This article explores Law 31: Control The Options from the 48 Laws of Power book. When you want to persuade others, it can be hard to stay in charge while letting them feel like they have a say. Manipulating situations is like an art; you must use suitable methods to get the desired result.
What if you can smoothly steer others toward your goals without them catching on? You stay in command, but they think they’re calling the shots.
This blog post helps you uncover the secrets of effective deception and manipulation, giving you an edge in any situation. Learn how to present choices that lead to your desired outcome, making others serve your purpose without them knowing it.
You’ll skillfully corner others, leaving them in a tough spot no matter what they choose. Gain ultimate control and influence today.
Law 31: Control The Options
The best deceptions are the ones that seem to give the other person a choice: Your victims feel they are in control but are your puppets. Give people options in your favor, whichever one they choose. Force them to choose between the lesser of two evils, both of which serve your purpose. Put them on the horns of a dilemma: They are gored wherever they turn.
Robert Greene
Key Insights
Why Control Options: The Main Goal
The core objective behind controlling options is to mask your position as the one who holds power and administers punishments.
This tactic is most beneficial for individuals with delicate authority, as they cannot afford to operate openly, lest they invite suspicion, resentment, and anger.
In fact, as a general guideline, it is seldom wise to be perceived as employing power directly and forcefully, regardless of your level of security or strength.
Instead, presenting others with the illusion of choice is often more sophisticated and productive.
The Illusion of Infinite Possibilities
Words like “freedom,” “options,” and “choice” sound super cool, right? They make you think you can do anything! But when you look at it, the choices we get- what we buy, who we vote for, or our jobs- are usually just a simple A or B situation.
Everything else seems like it’s not even in the game. Even though we don’t have many choices, we trick ourselves into thinking we’re free and that the game is fair. We’d rather not think too hard about how limited our options are.
The Paralysis of Unlimited Possibilities
Why don’t we dig into how limited our choices are? It’s because having too many choices can freak us out.
Having unlimited options would be amazing, but it would overwhelm us and make it hard to make decisions. So, having a smaller range of choices makes us feel more at ease.
How Options Mask Deceptions
When people have to choose between things, it’s hard for them to believe someone might manipulate or trick them. They can’t see someone giving them a little freedom but forcing their plan on them much harder.
So, if you want to trick someone, you should always limit their choices. There’s this saying: “If you can make the bird step into the cage on its own, it’ll sing even more beautifully.”
The Art of Choice Manipulation: Masterful Tactics
Color the Choices
This was a technique Henry Kissinger liked. When he worked as President Richard Nixon’s secretary of state, Kissinger believed he knew more than Nixon did about many things. He also knew that if he told Nixon what to do, it would upset Nixon, who wasn’t the most secure guy.
So, Kissinger would give Nixon three or four options for every situation and make his preferred choice seem the best. Nixon kept falling for it, not realizing that Kissinger was guiding him where he wanted. It’s a slick move to use on a master who’s a bit insecure.
Force the Resister
In the 1950s, Dr. Milton H. Erickson, a pioneer in hypnosis therapy, had a big issue: his patients would seem to get better but then slip back into their old habits, blame him, and quit therapy. To tackle this, Erickson came up with a clever idea. He’d tell some patients to relapse intentionally, to make themselves feel as bad as when they first started.
This might sound strange, but it worked. When faced with having a relapse, the patients usually decide they’d rather not go through that again. And that’s precisely what Erickson wanted all along.
This trick can work with kids and stubborn folks who like doing the opposite of what you ask. You make them “choose” what you want by making it seem like you’re suggesting the opposite.
Alter the Playing Field
In the 1860s, John D. Rockefeller had a sneaky plan to dominate the oil industry. If he tried to buy the smaller oil companies, they would realize and push back. So, he secretly bought the railway companies that moved the oil.
When he wanted to take control of a specific company, and they resisted, he’d remind them how much they relied on his railways. It would wreck their business if he refused to ship their oil or jacked up the prices. Rockefeller changed the game so that the small oil producers only had the options he gave them.
