8 ms·

I avoided this book for a long time. for some reason I got it in my head that it's a sort of red pilled book that teaches you how to manipulate people. I know i

I avoided this book for a long time. for some reason I got it in my head that it's a sort of red pilled book that teaches you how to manipulate people. I know it's very shallow on my side, but I somehow crystallized this opinion based on a few acquaintances that claimed to read it and instead that they include the name of a person they just met in every sentence because it made that person like them more. Your comment made me consider reading it. This rant about radiating happiness towards people without expecting something in return gives me a different insight on his reasons for writing the book. I might give it a shot. Thank you

jsksoswk 5mo ago
Well, your instinct is right from the title. “influence” is a euphemism for “manipulate.” Affecting influence is subtle manipulation. A compliment about someone’s hair is great if you genuinely admire their hair. But if you read a book about influencing people and suddenly start complimenting people’s hair, time for some introspection.
- bitexploder 5mo ago
  I think the idea is to find things true to you to genuinely compliment?
  - bayindirh 5mo ago
    The idea is to have genuine compassion without any agenda, actually. Or on a deeper level, just acknowledge people exist, and let them know that their existence is noticed. Nothing more, nothing less.
- y1n0 5mo ago
  Manipulation is about trickery. Influence does not have to be manipulation. Persuasion through reason is influence.
  - babijax 5mo ago
    I think that’s exactly what they’re saying. Influence doesn’t have to be manipulative, but it sure can be. Here’s the difference: Influence for influence sake is selfishly motivated. Doing something charitable garners influence. Influence is a side-effect and not the intended goal—unless it is, and then it’s manipulation. The fact is correct that the word influence is a euphemism for manipulation. The very fact that people are confused about this is case-in-point on the subtlety of the notion.
    - dpark 5mo ago
      > Influence doesn’t have to be manipulative > influence is a euphemism for manipulation Surely you can see that your statements contradict each other. > Influence for influence sake is selfishly motivated. Hard disagree. It certainly can be, but doesn’t have to be. A person can be a positive influence for no other reason than they feel like it’s a good thing to do. You could influence your coworkers to be better engineers and not gain anything from it. I mean, we could retreat to the “oh you feel good about it, so it’s still selfish” stance, but that’s uninteresting.
- dpark 5mo ago
  > “influence” is a euphemism for “manipulate.” This is exactly what he’s talking about. The premise of the book is essentially, “what if you were a generally nice person who deserved friends”. The whole “you could only possibly pretend to care about other people” response to the book is vaguely psychopathic.
  - munchbunny 5mo ago
    > The whole “you could only possibly pretend to care about other people” response to the book is vaguely psychopathic. I prefer to interpret it charitably: the line between influence and manipulation can be pretty fuzzy, and some people come to a conclusion of, basically, "don't do it at all because it's always selfish." I think it's a flawed view because it's impossible to go through life not influencing anyone and not wanting anything from anyone, so you may as well try to do it in a way that is generally win-win or at least not win-lose.
    - dpark 5mo ago
      I think the most charitable interpretation would be that people expressing that view are deeply self-conscious. They are afraid if they followed the advice in the book, they might be perceived as manipulative and they want to avoid that possibility. They hide from that fear by insisting that it actually must be manipulative. Outside of that, I can only see less charitable interpretations. e.g. The idea that the only reason someone could ever compliment another person is to manipulate them says either that the person holding the idea literally can’t imagine interacting positively with someone for non-selfish reasons (psychopathy) or that they hold such low opinion of the rest of humanity that they believe no one else could (misanthropy).
- palmotea 5mo ago
  > But if you read a book about influencing people and suddenly start complimenting people’s hair, time for some introspection. The book's also apparently about winning friends, as well. And the excerpt above seems to be about getting better at being nice to people without an agenda.
- vincston 5mo ago
  I think this is a very subjective matter and depends on how negatively connoted someone's perception of the word 'manipulate' is. By your definition, I would consider 'studying/learning' also a form of manipulation.
  - jsksoswk 5mo ago
    Did I say not to read the book?
- setsewerd 5mo ago
  > "influence is a euphemism for manipulate" Strongly disagree with this sentiment. Influence can have a lot of sources, from institutional authority to simply being persuasive, which is distinct from manipulation. In this context influence and persuasion are being used interchangeably, but persuasion is the act of winning someone over to your point of view, so they understand the topic as you do. It respects their autonomy and acknowledges that people can change their mind when presented with different perspectives. Oftentimes, being likeable (or at least respectable) is a prerequisite for getting someone to listen to you in the first place, so it's a central pillar to being influential. Manipulation on the other hand, doesn't respect someone's autonomy. It might involve deception, threats, coercion, etc, but it ultimately aims to make someone do something that they don't want to do. If you're getting a little kid to eat his dinner for instance, persuasion might appeal to his motivations (e.g. having more energy to run faster), while manipulation might look like saying not eating would make his mom sad (guilt tripping), or that he wouldn't get to play with his favorite toy (threat).
