Loyalty

[Seteleechete]

So I have been thinking for a while how I would best raise/indoctrinate someone to be "loyal" towards you while maintaining reliability.(I have more than once considered the hypothetical scenario of how to raisie a bunch of loyal assassin's).

Practically this has lead me to more closely think about how to personally define the concept loyalty in itself and what situations fits that. Firstly and most importantly it suggests subservience(as in putting their needs before yours, not necessarily having authority over someone). Another thing that I closely align with loyalty is self-satisfaction. For some reason or another you should be satisfied with being subservient (can be anything from pride, love, maybe something more abstract like "a feeling of belonging" or "a purpose in life"). Now of note you don't have to like the task to be "loyal" but you would at some level still be content for some reason having done it.

Materialism/fear/ambition I can't really consider those loyalty. They don't to be particularly... Well, "loyal" as they are all ultimately self servient. And while you can of course argue that all actions are self serving these are more selfish. As such while you may do things for money or at gunpoint you are never truly subservient doing them because you are doing them to better your own situation.

Nationalism (and similar) is a common theme of how to ensure loyalty to an institution. Create a bunch of more or less made up ties to a central authority and keep parroting that you are supposed to care about it. I don't really consider nationalism as particularly reliable. Actually you could consider nationalism a weaker form of devotion and/or intimacy.

So from what I have gathered there are two effective ways of gaining/maintaining someone's loyalty and those are devotion and intimacy.

Now devotion has proven itself particularly effective in maintaining loyalty as the person in question basically absolves themselves of responsibility over their beliefs/doubts and places it on someone/something. Devotion can cover a large spectrum, something as basic as respect or belief in their qualities(like trust) can be enough.

The problem with devotion is that it often requires people to be proven(or at least not disproven) of the quality that you believe in. Alternatively a refusal to acknowledge reality. Either way belief is central when it comes to devotion. The reasons for devotion can vary but putting yourself on a methaphorical pedestal that others can look up to in some way has proven effective.

Intimacy is often a two way street and go both ways. It's a basic part of human nature to feel a belonging to a "group" basically extending the self towards a bigger community(which I refer to as intimacy). Another form of this is love/positive feelings or maybe even sympathy towards another human creating an intimate bond(of varying strength). There may similarities with devotion particularly when the bond is towards a cause.

That intimacy often goes both ways(as a necessity to maintain the emotional connection creating intimacy) means that the loyalty often can go both ways. One of the biggest disadvantages of using intimacy to maintain loyalty is therefore the need of this bond that can at times be fragile. The fact that intimacy often is based more on emotion than belief makes it more fragile in away but the fact that it isn't based on belief makes it stronger agianst logical arguments.

Of note I believe a partnership can have loyalty involved but more often than not it is towards the shared interests/cause rather than the individuals. Shared interests tcan get someone to work with you and the belief that you are better at accomplishing them for you(devotion).

Oftentimes the biggest concern both when it comes to intimacy and devotion is maintaining trust. A breaking of trust(real or imagined) can quickly destroy both beliefs and bonds. I still believe it's both are more reliable and significant than materialistic options.



Now at times I have real trouble extrapolating this topic fully because there are so many situations that just don't fit. People are loyal to a cause/person without any discernable reason. After some thought I am putting that down to self satisfaction being a feeling and as such can be felt without a discernable logical reason.

I am unsure what to think about this form of loyalty as its so individualistic or how one could make use of it. There is probably much more to think and extrapolate about in regards to this "middle group" that don' fit a materalistic(first paragrapparagraphotion/intimate form of loyalty.

Conclusion: More thought on how to get army of ultra loyal assassin's still needed.

 

[peoplesuck]

this could be a part. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Franklin_effect I didnt read your post since it seems like its already been accomplished. basically if someone does something for you they will subconsciously find a reason. I think?

 

[Seteleechete]

this could be a part. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Franklin_effect I didnt read your post since it seems like its already been accomplished. basically if someone does something for you they will subconsciously find a reason. I think?

That would be an effective use of what I referred to as intimacy. Also my text crashed while writing it so I now notice some mistakes, sigh(not to mention the lost paragraph on devotion I didn't copy in time).

 

[Seteleechete]

I just read about a fairly obvious thing I overlooked here(though there are probably plenty other things as well). And that's the effect of the base personality upon loyalty and potential actioms. Someone of a SJ personality type would probably be more susceptible towards a "nationalistic" approach while most N types would probably be more susceptible to a "intimate" approach. Going beyond types traits like pride would be indicative of someone who goes well with a more "nationalistic" method.

I think there are some tools for manipulation/figuring out who you can trust, in these thoughts, as a potential practical application. People might have a good poker face and an alternate approach could be to derive intentions and possible future actions from personality traits instead.

 

[Silent Sage]

I always thought this particular approach was neat (I've seen it in a few movies and such and it seems I accidently used this method:

I guess this would be along the lines of the "intimate", or personal. Basically they need to have a sort of dependency on you, alternatively, they need to feel indebted to you. For example, saving a life. But it's not often a life needs to be saved.
Thus you arrange it.
Then show up as their savior, ignorant and loyal.

