The quest for meaning and purpose has often led individuals to connect with something greater than themselves. We are convinced of the presence of God. The idea of dwelling in the divine presence holds profound implications for one’s perspective on life, morality, and the very nature of existence.
Living in the presence of God implies a continuous awareness of a divine presence in every aspect of life. This awareness transcends ritualistic observance and permeates all daily activities. It suggests a mindfulness that prompts us to reflect on the sacredness inherent in each moment.
One aspect of living in the presence of God is the cultivation of ethical behavior. The belief in God serves as a moral compass, guiding us to make choices rooted in compassion, justice, and kindness.
Furthermore, awareness of living in God’s presence often engenders a sense of solace and purpose. We find comfort and resilience In the face of life’s uncertainties and challenges. We sense we are not alone, fostering a profound sense of belonging and interconnectedness with everyone.
The presence of God is most intense when we do the norms. We carry that sense of presence in between the norms.
Living in the presence of God has tangible implications for relationships and interactions. We recognize the inherent worth and dignity of everyone. To see in each person the image and likeness of God challenges the divisions that often plague humanity.
To conclude. Living in the presence of God represents a universal human aspiration for connection and purpose. It influences not only individual beliefs and behaviors and shapes the moral fabric of societies. Doing our norms and acting in consequence of them brings to life a profound sense of meaning, morality, and interconnectedness.
I came down last week with an allergic attack brought on I think by a combination of heavy lifting, not taking beer afterwards, and some unknown factor. A form of bronchitis that can last for a week. It’s inconvenient, especially just before an out-of-town trip whose purpose was precisely to energize before the school year starts. So, no gym this week.
It matters somewhat, not going to gym. Why? Because it’s part of how I solve my problems. I’m not here referring to “What will I take up in college?” or “Should I move to another country?”.
I’m referring to worries, anxieties, and guilts. Like, I was anxious about my Mazda last week and how it would be inconvenient to bring it to the shop now because I needed it for this and for that, and it’s expensive, and what, and then solved half the problem by writing a short paragraph about it.
“If you write the problem down clearly, then the matter is half solved.”
Kidlin’s Law
For a big chunk of what remains, my go-to approach is to pray and to lift heavy. Praying is to tell God how much we love and trust Him. Weightlifting is to tell the world how we f*****g don’t give a s**t how anything else turns out. And it works: 9 times out of 10 my personal problems become personal opportunities after a few powerlifts. The other 1% always resolves with time, patience and cheerfulness.
There’s this game, however, that doesn’t help. Stephen B. Karpman in his book A Game Free Life called it the drama triangle. It has the characteristics of a psychological game: roles, duplicitous communications and a payoff that’s negative. It’s a fascinating study in misery and manipulation.
The roles played out in the Karpman triangle are the Persecutor, the Rescuer, and the Victim. In a psychological game all players discount themselves and/or the others.
The Persecutor discounts others’ sense of Worth. The Rescuer discounts others’ ability to think for themselves and to act on their own resources. And the Victim discounts his own ability to think and to solve problems.
The Persecutor says “I told you so“. He’s the one with the conditionals, the judgments, and the analysis that explains what’s wrong with you and why IF you did what he told you, you would be a better person. He provides the proverbs.
The Rescuer provides the medicine. “You have a problem, HE is the solution“. Just open up to him and everything will be fine. Rescuers aren’t really interested in rescuing, but in finding sick satisfaction in knowing the Victim is really miserable.
The Victim is the one who needs rescuing (from the Rescuer) and judgment (from the Persecutor). He signals these needs through self pity and deprecation, to which the other two respond.
The three roles SWITCH. Say, two people are playing the game. It starts with one playing Victim and the other Rescuer. Somewhere in the dialogue the Victim becomes, say, the Rescuer (“No, it’s you who needs healing!”) or the Persecutor (“What qualifies you?”); the Rescuer also shifts a role.
The communication is duplicitous in the sense that they use words that of objective, rational adults, but at the back of their minds they are thinking of you as helpless or tyrannical. This is sometimes called the subtext. “What qualifies you?” sounds rational, but at the back of the Persecutor’s mind he’s really questioning your abilities, not asking for information. The real messages are hidden under some veneer of acceptability. Why? Because it is too risky to express honestly what one feels, and could cut the game and therefore the fun.
Which is ironic, because the results in a psychological game are negative outcomes or payoffs for all players. Within a few minutes or even days, a drama triangle concludes with each player getting something that validates a generally false belief about himself, others, or life. Persecutor’s payoff is “All men are idiots“, Rescuer’s is “All men are sick“, and Victim’s is “I’m sick, you’re all sick“. It’s not that we play these games to feel bad, but to validate why we feel bad.
Because a game is ultimately negative, it is best to cut it if recognized. One does this in a number of ways. Simply don’t respond to a move. Or, change the direction of negativity to positivity, e.g., “You need help“. “Yes, I think you’re right. Do you know the cellphone number of a doctor I can consult?”. Or, call it out: “I don’t know why you think I have the problems you say I have.”
Game’s over before ‘fore it even starts. Which really sucks, because those who want to play will not get the validation and attention they seek.