  - PaulHoule 5mo ago
    I'd argue that {someone who is good at getting desired outcomes} is going to have a toolbox of carrots, sticks, and other things and I think sometimes you are going to be 100% ethically happy with how a situation went and sometimes you are going to feel some conflict between your values. [1] I'm not sure where the line between "manipulation" and "persuasion" is exactly but certainly a person's intent and how they think about themselves and other people has something to do with it. There are many feats that I can do today with ease that my evil twin coveted a few years ago and just couldn't do because he had a bad attitude.
nozzlegear 5mo ago
> I avoided this book for a long time. for some reason I got it in my head that it's a sort of red pilled book that teaches you how to manipulate people. FWIW this book came out in the 1930s, long before "red pilling" was a thing. I've read it before and it's not about manipulating people unless you consider being a genuinely sincere person to be manipulative in some way. It's a good book, if a little outdated, and, if I could summarize it in one glib sentence, its lesson is "If you want people to like you, then be nice to them, be genuine, and show enthusiasm and interest in what they show enthusiasm and interest in."
- planet36 5mo ago
  And "Remember their name".
  - drivers99 5mo ago
    I remember the book saying something like "a person's name is the most beautiful sound in the world to them." The book may say to say their name back to them (I don't remember right now), but that's not what I took away from it. It reminded me of when people would make fun of my name (first and/or last) or bring up someone famous who has the same first ("Donald Duck") or last name ("are you related Joan Rivers?"), or someone famous who sounds like my first and last name put together (Doc Rivers), and I never thought it was funny. When I see people make fun of other people's names, the recipient never seemed to enjoy it either.
    - smelendez 5mo ago
      Yeah, you also have to remember that someone has heard every possible joke about their name and their appearance a million times. I do think Dale Carnegie overemphasizes the importance of saying people's names, and in fact saying people's names in conversation often sounds forced and manipulative, but maybe that's just a cultural shift over the past century.
      - technothrasher 5mo ago
codelikeawolf 5mo ago
I was in the same boat for a while, but I gave it a shot several years ago when I was doing a lot of driving every day and was powering through audiobooks. This might sound a little hyperbolic, but it actually ended up changing my life in a lot of little positive ways. For example, I used to work with a guy that got made fun of for some of his interests (nothing harsh or super hurtful, just poking fun). I was always really supportive of what he was into and asked questions about it. I wasn't trying to get anything out of it, I just remembered the book and thought it's nice to be nice. When he got married about a year into us working together, I was the only one from our job that he invited to his wedding. > This rant about radiating happiness towards people without expecting something in return... This was one of my main takeaways from the book. I would argue that you do get some things in return: richer relationships with the people you already know, pleasant encounters with people you may not know well, and increased enthusiasm for your own interests compounded by hearing someone else explain how enthusiastic they are about their interests.
triceratops 5mo ago
I've seen many people express the same sentiments about this book. "The title made it seem shady and underhanded and manipulative. But then I read it and it just says to be a genuinely nice person with no agenda. Everyone likes to be friends with that kind of person."
- thijson 5mo ago
  I think that's why people gravitate towards friendly dogs. Dogs have no deception in their intent, and they communicate it physically well before you reach them.
  - saghm 5mo ago
    Animals in general are much more honest than people. They might sometimes engage in minor deceptions (although I sometimes wonder how much of that is projection based on our perceptions of their intentions), but they always make it clear where you stand with them. An animal will never pretend to like you to your face if they actually don't. Obviously it can be useful for humans to be able to deceive like this (e.g. maintaining cordial professional relationships with coworkers who you might never choose to spend time with if you didn't work with them), but as someone who struggles to read social cues and gain confidence about what people actually think of me, it can get exhausting.
mock-possum 5mo ago
It’s been a while since I read it, but I don’t remember it being particularly preachy about why you’d want to make friends or influence people - whether you were doing so out of some nefarious manipulative reason, or out of the genuine human goodness of your heart - I think it’s more just about how to do so. And the ‘how’ generally revolves around just being nice to people - being kind, taking care, noticing, being generous and observant and engaging. The whole idea is that you are good to them, which means they’ll be good to you. All of which I was already intimately familiar with - I actually don’t think I read anything new in that book, it all seemed like pretty standard stuff… but then again there will always be stuff that seems obvious to you, and it a revelation to others. I certainly think you could do much worse than treating others according to how that book instructs.
