Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Law 31: CONTROL THE OPTIONS. Get others to play with the cards you deal.

Ninon De Lenclos, a seventeenth-century French courtesan, grown accustomed to a life of luxury thanks to her many wealthy, powerful lovers, was forced to come up with a system to maintain this lifestyle as much as possible after the death of her mother and in the face of having no family, no dowry, and no backup plan to fall on after she aged and retired from the life of a courtesan. She then came up with an ingenious modus operandi: she would choose to sleep with her lovers/clients only as SHE pleased. Instead of discouraging clients/lovers, this made men desire her even more and her "lovers" grew in number. It became an honor to be included among her"payeurs" and "martyrs". The very possibility of being with her and the decision to take a chance being theirs and theirs alone drew men in entirely.

It is the power of choice and freedom, or even the mere illusion or semblance of such that can make people submit to your demands willingly, and at times, even without seeing themselves as being dictated upon or coerced. Making every choice and possibility you offer your enemy or pawns something that they will benefit from either way (in Ninon's admirers' case, either honor without her favor and company or the honor PLUS the pleasure of her favor and being with her) or even giving them a set of options only you will benefit from (since there is the "freedom" to choose), at the very least, would result in them doing what YOU want and giving you what YOU desire, since it is "their" decision. This also makes any negative consequence something they feel responsible for and something they cannot take against you.

Does this always work though? Won't people see through it since you end up getting what you want and they are still, in a way, forced into doing something? Also, can limiting the options ever be a good thing?

Kristina Tan
Hi-18 K

30 comments:

Raf Sobrepena Hi-K said...

to answer your question, in limiting your opponent's options, you more or less get the idea of a win-win situation whatever happens. and who doesn't want a win-win situation?

thus, i can relate this to the monopolization during the Marcos era. The Lopez's conquered Meralco, ABS-CBN and other media related commodities. Marcos acknowledged this and had Eugenio Lopez sr choose to give up his businesses for the freedom of his sons. The ransom being Marcos' plan all along. (This among many other) In doing so, Marcos was able to imprint himself in every major media broadcast and eventually became the absolute power of our country.

And when Ninoy comes in, it becomes a whole new ball game. haha! IAMNINOY! wuhoo!

Anonymous said...

i think, more than the power of giving something, it's not having something and its consequent curiositythat allows this law to operate beautifully.

the trickiest part is convincing people that they need what you can give them. how can you lure people to believing that what you offer is essential enough to risk themselves and their dignities? this is where the curiosity incited by the exclusivity of the product / service rendered. it's ingenious.

you have to know what people want and how to give it to them that will benefit you most. i believe that someone who is able to envision the need of a majority and is capable of catering to that need, deserves to be a leader because s/he has the vision necessary for development, improvement -- they can see where we can improve, what our weakest points are.

The courtesan -- Ninon de Lencios -- also indirectly followed the first law : never outshine your master. by choosing her clients, she became a commodity -- a trophy for an elite. therefore, she only chose those in power. Including them in the elite was tantamount to revealing that they were superior to others, therefore this act appealed to their vanity. Thus, Ninon was successful.

- kyra ballesteros Hi18 K

Anonymous said...

@ the Law

I think this law will only work with the persons interested with the options you have offered. Limiting your options is not always a good thing people might become less interested if the options are too few. Like, in Marketing, if there are no variations of food or clothing there is a possibility that people will buy less. People, like me, like a wide variety of options to choose from.

i also think this law works like reverse psychology. You tell/do something the opposite of what you really want. Then the other person ends up doing what you want in the end. With the assumption, of course, that that person wasn't able to READ your actions/thoughts.

Clarice Manuel
Hi18 K

Anonymous said...

@ Ice:
Hmmm.. I think that limiting the options will be beneficial to an extent. You said that many people might be turned off by the scarcity of options, but I read in a psychological study that, given an ice cream store that only sold a limited number of flavors and one that sold TONS of flavors, one visibly garnered more revenue.

Can you guess which one did? The one with fewer options. Why? At times, people can be overwhelmed if there were too many choices and it resulted to them not buying at all, anymore.

