20
votes
"Appear weak when you are strong" - This Confucian proverb is keeping everyone in confusion
Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.
I think this proverb is way too popular and overused in today's world to have any real application or benefit. Reading between the lines, it becomes very apparent that this tactic is being used everywhere these days, be it the world of media, politics, sports, academia, what have you.
But can you cite even a single utility or usefulness of this in today's world? In a world where EVERYONE thinks like this and tries to appear all shrewd and masks just because the other dude is also shrewd and masks, what purpose does it even solve?
Don't you think folks should just stop all pretenses and just be what they are? In their own interest, not anyone else's?
That’s from the art of war. It’s not a proverb, it’s about war.
What is an example you think of this being used? I honestly have no earthly idea what you’re talking about.
As stated, OP, this is indeed a simplified transliteration from Sūnzǐ's The Art of War, near the end of the first chapter.
Below is the Chinese, with Pīnyīn to aid in a modern Mandarin pronunciation. Below that is my personal translation of the passage, accompanied by several other notable translations.
故
能而示之不能，
用而示之不用，
近而示之遠，
遠而示之近。
Gù
Néng ér shì zhī bùnéng,
Yòng ér shì zhī bùyòng,
Jìn ér shì zhī yuǎn,
Yuǎn ér shì zhī jìn.
Hence,
With ability, show them no ability.
With activity, show them no activity.
With proximity, show them distance.
With distance, show them proximity.
Hence,
When able to attack, we must seem unable;
When using our forces, we must seem inactive;
When we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away;
When far away, we must make him believe we are near.
Thus,
When able, manifest inability.
When active, manifest inactivity.
When near, manifest as far.
When far, manifest as near.
Therefore,
When one is capable, give the appearance of being incapable.
When one is active, give the appearance of being inactive.
When one is near, give the appearance of being far.
When one is far, give the appearance of being near.
(I hope it's okay to respond to myself, to cut down on length.)
OP, when you talk about whether people should be just as they are, the concept you may be looking for
is zìrán [ 自然 ], to be "self-so."
Consider this passage from the Dào Dé Jīng:
其猶張弓與？
高者抑之，
下者舉之；
有餘者損之，
不足者
補之。
天之
道，
損有餘
而補不足。
人之道，
則不然，
損不足
以奉有餘。
孰能有餘
以奉天下，
唯有道者。
是以聖人
為而不恃，
功成而不處，
其不欲見賢。
Qí yóu zhāng gōng yú?
Gāo zhě yì zhī,
Xià zhě jǔ zhī;
Yǒu yú zhě sǔn zhī,
Bùzú zhě
Bǔ zhī.
Tiān zhī
Dào,
Sǔn yǒuyú
Ér bǔ bùzú.
Rén zhī dào,
Zé bùrán,
Sǔn bùzú
Yǐ fèng yǒuyú.
Shú néng yǒuyú
Yǐ fèng tiānxià,
Wéi yǒu dàozhě.
Shìyǐ shèngrén
Wéi ér bùshì,
Gōng chéng ér bùchǔ,
Qí bù yù jiàn xián.
Is a stretched bow,
Pulling down the top,
Raising up the bottom.
If it is too much, cut it.
If it is not enough,
Add on to it.
Heaven's
Dào:
Cuts from too much,
Adds to not enough.
The way of people
Is not like this,
Depriving the poor,
Offering to the rich.
Who can have a surplus
And offer it to all under heaven?
Only those who follow Dào.
Therefore the Sage
Acts but does not claim,
Accomplishes then moves on,
Has no desire to seem worthy.
And while I have posted this one before, consider also:
知有之。
其次親而譽之，
其次畏之，
其次侮之。
信不足焉，
有不信焉。
悠兮其貴言:
功成
事遂
百姓皆謂:
我自然。
Zhī yǒu zhī.
Qícì qīn ér yù zhī,
Qícì wèi zhī,
Qícì wǔ zhī.