falsemyrmidon 5mo ago
[dead]
dfxm12 5mo ago
"Machiavellian" is probably a better term for a book that describes how to manipulate people (for your own benefit). I don't think a red pilled book would teach you how to manipulate people. I think it would be an attempt to manipulate you towards a specific (red pilled) view of the world. This rant about radiating happiness towards people without expecting something in return... The narrator explicitly says he gets something in return though. I think it's important to understand that seemingly charitable acts are never 100% altruistic, and while that's not necessarily a moral judgement, it is still important to understand people's motivations for doing things.
- shermantanktop 5mo ago
  As long as you’re open to their motivation being “it makes them feel good” or “they like making other people happy.” The cynical view is that everyone is fundamentally deeply selfish. If you go deep enough, you can convince yourself of that, but you lose what Carnegie talks about. You create your own experience of other people by carrying assumptions like that.
Hnrobert42 5mo ago
I avoided the book after reading it high school and thinking along the same lines. I looked at the suggestions cynically. A college program required I re-read it. That time, I read it as genuine suggestions of good faith actions. In that light, it was fantastic. Almost 30 years later, I still quote from it. Your admirable openness to reconsideration reminds me of, "I could be wrong. I often am. Let's examine the facts."
mtlynch 5mo ago
Oh, I'm glad! Yeah, I don't think you'll find it a red-pill kind of book at all. I know what you mean about books like The 48 Laws of Power feeling like the world is 100% zero sum, so everything is about dominating or outplaying people. How to Win Friends and Influence People is very much focused on win-win. There is an agenda to make friends and influence people, as you'd guess from the title, but the strategies are about taking a genuine interest in people and making them feel good. It's almost 100 years old, so the style is kind of hokey, and only about half the advice resonated with me, but there are 3-4 lessons that had a major impact on me.
- SoftTalker 5mo ago
  I think it's quite clearly the second part of the title. If it was just "How to Win Friends" it might be something more people don't dismiss just based on the title. "... and Influence People" makes it sound like that's the purpose of befriending someone, i.e. getting them to do what you want, or to do something for you.
  - tigen 5mo ago
    It seems to be a rather brilliant piece of marketing to put that phrase in the title. It raises curiosity in a way that a generic "make friends" does not. (The "win" is a subtle move also.) Once the readers are drawn in, whether from base or nobler instincts, the book can try to influence its readers into being nice. Only trouble is that it may push away those who are "already nice" enough to feel bad about manipulating people.
    - gowld 5mo ago
      The book "Getting to Yes" covers similar terrain, from a different angle, but still targeting Win-Win, without sounding as manipulative as "influence people". BTW, Dale Carnagey changed his name to crease a false association with Andrew Carnegie. So there is good reason to distrust Dale and his followers.
    - JohnBooty 5mo ago
      Truthfully (IIRC) the book is more about "Influencing People" than "Making Friends." But, it's about doing it in a genuine way. I think it's puzzling that so many people here attach such a negative connotation to "influencing." I mean, my partner made me really hungry tonight when they cooked dinner and it smelled great. It influenced me. MLK influenced people. Etc. etc.
TheAtomic 5mo ago
My father gave me this book when I was 12 or 13. It unlocked everything, sort of permission for my teen self to put himself out there. Years later, I've made friends all over the world, some have been in my life for more than 3 decades now, and I continue to make new ones basically by initiating a lot of conversations. I look for something to naturally lean into to start with. For example, I saw a guy in the coffee place with his work badge on so I asked, "coming or going [to work]." Kicked off a 30 min conversation about the economy (he worked at a pawn shop as it turns out and knew a lot about gold, regional poverty, etc). Saw him a couple days later and we picked right back up. The other thing I do is keep it soft focused on them, 100%, until they ask me about me. Nothing kills a conversation faster than someone with a conversational agenda, ie, an go-to opinion. Anyway, I wish more people would start random conversations - it really helps build community.
- sebastiennight 5mo ago
  Would you say the reading level of the book is easy enough for a young kid? Did you struggle at all in reading it?
  - pjerem 5mo ago
    It's pretty easy to read (but disclaimer : I read the french translation) but it's still nothing more than a list of useful advices on the topic. So the prerequisite is that you have to be interested by the idea of the book in the first place. But if you are, it's nothing more than a big blog post (a good one).
    - sebastiennight 5mo ago
      Thanks, that's doubly helpful ; I was thinking of gifting the French version and was also concerned the translation might be subpar.
