Has anyone read How To Win Friends and Influence People-what are your thoughts?

[proteanmix]

"Externalities" may be influenced in any number of different ways using any number of different methods. We're talking about a book that prescribes a very specific method for manipulating people into liking you. While I have no problem with the book as far as its potential usefulness to salespeople, I am loath to recommend it as a way of winning friends. Too much about the methods seems to approach dishonesty, and the intent behind wishing to "win" (note the conquering metaphor) friends reads as neither authentic nor useful for forging long-term friendships. Just my opinion.

Can you please say what some of those differing methods are that aren't already explained in the book? How do you begin a friendship with someone?

I've read the book and Carnegie reiterates over and over that sincerity and authenticity is the key. People can sense when you're just going through the motions and being empty in dealing with them. People apply methods and principles to all different types of areas life. Why is applying principles towards people so distasteful?

 

[miss fortune]

I have not read the book- I'm already pleased with my ability to win friends and influence people.

I also fear that the book may fear to mention one of my best weapons- cleavage

 

[Synarch]

I also fear that the book may fear to mention one of my best weapons- cleavage

Brown is the new black. Thursday is the new Friday. Butt cleavage is the new cleavage.

That reminds me though....

I used to sit in front of this girl in Algebra class back in high school. She would try to get my attention so I'd turn around then she'd sit up and push her cleavage into my face, which would make me blush and her laugh. Ah... high school. Ah... cleavage.

 

[miss fortune]

cracklotage is no declotage!

nothing more fun than making someone blush though... it's the greatest thrill that a girl can get with her clothes on!

 

[Orangey]

Again, not manipulation, unless by manipulation, you mean behaving in ways to make yourself less odious.

You're talking about each individual tactic taken in isolation (such as not criticizing, or not arguing, or "creating eager interest in you"). Of course, when we look at some of these things individually they will seem like they are innocuous enough (though I don't know about stuff like "let them feel like it was their idea", and "get the other person saying yes, yes, yes immediately"). However, I'm talking about the total program. The idea is that you set out with a list of strategies, deploy them on your "target", and win them over to yourself. It's not the strategies that are the problem, but the leverage that is involved in unilaterally influencing another person (regardless of how positive the outcomes may be). It's a power issue.

Winning is not a zero sum situation. When you win, the other person doesn't lose. When you WIN the love of your beloved, is this conquering? Or, is it earning something of immeasurable value?

I've never conceptualized "love" in terms of winning, so I don't know. And whether the other person loses or not is irrelevant. I'm talking about the dynamics of the act of influencing, not the desirability of the outcomes.

Have you read the book? How long ago?

Yes, I have read the book, otherwise I would not have commented. I read it two years ago for an internship seminar in my undergrad program. Why? Is it that difficult to imagine that different readers will have different interpretations of the same text?

 

[Synarch]

Yes, I have read the book, otherwise I would not have commented. I read it two years ago for an internship seminar in my undergrad program. Why? Is it that difficult to imagine that different readers will have different interpretations of the same text?

Not at all. Just curious if you were talking out your ass. Like you say, different interpretations. Is it possible we project ourselves into the book? For example, I would imagine that more extraverted people would be less likely to have a problem with this book.

 

[Orangey]

I've read the book and Carnegie reiterates over and over that sincerity and authenticity is the key. People can sense when you're just going through the motions and being empty in dealing with them. People apply methods and principles to all different types of areas life. Why is applying principles towards people so distasteful?

I guess it's the oddness of having to will yourself into authenticity, or to be sincere...being conscious of whether or not you are sincere or authentic seems to undermine that very authenticity or sincerity. And too often what we get is just a very good simulation. In other words, how are you being authentic if you have to practice, control, and deploy authenticity in measures? It seems sort of like a contradictory concept. If I am being authentic about something, then I don't need to know or control how authentic I'm being.

 

[Orangey]

Not at all. Just curious if you were talking out your ass. Like you say, different interpretations. Is it possible we project ourselves into the book? For example, I would imagine that more extraverted people would be less likely to have a problem with this book.

Probably. Is that the trend so far in this thread? I haven't been keeping up.

 

[Synarch]

I guess it's the oddness of having to will yourself into authenticity, or to be sincere...being conscious of whether or not you are sincere or authentic seems to undermine that very authenticity or sincerity. And too often what we get is just a very good simulation. In other words, how are you being authentic if you have to practice, control, and deploy authenticity in measures? It seems sort of like a contradictory concept. If I am being authentic about something, then I don't need to know or control how authentic I'm being.

Now you have a valid point.

 

[proteanmix]

I guess it's the oddness of having to will yourself into authenticity, or to be sincere...being conscious of whether or not you are sincere or authentic seems to undermine that very authenticity or sincerity. And too often what we get is just a very good simulation. In other words, how are you being authentic if you have to practice, control, and deploy authenticity in measures? It seems sort of like a contradictory concept. If I am being authentic about something, then I don't need to know or control how authentic I'm being.

