The Power Paradox: How We Gain and Lose Influence

by Dacher Keltner

A revolutionary and timely reconsideration of everything we know about power. Celebrated UC Berkeley psychologist Dr. Dacher Keltner argues that compassion and selflessness enable us to have the most influence over others and the result is power as a force for good in the world.Power is ubiquitous—but totally misunderstood. Turning conventional wisdom on its head, Dr. Dacher Keltner presents the very idea of power in a whole new light, demonstrating not just how it is a force for good in the world, but how—via compassion and selflessness—it is attainable for each and every one of us. It is taken for granted that power corrupts. This is reinforced culturally by everything from Machiavelli to contemporary politics. But how do we get power? And how does it change our behavior? So often, in spite of our best intentions, we lose our hard-won power. Enduring power comes from empathy and giving. Above all, power is given to us by other people. This is what we all too often forget, and it is the crux of the power by misunderstanding the behaviors that helped us to gain power in the first place we set ourselves up to fall from power. We abuse and lose our power, at work, in our family life, with our friends, because we've never understood it correctly—until now. Power isn't the capacity to act in cruel and uncaring ways; it is the ability to do good for others, expressed in daily life, and in and of itself a good thing. Dr. Keltner lays out exactly—in twenty original "Power Principles"—how to retain power; why power can be a demonstrably good thing; when we are likely to abuse power; and the terrible consequences of letting those around us languish in powerlessness.

Genres: Psychology, Nonfiction, Business, Leadership, Personal Development, Philosophy, Politics

164 pages, Kindle Edition

First published May 17, 2016

About the author

Dacher Keltner is a professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, director of the Greater Good Science Center, and coeditor of Greater Good magazine. His research focuses on pro-social emotions, power, and moral reasoning."

Reviews

[Brian Clegg · Rating 3 out of 5]

I used to read quite a lot of business books years ago, and (not knowing any better) I thought they were pretty good. But then I got into reading popular science. When I then went back to business books, I found that they were tissue-thin. The majority were really little more than a magazine article with a few key points, expanded with lots of padding to make a book. Generally speaking, you can't get away with this in popular science books. But I'm afraid that Dacher Keltner's The Power Paradox does exactly the same thing. What we have here is a magazine article that makes a handful of genuinely interesting points... but nowhere near enough to be a satisfying book.

In essence, Keltner makes four key points:
The traditional Machiavellian idea of power being something that is taken by force and maintained by manipulation belong in the past or in fiction (think House of Cards) - now it's all about acting in ways that improve the lives of others in our social networks.
We get and keep power by thinking of others.
People who gain power often (usually?) become selfish and thoughtless of others.
People who are powerless lead unpleasant lives.
As mentioned above, this quite interesting stuff, but it is hard to make a whole meaty book out of it. Keltner does throw in some studies (in fact, he very frequently mentions the word 'science' as if naming it alone is enough to make what he says more scientific and less fluff), though often the studies seem fairly insubstantial and we get no idea of important matters like sample size etc. A lot of this feels like 'Didn't we know that already?' stuff - things like the revelation that it really is true that power corrupts.

Perhaps the only really striking piece of information, as evidence for point 3. above, is that Keltner tells us that the wealthy are more likely to shoplift than the poor. This really does seem unlikely enough to be interesting, but there is no real analysis of the evidence nor is there a chance to get in-depth enough to see what's really going on. The odd thing here is, one of the first papers I came across on the subject when I tried to back the assertion up was a 2015 US one from the Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, which states 'Economic need appears to be related to shoplifting. People who shoplifted are more apt to have a lower family income, to be unemployed, and to believe that the economic need causes shoplifting. Not all jobless, economically insecure, or poor people shoplift, of course, and conversely, not all people who shoplift are poor.' This seems in direct opposition to Keltner's hypothesis. (And both seemed based on strangely dated data.)