      - pjerem 5mo ago
        No it's ok, it reads like every american self-help book translated in french. The writing style is pretty bland but it's easy to read and the only difference with most of self help books nowadays is that the advices are actually good. The good thing about the absence of style is that the book doesn't feel dated and could have been wrote yesterday.
munchbunny 5mo ago
> for some reason I got it in my head that it's a sort of red pilled book that teaches you how to manipulate people. It's two sides of the same coin. Many techniques in that book are things that both genuinely kind people and manipulators do, the difference is intent. In that sense the idea of the book is a bit of a Rorschach test, although the way the author goes about it makes it pretty clear it wasn't meant to teach manipulation. When I read the book over a decade ago, it did not feel like a red pilled book, it felt like a guide for well-intentioned people to learn how to express that more effectively. On the spectrum between "people orientation" and "task orientation", I was a task oriented person learning how to navigate personal and professional relationships more like a well-adjusted person would, and I suspect I and everyone around me was happier for it.
- butterlesstoast 5mo ago
  I really appreciate this share. It's very honest. Makes me think that anything taken too far can be a bad thing. Pity in its raw form is an incredibly empathetic side of our human nature and can be extraordinary. However, if pity is made a reward system for the people receiving the empathy, it can be used manipulatively. I believe CS Lewis called it "a passion for pity" (I could be wrong).
tekla 5mo ago
Almost like don't judge a book by its cover, just like humans
windowshopping 5mo ago
I was in the same boat as you before I heard enough good things about it that I checked it out. After all, if it was really bad, I would be able to tell as much and stop reading it, nothing lost. I can confirm it's really good. It's not manipulative at all. The book can large be summed up as "if you want other people to care about you and your desires, you need to care about them and theirs and SHOW them that this is the case: here's how."
- hlynurd 5mo ago
  > "if you want other people to care about you and your desires, you need to care about them and theirs and SHOW them that this is the case: here's how." Isn't this highly manipulative?
  - 98codes 5mo ago
    Only if you think of it that way -- making every human interaction purely transactional. Conversely, there's something I've used as a guiding principle for a while now that isn't quite the same, but in the same direction: to receive help, be helpful. Both of these also fall under the greater umbrella of "treat others as you would like to be treated".
  - dpark 5mo ago
    It’s basically “If you want to be liked, you should try to be likable.” Is the only way to not be manipulative to be a curmudgeonly jerk? If being pleasant means being manipulative, then indeed everyone should try to be a bit more manipulative.
    - JohnBooty 5mo ago
      Yeah. It's only wrong if there's deception involved, or a failure to care about the needs of the other.
  - shwaj 5mo ago
    It’s manipulative if you don’t care and pretend you do, especially to achieve a goal of your own. It’s not manipulative if you cultivate the tendency to actually care about others, and not treat them like NPCs who are only important for your goals.
hansvm 5mo ago
It's one of the worst-named books, and it's definitely worth reading. I can't recommend it enough.
ChoosesBarbecue 5mo ago
The book really helped me put things into perspective as a teenager who was habitually "angry", and "on the less adept at social side of things"[0]. Had a much healthier time growing up afterwards. Honestly, I should re-read it. [0]: I am not formally neurodivergent, but I wouldn't be surprised if I was mildly so.
- PaulHoule 5mo ago
  As I teen I had the hardest time finding the "there" there. With my unusual nervous system my expectation was "I know if I tried taking an interest in people all hell would break lose" and it would. I think Covey's 7 Habits of Highly Effective People [1] covers similar ground and is more complete and more specific. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_7_Habits_of_Highly_Effective_People https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_7_Habits_of_Highly_Effecti...
stronglikedan 5mo ago
> they include the name of a person they just met in every sentence because it made that person like them more That's stretching the definition of manipulation a bit. That's more like having (or emulating) charisma, which isn't a bad thing.
zuzululu 5mo ago
Same here I got this book as a present and haven't read it because it felt like one of the PUA/Huckster vibe books. Guess I'm reading it too this weekend.
jrm4 5mo ago
It's great in its simplicity. In a way, it's kind of a sneaky way to make a wholesome point. I mean, the title really really implies something potentially dark. But it's just solid, simple stuff through and though. For me it really hits home that ideas don't have to be new or fresh or amazing to be important. We just need reminders of like, kindergarten ethics.
