Is 48 Laws of power written by a psychopath?

I showed it my girlfriend and she freaked out and seems to think so, I just thought it was something to use in an office environment/workplace. She said to me that it’s the dysfuntional environment that’s the problem, and these rules are a result of that, and that only a psychopath would think of such rules.

She said she worked hard, her quality of work was good, didn’t play games, people trusted her, and to hell what other people think of her at work.
I seriously thought that these rules would help me be advantageous in the workplace.
Any thoughts on this?

http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/cg/courses/cgt411/covey/48_laws_of_power.htm

Years ago a coworker told me a story in which his boss had actually chastised him and referred him to precept one, “never outshine the master”. That idiot aside, however, I’d say this kind of behavior will only pay off in the short term. In the longer run, the people you need to help you get things accomplished will see you for who you are and cut you off at the knees. It takes a while sometimes, but it’ll happen

Some of these are good advice.

I generally am extremely careful about who I trust at work. People can be incredibly vicious, deceitful, vengeful, petty, etc…

My thoughts are that either two sociopaths wrote the 48 laws or two people having a little joke wrote it. Yeah, sure, be careful what you say at work and who you trust. But the list advises you to lie in order to hurt others and to take credit for what others do. People who behave in this manner should be shot out of a cannon. Or maybe just shot with a cannon.

I would believe Gibbs’ Rules more than these.

Once again, Wikipedia has the answer:

The 48 Laws of Power is taught in business management classes and is one of the most requested books in American prison libraries.”

If this is true, it explains a great deal.

And it also makes me a little more OK with being such a failure in the corporate world. Because, hey, if this is what it takes to get ahead…

It reminds me more than a little of Machiavelli’s The Prince, which was likely parody or a warning to the populous after Machiavelli’s enemies took power.

#9 and #13 seem about right to me, though. I’m in IT - I frequently need to inconvenience people in order to get my work done, usually in the form of maintenance or needing access to something they have. It’s amazing how quickly people respond when the request is couched in terms of “this will keep you from running into XYZ catastrophe down the line”.

It’s just playground rules. And it works fairly well. But I think Maserschmidt is correct, the advantages will be short term. Taking these rules at face value will not make friends, and worse, may make enemies. If you’re in a cut throat industry they may make you successful. If you’re in an industry that values teamwork you might look bad.

The key is to keep getting promoted, keep changing departments, and/or keep switching companies, so your mess doesn’t catch up with you.

But you’re right, an industry that values teamwork won’t look kindly on this. I’m not familiar with such an industry, though. There probably is one, I’ve just not heard of it.

I don’t think I could easily identify an industry that values teamwork as much as individual companies that do. But you’ve hit the key point, you have to keep moving to make this work. Otherwise familiarity will breed contempt.

To some people these Laws come naturally.

Some are so talented they can ignore any of those.

Most would be advised to heed to most of them.

They also apply to almost any social group interaction you might engage in.

Use your enemies?
Always attract attention?

Pretty obnoxious. I’m with the girlfriend on this. Yuck.

Sounds good to wannabe corporate warriors, but seriously, those people rarely if ever, actually turn into corporate stars. More like corporate jokes.

(Just my opinion, probably a minority one.)

Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Yesssssssssssssssss.

I read this book when I was a teenager. It’s got a lot of good history stories in it to reflect the lesson it’s trying to teach. It’s just that in most stories somebody gets killed or fucked over at the end. It is a lot like Machiavelli “the prince.”

It’s a fun read but hardly worth taking serious.

But that could be an ethics class or a straightforward attempt to teach it as meaningful. In fact, I found examples of both:

Apparently straightforward:
http://www.ramapo.edu/academics/firstYear/docs/syl/INTD-101-26-Fall-2012-061412.pdf

In sensible context, I think:
http://lgstdept.wharton.upenn.edu/shellric/documents/Literature%20of%20Success%202007%20Syllabus%20(5-26-06).pdf

Yep. It’s crazy-people talk. The underlying premise is that *everyone *else is your enemy. It basically boils down to “Law of the Jungle: Kill or Be Killed”. I’m sure there are plenty of people who actually take this approach at work and thereby acquire a great deal of power. And those people are sociopaths. Powerful sociopaths.

So, republicans, basically.

Yea plus to keep all “48 laws of power” in your head and live by them takes some determination. Especially, since none of them are about any good qualities like kindness, sharing, sacrifice etc. I don’t know if I’d call them sociopaths, but they are certainly misguided.

Nah. I read the book, and it was just a collection of observations on historical anecdotes. Some of the anecdotes were interesting, but the book itself wasn’t particularly sinister or Machiavellian.