Back on Keltner's key points, I had two real problems. One was that I find it hard to be totally convinced by his first point that power is now all touchy-feely, rather than iron-fisty (excuse the Buffyesque adjectives). When I look at the CEOs of big corporations, or politician millionaires (the US presidential race is currently on, merrily spending bazillions of dollars), I don't see people who got their power by being nice everyone. Quite the reverse. And while I can see the argument that there is also a smaller scale, different kind of power that is all about serving others, that then seems to eat into point 4, in the sense that this point mostly equates powerlessness with poverty, yet points 1 and 2 seems to suggest that you can be both powerful and poor.

The second issue is that I'm not convinced Keltner really addresses the 'power paradox' at the heart of the book - that you get powerful by thinking of others, and then start being really selfish. If that's the case, then what's the answer? Do we try to prevent anyone being powerful? Can you act to prevent people without being powerful, and hence nasty, yourself? Do we remind powerful people to be nice to others or we'll take away their toys? But how can we, if they're powerful? (I know this is why it's a paradox, but there is little point making the observations he makes without identifying a potential way out.)

I'm really not sure after reading the book where this is all going. And that would be fine if this had been the article it should have been. But I'm afraid it just hasn't got enough going for it to make a great book.

[Kony · Rating 2 out of 5]

Well intentioned and carefully organized, but neither sharply argued nor terribly informative. The author makes sweeping generalizations about "power," and about how "powerful" and "powerless" people operate, that reflect a generically liberal worldview without bringing anything new to the table. He purports to support his claims with personal anecdotes and "scientific" findings about how people act in artificial lab conditions. His intended message ("let's rethink what power is, how it affects us, and how best to deploy it") may be valuable, but he communicates it in a way that seems naive, preachy, and not backed by rigorous empirical research. Memoir or fiction, as opposed to social science lite, may be better approaches for him to get his points across.

[David · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is, for me, an enormous disappointment.

First, when trying to explain how people get power, he details how powerful people do more for the people around them. Then he explains how powerful people don't do things for the people around them. Then he explains that powerless people also do things for the people around them. The only thing he didn't say was that people with little power don't do things for the people around them, which is a point implicitly made by making the first point.

Confused yet? All this book does is talk in vague notions that sometimes people with or without power do or sometimes don't do things for the people around them. To be fair, this is a sociologists dilemma, as Duncan J. Watts explains in his (4 star by my opinion) book Everything Is Obvious - explaining human behavior is very tough, and attempting to can make PhD's seem like they're chasing after the wind for answers "everyone knows."

But I've read many books on human behavior now, and Keltner does a particularly poor job of it. Other than his nuggets on storytelling and gossip, I gained little from this book. What is the difference between power gaining actions for group benefit vs other actions for group benefit? How do perceived vs actual actions play a role? How do people manage their perceptions over time? How inert is reputation to change?

I don't necessarily need these questions answered, but at least addressed! The book was painfully short, there was time for these points to be made.

Finally, only soft power is ever talked about. What about legitimate power? Expert power? Again, he claims that all power is derived from others, which is fundamentally true, but other factors go into play on how that power is achieved; and none of those factors seem to be addressed.

Finally, and to make things even worse, he uses really poor proxies for "powerful." Like luxury cars running dangerously through campus cross walks. What about powerful people who drive Corollas? Deadbeats in luxury cars? Is it power or over emphasis on status symbols that causes this? I'd argue the latter.

I wasted too much time on the book, I'm done wasting it on the review.

What a disapointment. Cheers!

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this book, as in his previous works, Dacher Keltner demonstrates that he is one of the leading psychologists of our time. Dacher proposes that a change in the paradigm through which we have seen power. Rather than something acquired through domination or coercion, Keltner argues convincingly that power is most often given, not taken. He illustrates with cleverly constructed studies how power accumulates in the hands of those who are gifted at empowering others. Keltner's version of power is something we can all relate to in our recollections of the school yard and the workplace. Next Keltner describes how the very abilities that allow people to acquire power, such as empathy, are easily lost once power is accumulated which likely goes a long way to explain the falls from grace that we often find in the headlines of our news feeds. Probably most powerful is Dacher's articulation of the personal and social ills associated with powerlessness and finally his recommendations for nurturing and maintaining healthy power. Keltner's work rings very true to me in my daily efforts to empower parents and teens. We should all take careful note of the wisdom in this book, our society and each one of us would be much enriched if we did.