PaulHoule 5mo ago
See https://www.dailygood.org/story/2216/grief-is-praise-martin-prechtel/ https://www.dailygood.org/story/2216/grief-is-praise-martin-...
jcul 5mo ago
It's a very good book, I haven't read it since I was a kid. The title is unfortunate, and doesn't really reflect the book IMO. It sounds like a seedy way to manipulate people and get what you want. I think a more appropriate title would be "Treat people with kindness and decency and your life will probably be better as a result." Or "A manual for interacting with fellow humans". I need to reread it actually. Edit: It has been decades since I read it, but that is my recollection of it at least.
matwood 5mo ago
I was given this book as a shy kid. I've read it multiple times. It really should be titled, "How To be a Decent Human". Show genuine interest in everyone you come across, and everyone's day ends up much better. I'm still bad at remembering names no matter how many tricks I use, but I'm really good at remembering other people's stories and interests. I also learned that so many people have amazing stories to share, and are just waiting for someone to ask. If being friendly with people is manipulation then I don't really know what to say. I'm more likely to help someone if they are not being a jerk and vice versa.
- 1718627440 5mo ago
  > [The book "How to find friends" should actually be called "How To be a Decent Human"] Well, that's basically the point.
ekropotin 5mo ago
That’s the only book you need to read, really. All modern books on this topic are derivatives of it.
- nico 5mo ago
  It is a great book. I disagree though that all modern books on this are derivatives. I haven’t read many, but The Charisma Myth is a great book on human interactions, that I believe is very novel in its content and approach Maybe a lot of the books do cover some of the same content, but that’s probably because human nature hasn’t changed much since the 30s, when Carnegie published his book
chasd00 5mo ago
If Books Could Kill did an episode on How to Win Friends and Influence People, it's an interesting listen. iirc the book was written by someone documenting what they learned while breaking into high society or some other class they were not a part of. So it's not so much about manipulating people but more about stroking egos and being as agreeable as possible to avoid any conflict. The podcasters make the point that it was written in the 30s when confrontation, being an individual, and sticking up for one's beliefs wasn't really possible while climbing the social ladder. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-to-win-friends-and-influence-people/id1651876897?i=1000729678024 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-to-win-friends-and...
- komali2 5mo ago
  Huh, having read the book and about Dale Carnegie, I completely disagree with that take. There's plenty of stories where he does the opposite of avoiding conflict and faces it straight on - such as when he just ignores a cop's random order for him to keep his dog on a leash at the park.
  - lotsofpulp 5mo ago
    Cop’s telling someone to follow the law is the opposite of random.
    - komali2 5mo ago
      No, it's the definition of random. On the road, what percentage of drivers are violating a law? I would say above 50%. Either speeding, windows tinted too much, driving distracted, having something hanging from their rearview, or not having confirmed all their lights work before driving. Now what percentage of those people actually get "told by a cop to follow the law" in any given day? The same is true for all violations. It's random whether they get enforced - the strongest influence being, where cops are actually deployed, hence why lower income people get snapped up a lot more, since cities tend to put more cops in their neighborhoods.
  - birdsink 5mo ago
alexjplant 5mo ago
> instead that they include the name of a person they just met in every sentence because it made that person like them more. I've never read this book but have learned through cultural osmosis that this practice largely originated from it. I always found it rather stilted and ever since discovering where it came from I view it with a degree of suspicion. A contrasting, more generous reading is that the people who read the book and do this are trying to do more of the "win friends" part than "influence people." I'm also notoriously bad with names so I can't really blame somebody for perhaps trying to use mine verbally to commit it to memory :-).
theredleft 5mo ago
I think you're right to have been uneasy at the title because it's so capitalist in the framing. "Win" friends sounds capitalist, while "influence people" sounds a lot like the vapid propaganda networks we interact with every day
abustamam 5mo ago
It's a classic book but as many others have mentioned in comments, a lot of red pillers use this book as a Bible of sorts, so it's gotten a bit of a bad rap. In my early adulthood I was deep into MLMs and internet marketing and this book was the Bible, but it was a bit tautological because it was assumed that everyone respected and venerated that book, so all the marketing materials (that we had to purchase of course!) referred to the book. Indeed, the best way to get rich quick is to sell get rich quick schemes. On another note, an equally good book that is also used for manipulation is How to argue and win every time by late lawyer Gerry Spence. The book does what it says on the tin but it's more on persuasion methods and framing, which of course can be used for nefarious purposes.
- WalterBright 5mo ago
  > The book does what it says on the tin but it's more on persuasion methods and framing, which of course can be used for nefarious purposes. An interesting result of reading those books is one starts to recognize when one is being manipulated. Just the other day a door-to-door salesman appeared at my door, and he tried a number of classic sales techniques on me. He lacked, however, some accouterments that a legitimate salesman would have, so I had to be pretty firm in saying no.