I'm not sure how reverse psychology was involved in the example. Ninon didn't really tell the men not to serve her or whatever. She just made herself somewhat exclusive. It's like she showed her body, but she won't let the men have it under their terms. She is the boss of who she'll have and when she'll have them, and that allured them.. to be one of the "chosen few." (Exclusivity, I suppose.)

Do you think that this would've worked with anyone, though? If a girl in her time period also tried her tact, would it have worked? Or did Ninon just have that "something" that guys want? Is this law universal? How else can we "get others to play with the cards we deal"?

Theresa Rosario Tan
Hi18k

Anonymous said...

to raf: I wouldn't say it'd always involve a win-win situation. This law tell us that we are able to control the outcome of a situation by forcing our enemy or pawn's hand and cornering them into choosing among the options WE give them, whether they be good or bad for them. Obviously, they would be beneficial to us, but they would not necessarily have to be beneficial to the enemy/pawn involved.

Take Ivan IV, for example. In a time wherein Russia was being threatened by enemies from all sides, the boyars or nobles held a considerable amount of power and did not exactly respect him as a ruler. They terrorized the commoners and refused or hesitated to accept Ivan's son as the next czar in the event of Ivan's death. In response to this impossibly hard situation, Ivan surprised them and abdicated. The people, scared and vulnerable, ran to him, begging him to come back as czar. He refused, telling them he could not rule with the boyars' treason. The terror-stricken people blamed the boyars and took it out on them. THis made the boyars run to Ivan, pleading and begging him to return. He left them with a choice: either he come back to rule with COMPLETE power..or they find another ruler. Faced with a choice between possible civil war/utter chaos and Ivan's rule (meaning their loss of power), they picked the obvious choice, and Ivan IV resumed his position as czar of Russia, with the people REJOICING at his return. No one could complain or show resentment because THEY had made the decision (given, of course, the options HE had laid out) to put him in complete power. :D

Anonymous said...

I agree with Theresa about her point on reverse psychology probably not being involved here. Limiting the options does not necessarily imply that we do so in an attempt to force the other person to do the exact opposite of what we force them to choose from. In fact, using this law, we want and make them choose among the options we lay out for them. We corner them into a situation wherein they must choose only among what we give them. There probably would be no need for reverse psychology, since, the logic behind that kind of trick or whatever would be, I think, the sense of freedom they get from doing the exact opposite and asserting their independence and free will. This law, if used well, shows us that..in giving them a limited range of options, we are still giving the enemy/our pawn a semblance of freedom. It is still them making the final decision. Of course, either way, we supposedly benefit, but they still make that final decision when they choose among what we present to them, and therefore exercise their "freedom".

Anonymous said...

people will always want to have a sheer victory over a compromise, however sweet it may be. But yes, even if people will see through the options you give them, they would still be okay with it since there is a semblance of freedom of choice. Besides, they know that nothing is for free and that everyone will want to get something in return. By being plain or honest about the options you are giving as win-win situations, your target will eventually relent.

monica ang, L

Anonymous said...

i guess that with this law, there is a tremendous importance in the people you are dealing with. you really have to be careful with the people you choose to trick, that they won't be able to see through your intentions and goals. the people you choose must easily believe in what you say, and not have any doubts whatsoever. that is why the way you talk to them and make offers are also of importance. you must make it appear as if they will be the ones who will benefit in the end, that they will come out triumphant with the choices you want them to make. the offers must truly be enticing, offers that they will not pass up on.

-Philip Albert T. Verde
Hi18 K

Anonymous said...

@ philip verde: yes, the options (or at least one of the options) must make them feel that they would benefit, but they don't necessarily have to be things that would make them triumphant. As in the example of Ivan IV I gave in answer to Raf's comment, it doesn't always have to be something that the other person benefits from. What's important is that you benefit. In limiting the options, you force the other person's hand. It doesn't have to be good for them--just gotta be the best (maybe NECESSARY and ONLY) option available to them and, of course, beneficial to you (otherwise, what's the point? :P ). :D

Unknown said...

manipulate, manipulate. the 48 laws all say a bit on manipulation but this law just spits it out.

-Denis Flores
Hi18k

Anonymous said...