[sarah semark · Rating 2 out of 5]

There are some interesting bits and pieces in here, and I really wanted to like it, but then the author would start dropping in sweeping generalisations without backing them up much, if at all. And then he started romanticising the poor, saying how all the poor people he grew up around were kind and empathetic and hearts-and-flowers. When I realised he wasn't going to both addressing the giant elephant(s) in the room (If being an asshole means you fall from power, what about all the assholes currently in power? *ahem* What about the assholes who rose to power by being selfish assholes, and not by working toward the "greater good"?), I lost my ability to buy into his premise, which made me pray for the end.

Thankfully, it came quickly.

Also, I listened to this as an audiobook, and every time he said "the greater good", I felt compelled to repeat "the greater good!", Hot Fuzz-style.

[Atila Iamarino · Rating 3 out of 5]

Uma ótima ideia sobre poder e o que ele é hoje em dia – na definição do autor, a capacidade de influenciar outras pessoas – muito mais explicada e repetida do que o necessário. O livro é curto e poderia ser muito mais, os pontos sobre o que levam alguém a ter poder e o que muda depois que isso acontece são muito bons, mas poderiam ser feitos com folga em um texto de 20 a 50 páginas.

[Ellie Simpson · Rating 2 out of 5]

so good and then got so shit, when I become the most powerful revolutionary ever dont question it, okay?

[Troy S · Rating 2 out of 5]

It's a short book, but honestly should've been a long article in a peer reviewed journal given the amount of repetition. Certainly some insights, but I don't think Keltner is going to overtake Machiavelli any time soon with how power is taught and understood both in the classroom and the real world.

[Braňo · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was excited to read another one of Dacher's books and it offers a valuable and different way of looking at what power is, one that's intertwined with meaning, purpose, well-being, and health. I especially liked the vast amounts of studies and real data supporting his arguments, making this book an excellent food for thought. I give the Power Paradox 4/5 stars.

[Boudewijn]

Notes:

March 29, 2020: Added to TBR after reading De meeste mensen deugen where it was used as a resource

[Jo · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5 stars. I think I didn’t appreciate the book as much because I learned most of the things discussed in it already during Professor Keltner’s lectures in college and didn’t find much new material.

[Pradyot Ghate · Rating 5 out of 5]

Completely different and refreshing view on how power and status works in our modern society. Power and its distribution has evolved from the Machiavellian times to become a more collaborative, transparent and social endeavour. An understanding of this new construct can immediately and immensely change the way we influence and make decisions.

[Scott · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent

Excellent study of power and how we can each make a real difference through all our actions, every moment of every day.

[Colson Brooks · Rating 4 out of 5]

Chapter 4 (I think) going through studies showing how behaviors change after being made more/less powerful was fascinating.

[Steve Wilhite · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding book. Transformed the way I view not only the socio-political and business relationships we normally associate with power dynamics, but also everyday interpersonal relationships with family, friends and co-workers. A must-read for anyone looking for a different and enlightened perspective on using personal power and influence for the good of oneself and society.

[Ann Petersen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Maybe a 4. I liked the last chapter that had ways to increase others’ power for lasting change and the greater good. I gave it a three because it’s a bit overly idealistic. The author has written some new analysis on the power dynamics currently at play and I’ll be interested in how it jives with this.

[Dave · Rating 5 out of 5]

Forget about the title, this book is all about how we are satisfied/dissatisfied with life, relationships, work, etc, due to how we influence or fail to influence each other. Some people might be turned off by the title.

I'd thoroughly recommend this book; anything which encourages people to reflect on how they interact with others, support others, and so on, is highly positive to engage with.

The book is short, simple, and accessible. That's why I've given it a five star rating - you can read it in a single sitting. I personally think that some elements could be expounded upon, or even are not quite logical, but the fact the book was thought-provoking enough to make me write a review (my first) is an indicator of how engaging I found it.

Challenges

There were a few things I felt were challenging or missing from the book.