LPisGood 5mo ago
The book was written well before the internet was invented, but it still warns against exactly that kind of shallow manipulation. The book may as well be called “how to be a cool person that is well liked and people respect”
CaptWillard 5mo ago
I'm curious what "red pilled" means to you. I would think a "red pilled" book would focus on resisting manipulation, specifically emotional manipulation.
- jodrellblank 5mo ago
  https://old.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/x7btd6/what_does_it_mean_to_be_redpillblue_pillblack/ https://old.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/x7btd6/w... In this context it means the alt-right manosphere who 'woke up' to realise that there's no such thing as love, caring, a monogomous committed relationship; that women are conniving shallow cheaters, and that your goal as a 'real man' is to sleep with as many female-objects as possible, no matter what it takess. Your tools are deception, negging, (insincere) flattery, looksmaxing, etc. to present as a 'high-value Alpha male' without actually having to develop a personality or think about others or anything difficult. A book on slick talking influencing people sounds like it fits into that world.
asdfman123 5mo ago
It's unfortunate that we treat all books like that as suspect. The goal isn't to manipulate people, but to connect with them! Give them what they want for a more mutually beneficial end result. People are forgetting how to socialize but being social is more or less a straightforward formula. Sometimes people need a guide. It's not evil or manipulative.
stewx 5mo ago
Read the book. It's good. I have almost finished it and the biggest criticisms you could make of it, IMO, are "this is all just common sense!" or that the techniques, which are all essentially about treating people well and trying to understand their perspectives, could be abused by unscrupulous people. The idea that the teachings could be misused frankly says more about the cynicism of the book's critics than the actual content of the book.
jimmydddd 5mo ago
The book has an unfortunate title. It sounds transactional and manipulative. It could just as well have been named something like "How to communicate well with people."
c22 5mo ago
I haven't read the book but I always try to incorporate people's names into many sentences when they are a new acquaintance as it forces me to remember their name.
malux85 5mo ago
"Manipulation" is a negative form of influence. You can influence people positivly and you can influence people negativly. It's possible to alter peoples behaviour by influencing them in a positive way (for example: Leading by example), in fact, this is the job of any good leader. Changing peoples behaviours isn't always the negative form of manipulation.
ihaveajob 5mo ago
Yes, same here. The title hasn't aged well, I suppose.
janalsncm 5mo ago
I think the association with red pill is probably because men in general read much less than they used to, and the books men do read tend to be nonfiction self-help. However, How to Win Friends was written in an era where self-help didn’t have those connotations at all. There is probably some deeper relationship with current reading trends and contemporary winner-takes-all society, but my impression was that the book was more about middle class aspirations e.g. being charming at a dinner party. Not some kind of Machiavellian social maneuvering like 48 laws of power (“crush your enemies completely”).
heddhunter 5mo ago
No, you were correct to avoid it. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-to-win-friends-and-influence-people/id1651876897?i=1000729678024 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-to-win-friends-and...
deadbabe 5mo ago
You may be confusing this book with the 48 Laws of Power which is absolutely a book no one on hackernews should read because we have enough people in the tech industry scheming to get the upper hand on society as is.
- WalterBright 5mo ago
  I read it and you will soon be under my sway! HAHAHAHHAHHAAAA
- samsepia 5mo ago
  You're selling the book :D
Barbing 5mo ago
Same! The name spam phenomenon turned me off, but if it preaches compliments without expectations it must be my kind of book…
chrisweekly 5mo ago
"Focus on becoming a better person" is the chief lesson I took away from it. Easier said than done, but the 7 habits seem like good ones to me.
JohnBooty 5mo ago
I got it in my head that it's a sort of red pilled book that teaches you how to manipulate people. You're not totally wrong. It's been ages since I read it, but there are parts that feel a little transactional but also many that don't, and it never advocates dishonesty or exploitative behavior or anything like that. (I also view the ability to influence people as independent from morality. It's like learning MMA or hacking or something. They're not inherently "good" or "bad" skills - your morality determines how you'll use them) Ultimately I think it's great and I recommend it. It's certainly cheap enough! I'm sure there are a zillion copies on eBay for like two bucks.
petesergeant 5mo ago
If you enjoy it, I would recommend picking through a lot of the classic Self Help books. They were popular for a reason! Wayne Dyer is a good read, Tony Robbins books are usually great (whatever you think of the author), even the much maligned Seven Habits is a really great book. There's even some pretty decent male-oriented stuff out there, like Iron John, Fire in the Belly, and "King, Warrior, Magician, Lover". Pyscho-Cybernetics by Maxwell Maltz even inspired a Dali painting.
m463 5mo ago
For some reason I thought of the book "What do you care what other people think?" which should be read after "Surely, You're Joking Mr Feynman" Completely unrelated books about curiosity not people skills, but still lots of fun.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
nephihaha 5mo ago
Charles Manson claimed that he had read Carnegie's book while in prison in the fifties, and that it gave him some of the tools to manipulate people...
konschubert 5mo ago
> that teaches you how to manipulate people Well, it's called "... and influence people", so I see where you were coming from in your assumption.