On Kristina's comment:
"Obviously, they would be beneficial to us, but they would not necessarily have to be beneficial to the enemy/pawn involved. "

Yes, we give the options, but shouldn't you give an option that the other will surely take? something beneficial to that pawn. or else why would this pawn choose it?

and about the post itself, i think for the limiting of options to be acceptable to the one being manipulated, the person has to make it appear that these are the only options left to them. i mean, if i were the pawn, if there were any more options left that appear to be more beneficial to me, why would i have to choose one of those options you gave me?

Chris Macalinao
Hi18-L

chiocebrero said...

This law should be familiar to seasoned chess players. One strategy in chess is to fool an opponent to believe that he or she has plenty of options, but with careful planning and cunning foresight, all plays and possibilities end up in your favor. This law deals with fooling an opponent and using his or her ignorance to your advantage.

I think this law isn't really concered with personal options--it deals more with controlling an oponent's options. I agree with Chris's comment above. To be able to put this law into action, your opponent must think that he or she has the upper hand. You must give your oppnent good choices to be able to lure him or her to take the bait. The choices that you manipulate should appear advantegous to your opponent and not to you.

Chio Cebrero
Hi 18 L

Unknown said...

the main themes in the 48 laws of power have a lot to do with manipulation and control. Control is important in almost every aspect of life, we all want some degree of control over our lives. In this law, we see that our lives aren't enough, we should control others as well.

By leading others unknowingly to fulfill your own objectives you list them as your agents. While they think they are serving their own interests, they're actually serving yours. And once they have served their purpose, they would be disposed of. It may sound cold, but the quest for power isn't for the weak. lol

Denis Flores
Hi 18K

Anonymous said...

@ chris: you're right in saying that it should be, in some way, beneficial to the person being used. i guess what i meant was more like.. the options don't have to be ENTIRELY beneficial to them. an example, again, would be the option chosen by the boyars when given the choice to either accept ivan iv as their ruler with complete power or find another ruler and risk civil war, being conquered by enemies, etc. so.. really, both choices weren't things the boyars would want-want. but one of them, the one they were being pushed to choose, was more of something they really just needed. they'd lose power and would have to submit to ivan, but at least, there would be peace and order in russia.

kristina tan hi18 k

sambau said...

This law is kind of ironic in that the laws are written to help one become powerful, but this one talks about control. And yet, shouldn't you already be in power to be able to control the options?

But anyway, this law is very tricky. When you dictate what the choices are, you're going to have to do it in such a way that it seems that it will benefit your "victim", but, in reality, you are the sole beneficiary. So if you're not careful, things could go very wrong. Of course limiting the options can be a good thing, it wouldn't be on the list of laws otherwise. But it is very risky and I wonder, is it really worth that risk?

Sam Bautista
Hi18-K

Anonymous said...

I strongly believe in the adage that goes: "The best things come to those who wait."

We could probably incorporate that saying with this law in the sense that it also addresses the satisfaction people get in aquiring things that don't always come within one's reach. We don't exactly show our appreciation towards things that we know are always accessible. When someone 'controls the options', he gives people the feeling of wanting more. Whereas if he persistently offers something, people wouldn't really feel that what he's proffering is something special and worthy of their interest.

Monica Copuyoc
Hi18- L

Anonymous said...

Personally, I believe that limiting the options can be a good thing in a way that it reminds one that one can't have everything. Sure, one can manipulate things in order for the players to keep on getting cards but at one point or another, there will come a time wherein these players will get fed up of the situation and will want to be dealers themselves.

Tom Manahan
Hi 18-K

Anonymous said...

creating an illusion of freedom. it's a really good tactic.
now that i've realized it, it's like when i shop here at a certain store in katipunan. they wouldn't restock the flavor of the chip i want to buy until the other unsold flavors are sold.
so that's why..
this tactic is really good until you realize the trick.

JR Resma
Hi18 K

Anonymous said...

I agree, limiting the options always plays to your likes. Unless you're stupid enough to limit the options in such a way that it plays against you. Controlling the options creates a more predictable environment for you. It eliminates more variables and so you have to guess less and be more prepared to the now, lesser options. The truth is, most things in life are unpredictable. And so eliminating as much of that unpredictability as you can is a good thing in my view. But when dealing with stuff earlier mentioned like Marketing, Psychology and things like that which aren't in the first person point of view, things get a little bit more complicated. But for me, when it's me that's lessening the options, it will always be good for me because I have less guesswork to do in trying to be prepare for stuff.