Let’s be clear: we all have problems. A friend of mine said that if we used the DSM-5 definitions many of us would have some mental disease or pre-mental disease at some level of virulence or another. I don’t believe there’s such a thing as mental disease, however: tell, what’s the organic lesion in bipolar disorder? I do think there are such things as BRAIN or NERVE or SPINAL cord lesions. Still, people get depressed and anxious. And everyone falls for a cognitive bias even hundreds of times a day. These aren’t diseases: they are cognitive and behavioral lapses.
But most “personal” problems, the ones we idiomatically refer to as “issues” that cause worry, guilt, or anxiety can be addressed with a change in thinking or behavior. Most are not solved by talking about them; even thinking about them often leads to overthinking about them. And if we’re not thinking about them, what do we do? Lift weights, play golf, run, make wooden toys, paint, whatever you love. I think that the rise in mental health issues over the last few years correlates with stricter laws on smoking.
A friend and I were talking about this recently. We both came from all-male elementary and high schools. Our experience was that when we had issues we resolved our differences through a fist fight, sports or, as we got older, direct confrontation while sharing an ashtray. Then it was business as usual. Another friend who was in on the conversation shared that the situation in all-female schools is different. There, girls settle their issues through psychological violence, then through secret Post-It allegations and now through cyberbullying. Best girl friends have been separated for life because of their drama.
Finally, what about problems like “Should I move to another country?”, or in the case of a friend “Should I join the Jesuits now or get my PhD first?”. These are complex problems that sports and smoking cannot resolve. Various approaches and techniques are available, including seeking the opinion of experts.
Nonetheless, even problems like these become easier and more fun to solve when we are calm. As someone I know once quipped, smoking may have actually saved millions of lives by calming the nerves of the guys who had their fingers on the nuclear button.
Below we list the “point” of each of the Laws of Human Nature as described by Robert Greene in The Laws of Human Nature, and a representative virtue.
Master your emotional self: The law of irrationality. The virtue of reasonableness. Transform self-love into empathy: The law of narcissism. The virtue of self-love. See through people’s masks: The law of role-playing. The virtue of empathy. Determine the strength of people’s character: The law of compulsive behavior. The virtue of temperance. Become an elusive object of desire, but beware the fragile ego: The law of covetousness. The virtue of generosity. Elevate your perspective: The law of shortsightedness. The virtue of prudence. Soften people’s resistance by confirming their self-opinion: The law of defensiveness. The virtue of justice. Change your circumstances by changing your attitude: The law of self-sabotage. The virtue of diligence. Confront your dark side: The law of repression. The virtue of meekness. Know your limits: The law of grandiosity. The virtue of humility. Reconnect to the masculine or feminine within you: The law of gender rigidity. The virtue of flexibility. Advance with a sense of purpose: The law of aimlessness. The virtue of having goals. Resist the downward pull of the group: The law of conformity. The virtue of originality. Make them want to follow you: The law of fickleness. The virtue of steadfastness. See the hostility behind the friendly façade: The law of aggression. The virtue of fortitude. Seize the historical moment: The law of generational myopia. The virtue of science. Mediate on our common morality: The law of death denial. The virtue of joy.
These are not “laws” in the same manner that we apply the term to the laws of nature. With a law of nature such as gravity, we are saying that if you do this, you will inevitably get that: if you release an object, it falls to the ground. The Laws of Human Nature are not like that.
For one, these laws don’t apply to everyone in the same way. For example, the way the law of death denial affects a person depends on his cultural and religious. In general, Christians and samurai have a “friendlier” view of death than most other people, allowing for numerous exceptions even among the most fervent. Sensitivity to a law will also depend on circumstances, moods, personal state of health and many other factors.
Second, even a person who is by nature and experience deeply affected by a law, that person still has the choice how to respond. Thus, in the face of peer pressure and the law of conformity one can ALWAYS choose NOT to conform. It will be difficult where behavior according to the law is habitual, but behavior can always change.
And third, there is an optimal response to every law under every circumstance. Thus, it is ALWAYS desirable to be long sighted rather than short-sighted, to be independent rather than conformist, and to not fear death rather than to fear it. But when we say optimal we do not point to any extreme attitude. We go back to the Golden Mean: there must be an attitude between two extremes that is “best”. That point between two extremes might change according to the circumstances, but it is clear that neither extreme is desirable.
Navigating the Golden Mean is essentially a question of virtue, and so every Law of Human Nature points to a virtue, i.e., a habitual behavior, generally a response to some stimulus. A behavior that is performed by habit is easy and often pleasurable, and if it is a good habit, will more likely bring happiness than otherwise. Therefore, according to Aristotle, it ought to be the aim of every human to seek virtue, to seek to acquire positive habits.
That, in the end, is what the Laws of Human Nature are about. They are, indeed, about getting ahead in life.
The subject of leadership is a long one, and this will be a short blog.
Leaders vary greatly in how they manifest their character, some being more aggressive than others, yet often being just as effective. Thus, when I mention aggressiveness I do not imply a preference for its harshest, most violent versions. One can be very aggressive indeed yet remain calm. It might be better to call this Decisiveness, but let’s stick with Aggression — and think of the obstacle to be confronted as anything that will deviate a leader from his duty.
Robert Greene describes the Law of Aggression as the idea that there are instances when you need to assert yourself and be willing to confront challenges or conflicts directly in order to maintain your position, establish boundaries, and gain respect — as well as focus everyone’s energies on beating obstacles especially when many, including the leader, are tempted to give up. This law emphasizes the importance of controlled aggression and strategic confrontation to navigate social dynamics effectively.