Xìn bùzú yān,
Yǒu bùxìn yān.
Yōu xí qí guì yán:
Gōng chéng
Shì suì
Bǎixìng jiē wèi:
Wǒ zìrán.
They are aware it exists.
Next they witness and praise.
Soon they fear.
Finally they despise.
If trust is not enough,
There is no trust to gain.
Be careful in valuing words:
When the work is done,
And affairs are settled,
Everyone says
We just acted naturally.
EDIT: Some formatting and a tone mark. :)
That was really great. There's no need to change anything now but you didn't need to split your comment. That's a normal length for Tildes ;)
Idle curiosity: what's up with the question mark in the second line? I'm familiar with the concept of translations not being word-for-word matches, but nothing in that paragraph's translation even approaches being a question.
I'm not an expert in Classical Chinese but the line ends with 與? which is a final particle that ends a question. This is a very common way to turn a sentence into a question in Chinese that doesn't have a exact correspondence in English. Maybe the question can be translated it as, "Heaven's Dao, is it not like a stretched bow?" In this instance, the question is rhetorical.
Without the final particle 與, the sentence could read "Heaven's Dao, it is like a stretched bow."
Ahh, that makes sense. I'd known about the particle but didn't know the character for it (I recognize very few hanzi).
Depends on which English. I'd say it's a pretty close match for the Canadian "it's like a stretched bow, eh?" :)
There are final particles that are much more common than 與, which is only used in literary and Classical Chinese. And there are definitely more particles that blur the boundary between questions and statements. In general, different final particles can express different specific meanings, like expressing a yes/no question, explicitly asking rhetorical question, emphasizing a contrast, or taking an independent clause and subordinating it to the next sentence, etc. There's a whole panoply of particles in both modern and literary Chinese.
Such a beautiful language, Canuckinese.
I'd also say that it's similar to "upspeak" where in spoken English you might change your inflection at the end of the sentence to change it into a question? The particle signals that change, but unlike simply changing inflection in spoken English, it also carries its own implications like what @nowayhaze described.
Opposite implications, I'd say. Upspeak on this sentence would convey uncertainty to me: "it's... it's like a stretched bow? I guess?" but the Chinese text is clearly going for authoritative and certain: "it's like a stretched bow, wouldn't you agree? of course you agree, that was a rhetorical question."
I think the difference is that a majority of questions in Chinese end in final particles. I personally think it's hard to have a question without a particle for 3 reasons:
Again these 3 factors are just my speculation and are also not exhaustive of why final particles are there in all dialects and registers of Chinese but are virtually not in any dialects of English.
Again, depends on the English — Australian English has adopted the upward inflection at the end of a sentence to sometimes mean “I have another thought/sentence to follow this one, but this one isn’t a question” which sometimes feels like its purpose is to hold your attention.
You're absolutely right- I was just using an example of times that declarative sentences turn into interrogatives in English.
If you think of politics as an ideological war, then this strategy kind of does make sense.
If you want people to get out and vote, you dont want them to think their side is sure to win, because then they might just skip it. So you always want to maintain the perception that things are dire, for your cause, even if you are technically winning. Thereby appearing weak when you are strong.
Conversely if you are losing badly you dont want to admit its hopeless because people might disengage from the process once they decide its too late. So you still want to always foster hope that aome kind of victory is always within reach. Thus appearing strong when weak.
Well, it's sun tzu, not Confucius :) but more broadly, yes, I think people cite sun tzu rather more often than they need to.
Depends on what you mean and the scenario, I'd say. There is a very good series on the concept of "powertalk" on the website ribbonfarm that you might enjoy.
Easily! Consider just about any negotiation.
Any? Salary negotiations? My experience has always been akin to be interested, honest if the employer isn't meeting expectations, and be non-specific yet insist on their best and final offer.
Appear weak to appear strong doesn't seem to apply there. Open to alternate perspectives, of course.
