Power Inbalances:

Grok:

1. Erosion of Confidence and Initiative

If you see your ally as way more competent, your own confidence can take a hit. You might start second-guessing your contributions, thinking, “They’ve got this—why bother?” Research on self-efficacy (e.g., Bandura’s work) shows that perceived inferiority can shrink your belief in your own abilities, leading to less initiative. In a study from the Journal of Applied Psychology (2007), teams with perceived competence gaps saw lower participation from "lesser" members unless the environment actively countered it with feedback or role clarity. You might defer to them constantly ...

2. Power Imbalance and Dependency

That competence gap can tilt the alliance into a boss-subordinate vibe, even if it’s meant to be equal. The “better” person might dominate decisions—think project direction, client pitches, or resource allocation—because you let them, consciously or not. A 2013 study in Organization Science on asymmetric alliances (e.g., between firms, but it scales down) found that perceived capability differences led to over-reliance on the stronger partner, reducing the weaker one’s bargaining power. In your case, you might lean on them too much, losing leverage or credit when it’s time to shine.

3. Resentment or Envy

Over time, admiration can sour into resentment. If they’re always the star—getting praise, promotions, or attention—you might feel overshadowed or undervalued, even if they’re not rubbing it in. Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) kicks in here: we gauge our worth against others, and a big gap can breed envy. A 2019 Academy of Management Journal piece on coworker envy showed that perceived competence disparities spiked negative emotions, sometimes pushing people to undermine the “better” partner subtly—like withholding info or dragging their feet.

4. Collaboration Breakdown

Alliances thrive on mutual contribution, but if you feel outclassed, you might pull back or overcompensate. Pulling back means they carry the load, which can frustrate them—studies on team dynamics (e.g., Small Group Research, 2015) show unequal effort kills morale. Overcompensating, though—like trying to prove yourself with risky moves—can backfire, making you look desperate or sloppy. Either way, the alliance suffers: less synergy, more strain.

5. Stunted Learning or Innovation

Ironically, seeing them as superior might block your own development. If you assume they’ve got all the answers, you might stop pushing boundaries or learning new skills, coasting in their shadow. A 2021 study in Personnel Psychology on mentorship (a related dynamic) found that when junior partners idolized seniors too much, they absorbed less practical knowledge—they just mimicked instead of innovating. In an alliance, this could mean the team stagnates, leaning on one brain instead of two.

Mate Value Discrepancy:

"Studies on mate value discrepancies show this: when one partner feels “less than,” they’re more prone to jealousy or anxiety about abandonment."

"If you perceive your partner as hotter (or superior in some other way), you might unconsciously defer to them more—letting them call the shots on plans, opinions, even big decisions. Over time, that can erode your sense of agency, leaving you feeling more like a sidekick than an equal. Research on relationship dynamics backs this up: perceived inequality, even if it’s just in your head, can tilt the partnership into something lopsided."

Aufmerksamkeitsdefizite:

Menschen, die sich nicht so recht konzentrieren können,
die an Aufmerksamkeitsdefiziten leiden;
Die aber auch bei ihrer sozialen Umgebung
über eigene Aufmerksamkeitsdefizite
Leid, Ablenkung oder Unruhe verursachen.

Noisy Environments:

Noisy environments are soul-crushing environments.

Productivity Rain Dances:

Ich habe mal wieder in den Newport Podcast reingehört:
Productivity Rain Dances

- Focusing on the inputs versus focusing on the outputs
(putting lots of inputs in my productivity equation ... versus ... what I am actually producing that matters? ... and I am producing enough of it? - rain dances are easier than the actual job of producing stuff ...)

-----

Er argumentiert hier möglicherweise anders als Scott Adams:

Systems versus Goals

Ein System wäre z.B.:
Mache Tätigkeit A sieben Tage die Woche jeweils vier Stunden lang!
Newport würde das eventuell als "Input" und als "Busyness" abtun.

Ego Death:

Kirkegaard / Twitter:
 

Selbstverlust geht manchmal unbeobachtet vor sich.

Humor:

I like the idea that real humor "has never been tried".

Real humor almost like the invention of AGI ...

Sich Spät Einstellende Besonnenheit:

Nach einem langen Leben
kam er dann,
recht spät,
erst in seinen letzten
Lebensjahren
zur Besinnung,
bezüglich doch so vielem:

"Ach hätte ich da
doch etwas früher,
hätte ich das doch
etwas früher erkannt,
eingeordnet."

-----

"Hätte ich doch,
etwas früher doch,
erkannt ..., 

so Manches erkannt,
richtig eingeordnet ..."

