Law 21 of The 48 Laws of Pow­er explores the strate­gic advan­tage of appear­ing less intel­li­gent than those around you, a tac­tic that can be used to manip­u­late, deceive, or sub­tly influ­ence oth­ers. By pre­sent­ing one­self as naive or unso­phis­ti­cat­ed, an indi­vid­ual can low­er the guard of those who might oth­er­wise be skep­ti­cal or cau­tious. This prin­ci­ple is not about actu­al igno­rance but rather about using the illu­sion of sim­plic­i­ty as a tool for gain­ing an upper hand in var­i­ous pow­er dynam­ics.

A clas­sic exam­ple of this tac­tic in action is the infa­mous dia­mond hoax car­ried out by Philip Arnold and John Slack in the 1870s. These two prospec­tors con­vinced some of the most pow­er­ful financiers of the era, includ­ing Asbury Harp­end­ing and the Roth­schild fam­i­ly, to invest in a fraud­u­lent dia­mond mine. By pos­ing as sim­ple, inex­pe­ri­enced men who had stum­bled upon a for­tune, they played into the investors’ sense of supe­ri­or­i­ty, lead­ing them to over­look warn­ing signs and fall for the scheme.

What made Arnold and Slack’s decep­tion so effec­tive was their abil­i­ty to appear com­plete­ly harm­less and even slight­ly fool­ish, ensur­ing that their vic­tims felt no imme­di­ate rea­son to sus­pect them. They went so far as to plant Euro­pean gem­stones in a remote area, cre­at­ing the illu­sion of a rich dia­mond deposit. The investors, blind­ed by their own arro­gance and the promise of immense wealth, failed to scru­ti­nize the claims prop­er­ly, prov­ing that over­con­fi­dence can be an exploitable weak­ness.

Beyond his­tor­i­cal scams, this law holds rel­e­vance in every­day sit­u­a­tions where under­es­ti­ma­tion can be lever­aged for per­son­al or pro­fes­sion­al advan­tage. Many suc­cess­ful busi­ness lead­ers and nego­tia­tors inten­tion­al­ly down­play their exper­tise to encour­age com­peti­tors or adver­saries to low­er their defens­es. By allow­ing oth­ers to believe they are in con­trol or more knowl­edge­able, a per­son can gain insights, maneu­ver behind the scenes, and strike at the right moment with­out attract­ing unnec­es­sary resis­tance.

The psy­cho­log­i­cal basis of this law is root­ed in human nature—people tend to trust those who seem less capa­ble because they pose no imme­di­ate threat. This is why indi­vid­u­als who mas­ter this tac­tic can evade sus­pi­cion, avoid con­fronta­tion, and cre­ate oppor­tu­ni­ties where oth­ers would strug­gle. Whether in pol­i­tics, cor­po­rate nego­ti­a­tions, or social inter­ac­tions, the abil­i­ty to dis­arm peo­ple through appar­ent incom­pe­tence is a pow­er­ful tool.

In mod­ern work­places, employ­ees some­times use this strat­e­gy to avoid addi­tion­al work­loads or to side­step office pol­i­tics. By not appear­ing over­ly ambi­tious or exces­sive­ly skilled, they evade envy and com­pe­ti­tion, allow­ing them to advance in a more sub­tle, cal­cu­lat­ed man­ner. Sim­i­lar­ly, in inter­per­son­al rela­tion­ships, pre­tend­ing not to notice cer­tain things can pro­vide a social advan­tage, mak­ing oth­ers feel more com­fort­able and allow­ing for greater influ­ence over time.

How­ev­er, Greene also warns that this tac­tic must be used with cau­tion, as overuse can result in being gen­uine­ly under­val­ued or ignored in cru­cial moments. If a per­son down­plays their abil­i­ties too much, they may miss oppor­tu­ni­ties where recog­ni­tion is nec­es­sary for advance­ment or cred­i­bil­i­ty. The key is know­ing when to appear unas­sum­ing and when to demon­strate capa­bil­i­ty, ensur­ing that the strat­e­gy remains effec­tive rather than detri­men­tal.

A mod­ern exam­ple of this prin­ci­ple can be seen in pok­er, where expe­ri­enced play­ers often use a “fish” per­sona to deceive oppo­nents into under­es­ti­mat­ing them. By mak­ing delib­er­ate mis­takes ear­ly on, they lure oth­ers into a false sense of secu­ri­ty before turn­ing the game around at a crit­i­cal moment. This high­lights the core con­cept of this law—using mis­di­rec­tion to gain an advan­tage over those who assume they are in con­trol.

Ulti­mate­ly, Law 21 teach­es that pow­er is not always about dom­i­nance or overt intel­li­gence but often about per­cep­tion and strate­gic restraint. Know­ing when to con­ceal one’s strengths can be just as effec­tive as demon­strat­ing them, allow­ing for manip­u­la­tion, mis­di­rec­tion, and greater influ­ence over time. In a world where peo­ple often judge by appear­ances, those who under­stand how to con­trol those per­cep­tions hold a unique form of pow­er.