A commitment brings about a sense of loyalty of one side. Often times, on committing to one side, we may never know what it is on the other side and often as well ended up on arguments on which we really do not much deserve but forced to be due to commitment. On some scenarios however, the 20th law of power seems to appropriate to be used. The 20th law of power suggests the lack of commitment but gain from the better option of two sides of the conflict. That way, one can be free from unnecessary conflicts and gain total control; it’s a win-win situation. Nothing to lose. Take Elizabeth I for example, she knew that siding with one of the states in Europe (on French, Flemish, Spanish and others) will spell doom as she will be at war because of her allies. All men tried to court her, she kept their hopes up but she answered to none. She kept on doing this until she died but in doing so left England safe from all unnecessary wars. Being neutral in this sense doesn’t mean being isolated from everything that is happening outside rather it only means that one has a clear view of the scenario and getting the best out of the two sides. This law however must be exercised with caution because when taken it too far, instead of pleasing both sides, they will take turn it against you and will allied themselves in the process of eliminating. In performing this law, just make sure to keep the excited and keep your emotions at your bay as to be aware of the mission at hand; of independence to oneself and commitment.
Jose Antonio Lopez
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(134)
-
▼
July
(47)
- Law 17: Keep others in suspended terror: Cultivate...
- LAW #30: "Make your accomplishments seem effortless."
- Law 26: Keep Your Hands Clean
- Law 20
- Law 16: Use Absence to Increase Honor and Respect
- LAW 33: Discover Each Man's THUMBSCREW
- LAW 14: POSE AS A FRIEND, WORK AS A SPY
- LAW 17: Keep Others In Suspended Terror: Cultivate...
- Law 29: Plan to the very end
- Law 1: NEVER OUTSHINE THE MASTER
- Law 34:Be Royal in Your Own Fashion: Act Like a Ki...
- Law21 - Play a sucker to catch a sucker – Seem dum...
- LAW 12: USE SELECTIVE HONESTY AND GENEROSITY TO DI...
- Law 35: Master the Art of Timing
- Law 10: Infection: Avoid the Unhappy and the Unlucky
- LAW # 37: Create compelling spectacles
- Law 23: CONCENTRATE YOUR FORCES
- Law 17 Keep Others in Suspended Terror: Cultivate...
- Law 46: Never Appear Too Perfect
- LAW 24 – Play the Perfect Courtier
- Law 25: Re-Create Yourself
- Law 29: PLAN ALL THE WAY TO THE END
- LAW 13: "When asking for help, appeal to people's ...
- LAW 2: NEVER PUT TOO MUCH TRUST IN FRIENDS, LEARN ...
- Law 33: Discover Each Man's Thumbscrew
- Law 15: Crush your enemy totally
- Law 34: Be Royal in Your Own Fashion: Act Like a K...
- LAW 35: MASTER THE ART OF TIMING
- Law 45: Preach the Need for Change, but Never Refo...
- LAW 28: Enter Action with Boldness
- Law 39: Stir Up Waters to Catch Fish
- LAW 6: COURT ATTENTION AT ALL COST
- LAW 5: SO MUCH DEPENDS ON REPUTATION—GUARD IT WITH...
- Law 31 - Control The Options: Get Others to Play w...
- Law 45 “Preach the need for change, but never refo...
- Law 41: Avoid Stepping into a Great Man’s Shoes
- Law 24 Play the Perfect Courtier
- Law 16: "Use Absence to Increase Respect and Honor"
- Law 18: Do not build fortresses for yourself - Iso...
- LAW 28: ENTER ACTION WITH BOLDNESS
- LAW # 4: ALWAYS SAY LESS THAN NECESSARY
- Law 43: Work on the Hearts and Minds of Others
- Law 9: “Win through your actions, never through ar...
- LAW 30 "Make your accomplishments seem effortless"
- LAW 14: POSE AS A FRIEND, WORK AS A SPY
- Law 32 -Play to People's Fantasies
- Law 18 Do Not Build Fortresses to Protect Yourself...
-
▼
July
(47)
About Me
- Andrea Jalandoni
- Please make this a dialogue. When you comment, respond not only to the post but to the previous comments. I want arguements and defenses.
32 comments:
i think commitment is one of the very important virtues that leaders should have. leaders should be committed to do everything beneficial to his/her people, even if it is opposed by other more dominant leaders or people. by being committed, leaders will establish respect from his/her people, thus, gaining him/her more power.
mike orlino
hi 18 O
But isn't it that taking sides is vital to gain power?
For example, Otto von Bismarck committed himself to the King of Prussia, though for most of the politicians in his time this move was unwise.
---
When should one commit himself/herself? When he/she be neutral?