For salary negotiations specifically, I think the maxim applies particularly well. It's a well known adage that the best time to find a new job is while you still have one - it gives you options and the ability to walk away. Conversely, if you are clearly desperate, it's likely that you will not fare as well in negotiations as you otherwise might.
A more concrete example may help. You're in the final interview at a new company and everything has been going well thus far. The HR manager across the table has been authorized to offer you between 80,000 and 100,000 for the position.
Which scenario is more likely to net you a higher initial offer: if the company assesses that you're desperate (maybe because they know you're currently out of a job)? Or if the company thinks you're happy where you currently are, but could be swayed with the right offer?
Salary negotiations are an area, perhaps more than most others, where you want to appear strong when you are weak.
That makes sense but it is not a representation of the quote. You convey that in salary negotiations one must show strength. The quote does say that is best to convey strength when you are weak, but it also states that it's best to appear weak when you are strong. You wouldn't argue that, in salary negotiations, it is advantageous for someone in a comfortable position to give the impression that they're desperate. So what you are essentially saying is that it is always best to appear strong in salary negotiations. Which may be true, but doesn't really address the effectiveness of the ancient quote.
I don't think you necessarily need to hit both sides of the quote in the same scenario to represent it, but I get where you're coming from.
While I wouldn't imagine using this quote in this context I would like to offer this perspective.
Like your said, the above statement is that one must constantly appear strong to get better offers. And since the quote is about power I will analyse it in terms of power dynamics. Regardless of one's employment, person who is applying for a job is always at the asking position. Therefore, company will always have the authority and power against you. Because, at the end of the day, they are the ones deciding you to give the better numbers. Since the power dynamics are against your favour, you have to appear strong. Hence the reason why I would argue the quote still works.
But I also find it useless to use it in this context because trying to apply a binary concept to a one that doesn't have any options is rather pointless.
Now an another work related scenario that the quote actually applies: if there was a situation where workers were trying to form a union, I would definitely see the merit of union leaders trying to downplay their numbers against the company leaders so company would lag behind acting against it thinking union doesn't have the power to come to fruition.
Appear strong when you are weak. Perhaps I misread but that's the opposite of the assertion presented by OPI thought it was proposed inversely: weak when strong? That doesn't seem useful in negotiations unless it somehow leads to a greater win. Even so, that seems more like domination than victory. One-sided victories in negotiations often aren't helpful in the long term as they breed resentment.
You could translate this to personal relationships in which exaggerating fragility is sometimes a way to manipulate others. A classic example is when someone either fake or exaggerate the symptoms of an illness to get what they want.
I'm really not sure if it fits though. I even read the chapter of Art of War and the preface earlier today. The author was a general and he wrote the book as letters to his ruler and supreme commander. The whole thing seems so deliberately specific that it makes me wary of liberally applying it to other contexts.
The OP posted the full sentence (not the full quote, which appears elsewhere in this thread) - appear strong when you are weak and weak when you are strong. It’s both ways.
I think in some cases it might be better to downplay your position in initial salary negotiations until they've made an opening offer, so you have a stronger position to make a counteroffer. If you've already put all your cards on the table, there's not very much room to negotiate beyond "um ok, but I want more".
Right. Generally speaking, if you think that you and your negotiating opponent have roughly the same access to information (or if you have more), then it often benefits you hugely to make the first move. If there's a disparity and they have more information than you, it can be useful to let them move first.
I have never heard of this proverb but it makes intuitive sense in the context of Sun Tzu's Art of War.
When you're strong it's advantageous to appear weak because your opponent will lower their defenses and take unnecessary risks for you to exploit.
When you are weak it is advantageous to appear strong because that will prevent your opponent from striking you when you are most vulnerable, in what may very well be the final blow.
It makes sense for ancient warfare. I'm not sure where else it would apply.
I think another way of reframing this that makes it more clear how it can be applicable in a non-warfare setting is : "Cause your opponent to operate on false assumptions".