I mentioned that I accomplished this, on some level.
Here' the short version: I figured out how to tie a hangman's noose and felt the urge to test it out. My head was too big. My brother's cat, also too big, so I resorted to my own cat. I got it tightened and snuck up behind him and lifted. He looked like he was trying to gasp for air, and he must not have realized I was responsible, 'cause I set him back down, couldn't get the rope untied, so I had to forcibly pull it off. Anyways, he coughed a bit then started licking my hand. Now he follows me around everywhere and lets me pick him up and such.

 

[Seteleechete]

Neat, it's enjoyable to hear the classic saviour -> dependency motive actually work in reality, even if it was a cat. As for dependency as a whole I think it has potential because it feels good. Sad as it may seem at times I don't think most people want to be independent, so when a knight in shining armour comes and swoops you away it would feel very comforting to just toss rationality away and live on another's prerogative, also makes for a convenient excuse.

Also because this entire matter (similar to "love at first sight") is acknowledged as a irrational part of reality it's harder to argue against it internally. It feels good, it's easy to argue with irrationality, even I am sorely tempted by the concept(I just haven't found my excuse). Kinda similar to love in general.

Most nationalistic ideas are much easier to argue agianst by the sheer fact that you are arguing agianst ideas to manipulate someone's feelings in regards to the idea. You can't argue agianst the idea of love is wrong because it's ingrained that it exists and is good(and that wouldn't necessarily be wrong). Instead you argue that it doesn't exist or doesn't apply. Whereas with other ideas you argue agianst the fundamentals of the idea.

"I love you" "Are you sure about that because there is no reason, you could be wrong"

Here you leave the choice to the person only questioning the commitment not the idea itself. Almost always it's more convenient for the person to simply not question it and enjoy

" I love this country" "But the country is corrupt because A,B and C, maybe you should rethink that statement."

Here you question the very idea behind the first statement because it implies "my country is good" which you argue agianst. It hits deeper and forces the choice on logic rather than feelings. Now (and this is what I do) why don't we apply this to the first statement.

"I love you" "You disagree on A,B,C you are incompatible because A,B,C you would not enjoy each other's presence because A,B,C"

Now it's a bit deeper but fundamentally most people don't think that far and if you do you may take the tempting offer of ignoring it because despite the irrationality, it still feels good(or comforting and this goes for the nationality example as well).

And really I am not saying that's a bad choice, there is little fundamental point in maintaining anal levels of rationality and independence either.

Man, I feel like I will spend forever on this topic, I am usually not this obsessed about a topic. Obviously my trust/motivation issues shining through.

Also, I really need to abandon nationalism/intimacy simplification already. It makes it easier to explain but as you go deeper it just becomes contradictory, overlapping and inadequate.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

You have it backwards. Be open and authentic and they'll choose you if they deem you worthy. People are constantly and naturally looking for things to latch on to and fight for, and they can only latch on to what they're presented with. See: U.S. 2016 presidential election.

So what have you got for us, Sete?

 

[Seteleechete]

You have it backwards. Be open and authentic and they'll choose you if they deem you worthy. People are constantly and naturally looking for things to latch on to and fight for, and they can only latch on to what they're presented with. See: U.S. 2016 presidential election.

So what have you got for us, Sete?

It would be very hard for me to be more open and authentic on this forum without also becoming very overbearing/whiny. I don't hold anything back writing here(though I hold very little back irl as well). Admittedly with poor results.

Regardless this is a presentation on how I think the concept works, that people generally want to be lead by a figure or idea is a fairly obvious axiom, though admittedly that axiom can become murky when sometimes it can be the idea of ones own power/independence. In general though it holds true that people seek purpose.

 

[Yellow]

I have no sense of loyalty myself, and I find the whole concept creepy. That being said, as I've aged, I've somehow managed to inspire loyalty (on accident) on a reasonably large scale (especially professionally). Through subtle and not-so-subtle inquiry, I think I've unlocked the major factors.

1. Maintain high expectations for your colleagues and subordinates, and provide them with a clear path to meeting your expectations.

2. Lead by example, and be capable and willing to handle the "front lines", whatever they may be, as well as or better than your subordinates.

3. Be more approachable toward those who are meeting/exceeding your expectations than you are with those who are sub-par. (This makes your attention a reward, and not just a punishment).

4. Train/indoctrinate everyone directly, at least in the beginning. Then delegate day-to-day training to your top minion. It lets the new recruit feel like they have a relationship with you directly, and rewards your best minion with added confidence.

5. Provide your subordinates enough freedom for their strengths to shine through, and then build on them. They'll feel less like peons and take more pride in their work. It also lets you use them most effectively.

6. When correcting undesired behavior, be supportive and use a neutral energy, but make it very clear that you won't tolerate it happening a second time.

7. Only be half "real". Show the light-hearted part of your sense of humor, pick a minor weakness to admit in order to seem more human, and only display the best of yourself in all other ways. You're supposed to lead and inspire, not make friends.

 

[Sinny91]

Mutual trust and mutual benefit should be enough to secure loyalty, provided you aren't dealing with snakes in the grass.

