.
The Israelis instantly understood the message of Kissinger’s visit: He was indirectly accusing them of courting mass suicide, and although the visit by itself didn’t change the Israeli’s minds, it made them think far more seriously than any direct warning would have. Symbols like this one carry great emotional significance.
When aiming for power, or trying to conserve it, always look for the indirect route, and always choose your battles carefully. If it does not matter in the long run whether the other person agrees with you – or if time and their own experience will make them understand what you mean – then it is best not to even bother with a demonstration. Save your energy and walk away.
Image: The See-Saw
Up and down and up and down go the arguers, getting nowhere fast. Get off the see-saw and show them your meaning without kicking or pushing. Leave them at the top and let gravity bring them gently to the ground.
Authority
Never argue. In society nothing must be discussed; give only results. (Benjamin Disraeli, 1804-1881)
Reversal
Verbal argument has one vital use in the realm of power: To distract and cover your tracks when you are practicing deception or are caught in a lie. In such cases it is to your advantage to argue with all the conviction you can muster. Draw the other person into an argument to distract them from your deceptive move. When caught in a lie, the more emotional and certain you appear, the less likely you are lying.
This technique has saved the hide of many a con artist. Count Victor Lustig sold hundreds of people around the USA a phony box which he claimed could copy money, and discovering their mistake, people didn’t go to the police, as what they were attempting to do was illegal. However one Sheriff Richards was not the kind of man to accept being conned, and tracked Lustig down to a hotel in Chicago.
Lustig opened his hotel door, and found himself staring down the barrel of a gun. Lustig feigned confusion, saying that the Sheriff must be operating it wrong. The Sheriff was adamant he was operating it correctly, and the argument went in circles, with the barrel of the gun being lowered.
Lustig then went onto phase two in his argument tactic, and poured out a whole load of confusing technical rubbish about the box’s operation, completely confusing the Sheriff, who now appeared less certain of himself and argued less forcefully. He then said that he would give the Sheriff his money back, and would come out to his home to show him how to work the box, to which the Sheriff agreed. A few days later the Sheriff was arrested and convicted of passing counterfeit money – the money Lustig had given him as a refund – and the Sheriff never bothered Lustig again.
My Opinion
We’ve all heard of the phrase “Actions speak louder than words”, and most of the time this is true. What this Law teaches you however is to use this phrase in deception, which is clearly wrong. In the past I’ve tried to argue things with people and lost my temper, slamming down a file on the table for example, and this has worked by putting people on the back foot but isn’t really the right way to go.
We’ve all come across people who can talk for hours and hours, saying they will do something and never do it, when clearly it would have been much better to keep their mouths shut and just gone and done what they said they were going to do, so this Law does have a lot of truth in it but in this case the author is wrong by trying to use it for manipulation and deception.
Any momentary triumph you think you have gained through argument is really a Pyrrhic victory: The resentment and ill will you will stir up is stronger and lasts longer than any momentary change of opinion. It is much more powerful to get others to agree with you through your actions, without saying a word. Demonstrate, do not explicate.
Transgression Of The Law
In 131BC the Roman consul Publius Mucianus, laying siege to the Greek town of Pergamus, found himself in need of a battering ram to force through the town’s walls. He had seen a couple of large ship’s masts in Athens a few days before, and ordered that the larger of the two be brought to him immediately. The military engineer in Athens felt that the smaller of the masts would be better suited to the task, and argued this with the soldiers who had been dispatched to fetch the larger mast.
The soldiers warned the engineer that their master was not the sort of man you’d want to argue with, but he insisted that the smaller mast would be the only one that would work properly with the machine that he was constructing to go with it. He drew the soldiers diagram after diagram, and in the end told them that he was the expert and that they had no clue as to what they were talking about. The soldiers refused to budge as they knew their master would only accept what he had ordered, and at last the engineer gave in and followed Mucianus’ orders.
After the soldiers had left the engineer continued to think about it some more, and asked himself what was the point of obeying an order that he knew would only lead to failure? He therefore changed his mind and disobeyed his orders, sending the smaller mast and being confident that Mucianus would see how much more effective it was than the larger mast.
When the smaller mast arrived Mucianus summoned his soldiers to him and demanded an explanation. They described how they had got into a lengthy and heated argument with the engineer but that he had finally agreed to send the larger mast, and Mucianus flew into a rage. He could not concentrate on winning the siege, instead all he could think about was the engineer who had disobeyed his orders, so he ordered his soldiers to go and fetch the engineer and bring him to him.