The Law of Authority draws upon the observation that, on one side, people want to be led and they look up to a great and strong leader. At the same time, they resent him. They resent his position, the power he has, and the power he has over them.
Combined, the two laws describe leaders who have the moral character that is both the symbol and the means to prevent disorder and keep everything moving in the direction of goals.
Our culture, civilization, and society tend to repress our most aggressive instincts. But know that we all have it. Many of us have had the experience of becoming so focused by a goal that we are not diverted by difficulties, from nature or from other people. It’s a natural power many voluntarily silence in most situations. But it’s a power; it’s what made us the apex predator on earth. Instead of repressing it, we should use our aggression.
Or be run over by those who do.
An analogy is in order here. In our krav maga class we were told that when a mugger approaches and a threat is not immediate, the first thing to do is to shout “NO!” at the top of your lungs. If the mugger is not disoriented by this and becomes a clear and present danger, hit, then run. What if the guy comes from behind? Well, hit, then run. That’s what the classes are for.
I digress.
Here are some situations where aggression is an advantage.
Negotiation. Imagine you’re in a business negotiation where the other party is trying to take advantage of your position. The Law of Aggression suggests that you should assert yourself and confront their tactics directly, making it clear that you won’t be manipulated. This might involve calmly pointing out their tactics and stating your terms firmly.
Personal boundaries. In a social setting, someone repeatedly crosses your personal boundaries by making insensitive comments about your life choices. Applying the Law of Aggression doesn’t mean reacting angrily, but rather addressing the situation assertively. You might say something like, “I appreciate your interest, but those topics are personal to me, and I’d prefer not to discuss them.”
Leadership challenges. A leader faces a situation where their authority is being undermined by a subordinate. Instead of ignoring the situation, the leader applies the Law of Aggression by addressing the issue directly and assertively. This could involve having a private conversation to clarify expectations and remind the subordinate of their role.
Managing the Law of Aggression effectively involves finding a balance between assertiveness and aggression. Here are some suggestions:
Understand your own emotional triggers and tendencies. Recognize when you’re slipping into aggressive behavior rather than controlled assertiveness. My own rule is: never go ballistic unless you’re doing it for “theatrical” effect, i.e., you are in perfect control, and the message you want to convey is short and clear.
Choose your battles wisely. Not every situation requires immediate confrontation. Consider the context and the potential consequences before asserting yourself.
Develop effective communication skills that allow you to express your concerns or boundaries clearly and confidently without resorting to unnecessary aggression.
When confronted with aggression from others, practice active listening. Understand their perspective before responding. This can help defuse potential conflicts.
Learn techniques to manage your emotions, such as deep breathing or taking a step back before responding. This can help you maintain a level-headed approach during confrontations. It’s been said that one can tell who in the room has the most power: it’s the one who breathes the slowest.
In conflicts, focus on finding solutions rather than placing blame. This approach shifts the energy from aggression to collaboration.
Understand the other person’s perspective and motivations. This can lead to more constructive conversations and resolutions.
The goal of the Law of Aggression is not to foster hostility but to assert yourself strategically and maintain a position of strength while respecting the rights and perspectives of others.
Finally, to paraphrase Jordan Peterson, effective people are gentle AND dangerous. This is what meek originally meant. It’s not about being lamb-like. It’s to have one’s sword in its sheath, but being clear that the sword will be used without hesitation when necessary.
Robert Greene describes the Law of Conformity as the natural tendency of individuals to adapt their behaviors, beliefs, and attitudes to align with those of the group or society they are a part of. This law suggests that people have a deep-seated need to belong and be accepted by others, which often leads them to conform to the norms and expectations of their social environment.
It is believed that the instinct to conform is a trait we passed down to us from our early ancestors. Social cohesion and belonging within ancestral human communities conferred a survival advantage when living in dangerous environments. Physically, humans have no “built in weapons” and were easy prey to animals or to the violence of nature in general unless they stuck together.
More specifically, being part of a group conferred the following advantages.
Safety in numbers. In the early stages of human evolution, living in groups provided protection against predators and other threats. Those who conformed to the behaviors and norms of the group were more likely to stay within the safety of the group and less likely to be isolated and vulnerable to danger. Being similar to others meant less risk of being rejected or excluded from the protective benefits of the group.
Resource sharing. Human societies have long relied on cooperation and sharing of resources for survival. Conforming to group norms ensured a fair distribution of resources and minimized conflict within the group. People who adhered to social norms and norms of resource sharing were more likely to receive support when they needed it.
Reproduction and mate selection. Individuals who were well-integrated into their social groups had better opportunities for finding mates and forming reproductive partnerships. Conforming to social norms and fitting in with the group increased an individual’s chances of attracting a mate and being accepted by her own sub-group and successfully raising offspring within the supportive structure of the community.
Cultural transmission. Early human societies relied heavily on cultural knowledge and information passed down through generations. Conforming to the customs, practices, and beliefs of the group was a way to ensure the transmission of vital survival skills and accumulated knowledge.
Reduced conflict. By adhering to group norms, individuals reduced the likelihood of conflicts and disagreements within their communities. This lowered the chances of internal strife that could weaken the group’s ability to defend itself and secure resources.