This tactic is a sly move when your opponents know you’re pushing their hand, but it still works, especially against those who fight back no matter what.
The Shrinking Options
In the late 1800s, an art dealer named Ambroise Vollard was a master at this craft. People would visit his shop to check out some remarkable Cézanne paintings. Vollard had a sneaky tactic. He’d show them three paintings but conveniently forget to mention the price, then pretend to fall asleep. So, the visitors had to leave without making a decision.
They’d usually come back the next day to see the paintings again, but this time, Vollard would whip out some less exciting ones, acting like he thought they were the same ones. The puzzled customers would look at the new paintings, leave to mull it over and come back again.
And guess what? Vollard would repeat the same trick, showing paintings of even lower quality. Eventually, the buyers would catch on and realize they had to grab what he was offering because tomorrow’s options would be worse, maybe even pricier.
There’s a twist to this move, too. If the buyer hesitated and waited, Vollard would hike the price daily. It’s a clever negotiation trick, especially for folks who can’t decide and think they’re getting a better deal today than tomorrow.
The Weak Man on the Precipice
In the 17th century, Cardinal de Retz had a crafty method of dealing with the Duke of Orléans, known for being indecisive. Convincing the duke to make a decision was like pulling teeth—he’d waffle, consider all the options, and delay until everyone was stressed out.
But Retz figured out how to handle him: he’d paint a picture of all sorts of terrifying dangers, blowing them way out of proportion until the duke saw a scary abyss in every direction except one—the path Retz wanted him to take.
This tactic is a bit like “Color the Choices,” but when dealing with the weaker-willed, you’ve got to be more forceful. You play on their emotions, using fear and dread to push them into action. They’ll always find a way to stall if you try to reason with them.
Brothers in Crime
This trick is straight out of the con artist playbook: You draw your victims into a shady scheme, creating a bond of trust and guilt between you.
They become part of your scam, maybe even commit a crime (or think they did), and then you’ve got them right where you want them, easily manipulated.
Take Serge Stavisky, the legendary French con artist from the 1920s. He tangled up the government in his web of schemes and scams so much that they were too scared even to prosecute him. They basically “chose” to back off and leave him be.
Sometimes, involving someone who could ruin you if things go south is wise. Their participation can be subtle—a hint of their involvement can limit their choices and keep them quiet.
The Horns of a Dilemma
General William Sherman pulled a sly move during the American Civil War with his famous march through Georgia. The Confederates knew which way he was going but wondered if he’d attack from the left or the right.
Sherman split his army into two parts, so if the rebels retreated from one side, they’d face the other. It was like a tricky game of “pick your poison.” Think of it like a trial lawyer’s tactic: They make witnesses choose between two explanations for an event and either way, it messes up their story.
The catch is that they have to answer the lawyer’s questions fast and don’t get time to think their way out of it. They end up stuck between a rock and a hard place, and their words dig their grave.
Make Your Enemies The Agents Of Their Misfortune
When you compete with your rivals, there will be times when you’ll need to harm them. But here’s the thing: If you’re causing their pain, be prepared for retaliation—expect them to seek revenge.
However, if they believe they cause their problems, they’ll likely accept it quietly. That’s why it’s often a good idea to let your victims pick their poison and try to keep your role hidden as much as possible.
For the wounds and every other evil that men inflict upon themselves spontaneously and of their own choice are, in the long run, less painful than those inflicted by others.
Niccolò Machiavelli
When Limiting Choices Affects You Too
Sometimes, when you restrict other people’s choices, it can also limit your own. But sometimes, it’s wise to let your rivals have some freedom. Doing this lets you watch what they do, learn from it, and plan better tricks.
Think of James Rothschild, a banker from the 1800s. He liked this idea. He believed that if he tried to control his opponents too much, he’d miss out on understanding their moves and making better plans. So, by giving them more freedom at first, he could later act more effectively against them.