Who has more POWER in a RELATIONSHIP: three easy ways to make the determination

I'm Dr Orion Taraban,
and this is PsycHacks,

better living through psychology. And the

topic of today's short talk is: who has

more power in a relationship?

Power can be a touchy subject for folks.

Many people would prefer it didn't exist

at all, which is just another way of

wishing that power imbalances didn't

exist in relationships. However, power is

a fact of life, and that's not

necessarily a bad thing, as without power,

nothing would ever get done.

Now, it would be far too simplistic to

argue that men have more power in

relationships or that women have more

power in relationships, because the fact

of the matter is that it can go either

way, and that's because it really depends

on the specific individuals involved.

However, I have three easy rules of thumb

that you can use to determine who has

more power in any given relationship.

Let's get right to it.

First, a working definition of power. Very

simply, power is the ability to get other

people to act in the
service of your goals.

Think about it: the most powerful people

in the world do nothing for themselves.

They have cooks to cook for them,

bodyguards to protect them, agents to

represent them,
employees to work for them.

They have the ability to make
other people move.

That's power.

So here's my first rule of thumb. If you

want to know who has the most power in a

relationship or family system, all you

have to do is observe who moves the least.

For instance, in many families, the infant

is the most powerful person in the

system. You can't reason with it, you

can't argue with it, you can barely even

communicate with it. It just lies there

and cries, so everyone else has to move

to accommodate it. It is pure emotion, and

emotion is a form of power.

In fact, being so emotional that you can

neither be consoled or reasoned with is

a strategy that many adults today have

failed to outgrow. But we shouldn't

necessarily be surprised by that, since

no one surrenders power unless they

absolutely have to. In any case, the

person who does less is usually more

powerful than the person who does more.

But before I go any further, if you're

liking what you're hearing, please

consider sending this video to someone

who might benefit from its message. It's

word of mouth referrals like this that

really help to make the channel grow. And

you can also hit the super thanks button

and tip me in proportion to the value

you feel you derived from this video.

I really appreciate your support.

Now, here's another way to
consider the question.

Just like two people cannot like each

other exactly the same amount,

which asymmetry gives rise to the

balance of attraction, two people cannot

be committed to a relationship exactly

the same amount. This is a hard fact of

life and a bitter pill to swallow. We see

this everywhere, but we would prefer not

to see it. For instance, you may not be

your best friend's best friend,

and your employer may not need you as

much as you need your employer.

If you want to know who has more power

in a relationship, you simply need to

consider who is less committed
than the other.

I wish this weren't the case,
but it's true.

An easy way to tell who is less

committed than the other in any

relationship is to observe who issues

ultimatums to whom.

A few weeks ago, I met up with Logan Yuri,

author of "How Not to Die Alone". She's a

lovely person, and I had a fantastic

conversation with her. At one point in

the discussion, we were talking about

marriage, and she said to me,
"behind every

proposal is an ultimatum",

and we both laughed, because I think we

could both acknowledge the
truth in that statement.

Now, the point of an ultimatum is to

apply emotional pressure on the other

person to motivate behavior in

compliance with your agenda.

So, it's powerful in the sense of my

working definition of power, getting

other people to act in the service of

your goals, and it does this by forcing

the other person to move, rule of thumb

one, while simultaneously expressing low

commitment for the relationship,

rule of thumb two.

Ultimatums require favorable power

imbalances. This is why you never see

ultimatums among equals. Like, could you

imagine if your buddy gave you an

ultimatum, like, hey man, either we're

gonna hang out three nights a week and

drink beers, or we are done, because you

are wasting my time. Like, a real friend

would step up and know how to treat a

friend. Like, how well would that go over?

You'd probably think, who the hell does

this person think he is?

And you would never see ultimatums from

the less powerful party. Like, imagine an

unarmed man demanding a group of

soldiers lay down their weapons, or else.

The soldiers would just laugh at him.

Ultimatums only work from the top down

And this leads me to my
third rule of thumb.

In any given relationship, if you want to

know who has more power, just consider

who has more options than the other

If your employer has 10 other people

lined up for your job who might be

easier to work with, then he's probably

not going to be very responsive to your

concerns or demands. By the same token, if

you are being actively recruited by a

dozen different companies, you're

probably not going to do anything you

don't want at your current employment.

Optionality is power. Now, the way

optionality is cultivated in the game of

romantic relationships differs between

men and women, due to the fact that men

and women are selecting for different

things. However, in both cases, the key

component is visibility.

The way that women typically maintain

optionality is by being visibly

attractive. No matter what she says, the

real reason she's not giving up her

Instagram account with 100,000 followers

is this. It's a daily and visible

reminder to all involved that thousands

of men find her attractive.

She may never step out of the

relationship, but surrendering that

account would significantly diminish

her optionality, which is a form of

power, and power, as previously noted, is

never surrendered unless
absolutely necessary.

On the other hand, the way men typically

maintain optionality is by
being visibly competent.

This is part of the reason why women

find men in uniforms of all kind to be

so attractive. The uniforms signify their

owner's particular skill and competence

to the world. It's also why performing

artists, like actors and musicians,

generally have no trouble finding

willing partners. The cheering and

applause they receive while they are up

on stage is more than enough social

proof of their competence
and desirability.

So, if a man is neither a performer nor a

uniformed professional, it behooves him

to find some other stage whereupon he

can be visibly competent to
improve his optionality.

So, there you have it. Who has more power

in a relationship? The answer is, it

depends. However, you can potentially

answer that question in your own case by

observing who moves the least,

who is less committed, and
who has more options.

On the balance of things, these will

indicate who is more powerful in any

given relationship.

What do you think? Let me know in the

comments below, and if you've gotten this

far, you might as well like this episode

and subscribe to this channel. You might

also consider becoming a channel member,

with perks like priority review of

comments, or booking a paid consultation.

As always, thank you for listening.