In-group cooperation. In-group cooperation often led to competition with other groups for resources. Individuals who demonstrated loyalty and conformity to their group’s norms and values contributed to the group’s cohesion and effectiveness in competition with other groups.
Though advantageous in ancestral environments, conformity can also lead to challenges in modern societies. It might lead to stifling creativity, suppressing individuality, and perpetuating harmful norms. We can find a balance between conforming to positive group values and expressing individuality.
1. Compliance– It involves changing our behavior while we are still internally disagreeing with the group. It is shallow conformity.
2. Internalization– It involves changing our behavior, also internally as we believe in the viewpoint of the group. It is deep conformity.
Here are three examples that illustrate the Law of Conformity:
Asch conformity experiment. In the 1950s, psychologist Solomon Asch conducted a series of experiments where participants were asked to compare the lengths of lines. However, the majority of the participants were actually actors instructed to give incorrect answers. The real participant, despite knowing the correct answer, often conformed to the group’s incorrect response to avoid standing out or being perceived as different.
Fashion trends. The fashion industry is a prime example. People often adopt clothing styles, accessories, and beauty trends that are popular within their social circles. This conformity to fashion trends is driven by a desire to fit in and project a certain image to others.
Corporate Culture and Groupthink: In corporate settings, employees often conform to the prevailing company culture and opinions to maintain harmony and avoid conflict. This can sometimes lead to groupthink, where critical thinking and diverse viewpoints are suppressed in favor of unanimous agreement, even if it’s not the best decision. A notorious example of destructive groupthink is the downfall of Enron, a US energy company based in Houston, Texas, where a culture of conformity and unquestioning acceptance of leadership decisions led to unethical practices, financial manipulation, and the title for being one of the biggest accounting frauds in history. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2001.
The pressure to conform varies across cultures, social strata, ages, and many other factors that define a group. It can also vary with the situation, e.g., a terrorist attack will cause people to scamper everywhere, but a mob will draw even random strangers to participate in looting. Political activities, especially elections, are excellent examples as well.
Here are some ways to manage the Law of Conformity:
Be aware of your own tendencies to conform. Reflect on your beliefs, decisions, and actions to determine if they are driven by genuine alignment with your values or mere conformity to societal pressures.
Develop the skill of critical thinking. Evaluate information, opinions, and decisions independently rather than automatically adopting the group’s perspective. This can help you make well-informed choices that are in line with your own judgment.
Embrace your individuality and uniqueness. Recognize that it’s okay to have different viewpoints and preferences from those around you. Authenticity can be more rewarding than conforming to the expectations of others. Be especially mindful about whether your desire to conform is motivated by a desire to feel better about yourself, i.e., conformity as a way to kill the pain of low esteem.
Surround yourself with individuals who respect diverse opinions and encourage independent thinking. Seek out communities and relationships that value individuality and open-mindedness.
Politely challenge group assumptions and norms when necessary. This doesn’t mean always going against the grain, but rather engaging in constructive discussions that encourage different perspectives. Paul Arden’s Whatever You Think, Think the Opposite advocates for embracing unconventional and counterintuitive approaches to decision-making and life choices. Know, however, that going against the norm will require having a strong character. I do not like to think of a strong character as resulting from traits, but rather from the simple conviction that if you are here, alive, right now, it means you had the ability to survive. Having survived, you will survive still.
Sometimes conformity can be beneficial, such as adhering to social norms that promote kindness and cooperation. And teamwork, of course. However, be mindful of the motivations behind your conformity and ensure it aligns with your personal values. Beware the psychology of the mob, where every member loses all accountability.
The Law of Conformity is a natural aspect of human behavior. Understanding and managing it can empower you to make choices that are more aligned with your authentic self and also get things done.
Robert Greene describes the Law of Grandiosity as the tendency of individuals to exaggerate their importance, achievements, and abilities in order to bolster their self-esteem, manipulate others, or mask insecurities.
The Law highlights the human inclination to create an impressive façade, projecting an image of exceptional competence, knowledge, or significance. This behavior can stem from a desire for admiration, respect, and control over others’ perceptions. At worst, it may be accompanied by a sense that others are inferior, wrong, or “unworthy”.
People often construct online personas that showcase an idealized version of their lives. A notorious example is Rachel Dolezal.
Rachel Dolezal gained public attention between 2010-2015 when she portrayed herself as a black woman and became a prominent civil rights activist and advocate for African American causes. She held leadership positions in NAACP chapters, taught African American studies, and worked on issues related to racial equality.
However, in 2015, it was revealed that Dolezal was, in fact, born to white parents of European descent. She had consistently identified herself as a black woman, tanned her skin, styled her hair in ways associated with black culture, and claimed to have black heritage. After being found out, she acknowledged she was “born white to white parents“, and asserted that her self-identification is genuine, even though it is not based on ancestry.
Her fabrication caused controversy and outrage. Many criticized her for appropriating and trivializing the struggles of the black community while denying her own white heritage. The fabrication was personally damaging. It led to widespread media attention, and her resignation from her leadership roles at the NAACP and the Police Ombudsman Commission in Spokane, and from her teaching post at Eastern Washington University. Her current job is listed as “hairstylist”. She legally changed her name in 2016 to have a better chance of landing work.