I think that you may be interpreting what it means to be authentic and insincere in the wrong way. The basic desire to want to do something may need cultivation. That doesn't necessarily corrupt the desire or the intention. If I want to do something but I don't know how, I'm going to learn how to do it. If I want to know how to be a good listener, learn and practice good listening skills. If I want to be a better boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse I make the necessary internal and external changes to signify this. If I want to increase my critical thinking skills I do exercises that require that ability and learn techniques that strengthen it. Just because you got that information from a self-help book doesn't nullify it. Sometimes being a "better" person means purposely taking a route the forces you to exercise patience, understanding, tolerance, and judiciousness because you realize that it's not beneficial to you or the other person to do otherwise.

If the basic desire to win friends and influence people is already within you then you take the necessary measures to achieve this don't you? Even if you do this stuff without thinking you're still doing it. So maybe Carnegie's mistake was just one of efficiency; compiling all this basic common sense stuff into one manipulative little package.

 

[Jeffster]

I also fear that the book may fear to mention one of my best weapons- cleavage

I'm Jeffster, and I approve this message.

 

[Fiver]

The book was helpful to me.

After many years of not getting promotions and getting feedback that I intimidated other people, I came to the conclusion that it was hubris to assume everyone in the world either (1) needed to accommodate my personality or (2) somehow was not worthy of my developing a positive relationship with them.

The most important thing I learned from Dale was this: To have other people like you, they must think you like them. And there is only one way to have other people think you like them; you must actually like them.

It made me realize that going around being negative and focusing on all the things that made other people unworthy or unpleasant to me, didn't make me authentic, no matter how I tried to justify it. It just made me an a**hole.

Being a Feeling-tard, Dale gave me clarity on things I did that put people off. He also gave me clarity on strategies I could try in dealing with other people. I'm very specific in saying "strategies" because at first that's exactly what they were. Then with practice some of them became a natural part of me (that I liked). The point is that I was not manipulating other people; I was modifying the parts of my behavior that kept the other people around me from feeling respected and valued -- when I actually did respect and value them. From there, I began to like, respect and value more and more people. At that point my life became much more enjoyable for me.

That's not any more inauthentic than taking music lessons to learn how to play the piano.

 

[Orangey]

I think that you may be interpreting what it means to be authentic and insincere in the wrong way. The basic desire to want to do something may need cultivation. That doesn't necessarily corrupt the desire or the intention. If I want to do something but I don't know how, I'm going to learn how to do it. If I want to know how to be a good listener, learn and practice good listening skills. If I want to be a better boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse I make the necessary internal and external changes to signify this. If I want to increase my critical thinking skills I do exercises that require that ability and learn techniques that strengthen it. Just because you got that information from a self-help book doesn't nullify it. Sometimes being a "better" person means purposely taking a route the forces you to exercise patience, understanding, tolerance, and judiciousness because you realize that it's not beneficial to you or the other person to do otherwise.

If the basic desire to win friends and influence people is already within you then you take the necessary measures to achieve this don't you? Even if you do this stuff without thinking you're still doing it. So maybe Carnegie's mistake was just one of efficiency; compiling all this basic common sense stuff into one manipulative little package.

But how do you cultivate authenticity?

 

[Fiver]

How do you cultivate authenticity?

Carnegie asks, "Do you actually appreciate and like other people?" Then he points out that if you don't actually like other people, they won't like you either. In other words, it can't be faked. It can be developed.

The steps he outlines are for people who want more positive interactions with other people, but aren't good at it. He brings your unconscious habits to your attention -- indirectly, I might add -- by pointing out good habits of people who naturally have charisma.

So, I learned good habits. By practicing the good habits, I began bringing out the best in the people around me (they were open and not defensive). The more I saw the best of other people, the more I authentically appreciated them. The more I gained an authentic appreciation for someone, the more I actually liked them. I just gradually became more and more predisposed to like and value other people (even before I had a reason to).

I didn't set out to manipulate other people, or to cultivate authenticity. That would have seemed bogus to me. I just wanted to piss people off a little less frequently.

 

[LucrativeSid]

We all had to become everything that we are now.

The point is that you can make choices. You can choose what's next. If you don't choose, you'll either become new things by default, or you'll solidify what you already are. So you ask yourself, "Am I completely happy with the way that I am now, or do I want to become more?"

It's always been of my opinion that if you try something new, you have nothing to lose. If you take a step forward and you can't go back, it's probably because from your new perspective you know that it's not right for you. You just no longer can fit yourself into your old way. If you take a step forward, really try, and feel that it's not right for you, you can always go back because you didn't actually change at all.

The gap behind you only closes when it's no longer needed, but you can close the gaps in front of you by rejecting them as possibilities.

This is all just geared towards making changes within yourself and personal growth in general. I'm not trying to push Carnegie's advice.

 

[Mole]

The Divided Self

But how do you cultivate authenticity?

Well, I think it is more important to cultivate integrity.