'Personal' Power

Power is defined in the book as the ability to influence the state of others. I agree wholeheartedly with this definition, but think it misses the fact that power could also be considered to be the agility to influence one's own state. 'The hermit' was mentioned in the book; if the hermet has the ability to influence their own state, for example by decided to eat healthily, they are showing power over their own physical state. If they desire to eat healthily, but gorge, they are failing to show power - and may well face the challenges faced at the end of the book (those which are suffered by people who are powerless).

This feels like a rather large element to not consider. In the most extreme cases, where people feel lack of power over even their own state, this is where some of the most profound cases in the 'lack of power' section are seen - often desperately poor mental health, stress, anxiety etc. Even acts such as eating disorders, anal-retentiveness, self-hard etc are often seen by mental health experts as an attempt to enforce order in the most basic way possible (control over one's own body), and done by those who feel extremely powerless in their own lives.

Inherited Power

Something which I think is not covered in the paradox is 'inherited power'. Abraham Lincoln is used as an example; his upbringing and life allowed him to understand the importance of storytelling, empathy, etc. Would his children have the same opportunities?

I understand that status and power are explicitly defined as not-the-same in the book, but then this is not fully reflected in the later segments.

For example; a suggestion that gaining power can make people more selfish is made. At one point, this is backed up by an experiment in which we see whether people in certain types of cars stop for pedestrians at a crosswalk. The fancier the car, the more likely they stop. The clapped out old bangers all stopped. This is then concluded as indicating those with more power (i.e. who are at a higher social status) are more selfish. But this seems flawed - there must be many people who own Mercedes cars who work in jobs where they feel like the cannot influence others, and lack power as defined in the book itself. In fact, anecdotally, the higher-powered, higher-paid jobs can be things which often people say are less emotionally rewarding, with people feeling like their role is perhaps meaningless.

There are better experiments - for example, the one with the cookies, which doesn't take into account social status, but occasionally status seems to be mixed up with power, as is in the case with the fancy cars - fancy cars means social status, not power (at least as defined per the book).

However

Those minor comments aside, I think the experiments and research showing how contrary to what one might think, in 'natural states' hominids are less likely to support the bullies and cheats, and actually reward with influence those who support the structure of the group are fascinating. It leads to fascinating lines of thought around to what extent social structures, such as control of media and modern storytelling by politicians are actually influencing this - that in a more natural state we are less likely to elect the strongest/toughest leaders, but actually the leads most likely to listen and empathise.

Great read, highly recommended to all.

[Aliaksei Ivanou · Rating 2 out of 5]

В общем и в целом я не буду расписывать про что книга - заголовок и принципы власти говорят сами за себя. Лучше приведу свое мнение по книге. Творение вызвало противоречивые чувства. В целом, книга и исследования достаточно разумные, но есть вероятность вызвать желаемое за действительность. Кажется, что эксперименты автора ошибочны в том, что они не признают разницы между причинами, по которым люди предоставляют власть кому-то еще, и постфактумными обоснованиями этих решений. Похоже, не учитывается предвзятость, которую люди будут иметь при описании черт характера того, кого они выбрали как достойного получения власти. И заинтересованность в исследованиях есть только теми чертами характера, которые волнуют автора, игнорируя те, которые не соответствуют его гипотезе. Наконец, уместно ли делать обобщения по небольшим экспериментам с участниками студенческого возраста (еще и вполне себе хороших университетов с небедной публикой) до гораздо более крупных и сложных ситуаций реального мира? В лучшем случае это кажется рискованным.

[Truls Ljungström · Rating 4 out of 5]

Det är inte första gången jag läser denna bok, så det påverkar naturligtvis min upplevelse. Så vitt jag kan bedöma är detta något så ovanligt som en popcornbok i gränslandet mellan psykologi och samhällsvetenskap.

Den innehåller en serie definitioner av makt och inflytande, och en förment datadriven beskrivning av hur dessa vinns. Jag skriver förment, för även om det definitivt stämmer rent anekdotiskt, och även om jag har sett kvantitativa studier som säger samma sak, så är forskningen om maktfullkomlighet och maktvinnande inte entydig.

Boken ger mig, när jag läser den, en varm och trevlig känsla, och förtroende i mitt uppdrag. Det gör att jag tror att den kan göra det för andra också, och det gör att jag rekommenderar den.

[Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fascinating book backed by lots of research about how power is gained and lost, and the effects of power and powerlessness.

The power paradox is: power is given and not earned. We are conferred power when we work for the greater good, not for our own Machiavellian good. However, power corrupts and if we are not careful, we start to develop hubris and thus lose power.

Spending time and making friends with the less powerful, speaking up for their rights, practice humility, and looking for clues that what we are doing are making others uncomfortable can all mitigate this loss of power. It's only through continuous giving to others that we maintain power.

[Jill Urie · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was so interesting!! Such a paradigm shift but at the same time, I can definitely see how it is true. I'm definitely going to be thinking about this over the next little while and I'll need to re reread it too. It also left me with a lot of questions. About very specific examples, such as: charismatic jerks? Despots? The ones I have known/known of seem to have quite a bit of influence... How is that different from power? Anyway. Like I said, I'll need to reread this and think about this some more.

[Lara · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting book on how we gain social power. However, the author minimizes the fact that violence and fear are still used today, as well as other methods that focus on providing value to others. There are also nuances that were not addressed. For instance, Donald Trump is known for his abrasive, even abusive, personality, yet many investors have worked with him voluntarily because they felt he would make them money. So, while the author states that being abusive causes people to lose power, that does not fit the current situation of a number of prominent figures.

[Yashar · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is an informative book. I especially liked the chapters 4 and 5, which were very informative. In general, in this book, a novel narrative concerning the concept of power is tried to be given, as well as reasons regarding why people abuse power when they gain it and how powerlessness causes mental and physical damage. However, it seemed to me that it has a very optimistic outlook which I didn't think is objective enough.

[Mary · Rating 5 out of 5]

Power, as so many things and notions of the everyday life, is all too often misinterpreted. A great book on the subject. Not on power alone, but on many things. It does raise lots of questions to reflect on.

[Emanuel Blaga · Rating 4 out of 5]

Clear and concise exposure of power , the power definition, power mechanism and link with human condition.

If you want to understand power this is a good book, however it does not practicaly teach you how to yield power it is more a clarification on it's terms and definitions.

[Maru Kun]

Interesting review here - would be nice if thesis of book was true?!

[Jenny · Rating 4 out of 5]

Super-cool read on power, who we as a society give it to, and how it corrupts those who have it. Fascinating to consider in today's era. Author is a psych professor at Cal, and leads the UC Berkeley Greater Good Science Center, studying biological and evolutionary origins of human emotion. I heard him interviewed on NPR, studying the correlation between social class and which cars stop at pedestrian crossings. Note that the back contains footnotes referencing the specific studies, although they're not numbered in the actual text.

--"The power paradox is this: we rise in power and make a difference in the world due to what is best about human nature, but we fall from power due to what is worst. We gain a capacity to make a difference in the world by enhancing the lives of others, but the very experience of having power and privilege leads us to behave, in our worst moments, like impulsive, out-of-control sociopaths." (p 2)

--"This is the heart of the power paradox: the seductions of power induce us to lose the very skills that enabled us to gain power in the first place." (p 9)

--"One recent study examined 323 opposition movements from 1900 to 2006, in places ranging from East Timor to countries of the former Soviet bloc. Some of these movements used the tactics of coercive force--bombs, assassinations, beheadings, torture, and civilian killings. Others relied on nonviolent tactics--marches, vigils, petitions, and boycotts. The latter were twice as likely (53 percent versus 26 percent) to lead to achieving gains in political power, winning broad support from citizens, and contributing to the fall of oppressive regimes. People resort to coercive force when their power is actually slipping." (p 20-21)

--"The high-performing groups were the ones led by high-empathy individuals who focused on others' emotions, asked questions, conveyed interest with subtle affirmations and head nods, and adroitly coordinated more sophisticated collaborations. As the proportion of women in the groups rose, notably, so did the team's performance on these collective intelligence tasks. Having more women in positions of leadership is likely to increase innovation and the bottom line." (p 76)

--"Coming from an upper-class background, defined by greater wealth, education, and prestige, costs people in terms of their ability to engage in the thoughts and feelings of others, which is a core to gaining and keeping power" (p 109)