Ian Cadelina
Hi18-N
Getting the best of both worlds. When you do not commit to any side, in time, you will know which side will benefit you most. Thus giving you more upper grounds in getting even stronger. But usually we commit to someone since they are our friends but if you are bold enough, if you think that man can live on a island, then by all means, manipulate, deceive. By the end of the day, you will gain power but in exchange for something. You gain much, you lose much.
Dexter Tanengsy, Hi18-N
I think there are some aspects that you could be neutral and some instances need to take sides. It is best to be neutral if you are stuck at the middle of a war. If you're not prepared for it, and taking consideration of the two sides that are fighting. Taking sides here may not be safe. Siding with one and despise the other would create yourself an enemy, and thus involving you in war. But in some instance, when you think siding with one is better than being neutral, or when you think you are prepared to take sides, then take sides. I'd learned this tactic from Civ. See for it yourself!
-Jedd Emille Chua
Hi 18 O
I agree with Mike. Commitment is truly important in a leader.
I also reckon that a person who cannot commit, is one who can't be trusted. When someone commits, it shows that person's willingness to remain true and loyal to that commitment and to the person or group he or she committed to. If he or she doesn't commit, this indifference or aloofness he or she shows towards the matter, can be read, in a way, as fear of being depended upon to stand up for what that particular person or group believes in. In another way, this indifference can be read as a means to "play it safe", which in turn shows that person's fear of taking risks for what he or she believes in. Hence, you don't know if that person who can't commit will help you in your time of need or betray you when bribery comes to the picture.
Kira Gochuico
HI 18 N
Furthermore, I believe that commitment shows a person's convictions and priorities. When one commits it shows his or her stand on the matter. And you know you can trust a person with convictions and priorities to remain true to his or her commitment.
Kira Gochuico
HI 18 N
i understand that the need of commitment as a virtue of the leader is important
but what the law states here is that
"Do Not Commit To Anyone"
of course, there some cons in taking sides which the law gives examples to.
not committing to anyone can have pros and cons. for the good side, you won't have responsibility and loyalty over what will happen to your enemies and allies. and you have nothing to lose just like ton said. it is like one is hiding while everyone is fighting sort of thing.
but, not committing to anyone is like doing business to no one. In an agreements like trade, one must commit to the bargain right? Trading needs committing. Well, maybe use this law with care and choose who to side with or maybe just side your own side for the sense of independence and commitment to your own.
Don Faylon
Hi18N
reply to iancandelina
if i am not mistaken, otto van bismarck took the side of the king of prussia for his own agenda.see, bismarck, wanted power like all prussians so he resorted to saying things he detested and once he got the position, he continued on to his real agenda thus humiliating austria.
he did not actually take up a side for you ask me. he only used the king's power to get what he wanted
@dexter tanengsy
the purpose of this law actually is to provide himself the independence while he/she stays in the middle.
often times when we get in to the side of our friends, we tend to end up being dragged on the petty fights they have. sure you have your friends with you but you will have to suffer the same repurcussions as your friend's had even though you didn't deserve it.
@ jedd emille chua
reading through the pages, committing to no one is a tactic used when he/she has calculated that the force he/she had is not enough.the law merely states its advantages to being in a neutral state.
I also believe that there should be commitment in countries. You can't gain another country's trust if you won't side with anyone. They'll be suspicious as to where your real loyalties lie and won't be as willing to do business with you since you won't side with them.
Trixie Cruz
Hi18 O
being neutral is a sign of power. No commitment = no sides. You have a sense of independence. I must say, being neutral doesn't mean that you're weak. In fact, others might be curious if you're just neutral.
Don Faylon
Hi18N
@trixie and biks (regarding your trade argument)
first off, i would like to apologize for making putting both your concerns into one reply of mine.practical reasons.i have answers to both concerns.
to begin with the argument, i must state that the title for this law is "do not commit to anyone". because of this, many people had this impression that not commitment to anyone means lack of trust in aspects such as trade.in trade however, this law can still be observed. but question is how can it be possible?
trading,is a commitment of a particular party to the idea of exchanging goods and information which does not necessarily mean committing to anyone given that they have their own interests.
which the law tries to say in the first place, you don't need to commit to anyone because you are not obliged to have the same interest as theirs. because in the end, once being dragged to their petty disagreements, you are sure to get whether you like it or not. and that's what the law is trying to avoid.
@biks (later post)
yep. and in performing this law one has to be very careful as the book says it is "delicate and difficult". one of the pros of being in that state is that to others you are ungraspable and somewhat unpredictable which gives you the power and in return they will offer you gifts and stuffs to make you commit to them. encourage the attention and stimulate their interests but keep emotions to self and make it seem that you are incapable of commitment.
How does the phrase "If you're not with me, you're against me" sound like to a person who uses this law? Wouldn't it force you to take sides in the long run? It would be better than to lose everything.
Alan Mamonluk
Hi18-O
I think this law should take into account setting or situation. If you stand to lose much by taking sides, it would be better to remain in a neutral state. If neutrality translates into great loss, pick a side (but choose wisely).