__alexs 5mo ago
> it's a sort of red pilled book that teaches you how to manipulate people. This is not an unfair view of the book IMO. While OPs excerpt is lovely, the core of the book is all about getting people to say yes and do things you want them to do. Carnegie is just so good at this, he's even managed to convince you that he has your best interests at heart by trying to teach you how to do this to people.
user____name 5mo ago
The author is a fascinating figure. Changed his last name from Carnagey to Carnagie for PR benefits and was a lifelong people pleaser. Keep that last thing in mind while you read.
sokka_h2otribe 5mo ago
Certainly an OK book to read. The trouble with this book for me was that it often recommends deferring to the other persons sense of self over your own. There are times this is right, and there are times where it is very shallow. In fact, it can even be very inauthentic & fail to develop your own internal tools. I think if it helps you start something, great! But for me personally at the youthful age I read the book - it was negative. Today I'm sure I could read it and only take the positive. Mostly it depends on whether you think you "must" behave in those ways, or if you "could, sometimes, by choice"

jsksoswk 5mo ago

Well, your instinct is right from the title. “influence” is a euphemism for “manipulate.” Affecting influence is subtle manipulation. A compliment about someone’s hair is great if you genuinely admire their hair. But if you read a book about influencing people and suddenly start complimenting people’s hair, time for some introspection.

bitexploder 5mo ago
I think the idea is to find things true to you to genuinely compliment?
- bayindirh 5mo ago
  The idea is to have genuine compassion without any agenda, actually. Or on a deeper level, just acknowledge people exist, and let them know that their existence is noticed. Nothing more, nothing less.
y1n0 5mo ago
Manipulation is about trickery. Influence does not have to be manipulation. Persuasion through reason is influence.
- babijax 5mo ago
  I think that’s exactly what they’re saying. Influence doesn’t have to be manipulative, but it sure can be. Here’s the difference: Influence for influence sake is selfishly motivated. Doing something charitable garners influence. Influence is a side-effect and not the intended goal—unless it is, and then it’s manipulation. The fact is correct that the word influence is a euphemism for manipulation. The very fact that people are confused about this is case-in-point on the subtlety of the notion.
  - dpark 5mo ago
    > Influence doesn’t have to be manipulative > influence is a euphemism for manipulation Surely you can see that your statements contradict each other. > Influence for influence sake is selfishly motivated. Hard disagree. It certainly can be, but doesn’t have to be. A person can be a positive influence for no other reason than they feel like it’s a good thing to do. You could influence your coworkers to be better engineers and not gain anything from it. I mean, we could retreat to the “oh you feel good about it, so it’s still selfish” stance, but that’s uninteresting.
dpark 5mo ago
> “influence” is a euphemism for “manipulate.” This is exactly what he’s talking about. The premise of the book is essentially, “what if you were a generally nice person who deserved friends”. The whole “you could only possibly pretend to care about other people” response to the book is vaguely psychopathic.
- munchbunny 5mo ago
  > The whole “you could only possibly pretend to care about other people” response to the book is vaguely psychopathic. I prefer to interpret it charitably: the line between influence and manipulation can be pretty fuzzy, and some people come to a conclusion of, basically, "don't do it at all because it's always selfish." I think it's a flawed view because it's impossible to go through life not influencing anyone and not wanting anything from anyone, so you may as well try to do it in a way that is generally win-win or at least not win-lose.
  - dpark 5mo ago
    I think the most charitable interpretation would be that people expressing that view are deeply self-conscious. They are afraid if they followed the advice in the book, they might be perceived as manipulative and they want to avoid that possibility. They hide from that fear by insisting that it actually must be manipulative. Outside of that, I can only see less charitable interpretations. e.g. The idea that the only reason someone could ever compliment another person is to manipulate them says either that the person holding the idea literally can’t imagine interacting positively with someone for non-selfish reasons (psychopathy) or that they hold such low opinion of the rest of humanity that they believe no one else could (misanthropy).
palmotea 5mo ago
> But if you read a book about influencing people and suddenly start complimenting people’s hair, time for some introspection. The book's also apparently about winning friends, as well. And the excerpt above seems to be about getting better at being nice to people without an agenda.
vincston 5mo ago
I think this is a very subjective matter and depends on how negatively connoted someone's perception of the word 'manipulate' is. By your definition, I would consider 'studying/learning' also a form of manipulation.