"Ja, das mag schon sein,
doch besser spät als nie ..."

Use It Or Lose It - Relationships:

Mark Sisson:

"Relationships: If you don't cultivate a relationship—if you never use it by talking to the other party, calling them, asking their opinion about things, or asking for favors (and vice versa)—the relationship dies. You lose it."

Rückblick auf das eigene Handeln:

Rückblickend hast Du vieles tun können,
was Du dann doch nicht gemacht hast.

Ohne Einschränkungen:

Ein Denkspiel:

Was würdest Du tun,
wenn Du alles
tun könntest?

Dieser Blog:

Gerne hätte ich,
dass dieser Blog wieder ... ,
gern würde ich diesen Blog
wieder in einen
Naturwissenschaftsblog
rückumwandeln.

Ob es passieren wird,
bin ich mir nicht ganz sicher.

Immer wieder drängt es mich,
hier vieles einzustellen,
das mit Naturwissenschaft 
nichts zu tun hat.

Ich bilde mir nicht ein,
hier auch nur einen Leser zu haben,
der alle Beiträge liest.

Der eigene Raum:

Ein Raum,
wo man sich abschotten kann;
Wo man schlichtweg
in Ruhe gelassen wird;
Wo Wogen an Lärm,
Unruhe und an Unwesentlichem
nicht hingelangen können.

Rückblick: Der eigene Umgang mit der Zeit

Zeit ist kostbar
und man hat gar nicht
so viel davon;
Man hat sich aber
stets so verhalten
als ob man viel davon
zur Verfügung hätte.

-----

Analog mit der Aufmerksamkeit:

Aufmerksamkeit war kostbar
und man hatte gar nicht
so viel davon;
Man hatte sich aber
stets so verhalten
als ob man viel davon
zur Verfügung gehabt hätte.

Respekt:

Ein Gefühl dafür, wie Ernst man sein Gegenüber zu nehmen hat.

Oder anders: Wir bringen nicht allen Mitmenschen ein
identisch großes Maß an Respekt entgegen.

Manchen wohl etwas mehr, anderen eine Spur weniger.

-----

A sense of how seriously you should take the person in front of you. 

Or to put it differently: We do not show the exact same level of respect to each fellow human being. 

We respect some people - at least - a little bit more, and others - at least - a little less.

Wahrheit & Lust:

Ist die Wahrheit eher angenehm
oder hat sie einen ungemütlichen
Anstrich?

Blogging and the Attention Economy:

Unterschiedliche Blogs konkurrieren
um ein finites (bzw. um ein nach oben beschränktes)
Maß an Aufmerksamkeit.

-----

Different blogs are competing for finite / scarce amounts
of attention.

Getting the Ick:

Edward Dutton:

>This leads to an interesting phenomenon with females, known as the “Ick;” a visceral sense of disgust at something a male partner or potential male partner does which convinces the female, though subconsciously and often without her acknowledging it, that she does not want to become pregnant by him; that he is not Mr Right. A female may be in a long-term romantic relationship and then something about her boyfriend may very suddenly disgust her to such an extent that she loses all attraction for him and the relationship is effectively over. An article in British newspaper The Guardian on this subject highlighted the swiftness with which the “Ick” – a term which originated in the 1990s series Ally McBeal - can occur and the seemingly random nature of that which provokes it: observing that he does not use a pillow case, seeing him wearing a lime green shirt, hearing him giggle, finding a photo of him holding a massive fish he’s caught, or noticing that he owns a pencil case (Samadder, 31st July 2022). But is it sudden and is it random? We would expect females to be constantly monitoring the suitability of their male partner, especially in the courtship period prior to allowing him to impregnate her. A great deal of useful information would be absorbed at the unconscious level, such that she could think about other issues than just his suitability and, in essence, get on with her daily life. In addition, there is considerable empirical evidence that when we stop consciously thinking about a problem we continue dealing with it unconsciously, leading to a breakthrough; to intense “eureka moments” where the issue suddenly makes sense (see Staddon, 2016, Ch. 21). Further, it would be adaptive that her realisation of his unsuitability would come to her in the form of a “revelation” or “epiphany;” a particularly potent reaction which, due to its dramatic dimensions, would strongly emotionally impact her, forcing her to act upon it. These examples would ultimately all relate to concerns over his abilities, maturity, competence, mental stability and even his genetic health. Returning to the examples in The Guardian piece: Not using a pillow case? Lack of conscientiousness, laziness; nonchalant attitude towards hygiene. Wearing a lime green shirt? This may imply poor taste, a lack of social awareness and of how others might see him (and all that this might do to his status) or it might say something about how much he cares about others. Giggling, owning a pencil case? This may imply that he is emotionally immature. The fish picture? This might be seen to betoken a show off, and a clichéd one at that, with all that this says about his underlying psychology, in particular possible Neurotic traits or elements of Narcissism. To quote a woman interviewed in the article: “We were looking at a painting of a fat little Bacchanalian nymph baby. I realised it was the spitting image of him . . . We broke up shortly after, but I couldn’t tell him why.” She had noticed that he is childlike, feminine and unhealthy. From a female perspective, “getting the ick” is, clearly, highly adaptive. It ensures that you don’t get pregnant by a sub-optimal male.<

Stupidity:

You really can't hide stupidity.