The engineer arrived a few days later and explained his reasons for sending the smaller mast, using the same arguments he had with the soldiers. He told the consul it was wise to listen to experts in these matters, and if the attack was tried with the battering ram he had sent the consul would not regret it. Mucianus let him finish, then had his soldiers kill the engineer.
Interpretation
The engineer had spent his whole lifetime designing masts and pillars, and was respected as the finest engineer in Athens. He knew that he was right, that a smaller mast would allow more speed and even though the mast was lighter it would carry more force than the larger mast. He was certain Mucianus would see his logic, and assumed that he could not persist in his ignorance if the engineer showed him detailed diagrams and explained the theories and reasons behind his advice for the smaller mast.
What the engineer did not understand was that words are never neutral, and that by arguing with his superior he was insulting the intelligence of a person more powerful than himself. He also had no awareness of the person he was dealing with, as each man believed he was right, and his reasoning fell on deaf ears as the consul was never likely to come round to the engineer’s point of view. When he was summoned to the consul he only argued more, digging his own grave, as once he had made Mucianus feel insecure and inferior in his beliefs nothing he could have done or said could have saved the situation.
It is not simply a question of avoiding an argument with those who stand above you. We all believe that we are masters of opinion and reasoning, so you must be careful then and learn to demonstrate the correctness of your ideas indirectly.
Observance Of The Law
In 1502 in Florence an enormous block of marble stood in the works department of the church of Santa Maria del Fiore, and although it had once been a perfect piece of raw stone an unskilled sculptor had mistakenly bored a hole through it where there should have been a figure’s legs. Piero Soderini, Florence’s mayor, had thought about trying to save the block by commissioning Leonardo da Vinci to work on it, but had been convinced by others that the marble block was ruined, so it was moved into a storage room to gather dust.
It stood there for some time until some Florentine friends of Michelangelo decided to write to the artist, then living in Rome, as they believed he would be able to do something with the marble. Michelangelo travelled to Florence, examined the stone, and decided that he would be able to carve a fine figure from it by adapting the pose to take into account the hole through the marble. Soderini argued that this would be a waste of time as no-one could rescue the marble, but eventually he agreed to let Michelangelo work on it, and he decided to depict a young David.
Weeks later, as the finishing touches were being put on the sculpture, Soderini went to see the work and, fancying himself as a bit of an expert, told Michelangelo that while he thought the sculpture was magnificent, the nose was too big. Michelangelo realized that as Soderini was standing right under the giant figure he had the wrong perspective of it, so Michelangelo told Soderini to follow him up the scaffolding where picked up his chisel as well as a bit of marble dust that lay on the planks.
With Soderini a few feet below him, Michelangelo pretended to tap away at the nose, letting the marble dust he had in his hand fall bit by bit, giving the impression that he was chipping it off the statue. He did nothing at all to change the nose, but gave every appearance of working on it, and after a few minutes of the charade he stood aside to let Soderini inspect his “improvement”, to which he replied, “I like it much better, you’ve made it come alive.”
Interpretation
Michelangelo knew that the nose was perfect, and that by changing it even a little bit he might ruin the entire sculpture. Yet Soderini was a man who prided himself in his artistic judgement, and to argue against him would seriously offend him and put Michelangelo’s future commission is severe jeopardy. Michelangelo was too clever to argue, so his solution was to change Soderini’s viewing angle, bringing him closer to the nose without making him aware that this was why he believed the nose to be too big.
Fortunately for posterity, Michelangelo found a way to keep the perfection of the staue intact while at the same time making Soderini believe that he had improved it. Such is the double power of winning through actions rather than argument: No-one is offended, and your point is proven.
Keys To Power
In the realm of power you must learn to judge your moves by their long-term effects on people. The problem with trying to prove a point or gain a victory through argument is that in the end you can never be certain how it affects the person or people you are arguing with – they may appear to agree with your point of view but inside they may be resentful, hurt, and angry. Or maybe something you said inadvertently offended them, as words have the ability to be interpreted according to the other person’s mood and insecurities.
Everyone knows that in the heat of an argument, we will say anything to support our cause, such as referring to unverifiable statistics or even making some up. Action and demonstration are much more powerful and meaningful, they are there, before our eyes, for us to see, and there are no offensive words and no possibility of misinterpretation. No-one can argue with a demonstrated proof.
Sir Christopher Wren was England’s version of the Renaissance man, having mastered mathematics, astronomy, physics, and physiology. During his long career he was often told be his patrons to make impractical changes in his designs, and never once did he argue or offend, as he had other ways of proving his point.