--"The simple concept of power leads people to endorse more impulsive, unethical behavior, apparently neglecting the effects of their actions upon others." (p 120)

--Narratives of exceptionalism - "For the past thirty years, the income gap in the United States has been rising, and I became interested in how wealth and power bias us toward certain explanations of that gap. Social inequalities require stories to account for the fact that some people are paid millions and others minimum wage, to explain why some children go to schools that look like castles and others go to schools that resemble prisons, why some people rise to the top and others remain below... Those from upper-class backgrounds were more likely to attribute the income gap to talent, genius, effort, and hard work--individual characteristics. The less wealthy, by contrast, explained it in terms of broad social forces: educational opportunities, political lobbying, and the neighborhoods people grew up in." (p 131-2)

--"Early in life, the brains of poor and wealthier children looked quite similar. But by age eleven, the brains of the poorer children were 5 percent smaller. The regions of the brain that poverty most stunted, such as the parietal cortex, were those that enable language, planning, reasoning, academic work, and regulating stress. Poverty suppresses growth in regions of the grain that empower children to do well in school, handle the greater threats they face on a daily basis, and eventually make a difference in the world." (p 153)

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

The most enduring aspect of my years of research and study leading to a PhD in psychology was the mindset and habit of openness to more learning. Curiosity, humility, full recognition of the immensity and complexity of the world, were all deeply engrained in me as core aspects of how I best share my limited gifts with the world.

Nowhere was this more apparent than when I took my first professional position as I completed my doctoral dissertation. Thinking myself educated and prepared to serve families and children in distress, within months I discovered a theme to those appearing before me for help. And I was realizing that I was totally unprepared--intellectually, emotionally, professionally--to provide the skillful responses required.

Over and over again, in a quiet midwestern community mental health center, I was encountering power struggles: husbands and wives, parents and children, brothers and sisters, students and teachers, teachers and administrators. I was prepared and had honed my thinking to observe system dynamics in relationships, but was totally unprepared for the pervasiveness of this particular dynamic. Nowhere in 13 years of formal university-level education had I encountered a single introduction to power, its uses, its workings, its abuses. The word had never been introduced.

I doubt there is a more damning indictment of the disconnect between the academic world and the actual life of human beings living together in families and communities.

And now, nearly 50 years later, comes the book I, a young and hopeful clinician, so desperately needed. I cobbled together, those many years ago, a library of studies that helped me find a way through the complexities of my practice. I forged models for working with the dynamics I encountered, and those models have served me well long past my days in clinical services, well into raising and growing with my own family, navigating the world of career and professional development. Ironic it is that this book is actually developed, conceived, and written by a psychologist.

The principles and the ideas here are presented in a way that match well the understandings I have come to live by. I most appreciate the cultural and interpersonal context Datcher Keltner brings to the field, normalizing it while fully recognizing the many ways it can create problems. This is a book to spend time with, far beyond the straightforward one-two-three examples he provides. Between the lines here there are lessons of humanity, spirituality, profound ecology.

Recognizing his limits, Keltner admits that his model is limited in its ability to guide and understand the in-depth, highly contextualized world of international politics, all of which require the methods and wisdom of other professions--historians, political scientists, journalists, cultural critics. Because of where I have come to in life, I found myself distracted by the superficiality of Keltner's model for addressing the concerns I have, particularly in the summer of 2025 American context. Yet within his clearly recognized limits, Keltner provides a wealth of useful perspectives, methods, thoughts.

In all, this is the book I needed in 1974. I'm thrilled to see it now available. It seems the field of psychology is continuing to grow up.

[Sean Goh · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very quick read, which some found shallow. I found it a little too brief on its main points, like an article in book form. The key points are made though, towards a softer vision of power as compared to the iron-fisted vision of The Prince. A good lens to have at hand when talking about power, but it should not be the only lens.
___
Basic premise: Machiavelli's treatise on power had a very violent backdrop, which no longer exists. Its strongman conception of power is thus due for a revision.
We get power from other people giving it to us, in recognition of us advancing the greater good. Yet the very possessing of power turns our attention inwards, eroding the basis of our power (contributing to the greater good).
The seductions of power induce us to lose the very skills that enabled us to gain it in the first place.

