Michelle: Everything you think you know about power is wrong. Forget the ruthless CEO, the Machiavellian politician. The latest science shows that true, lasting influence doesn't come from force or fear. It comes from... being nice. Seriously. Mark: Come on, Michelle. 'Being nice'? That sounds like something you'd read on a motivational poster, not a serious analysis of power. I can name five people off the top of my head who got ahead by being absolute sharks. Michelle: I know, it feels completely counterintuitive, right? But that's the core argument of a fascinating book we're diving into today: The Power Paradox by Dacher Keltner. Mark: Keltner... isn't he the guy from UC Berkeley? The one who was a scientific advisor for the Pixar movie Inside Out? Michelle: Exactly! He's the founding director of the Greater Good Science Center, so his entire career is built on understanding emotions like compassion, awe, and gratitude. He brings that unique, and some might say optimistic, lens to the very gritty topic of power. Mark: Okay, I'm intrigued. A guy who studies happiness writing about power. That's a twist. So, where does he even begin to dismantle this idea that power is all about dominance and control? Michelle: He starts by completely redefining it. He argues that for 99% of human history, our survival depended on collaboration, not coercion. So, he defines power in a very simple, elegant way: it's the capacity to make a difference in the world by influencing others. That's it. It’s not about force; it’s about impact. Mark: The capacity to make a difference. I like that. It’s broader. A teacher has power, a parent has power, an artist has power. It’s not just about corner offices and military ranks. Michelle: Precisely. And the most radical part of his argument is how we get that power. He says it's not grabbed or seized; it's given.

Mark: Okay, hold on. 'Given'? That's where you might lose me and a lot of listeners. We see people grab power all the time. They lie, they bully, they manipulate their way to the top. How does Keltner’s theory account for them? Michelle: He doesn't deny they exist, but he argues that their power is brittle, unstable, and often short-lived. Enduring, respected influence—the kind that truly lasts—is granted by the group. And groups, he says, are surprisingly smart about who they give it to. He proves this with a brilliant study. Mark: Let me guess, a lab coat and some college students? Michelle: You got it. Picture a standard first-year college dorm. Researchers went in at the very beginning of the school year, before social hierarchies had formed. They had all the students rate each other on who they thought had the most influence. They also assessed everyone's personality—things like enthusiasm, kindness, focus, and so on. Mark: And they came back later to see who became the 'dorm king' or 'queen'? Michelle: Exactly. They came back four months later, and then again at the nine-month mark. And the results were stunning. The single strongest predictor of who rose to the top of the dorm's social ladder wasn't aggression, or manipulation, or being the loudest person at the party. It was enthusiasm. Followed by kindness, focus, and calmness. Mark: Wait, really? The most enthusiastic and kind people gained the most power? Not the ones who were trying to be 'alpha'? Michelle: That's the finding. The students who were most focused on others, who brought positive energy, who helped organize study groups or social events—they were the ones everyone else looked to. The group gave them power because they made life better for everyone. They advanced the greater good of the dorm. Mark: That's incredible. It's like the social network of the dorm collectively decided, 'You make our lives better, so we will listen to you.' But a dorm room is a pretty low-stakes environment. What about a more cutthroat world? Does this 'nice guys finish first' idea hold up? Michelle: It's a fair question, and Keltner takes it all the way back to our primate ancestors. He tells the story of the primatologist Frans de Waal, who studied a community of chimpanzees at a zoo. The alpha male at the beginning was a chimp named Yeroen. But a younger, larger male named Luit started to challenge him. Mark: Okay, here we go. I'm picturing a classic chest-pounding, teeth-baring showdown. Michelle: That's what you'd expect! But Luit did something much more clever. Instead of just trying to physically dominate Yeroen, he started a social campaign. He spent his days grooming other chimps, especially the females. He would break up fights between others, acting as the community peacekeeper. He shared food. He was, in essence, enhancing the welfare of the entire group. Mark: He was a chimp politician! Kissing babies, or... grooming chimps, in this case. Michelle: You could say that! And it worked. Over time, the other chimps shifted their allegiance to Luit. When the final confrontation with Yeroen happened, Luit had the full backing of the group. He became the new alpha, not through brute force alone, but because he had proven he would act in the group's best interest. He was given power. Mark: Wow. So even chimps prefer a community organizer over a bully. That's a powerful piece of evidence. It suggests this isn't just a modern, polite idea; it's a deeply ingrained evolutionary strategy. Michelle: It is. Keltner's point is that our brains are wired to track reputation. We are constantly, subconsciously evaluating who is a giver and who is a taker. And we grant influence—status, respect, power—to the givers.