Dolezal’s motivation for projecting a false image was likely rooted in her desire to be seen as an authentic and dedicated advocate for racial equality. She might have believed that presenting herself as a black woman would lend more weight and credibility to her work in civil rights and anti-discrimination efforts.
Rachel Dolezal’s case serves as a cautionary tale about authenticity, cultural appropriation, and ethical representation. It highlights the importance of being genuine and transparent about one’s identity, motivations, and background.
Her story also underscores the challenges and complexities of projecting a false image in the age of social media, where misinformation and deception can be easily created, and also exposed with ease, leading to public backlash and loss of credibility.
All successful business leaders have to be confident. But some use grandiose language and gestures to project an overblown image of confidence and authority. This can manipulate followers into trusting their decisions and abilities.
One notorious example is Richard S. Fuld, Jr., the former CEO of Lehman Brothers.
Fuld was at the helm of Lehman Brothers, a global financial services firm, during the period leading up to the 2008 financial crisis. Under his leadership, Lehman Brothers engaged in risky financial practices, including significant exposure to subprime mortgages and complex derivatives.
Fuld’s megalomaniac tendencies played a significant role in Lehman Brothers’ downfall. Fuld maintained an authoritarian leadership style, emphasizing profits and growth without adequately assessing the potential risks. He was known for his unwavering confidence in his decisions, even when they went against prevailing wisdom or market trends. This confidence bordered on arrogance, leading him to dismiss warnings about the impending financial crisis.
He also exhibited a lack of accountability for the firm’s risky behavior. He often placed blame on external factors and was slow to acknowledge the severity of the financial crisis.
And despite Lehman Brothers’ deteriorating financial health, Fuld continued to receive substantial compensation and bonuses. His focus on personal gain and rewards demonstrated a disregard for the well-being of the firm and its employees.
In 1844, Lehman Brothers was a simple dry goods store. In 2008 it was the 4th largest investment bank in the United States with a market value of $42 billion. On September 12, 2008, two days after reporting $41 billion in liquidity, true available funds totaled only $2 billion.” Lehman filed for bankruptcy on September 15, marking a pivotal moment in the global financial crisis. The bankruptcy had far-reaching consequences, triggering a chain reaction of market turmoil and financial instability that we still feel to this day.
As for Fuld, he is currently head of New York-based Matrix Private Capital.
Fuld’s is a cautionary tale about the dangers of unchecked megalomania in business leadership. His refusal to acknowledge the reality of the financial situation, paired with a focus on personal gain, exacerbated the crisis and contributed to the widespread economic turmoil that badly affected the lives of millions.
His case underscores the importance of humility, accountability, and a willingness to adapt in the face of changing circumstances. It highlights the potential harm that can arise when leaders prioritize their ego and personal interests over the well-being of their organizations and the broader economy.
For our final illustration of grandiosity, here’s one about pathological lying. When people fabricate elaborate stories about their accomplishments or experiences, often seeking validation and attention from others. This is the example is Jussie Smollett.
Smollett is an actor known for his role on the TV show Empire. In January 2019, he reported to the police that he had been the victim of a hate crime, claiming that he was attacked by two men who shouted racist and homophobic slurs, poured a chemical substance on him, and placed a noose around his neck.
Smollett’s initial account of the incident detailed a violent hate crime that garnered widespread media attention and sympathy from public figures. He provided intricate details about the alleged attackers and their actions, leading to a sense of outrage and concern for his safety. Smollett maintained his story in media interviews, giving interviews that reinforced his claims.
But, as the investigation unfolded, inconsistencies emerged in Smollett’s story. It was eventually revealed that he had orchestrated the entire incident and had paid two acquaintances to stage the attack. Smollett’s motive was reported to be a combination of seeking attention and dissatisfaction with his salary on Empire.
Smollett’s case highlights the consequences of pathological lying, particularly in the context of media attention and public sentiment. His actions not only damaged his own reputation but also fueled skepticism and undermined the credibility of real victims of hate crimes.
The incident highlights the importance of ethical behavior, honesty, and accountability. It also underscores the potential damage that can result from false claims and the impact of a high-profile deception on both personal and public perceptions.
Here are some ways to manage the Law of Grandiosity:
Regularly reflect on your intentions behind showcasing achievements or seeking admiration. Is it genuine sharing or a desire to prove your worth?
Embrace vulnerability by acknowledging your limitations and mistakes. Authenticity often garners more genuine respect than a façade of grandeur.
Focus on attainable goals and celebrate your genuine successes without the need for exaggerated narratives.
Welcome feedback from trusted individuals. Acknowledging areas for improvement displays humility and a willingness to grow.
Recognize that others might also be projecting grandiosity. Understanding their insecurities and motivations can foster empathy and healthier interactions.
Develop a solid foundation of self-worth that doesn’t rely on external validation. Genuine confidence stems from self-acceptance and personal growth.
By being mindful of the Law of Grandiosity, individuals can navigate their interactions with authenticity, humility, and a deeper understanding of themselves and others. This ultimately contributes to more meaningful connections and personal growth.
We’ve got three big players in the game of relationships: fraternity or brotherhood, understanding one another, and a touch of class, or refinement. But the secret sauce? Knowing where to draw the line – that’s boundaries and respect.