Probably the same statement can be made

about "poor willpower" (or about disagreeableness).

Twitter Accounts:

At the moment, there are four twitter accounts I enjoy the most:

Charles / @reiver
Richard Harper
Alexander / @datepsych
Robin Hanson

Lesen:

Manchmal ist lesen einfach,
jenseits aller Wissensgewinnung,
eine nette Methode zu entspannen.

Das Gefällige:

Es einem Mitmenschen angenehm machen zu wollen.

"Agreeableness" als die Persönlichkeitsdimension,
die, wenn stark ausgeprägt, mit einem
gefälligen Verhalten einhergeht.

Becoming Strong:

Alexander:

"if you are weak and you want to be strong (physically and mentally) you need to do something hard and demanding over a long period of time. You will find no shortcuts. No amount of ideology will substitute for that - so you won’t transform yourself into a different kind of person just by believing the right ideology or finding the secret answers to the world out there on social media."

Online Persona:

Many people are way too much invested in their online persona.

Actions versus Belief Systems:

Alexander:

>In prison, a lot of criminals “come to God.” Nonetheless, most change their behavior very little - even while in the midst of espousing religious doctrine. They say the right things, but their behavior persists on a different track, and ultimately they remain more criminal than “man of God.” Relatedly, Matthew 7:15 and 7:21: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.” “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” There is, in every tradition, a folk wisdom of, “Look at what people do, or who they are, and how they act, not what they say.” This is because it is very easy to say the “right things” and behave in an entirely incongruent way. A lot of people want to debate, talk, and they want you to consider their very important ideas! They have such good thoughts. They have all of the solutions and they believe all of the right things! Which, of course, is not a unique feeling - most people believe that about themselves at least to some extent. People overestimate their own uniqueness - they also overestimate their own intelligence by as much as 20 points on average. Everyone is the smartest person in the room. What I would suggest is looking more at the “fruits” individuals produce and less at the ideology that they espouse. Maybe you don’t want to listen to someone lecture you on Islam who eats pork and drinks alcohol. Chronically single people may not be the best to listen to in respect to romantic relationships or marriage. You can trust the fat chef, but you may not want the advice of the fat dietician. If you think that their “arguments” can be evaluated independently of who they are - yes, sure, to some extent. But who they are also shapes their arguments. Here is the “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” For example, “believe in God” might sound good, and by itself mean one thing that seems good, but when you scratch the surface and find out that “believe in God” means “join my doomsday cult we are worshipping Jim Jones” you can see the Trojan horse of the initially innocuous message. Don’t get too carried away with it, but don’t be afraid to assess people’s messages within the context of who they are as a person and their behavior. “Most terrible person in the world who said a thing I agree with” is still the most terrible person in the world and that is enough to have the prior you should treat anything they say differently. “Good person who I disagree with and think is really wrong about something” is still a better person than “terrible person in my in-group with a congruent ideology.”<

Some Employees Should Just Be Left Alone:

Laura Wendel:

"it's tough finding the sweet spot between freedom and rigour. but I think this is why it's so important to deeply know each person you hire / work with and understand in what kind of environment they flourish. Some should probably be left alone completely, others might benefit from tighter check ups / deadlines"

Average of the Five People You Spend the Most Time With:

Laura Wendel:

“You are the average of the five people you spend the most time with”

Belief Systems versus Actions / Efficacy:

Alexander:

"Some people seem to live in a mental world, where the way they define themselves their identity is largely based upon what they think, feel, and believe. For example, “I am an anarcho-communist,” “I am a Trump supporter,” or “I am red pilled.” Others define themselves more by what they do or have done: “I am a landscaper,” “I am a husband” or “I am a sailor.” Really easy to get into Group 1, because it doesn’t actually require anything. You basically just get in-group membership by claiming it. “I believe the right thing.” Almost like putting on a costume. A lot of these people need to work on shifting themselves into Group 2 - an identity based on real-world accomplishments and behaviors."