Mark: Alright, so being good gets you power. I'm on board with that. It’s a hopeful message. But we've all seen good people get a promotion and, within six months, turn into a completely different person. They become arrogant, dismissive... a jerk. What's going on there? Michelle: Ah, and that, Mark, is the paradox. This is the tragic twist at the heart of the book. Keltner argues that the very experience of having power, the feeling of being influential and in control, systematically destroys the very skills that got you there in the first place. Mark: It’s like the prize for winning the race is a blindfold and a pair of broken legs for the next one. Michelle: That's a perfect analogy. Power, Keltner says, is like an 'empathy-reduction machine.' When we feel powerful, our focus shifts. We no longer need to be as attentive to others to get what we want. Our attention turns inward, toward our own goals, our own desires, our own needs. And our ability to feel for others, to see from their perspective, begins to wither. Mark: An 'empathy deficit.' That sounds clinical, but I think we all know what it feels like from the receiving end. So how did they test this? Michelle: With a series of simple, almost devious experiments. My favorite is the cookie study. They brought groups of three students into a lab and randomly assigned one person to be the 'leader' of a task. Halfway through, the experimenter brings in a plate with five cookies. Mark: Five cookies for three people. The awkward fifth cookie. I know this dilemma. Michelle: Exactly. The question is, who takes the extra cookie? In study after study, the person randomly assigned to the 'power' position was nearly twice as likely to grab that second cookie. But here's the kicker: they also observed how they ate it. The powerful participants were more likely to eat with their mouths open, chewing loudly, and getting crumbs all over themselves. Mark: No way. So power not only makes you greedy, it makes you lose your table manners? You become the Cookie Monster. Michelle: It makes you impulsive and less concerned with social norms! It's a small, silly example, but it reveals a profound truth. Here's another one. Researchers would make participants feel powerful by having them recall a time they were in charge. Then they'd ask them to do a simple task: draw the letter 'E' on their own forehead for someone else to see. Mark: Okay, I'm trying to picture that. To make it readable for the other person, I'd have to draw it backwards from my own perspective. Michelle: You would. You'd have to take the other person's perspective. And the people who were made to feel powerful were nearly three times more likely to fail. They drew the 'E' the right way for themselves, making it appear backwards to the person looking at them. They literally lost the ability to see the world from another person's point of view. Mark: That is chilling. It's not that they're malicious; their brain's software for perspective-taking has just been temporarily disabled. Michelle: And it gets worse when you take it out of the lab and into the real world. Another famous study observed drivers at a four-way-stop intersection in California. They categorized the cars by value, as a proxy for the driver's wealth and social status. Mark: Let me guess. The BMWs and Mercedes weren't patiently waiting their turn. Michelle: You nailed it. Drivers of the most expensive, high-status cars were four times more likely to cut in front of other drivers who had arrived first. And in a follow-up study at a pedestrian crosswalk, they found that while every single driver of a cheap, low-status car stopped for the pedestrian, drivers of the wealthiest cars blew right past them almost 46% of the time. Mark: Wow. So the feeling of privilege and power makes you literally less likely to see other human beings who are in your way. That explains so much about bad bosses, entitled celebrities, and politicians who seem to live in a different reality. Michelle: It's the power paradox in action. The empathy, civility, and focus on others that might have helped them get that wealth and status in the first place have been eroded by the experience of having it. Mark: You know, this is where some critics have pointed out that the book can feel a bit deterministic. Is this fall from grace inevitable? Are we all doomed to become cookie-hoarding, E-drawing, pedestrian-ignoring monsters if we get a little bit of power? Michelle: It's a huge risk, and Keltner is very clear about that. But he doesn't believe it's inevitable. He believes that by being aware of the paradox, we can fight it. But before we get to the solution, he makes a crucial point about the other side of the coin.