Brotherhood is like the ultimate friendship. It’s that feeling that says, “Hey, we’re in this together.” Literally, in the same house, the same clan, the same whatever group you consider to be made up of your brothers and sisters. But, just like you wouldn’t want your sibling rummaging through your stuff without asking, the same rule applies here. It’s about having each other’s backs, sure, but also giving each other space. Respect the individual, and the group vibe stays cool.
Understanding each other is like, “I get you.” You don’t have to agree on everything, but you get where the other person is coming from. However, this doesn’t mean pushing too far or getting too nosy. It’s more like letting your buddy share their playlist, listening to it, and saying, “Cool tunes,” even if it’s not really your jam.
Being Classy (or Refinement) isn’t just about wearing fancy clothes or using big words. It’s like having that inner rulebook that says, “Maybe don’t say that out loud.” It’s knowing how to act, or not act, in different situations, making sure you’re not stepping on toes, or, worse, making a total fool of yourself.
I recently found a YouTube short about 15 Rules for Men [women readers are invited to find similar ones]. Not dogma but a useful reference on refinement as it applies to MEN.
The 15 Rules for Men are:
a. Never go back to the woman who cheated. b. Never let a woman disrespect you. c. Never shake a hand sitting down. d. Never go broke to impress others. e. Never eat the last piece of something you didn’t buy. f. Always have the ambition to be better. g. Protect who’s behind you, and respect who’s beside you. h. Take 1-3 seconds pause after getting asked a question. [Comment on this rule: When smoking wasn’t universally banned people went, “What time do we leave?” [Other guy goes, pause, put cigarette in mouth, inhale, exhale] “5 minutes.”] i. Don’t beg for a relationship. j. Work out at least 4x a week. k. If you’re not invited don’t ask to go. l. Always carry cash. m. Dress well no matter what the occasion. n. Listen, nod, and most of all, make eye contact. o. Find multiple ways to make money.
Trivia: The video features clips from Peaky Blinders, a gangster series starring Irish actor and former rock star Cillian Murphy. By the end of this long series Murphy, a non-smoker, had smoked 15,000 cigarettes.
We don’t often talk about boundaries. But we all have met people who made us feel uncomfortable. Like straight-up deny saying something when you know they did. It could be a random guy standing way too close in line or someone prying into your personal business.
Just because we’ve been taught to respect boundaries doesn’t mean everybody does. Doesn’t mean they’re mental, they just don’t know. We have to help them, by indicating clearly what our boundaries are. But maybe we ourselves don’t know what our boundaries are. So here’s a clue. You know you’ve had a boundary crossed when you feel off or just drained after dealing with someone.
At the same time, we can’t be too sensitive naman. It’s a stupid boundary to say no one should ever give you a correction, even a public one, just because you were drained by the experience. Or that no one should EVER scold you. Or say that no one should EVER joke to you about your weight. Wokism is just that: oversensitivity. Or that no one should EVER talk behind your back or have a poor opinion of you, which by their nature are indefensible boundaries. We can’t be unreasonable and say that just because he or she did this we can no longer be friends, ever.
Finally, we can’t have boundaries that are too SMALL. Some don’t EVER voice their opinion because they were taught as kids never to speak unless addressed. Some boundaries are just neurotic rules.
Boundaries have to be reasonable as well as dynamic. The way I think about this is to think of CONTEXT. Three general contexts: I could be playful, or I could be authoritative, or I could be in problem solving mode. When I’m in problem solving mode I do not like that people goof around, something that’s perfectly normal when I’m in playful mode. I don’t like people acting like clowns when I’m giving a class. But some people might be living their lives in just a single mode, playful, authoritative, or problem-solving all the time. They need help, too.
So, what’s the game plan? Becoming a well adjusted man (or woman) starts by knowing we all deserve a respect for space. Then, adjust boundaries to different contexts and be clear about them. Then it becomes easier to seek the good of the others.
That’s why living in society is so important for becoming mature.
So, wrapping it up: Brotherhood, understanding, and a touch of class are the heart and soul of solid relationships. Throw in respect for personal boundaries, and you’ve got a recipe for getting along and having a good time together. Keep it real, and know where the line is.
Robert Greene delves into human envy in his description of the Law of Covetousness. Envy, he explains, is an emotion that’s difficult for many people to admit they feel, primarily because it’s associated with pettiness and meanness. However, envy is a part of human nature. Greene suggests that by understanding and admitting our envious feelings, we can transform this potentially destructive emotion into a powerful tool for self-improvement and understanding others.
The Law of Covetousness addresses the human inclination to desire what others possess. This can be material items, status, relationships, talents. Often rooted in envy or insecurity, this desire can lead individuals to make irrational decisions, harbor resentment, or even sabotage themselves and others.
Envy can also lead to achievement. Rather than allowing envy to lead us into destructive behaviors or self-loathing, we should see it as a mirror reflecting our deepest desires and what we value. When we recognize our envy, we can analyze it and use it as a guide to improve ourselves.
Three examples.
Antonio Salieri (1750-1825) and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-1791). Salieri, a contemporary of Mozart, was a court composer with a decent reputation. However, upon recognizing the sheer genius of Mozart, Salieri reportedly felt deep envy. In popular culture, like the play and movie Amadeus (1984), Salieri’s envy drives him to destructive behavior, illustrating the negative potential of unchecked envy.