 

[YOLOisonlyprinciple]

My name is Reek, im very loyal

 

[Kuu]

I'd say at risk of fallacy that true loyalty, like true love, is not dependence. It is a free choice taken with full liberty and knowledge. Otherwise you're talking about manipulation and indoctrination.

Also, why does loyalty seem to imply obedience / subservience?

So what have you got for us, Sete?

Yes, why should anyone kill for you? What's your cause?

 

[Seteleechete]

I'd say at risk of fallacy that true loyalty, like true love, is not dependence. It is a free choice taken with full liberty and knowledge. Otherwise you're talking about manipulation and indoctrination.

Also, why does loyalty seem to imply obedience / subservience?



Yes, why should anyone kill for you? What's your cause?

As I stated before the subservience(but not necessarily obedience) is implied(in my opinion) because you are putting the idea/person you are "loyal" to ahead of other needs you may have. Both manipulation and indoctrination (intentional or not) is closely linked to someone following a cause, whether this is done in a benign or malevolent way is less relevant(though it probably should at least appear benign).

On the topic of knowledge that is an interesting question, if someone is "loyal" to something without full knowledge they may change their mind. I guess loyalty can't really be seen as an absolute concept simply because a change of perspective can do the same(though in this case one can argue that indoctrination is useful or even essential). On the matter of liberty I think it's obvious that you have to choose otherwise it's unreliable coercion.

As for the last 2 questions errm, none? I am just musing on the concept.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

As I stated before the subservience(but not necessarily obedience) is implied(in my opinion) because you are putting the idea/person you are "loyal" to ahead of other needs you may have.

That's not necessarily what I'd call loyalty, that's blind following.

Loyalty doesn't have to be about sacrificing everything for a cause or person. It may be a reasonable bond built on trust and respect that the person you're staying loyal to will reciprocate the same thing.

Anyway, it's useful to think of it as kinship or commonly shared purpose/mindset that joins people under more enduring circumstances.

Even looking at hierarchical loyalties, there's a certain obligation put on the ruler to hold their end of the bargain, their promised change or order.


How to achieve blind following? By breaking the person, destroying their sense of self and brainwashing them into submission I guess.

To visualise the difference, imagine two people, one had its world destroyed and reshaped so that the only possible path involves following some goal or person, the other person happened to find a potential path that aligns with what they were looking for that can be achieved by closely trusting and cooperating with another person.
The first one would be a minion or follower, the second case is a loyalist.

It's one of the principles of good leadership to lead by example, to inspire others to a cause or show them that you're capable of focusing and achieving their goals, so that they lend you their strength for your potential to attract more to their shared cause and to organise them better than they could do otherwise. Essentially achieved authority. Depending on the circumstances it may require certain things, but it's not coercive, it's not about convincing that the god's grace is with you for example, it's more about being capable, fair or dedicated.

 

[Pressure's Spring]

There are higher probabilities of certain forms of loyalties being formed over others (e.g. due to shared genes and/or ideas, the value of an ability or characteristic in relation to need or a set of needs).

It follows that different types of loyalties have different levels of endurance. There are types that are held heavily upon expectations and those that aren't.

Another way of saying this is: loyalties that are held upon expectations are based in reason, whereas, on the other side, loyalty may lack reason and be based on the personal/emotional - where the personal/emotional can alter the state of loyalty held in reason, and vice versa.

 

[TheScornedReflex]

I'd say at risk of fallacy that true loyalty, like true love, is not dependence. It is a free choice taken with full liberty and knowledge. Otherwise you're talking about manipulation and indoctrination.

Also, why does loyalty seem to imply obedience / subservience?

This ^

True loyalty, in my experience, is earned. It should be reciprocated. Not given to some asshole who'll abuse it. But only a idiot would give loyalty like that.

 

[Pressure's Spring]

An idealistic perception of loyalty, loyal:

A word referring to a person with strong conviction dedicated to fulfilling certain objectives and possessing the will to face high costs.

 

[TheScornedReflex]

An idealistic perception of loyalty:

A word held by one with strong conviction wherein one possesses the will to face extreme costs.

That is true loyalty. I feel for anyone who goes their life without it.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

This ^

True loyalty, in my experience, is earned. It should be reciprocated. Not given to some asshole who'll abuse it. But only a idiot would give loyalty like that.

That's what I do though.

You have to give it first to see if it's reciprocated and worth further investment. The kicker is that such initial actions by others fly past the blissfully unobservant and chronically paranoid heads of INTPfolk, who don't reciprocate unless you expend a huge effort to make it painfully obvious, and then they see you as needy and demanding when you do. They're just not on that level, and it takes too much work to get them there.

Gotta learn to drop them if they don't reciprocate and hope they develop the fortitude to overcome their self-doubt and paranoia to talk to you again if they ever realize what they missed.

Ultimately my weakness has been making too many exceptions (because I know their nature and use that to make excuses) before dropping.

 

[Pressure's Spring]

Loyalty to whom and as whom, toward what?

Where social, political, and even personal fragmentation is significantly large, where value systems are incoherent, loyalty becomes all the less more likely.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

It seems like each individual exists somewhere on a gradient, missing a wholeness that they alone can't form.

Spoiler