In 1688 Wren designed a magnificent town hall for the city of Westminster. The mayor, however, was not satisfied, and told Wren the second floor was not safe and that it would come crashing down into his office on the first floor, so demanded that Wren add two stone columns for extra support. Wren knew the columns would serve no purpose and that the Mayor’s fears were baseless, but he did build them, for which the mayor was very grateful.
It was only many years later that workmen on a high scaffold saw that the columns stopped just short of the ceiling, and that both men had got what they wanted – the mayor could stop worrying about the second floor falling in on him, and Wren knew that future generations would know that his original design worked and that the columns were unnecessary. The power of demonstrating your idea is that your opponents do not get defensive, and are therefore more open to persuasion. Making them literally and physically feel your meaning is infinitely more powerful than argument.
A heckler once interrupted Nikita Khrushchev in the middle of a speech in which he was denouncing the crimes of Stalin, saying, “You were a colleague of Stalin’s, why didn’t you stop him then?” Khrushchev couldn’t see who the heckler was, so shouted out “Who said that!?” After a few seconds of tense silence Khrushchev said, “Now you know why I didn’t stop him.”
Instead of just arguing that anyone who faced Stalin was afraid, knowing that the slightest hint of rebellion meant certain death, Khrushchev made the audience feel what it was like to face Stalin, the paranoia, the fear of speaking up, and the terror of confronting the leader. The demonstration was perfect, and no more argument as necessary.
The most powerful persuasion goes beyond action into symbol. The power of a symbol – a flag, a mythic story, a monument to some emotional event – is that everyone understands you without anything being said. In 1975, when Henry Kissinger was in the middle of some frustrating negotiations with the Israelis over the return of part of the Sinai desert they had seized in the 1967 war, he suddenly stopped a tense meeting and went off to do some sightseeing. He went and paid a visit to the ruins of the ancient fortress of Masada, the place where 700 Jewish warriors committed suicide in AD73 rather than be captured by the Roman troops besieging them.
The Israelis instantly understood the message of Kissinger’s visit: He was indirectly accusing them of courting mass suicide, and although the visit by itself didn’t change the Israeli’s minds, it made them think far more seriously than any direct warning would have. Symbols like this one carry great emotional significance.
When aiming for power, or trying to conserve it, always look for the indirect route, and always choose your battles carefully. If it does not matter in the long run whether the other person agrees with you – or if time and their own experience will make them understand what you mean – then it is best not to even bother with a demonstration. Save your energy and walk away.
Image: The See-Saw
Up and down and up and down go the arguers, getting nowhere fast. Get off the see-saw and show them your meaning without kicking or pushing. Leave them at the top and let gravity bring them gently to the ground.
Authority
Never argue. In society nothing must be discussed; give only results. (Benjamin Disraeli, 1804-1881)
Reversal
Verbal argument has one vital use in the realm of power: To distract and cover your tracks when you are practicing deception or are caught in a lie. In such cases it is to your advantage to argue with all the conviction you can muster. Draw the other person into an argument to distract them from your deceptive move. When caught in a lie, the more emotional and certain you appear, the less likely you are lying.
This technique has saved the hide of many a con artist. Count Victor Lustig sold hundreds of people around the USA a phony box which he claimed could copy money, and discovering their mistake, people didn’t go to the police, as what they were attempting to do was illegal. However one Sheriff Richards was not the kind of man to accept being conned, and tracked Lustig down to a hotel in Chicago.
Lustig opened his hotel door, and found himself staring down the barrel of a gun. Lustig feigned confusion, saying that the Sheriff must be operating it wrong. The Sheriff was adamant he was operating it correctly, and the argument went in circles, with the barrel of the gun being lowered.
Lustig then went onto phase two in his argument tactic, and poured out a whole load of confusing technical rubbish about the box’s operation, completely confusing the Sheriff, who now appeared less certain of himself and argued less forcefully. He then said that he would give the Sheriff his money back, and would come out to his home to show him how to work the box, to which the Sheriff agreed. A few days later the Sheriff was arrested and convicted of passing counterfeit money – the money Lustig had given him as a refund – and the Sheriff never bothered Lustig again.
My Opinion
We’ve all heard of the phrase “Actions speak louder than words”, and most of the time this is true. What this Law teaches you however is to use this phrase in deception, which is clearly wrong. In the past I’ve tried to argue things with people and lost my temper, slamming down a file on the table for example, and this has worked by putting people on the back foot but isn’t really the right way to go.
We’ve all come across people who can talk for hours and hours, saying they will do something and never do it, when clearly it would have been much better to keep their mouths shut and just gone and done what they said they were going to do, so this Law does have a lot of truth in it but in this case the author is wrong by trying to use it for manipulation and deception.