Michelle: The abuses of power are visible and dramatic. But Keltner argues the alternative—powerlessness—is an invisible, chronic, and even more dangerous condition. It's not just a feeling; it's a physical burden. Mark: What do you mean by a physical burden? Like, it's stressful? Michelle: It's more than just stress. It's a state of constant, low-grade threat that wears down the body. To make this point, Keltner shares a very personal story from his own childhood. His family moved to a poor, rural neighborhood on a street called Kayo Drive. Mark: Kayo Drive. Sounds like it could be a tough place. Michelle: It was, but it was also full of warmth and community. He describes neighbors sharing meals, kids playing freely. But underneath that surface, he saw the costs of powerlessness everywhere. The father next door, chronically unemployed and suffering from depression. Another neighbor with agoraphobia who couldn't leave his house. The family who owned the local bar, both of whom died young from cancer and leukemia. Mark: That's heartbreaking. It sounds like a catalogue of human suffering. Michelle: It was. And at the time, he just saw it as a series of individual tragedies. But later, as a scientist, he realized it was a pattern. Powerlessness—the lack of control over your environment, your finances, your health—creates a state of chronic stress. It floods your body with cortisol, which over time damages your immune system, your cardiovascular system, and even your brain. Neuroscientists have found that by age eleven, the brains of children growing up in poverty are measurably smaller than those of their wealthier peers. Mark: Wow. That puts a human face on the statistics. It's not just an economic issue; it's a physiological one. Powerlessness literally robs people of their potential, right down to the structure of their brain. Michelle: It robs them of their ability to make a difference in the world, which is Keltner's very definition of power. It's a vicious cycle. So, the book isn't just a warning to the powerful. It's a plea to create a society that mitigates the devastating costs of powerlessness. Mark: That's a much bigger, more profound message. So for those of us who do have some influence—at work, in our families, in our communities—how do we avoid the paradox? How do we stay on the right side of this? What's the antidote? Michelle: Keltner offers what he calls a 'Fivefold Path to Power,' which is really a set of practices to keep the corrupting influence of power at bay. The five are: being aware of your feelings of power, practicing humility, staying focused on others by giving, practicing respect, and finally, working to change the psychological context of powerlessness for others. Mark: That's a lot to remember. If you had to pick one for people to focus on today, what's the most crucial one? Michelle: I think it all comes back to the third one: staying focused on others and giving. Power pulls your attention inward, so you have to consciously, deliberately push it back out. That means practicing empathy, actively listening, sharing credit, expressing gratitude. These aren't just 'nice' things to do; they are essential maintenance for your influence. They are the exercises that keep your 'power muscles' from atrophying into self-serving impulsivity. Mark: So it's about remembering that power is a gift from the group, and you have to keep earning it by serving the group. Michelle: Exactly. You have to remain the person the group chose to give power to in the first place.

Michelle: When you boil it all down, power isn't a position or a title; it's a state of mind and a set of behaviors. The paradox teaches us that influence is like a garden. You cultivate it with empathy, generosity, and by making things better for others. But the moment you stop tending the garden and start admiring your own statue in the middle of it, the weeds of entitlement and self-interest start to grow. And they will eventually choke out everything that gave you influence to begin with. Mark: That's a fantastic way to put it. It’s a constant practice, not a destination you arrive at. It makes you wonder, in our own lives—at work, at home—are we acting in a way that makes people want to give us influence, or are we just taking it? Are we tending the garden or just building our own statue? Michelle: That's a powerful question for all of us to reflect on. And it's a great place to leave it. We'd love to hear your thoughts. What's one small way you've seen someone use their power for good this week? Let us know. Mark: This is Aibrary, signing off.