In 1824, attendees of a performance of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony were handed anonymous leaflets that described Salieri forcing Mozart to drink from a poisoned cup, and the rumor was so deliciously suggestive that it inspired a dramatic dialogue from Pushkin, which was later turned into an opera. “Amadeus”, which was adapted from a stage play by Peter Shaffer, carried the rumor into the present day. All this despite the fact that historians can’t really find any evidence for any ongoing personal hatred between the men.
E. Blakemore (in Smithsonian Magazine, 16 Feb 2016)
Blakemore also reported that in 2016, a German composer and musicologist searching for compositions of Salieri’s students uncovered a collaborative work between the two musicians, “Per la Ricuperata Salute di Ofelia” (“For the recovered health of Ophelia”).
Surely there was envy — from Mozart as well, who had expressed his displeasure at the strong Italian influence at the court, meaning Salieri — such feelings may also have pushed both musicians to higher achievements in their craft and, in at least one case, a collaborative project.
Coca-Cola and Pepsi. The corporate world provides ample examples of covetousness. The rivalry between Coca-Cola and Pepsi is as classic as their taste. The desire to outdo a close rival (or envy of their success) can drive innovation and marketing strategies. It can also lead to very bad decisions. Such is the case with the “Pepsi Number Fever” fiasco in the Philippines.
In February 1992, Pepsi Philippines introduced a promotion where numbers printed inside the caps of their beverage bottles, including Pepsi, 7-Up, Mountain Dew, and Mirinda, could win prizes. Prizes varied from 100 pesos to a grand prize of 1 million pesos, about US$40,000 at the time. The promotion boosted Pepsi’s sales and market share considerably to 26%. Winning numbers were broadcasted on TV nightly, and by May, 51,000 prizes, including 17 grand prizes, were claimed. Due to its success, the campaign was extended five weeks beyond its original end date.
In May 1992, the networks announced number 349 as the grand prize number. PepsiCo had produced only two bottles with that winning number, each with a unique security code. However, due to an oversight before extending the contest, 800,000 bottle caps were printed with number 349 without the security code, theoretically worth US$32 billion. Thousands flocked to claim their winnings. After an emergency meeting, PepsiCo offered 500 pesos ($18) to each holder of the incorrectly printed caps as goodwill, ultimately costing them US$8.9 million.
Many holders of the 349 bottle caps rejected Pepsi’s compensation offer and formed the 349 Alliance. This group boycotted Pepsi products, held protests, and rallied outside Pepsi and governmental offices. Although most protests were peaceful, violence ensued when a homemade bomb aimed at a Pepsi truck killed a schoolteacher and a child in Manila in February 1993. By May, three Pepsi employees in Davao died from a grenade attack in a warehouse. PCPPI faced further hostility with death threats, and nearly 37 company trucks faced damage or destruction. Some 689 civil suits and 5,200 criminal complaints for fraud and deception were eventually filed against Pepsi. In 2006 the Philippine Supreme court laid the issues to rest when it ruled that “PCPPI [Pepsi] is not liable to pay the amounts printed on the crowns to their holders. Nor is PCPPI liable for damages.”
In the immediate aftermath of the scandal, sales of Pepsi products in the Philippines plunged from 26% to 17% of the total market share but recovered to 21% by 1994, which remained steady to this day (Coca Cola has 75%).
Oscar Wilde’s novel The Picture of Dorian Gray (1890) offers a vivid exploration of the dangers and seductions of envy as a vice waiting to consume the soul. In the novel, Dorian Gray is introduced as a figure of innocence, a blank slate, whose beauty attracts admiration from all quarters. However, it’s this very beauty that becomes the root of his envy.
Under the influence of Lord Henry, Dorian becomes acutely aware of the transient nature of youth and beauty. Faced with a portrait that captures his youthful perfection, Dorian is not filled with pride or gratitude, but with a searing envy for the unchanging visage on the canvas. His desire to remain as unspoiled as the image in the portrait, while letting it bear the scars of his sins, symbolizes the destructive nature of envy. Dorian’s wish is granted, but at a severe cost. As he indulges in every vice and sin, free from the repercussions on his appearance, the portrait becomes more and more grotesque, mirroring the corruption of his soul.
Wilde uses Dorian’s tale to warn against the peril of envying what one has, of desiring permanence in an impermanent world. Envy, rather than leading to satisfaction, results in an insatiable hunger for more, pushing the envious further from contentment. Dorian’s downfall is not just due to his hedonistic pursuits, but stems from his envy of a painted image, an unattainable ideal.
In the end, envy proves to be Dorian’s undoing. Unable to bear the sight of his true self, as reflected in the portrait, he destroys it, inadvertently ending his own life.
Wilde’s narrative serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of envy, illustrating that it not only corrupts the soul but can also lead to one’s downfall. In seeking what we do not have or cannot be, we risk losing ourselves.
Instead of denying or repressing envious feelings, Greene suggests turning it into a powerful tool for self-awareness and growth.
Here are some ways to manage the Law of Covetousness:
Be self-aware. Recognize and admit when you’re experiencing covetous feelings. Understanding when and why you feel this way is the first step in managing these emotions.
Find contentment. Instead of constantly looking at what others have, cultivate gratitude for what you already possess. Keep a gratitude journal that focuses on your blessings. Be grateful for the not-so-good things as well.