In other words if they think you are weak when you are strong, they will make certain assumptions (and vice-versa). Since you know the truth and they do not (in this very simplified example) you can use this to your advantage.
It's like Roosevelt's "Speak quietly and carry a big stick."
Avoids bravado, while having demonstrated competence be the major factor, if required to.
Given the apparent attribution to Sun Tzu, in a war context this would relate to having a fighting force that looks like it can be overpowered, only to have them either be much stronger than they appear or more numerous than expected.
In a normal life context: Say you're truly the biggest, baddest dude in the room. Nobody really needs to know that until it becomes relevant, so it is better to keep that fact covered, if for no other reason than it doesn't matter.
And I guess in the initally offered Confucian context, see "Speak quietly but carry a big stick." Be ready for anything, but don't make a big show of it.
To add to your normal life context: I'd say that this advice doesn't need to be applied exclusively to war or confrontation, it can be used instructively and altruistically as well. You can let a child win a game or a race in order to encourage them (famously, lions will act as if a cub's bites are painful in order to encourage them). On the other hand, self-sacrifice in order to protect someone else, especially if the cost is great, is more or less the entire concept of heroism.
For a simplified version of this, consider the entire concept of poker. If you have a good hand, you want to draw bettors in. If you've got a bad hand... well, we all know what a bluff is.
As a historical fencer, the Masters tell us something similar. Certain guards we use look weak on one side, but with a smaller action than our opponents, we trap them into feeling safe and take the advantage. There is a lot of deception, similar to the direct translation you offered. Effectively, always put on the appearance that gives you the advantage when you deceive your opponent into making the wrong move.
An applied version of this in corporate life is: don't outshine the master.
https://fs.blog/never-outshine-the-master/
More often than not, outshining your manager, even accidentally, can have negative consequences for your career.
Setting aside the context of the original Sun Tzu quote, which others have already covered, I wanted to address this part of the comment. I'm not sure what you describe here is possible. You can't present exactly what you are to the world -- people can't read your mind, your ability to express yourself via language and actions is limited by your circumstances. Everyone has some sort of persona they're displaying. How authentic that persona is to one's "true self" is hard to assess, because the way you choose to present yourself to others is part of your self. It's more complicated than just pretenses vs authenticity. Attempting to portray your authentic self is merely constructing a different persona based on how you view yourself. It's not necessarily a better reflection of some nebulous "real you".
The idea that everyone nowadays is constantly being fake and that this is some sort of new phenomenon (perhaps caused by social media) is a fallacious one. This has been a thing for as long as humans have had societies. Even though the original quote is absolutely about warfare, it's not like Sun Tzu lived in a society that didn't require people to present themselves in certain ways and craft public personae. If anything I think our modern society is far more open to displays of authenticity when compared to ancient China -- even in areas where someone obviously must be putting on a calculated persona, the current trend is to value the appearance of authenticity (there has been a lot of discussion of this phenomenon in regards to YouTube and such, but it's not confined to that domain).
I guess I’m out of touch because I’ve never heard this proverb.
Like any snippet of wisdom, it has its moments but isn't a panacea.
I find it quite appropriate in describing political maneuvering in organizations. I have experience coming into executive positions where my peers didn't want me to succeed. Quietly building consensus behind the scenes, knowing what is a conflict prone issue, staying well within your lane when exercising authority, and building data to highlight your successes. Then, when the time is right, go into PR mode, trot out the wins people didn't know you had, get more authority and responsibility, and rinse and repeat.
So that is appearing weak until just the right moment. When you get new responsibility, to others in the org you often appear strong, but really you have a new opportunity to fail, so you are actually pretty weak. Now you have to keep up a bit of the PR about your improvements and slice and dice them different ways, until you build up some new big wins to keep up your sleeve.
PR is good performance, well communicated. So managing the cycle of performance and communication is how politically savvy executives get things done in an organization that isn't all pulling in the same direction.