@ alan
the goal of this law is actually not to put people off with that kind of statement. rather the law protects him[the observer] at bay from the "enemy's" desires and obligations. entertain them, stir to their interests but never too far.
Ton Lopez
Hi18 N
"Often times, on committing to one side, we may never know what it is on the other side and often as well ended up on arguments on which we really do not much deserve but forced to be due to commitment."
"This law however must be exercised with caution because when taken it too far, instead of pleasing both sides, they will take turn it against you and will allied themselves in the process of eliminating.
---True. Taking one side would in effect leave you unable to see the other. It seems better to take none at all and that it is the safest route to take. But sometimes you cannot NOT choose a side. There are cases wherein choosing not to act or take a side results to a negative effect. You could lose both as allies. You can even have them both turn against you. It's just as what Mr. Mamonluk said. You may end up losing everything.
Then again. this is just a possibility. It's not exactly a very very common scenario.
@ biks
yes, having no sides will show independence. But eventually, this will cause you to weaken and fall. as the saying goes, "no man is an island." this also applies to the masters. leaders need to have alliances in order to get supplies, technology, food, etc. If your mentality is to be alone, no one will be able to help you in times of trouble. power entails commitment and friendship to other powerful nations/organizations.
marion adalia
bs mgt
N
I agree with mike that commitment is an essential character of a true leader. Besides, no one will really trust you if you do not show them that you are truly commited.
Marie Dacquel
HI18-O
One of the things that made civilization II really hard to win (for me, at least )is knowing who to make alliances with. I ended up with a decision not to make alliances with any other civilization to keep peace and to not be forced to choose any side. However, the down side is that I did not receive the benefits of alliances.
I guess it all comes down to balance. Balancing when to commit and when not to commit. It's sometimes a hard decision, but one must choose when to commit---because one cannot simply keep committing to things one cannot fulfill. =)
Eric Andres
HI 18 Section N
How about the United States staying neutral until being bombed by the Japanese during World War II? Are you just waiting to be hit by one of the sides that you fail to ally with? In battle, a good strategy is to strike first before your opponent knows what your doing. It will give them less time to react to what you did. What if the fleet of the United States located in Pearl Harbor was bigger than it was? It would have caused the US to be greatly wounded.
Alan Mamonluk
Hi18-O
Hey this thread is actually progressing quite differently with its counterpart.
First
Niko Falcon pointed out a very interesting point in the other thread, and i also support that perception of this law very much.
That a person who does not commit to anyone, doesn't exactly translate as someone who lacks integrity. Commitment can be given to one's ideas and principles, like all the cool heroes and leaders do.
Second.
I believe the whole point of this law, does not circle on taking sides or neutrality for that matter.
Most of us take too much out of context, as to how the word "Commitment" is used in this law. And how being committed or attached hinders someone's road to power.
1.A Commitment does not equate to a strong relationship. Trust and devotion maybe, but those are two wholly different things.
2.A Commitment restricts and limits. It forces upon you actions and thoughts that do not exactly parallel with your own.
3.A Commitment, is always Imposed.
Having something imposed on you is a weakness.
Being an ally to someone does not necessarily mean that you are committed to that person.
Have you ever played a Civ game where an ally you made became determined to keep you as an ally to the very end?
This law simply tells you to move on your own pace and towards your own direction. Never let yourself become dependent or committed, thereby limited and restricted.
Don't you all think that the extreme need for commitment nowadays is, in reality, our own inability to completely trust another?
And that in our inability to trust, we require these measures, to ensure that our other,moves at our pace, and our direction.
Law 20 Tells us to live our own lives.
Never let others determine who you are.
Mark Bantayan
Hi18 N
@ alan
sure. the americans joined the world war as a result in the pearl harbor. but thier interests are far personal than their (almost) european allied counterparts. america here joined the war not because of liberation against axis (predominantly nazi) ideas but to seek revenge after the world war.which brings us to the very essence of this law that thier interests/obligations are not necessarily the same for other people which more or less the commitment tries to bring.
Ton Lopez
Hi18 N
This law is tricky at best. Being neutral doesn't necessarily guarantee that you'll be safe from the dangers that could harm you. Add to that, the fact that there are some people that only believe in two sides - the with me or against me - as stated by Alan in a previous post - and these people are the ones whom you are endangering yourself with. Perhaps what is best is if you make yourself appear as a neutral but at the same time be an intimidating entity. Be something that either of the two sides would consider as a powerful ally. Having that luxury - making them eat from your hands - is definitely a worthy experience for any would-be leader.
Like in Civilization, it's hard who to trust especially if they are computers. It's hard who to side with. But it's better to side with no one because you don't need to have commitments with anyone. You don't need to make your ally a liability.
Don Faylon
Hi18N
So what your saying is that you trust everyone that commits to you? I have a hard time believing that
Post a Comment