And this is a life long process, because when we learn something new, we need to integrate it into ourselves.

It seems to me that there is something alive and growing about integration or integrity. It lays a basis for everything we do and yet it reaches out to the new.

The opposite of integrity is the divided self.

The divided self is static and self perpetuating and cunning.

It thinks it is making the best of a bad lot - it thinks it is winning the game.

But the game just keeps going on and on and on - it never ends - and the divided self doesn't want it to end.

But life does come to an end, and so the divided self.

But below the surface, the divided self is suffering. Imagine, you have cut yourself in two and you can never be whole again - you can never be a whole person again.

And usually the divided self becomes rancid - the divided self loses its wholesomeness and and starts to stink - even before it has become a corpse.

So the divided self is one of the living dead.

The only cure is to unite the divided parts. But by now it is too painful to put them back together again - there is a terrible reaction if we try to integrate the divided parts once again.

And unfortunately, divided selves are drawn to one another and say, "We don't need no integration". They make songs up about it and build societies but they are crying inside.

They are crying for integration but they can't reach it.

This is their own Hell - and it is here they rule.

They are the divided selves.

 

[Fiver]

^Word.

 

[Jae Rae]

I have several thoughts about this thread. I know someone who not only read the book, but took the DC course and even gave presentations. Being pleasant wasn't in his nature, but he was offending so many friends and colleagues someone suggested he try this. Before, he was someone who could call his SO or best friend stupid at the drop of a hat. Overall I think it helped him become a more balanced and happier person, less arrogant and better able to listen. But the unnaturalness of it was there, too. I wouldn't call it phoniness, but the new way wasn't natural to him.

Trying the Dale way is both things: an improvement in getting along with others and not offending them and a stretch for the person that feels unnatural or phony, sometimes even to those around him/her. Like any new skill, social skills can be awkward at first.

This discussion makes me think of my NT hairdresser, whom I visited yesterday for the last time. [Not a smear against NTs or hairdressers.] I've seen her several times; in the beginning I thought she was quiet but efficient. Now I think she's incredibly rude. When I walked in and greeted her, she was standing at the counter, but she quickly walked across the room, turned away from me and said hello without turning around. I was a bit taken aback, but sat in the chair as instructed. When we began our "how are yous?" she wasn't really listening to what I said or at least didn't comment. When I asked the same of her, she said "oh, the usual." All avenues of talk were blocked or fizzled. I wasn't yabbering, I was trying to maintain a minimum level of social discourse with someone in charge of my well-being. Finally I gave up and fell silent. After 10 minutes of this, she asked me a question and really listened to the answer. The difference was stunning. I felt heard and cared about.

This is what the folks who recommend DC are talking about.

 

[Salomé]

The book was helpful to me.

After many years of not getting promotions and getting feedback that I intimidated other people, I came to the conclusion that it was hubris to assume everyone in the world either (1) needed to accommodate my personality or (2) somehow was not worthy of my developing a positive relationship with them.

The most important thing I learned from Dale was this: To have other people like you, they must think you like them. And there is only one way to have other people think you like them; you must actually like them.

It made me realize that going around being negative and focusing on all the things that made other people unworthy or unpleasant to me, didn't make me authentic, no matter how I tried to justify it. It just made me an a**hole.

Being a Feeling-tard, Dale gave me clarity on things I did that put people off. He also gave me clarity on strategies I could try in dealing with other people. I'm very specific in saying "strategies" because at first that's exactly what they were. Then with practice some of them became a natural part of me (that I liked). The point is that I was not manipulating other people; I was modifying the parts of my behavior that kept the other people around me from feeling respected and valued -- when I actually did respect and value them. From there, I began to like, respect and value more and more people. At that point my life became much more enjoyable for me.

That's not any more inauthentic than taking music lessons to learn how to play the piano.

This post was interesting and well-argued.

However, there is quite a lot wrong with the paragraph in bold above.

First of all, it is entirely possible to make someone think you like them when you actually don't (i.e. authenticity isn't a prerequisite).

Secondly, if all that was required was to actually like the other person, I can't imagine that this book would have sold a single copy.

Thirdly, this book doesn't take account of individual differences of the type that MBTI disciples are only too aware of.

For example, I am perfectly capable of liking someone who despises me. My criteria for 'liking' are not so subjective and egoistical as to depend on a person liking me first or in return. Conversely, just because someone likes me is no guarantee that I will return the feeling (in fact, the reverse is frequently true).

To pick up on Jae Rae's post about her hairdresser; I have the opposite experience. I hate it when a hairdresser prys into my personal life or asks me inane questions just to keep some phony idea alive that I have anything other than a purely professional relationship with them. I'd love it if they'd just shut up and cut. I feel vulnerable enough with this person holding sharp implements in the vicinity of my head, I don't need them looking inside there too.

Different strokes for different folks, is what I'm trying to say, I guess.

 

[proteanmix]

Why would you like someone who you knew despised you? Would you find out why they dislike you or continue to like them despite what they feel towards you?