Ayo Canlas
Hi 18 L

Sean said...

I agree that limiting the options of people can give you power. This gives them a sense of control when they do not have any. However, I do not believe that this law will work all the time. In cases that people are given too few options, they will feel cornered and do something that could harm them and other people. This is the case of the Mafia wherein they gave people too few options and as a result, people died.

Sean Co
Hi 18 K

Anonymous said...

The context you portray this law in seems very high risk, though D: I read the Ninon example as her being able to read the egos of her male clients. And though I agree that having control is very desirable, sometimes people can see through your monopoly management and find ways to try and avoid you altogether.

Peep Warren
Hi18-L

Anonymous said...

This law is very tricky. Two words that kept coming into mind was CAUTION and CONTROL. One wrong move could allow people to see through you, showing that the so called "desire" they were suppose to get through "freedom" of choice was something actually planned from the beginning.

I agree that the illusion of choice and freedom can at a certain extent make people submit to one's demands willingly. The options given are important as well, and should always show that it is not solely beneficial to the one practicing the law (I suppose it be better if it seemed that no benefit would come to the one applying the law), but should be more beneficial to the enemy/pawn.

Paolo Banaga
Hi 18-L

Anonymous said...

Wow! Ninon De Lenclos' story is so intriguing! The sense of exclusivity she gave her "lovers" in turn gave her a sense of allure. This made her somewhat unreachable for some, making her even more coveted. This recipe seems quite familiar...Isn't this the tactic that a number of people use today- the "hard to get" strategy?

To answer your question, i guess this law needs to be exercised with utmost stealth. Tula's mother in My Big Fat Greek Wedding, "The husband is the head of the house, but the wife is the neck," the neck moves the head in any which way it wants without the head knowing. The trick is to make them think it was their idea in the first place. Haha!


Elise Noelle Anne Lim
Hi18 Section L

Anonymous said...

I agree with some of the comments, this would only work with the persons who are interested in whatever options they are given. Therefore, I think it seeing things through is a case in the end but not because they weren't exactly forced to do such things. The law benefits both parties highly. In the end however, both parties might realize that it is or is not what they wanted. Limiting the options is not bad but it's effectiveness may foster inconsistency.

Czarina Kathryne Masagca
Hi18-L

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't avoiding the negative consequence count as a positive outcome for those being dealt their options? It may not be a win-win situation but it's not really a win-lose situation either? Depends on how you give people their options and how convincing you can be... Like how some really good salesman can convince someone to buy a useless piece of junk because he "sold" it well..

Gail Lim
hi 18-K

Anonymous said...

LOL this law really applies to card games! Whenever I play card games with our blockmates, I always tell them that I'd lower the card that I'll put down. In a way, I get to control whatever they are planning to do, and in turn, increasing my chance of winning the game :-)

PC Magnaye
Hi18-K

Anonymous said...

Like PC, I too think of card games when reading this law. The dealers in top casinos are trained and chosen for a very good reason--to ensure that the casino earns more money than it gives away. By holding the cards in your hand, in a way, the ball is in your court. There is a sense of power that overcomes me when I'm dealing cards for a game. Even if this does not entitle me to a win, it lets me have the feeling that it is by my hand that this game will be decided.


By getting others to play the cards you deal, it means that you're forcing them to live within the boundaries and the guidelines that you set. And to answer your question Kat, I do think that limitations are a good thing because it forces people to put their best foot forward. You're all on equal footing and there are no handicaps or bonus points, it's a "me, myself and I" kind of thing where all you have to depend on is your raw talent and skills.


Regina A. Yulo
Hi 18 L

Shelleylwlr said...

But a musician can easily start counting, 1, 2, 3 / 1, 2, 3 as he or she is playing the song, and before long, start to speed up their counting, so that they are counting rapidly. (posted by The Piano Lessons Guru 4 years 131 days ago.) Learning to Play the Piano

Anonymous said...

Wonderful post however I was wanting to know if you could write a litte more on this subject?
I'd be very grateful if you could elaborate a little bit more. Thank you!
My blog :: xplayxslots.soup.io

Unknown said...

Very well put.