Far from being idle, or inconsequential, gossip is the primary means by which we spread information that feeds into reputations.

Power, understood as a way of altering the states of others, helps makes sense of how influential art, music, satire and the written word can be. They can alter a person's beliefs about what is real, true and fair.

How people parents arises from their stance towards power.
Parents who express their authority but empower children with voice and independence produce higher-functioning kids than parents whose styles are anarchic or rigidly hierarchical and coercive.

Critical to avoiding the power paradox is recognising that enduring power stems from doing simple things that are good for others.
Stay focused on other people. Prioritise others' interests as much as your own. Bring the good in others to completion, and do not bring the bad in others to completion. Take delight in the delights of others, as they make a difference in this world.

In stories, we come to understand the difference we are to make in the world. Our identity and purpose in life are nothing more than the story we tell over the course of our lives.

Absolute power renders us vulnerable to the power paradox because our attention is a limited resource. When I direct my attention to myself, I necessarily lose focus on others. Should I privilege what I am feeling in the current moment, I will perceive more dimly the feelings of others.
Power makes us less dependent upon others, freeing us to shift our focus away from others to our own goals and desires.

I found that the wealthy, more powerful participants were more likely to think that a person's standing in society is determined by genes and therefore rooted in biology.

In some ways, how a society does or does not respond to its most powerless people is a direct measure of its vulnerability to the power paradox. Societies are indeed judged by how they treat their most vulnerable and powerless.

Constantly high levels of cortisol (the stress hormone) strengthen the neurochemical communication between the threat- and identity-related regions of the brain, amplifying the influence of powerlessness upon the vigilance to threat and the feeling of stress.

[thethousanderclub · Rating 2 out of 5]

Dacher Keltner has shown with The Power Paradox exactly what I find so irritating about academics and their reductionist worldviews. Keltner attempts to explain every single human relation—including a child still in the womb of its mother—through the prism of power. Admittedly, his definition of power —"making a difference in the world by influencing others"—is less domineering than a standard view of power; yet, I think his arguments mostly come back to the same place as the more traditional view of power. Slight definitional differences aren't enough to segregate Keltner's views from standard and widely accepted views of power.

The following quotation is a good example of what I found so frustrating in this book: "Power dynamics, patterns of mutual influence, define the ongoing interactions between fetus and mother, infant and parent, between romantic partners, childhood friends, teens, people at work, and groups in conflict." To explain essentially every human interaction within the framework of these "power dynamics" is a befuddling reduction of human relationships. Furthermore, I think Keltner's book does very little to convince the reader to agree with and embrace his worldview. He writes as if his definition of power ought to be accepted without complaint or argument, sparing very little time and very few pages for the rigorous work of persuasion. His examples of power discrepancies or abuses of power are at times politically charged and hardly foregone conclusions. His brevity reveals his assumptions, and I felt there was a great deal missing from his argument.

Like most books there are a few ideas found within The Power Paradox worth reflecting on. The biggest take-away I got from the book was the corrupting influence of power, which seems almost irresistible for most people. Keltner asserts that the very actions which endows someone with power quickly becomes the actions most eschewed by that person. Cooperation becomes cruelty. Responsiveness to needs becomes neglect. Keltner writes: "This is the heart of the power paradox: the seductions of power induce us to lose the very skills that enabled us to gain power in the first place." I think this is true. Having said that, I don't think this is an innovative insight unrealized or recognized in the human experience.

I didn't enjoy The Power Paradox. I reject the author's requisite premise that all relationships should be understood within the framework of power dynamics. I don't believe the author has discovered some new concept of power unknown to history and mankind. Principles of Machiavellian power are popular but not because they're the only working theory of power we've had. Human nature gravitates toward the misuse of power. Keltner's principles (twenty in all!) are not novel nor particularly compelling. The subject of power and the complexities of paradoxes are interesting as stand-alone ideas, but Keltner has somehow combined them with absolutely no net gain of value. That's a much bigger paradox.

https://thethousanderclub.blogspot.com/