Why?
- Why would someone trust a piece of paper with ink?
- Why can a country lose a war, sign a treaty under pressure, obey it for years, and then simply stop obeying it?
- Why do some strong people refuse to attack an unarmed person?
- Why do we work in a job we don’t like when no one is forcing us?
- Why can a community ignore their formal leader and continue their day-to-day?
Disclaimer
This model uses a fantasy / entertainment setting (e.g., superpowers such as fire breath, invisibility, or time manipulation) purely as a thought experiment.
The purpose of this abstraction is to remove real-world noise and isolate fundamental interaction patterns.
All examples should be interpreted as simplified representations of underlying system dynamics, not literal or real-world claims.
1. Premise
We consider a world where individuals possess unique superpowers. These powers differ not only in magnitude but in type of interaction with reality.
Goal: Create a formal model that explains dominance, failure, and adaptation across different power types.
2. Core Definitions
2.1 Power
Power is the ability to influence outcomes within a system.
2.2 System
The environment containing:
- rules (physics, causality)
- agents (people)
- information flows
2.3 Interaction
An event where one agent attempts to influence another or the environment.
3. Rejection of Classical Ranking Systems
Classical power classification typically uses linear ranking systems (e.g., S+, S, A, B, C, D, E), where power is treated as a scalar quantity.
This model rejects scalar ranking.
Power is instead modeled as discrete orthogonals, distinguished not by magnitude but by type of interaction with reality. Superiority is not determined by magnitude, but by orthogonal advantage.
Implication: A higher-orthogonal power does not overpower a lower-orthogonal power—it renders it irrelevant.
This creates inherently “unfair” interactions, where lower-orthogonal capabilities fail regardless of scale.
4. Orthogonals of Power
Contrary to popular belief, power operates across three orthogonals. Orthogonals describe how power is applied in interaction, moving from direct execution, to positional control, to control over the rules of the system itself.
Imagine that we are currently playing a game—say, chess. Power is simply how we win the game. But there are multiple ways to win:
I have stronger pawns: conventionally, I win by playing the game better. I cheated: I manipulate perception or violate the assumptions of the game. I changed the game: actually, we are playing three-dimensional chess.
It is very difficult to realize this unless you’re highly self-aware.
It’s a bit like trying to lucid dream. Not because we lack skill or aren’t sharp enough—in fact, focusing too hard can easily lock you into the dream.
Reading my essay about these orthogonals is easy. Applying them in real life is another story.
Fish is the last creature to see water.
Orthogonal 1 — Force
Operate within rules to produce outcomes.
Properties:
- requires engagement
- visible
- linear scaling
Failure mode:
- overwhelmed by coordination
- neutralized by distributed, low-power agents (e.g., bureaucratic or organizational systems)
Example: A single high-force entity (e.g., Superman-like) can be contained or constrained through large-scale coordination, regulation, or systemic response rather than direct confrontation.
Orthogonal 2 — Information
Manipulate interaction conditions.
Properties:
- creates asymmetry
- breaks predictability
- relies on stealth
Failure mode:
- collapses when exposed
- loses advantage once its asymmetry becomes a modelable pattern
Observation: Orthogonal 2 often manifests as anomalous performance (e.g., consistently perfect outcomes such as “acing every exam”).
Such anomalies are powerful only under ambiguity.
Once the system becomes aware:
- patterns are studied
- countermeasures are developed
- the anomaly is normalized or suppressed
Result: Orthogonal 2 power can degrade sharply and, in some cases, become less effective than Orthogonal 1 due to overexposure and targeted countering.
Orthogonal 3 — Rules
Modify rules governing outcomes.
Properties:
- operates above interaction
- difficult to detect
- nonlinear impact
Failure mode:
- social instability / rejection
5. Dominance Principle
Dominance is determined by orthogonal advantage, not magnitude.
Refined Rule: Higher-orthogonal power tends to invalidate lower-orthogonal power unless constrained by access, detection, or cost.
Examples:
- Invisibility (Orthogonal 2) defeats fire breath (Orthogonal 1)
- Time rewind (Orthogonal 3) defeats invisibility (Orthogonal 2)
- Time rewind (Orthogonal 3) defeats fire breath (Orthogonal 1)
6. Exposure Function
Define exposure E as how detectable a power is.
Each orthogonal responds differently:
- Orthogonal 1: low sensitivity to E
- Orthogonal 2: high sensitivity to E
- Orthogonal 3: low to moderate sensitivity to E
Result: Orthogonal 2 is most fragile under observation.
7. System Adaptation
System adapts through:
- coordination
- countermeasures
- protocol formation
Principle: System adaptation reduces asymmetry over time by converting unknowns into known variables.
Effects:
- Orthogonal 1 → countered by scale
- Orthogonal 2 → countered by detection
- Orthogonal 3 → hard to counter, but destabilizes system
8. Strategic Implications
- Orthogonal 1 excels in direct conflict
- Orthogonal 2 excels in disruption and control
- Orthogonal 3 excels in shaping outcomes before conflict
Optimal strategy:
- Use Orthogonal 2 to destabilize
- Transition to Orthogonal 3 to stabilize
- Avoid reliance on Orthogonal 1
9. Access Constraint
A power is only effective if it can be applied.
Access = ability to bring power into interaction
Examples:
- power stealing → useless without contact
- invisibility → useless if irrelevant to objective
- firepower → useless without a target
10. Legibility
Legibility is the degree to which a power can be understood, measured, and predicted by the system.
Effects:
- High legibility → easy to counter
- Low legibility → persistent advantage
11. Final Statement
Power is not about strength.
Power is the ability to influence outcomes by operating on dimensions of the system that are least constrained, least visible, and least adaptable by other agents.
Updates
- 2026-08-19: Added “Why?” section with motivating questions. Edited description to reflect hook. Grammar fixes throughout.
- 2026-08-20: Replaced “Tier” terminology with “Orthogonal”.