Evaluate desires. Ask yourself if your desires are genuinely yours or if they’re shaped by external influences like societal norms, peer pressure, or fleeting trends.
Limit exposure. If you notice that certain platforms (e.g., social media) intensify your feelings of covetousness, reduce your time on these, take breaks.
Seek self-improvement. Instead of envying others, channel that energy into bettering yourself. Focus on personal growth, acquiring new skills, or pursuing genuine interests.
Shift perspective. Understand that everyone has their own struggles and challenges, even if they’re not visible. What might seem perfect from the outside often isn’t.
Practice generosity. Celebrae others’ achievements and be happy for their successes. This can also foster positive connections.
Reframe comparisons: If comparison is inevitable, compare yourself to your past self rather than others. Celebrate growth and progress.
Seek memories, not things. Focus on finding genuine happiness and fulfillment in your life’s purpose, activities, and relationships, reducing the need to covet what others have.
Set personal goals. Instead of desiring what others have, set your own goals based on what truly matters to you. Celebrate when you achieve them, irrespective of others’ paths.
The Law of Covetousness can work for you if you focus its energies on genuine personal growth and happiness. When you feel grounded in your journey and values, the allure of what others possess diminishes.
Some time ago, a friend sought advice from me regarding a Viber exchange. The facts:
Person A learned that the head of a religious organization to which he belonged took a private plane courtesy of a member of the organization who offered it voluntarily. He then posted details of the plane and the flight on a Viber group chat consisting of some 12 members of that organization including himself. Person B, a member, responded that it was not appropriate to post such details on the group chat because, among other things, the information could be misinterpreted if it got out. Person C, another member, commented that calling out the first poster was better not done in public as it humiliated Person A. Person D, the ethics consultant, that’s me, is writing this post about the matter on WordPress.
What are the ethics here? The ethical considerations of calling someone out publicly over a Viber post, or any other form of online communication, can be complex. They generally involve balancing respect for personal dignity and privacy, against the need for accountability, particularly when harmful behavior is involved.
Some ethical considerations: Privacy, accuracy, intent, proportionality, and potential harm.
Is a Viber group private? That is, is sharing private information within a private group a publication and therefore a violation of privacy?
The National Privacy Commission of the Philippines advised that
“[P]osting or sharing a screenshot of a private conversation involving personal information without the consent of the parties involved may be punishable under the Data Privacy Act of 2012. … The disclosure of a private conversation involving personal data without the consent of the parties involved, or without some other lawful basis for the processing of personal data under the Data Privacy Act, may be construed as unauthorized processing.”
National Privacy Commission
This implies that information shared within the Viber chat is private.
The matter being shared is important. In calling Person A out, Person B implied that the religious head in question could not have approved of this information being shared.
Sharing the information to third parties without the consent of the members of the group chat can be a violation of privacy. We have no evidence such consent was given, either by the head or by the one who shared that information with Person A. Therefore, what Person A did is potentially illegal and, therefore, unethical.
And the trip’s organizers acted in a way that showed they meant it to be private. Using a private plane involved a suite of “private” arrangements: using separate entrances and exits at the airport, a hangar, and a special part of the runway. No private or official photographers were around, at least no pictures were ever posted. Had this been a regular commercial flight there would have been no problems even if he was given special treatment as this befitted his position.
Besides, the information was also useless to everyone in the chat group.
Was it ethical to call Person A out in public? Generally, it would have been respectful to address such concerns privately before making them public. This approach would have given Person A an opportunity to respond or correct his behavior without unnecessary public embarrassment. However, if his behavior was harmful to others, there may be a need to protect others by making it public.
By calling Person A out in public within minutes after the posting Person B was issuing a warning to other members of the Viber group not to repost because of potential scandal. Travelling by private plane in a country with many poor people like the Philippines is seen as an exceptional privilege enjoyed by the very rich. Scandal: there would be no control over further spread of a post.
I know these people; I don’t think they needed a warning. But, that’s wishful thinking. In situations like this I first ask “whose responsibility is it if Murphy’s Law strikes?” before asking “what’s the risk?”
Was the information accurate? Probably. The information was obtained by Person A from a trusted source. Nonetheless, the info is hearsay, and therefore questionable.
Was the call out meant to harm Person A? If Person B intended to humiliate, degrade, or harm, this would be unethical. Person B told me that his motive was to immediately stop any further possibility of reposting. There was no intent to harm Person A.
Public shaming can lead to significant emotional distress and may not be the most effective or ethical way to address the problem. Person A has said that he was shamed by the “public correction”. This is understandable and regrettable, but neither can it be helped.
Here’s why. Someone posting in a “public” (I am using “public” broadly) tacitly accepts the possibility of public comment or criticism. This, of course, doesn’t negate the need for respect and fairness in responses. But respect and fairness are not feelings. One who must act quickly can’t be paralyzed by thoughts of “what another might feel“. Better to ask for forgiveness, though, rather than permission.
We assumed that:
There was a risk that some members of the group chat would have reposted soon after.
The issue could lead to scandal.
The organization had meant the flight to be a private affair and not part of the regular news.
Given these assumptions, Person B did right to respond to the post as a warning. It would be good to explain to Person A why the action taken and to express regret for any ill feelings that resulted.
Moving forward, I recommend the Rotary Club’s 4-way test before posting.
jaylazzo 