- jsksoswk 5mo ago
  Did I say not to read the book?
setsewerd 5mo ago
> "influence is a euphemism for manipulate" Strongly disagree with this sentiment. Influence can have a lot of sources, from institutional authority to simply being persuasive, which is distinct from manipulation. In this context influence and persuasion are being used interchangeably, but persuasion is the act of winning someone over to your point of view, so they understand the topic as you do. It respects their autonomy and acknowledges that people can change their mind when presented with different perspectives. Oftentimes, being likeable (or at least respectable) is a prerequisite for getting someone to listen to you in the first place, so it's a central pillar to being influential. Manipulation on the other hand, doesn't respect someone's autonomy. It might involve deception, threats, coercion, etc, but it ultimately aims to make someone do something that they don't want to do. If you're getting a little kid to eat his dinner for instance, persuasion might appeal to his motivations (e.g. having more energy to run faster), while manipulation might look like saying not eating would make his mom sad (guilt tripping), or that he wouldn't get to play with his favorite toy (threat).
- PaulHoule 5mo ago
  I'd argue that {someone who is good at getting desired outcomes} is going to have a toolbox of carrots, sticks, and other things and I think sometimes you are going to be 100% ethically happy with how a situation went and sometimes you are going to feel some conflict between your values. [1] I'm not sure where the line between "manipulation" and "persuasion" is exactly but certainly a person's intent and how they think about themselves and other people has something to do with it. There are many feats that I can do today with ease that my evil twin coveted a few years ago and just couldn't do because he had a bad attitude.

nozzlegear 5mo ago

> I avoided this book for a long time. for some reason I got it in my head that it's a sort of red pilled book that teaches you how to manipulate people. FWIW this book came out in the 1930s, long before "red pilling" was a thing. I've read it before and it's not about manipulating people unless you consider being a genuinely sincere person to be manipulative in some way. It's a good book, if a little outdated, and, if I could summarize it in one glib sentence, its lesson is "If you want people to like you, then be nice to them, be genuine, and show enthusiasm and interest in what they show enthusiasm and interest in."

planet36 5mo ago
And "Remember their name".
- drivers99 5mo ago
  I remember the book saying something like "a person's name is the most beautiful sound in the world to them." The book may say to say their name back to them (I don't remember right now), but that's not what I took away from it. It reminded me of when people would make fun of my name (first and/or last) or bring up someone famous who has the same first ("Donald Duck") or last name ("are you related Joan Rivers?"), or someone famous who sounds like my first and last name put together (Doc Rivers), and I never thought it was funny. When I see people make fun of other people's names, the recipient never seemed to enjoy it either.
  - smelendez 5mo ago
    Yeah, you also have to remember that someone has heard every possible joke about their name and their appearance a million times. I do think Dale Carnegie overemphasizes the importance of saying people's names, and in fact saying people's names in conversation often sounds forced and manipulative, but maybe that's just a cultural shift over the past century.
    - technothrasher 5mo ago

codelikeawolf 5mo ago

I was in the same boat for a while, but I gave it a shot several years ago when I was doing a lot of driving every day and was powering through audiobooks. This might sound a little hyperbolic, but it actually ended up changing my life in a lot of little positive ways. For example, I used to work with a guy that got made fun of for some of his interests (nothing harsh or super hurtful, just poking fun). I was always really supportive of what he was into and asked questions about it. I wasn't trying to get anything out of it, I just remembered the book and thought it's nice to be nice. When he got married about a year into us working together, I was the only one from our job that he invited to his wedding. > This rant about radiating happiness towards people without expecting something in return... This was one of my main takeaways from the book. I would argue that you do get some things in return: richer relationships with the people you already know, pleasant encounters with people you may not know well, and increased enthusiasm for your own interests compounded by hearing someone else explain how enthusiastic they are about their interests.

triceratops 5mo ago

I've seen many people express the same sentiments about this book. "The title made it seem shady and underhanded and manipulative. But then I read it and it just says to be a genuinely nice person with no agenda. Everyone likes to be friends with that kind of person."

thijson 5mo ago
I think that's why people gravitate towards friendly dogs. Dogs have no deception in their intent, and they communicate it physically well before you reach them.
- saghm 5mo ago
  Animals in general are much more honest than people. They might sometimes engage in minor deceptions (although I sometimes wonder how much of that is projection based on our perceptions of their intentions), but they always make it clear where you stand with them. An animal will never pretend to like you to your face if they actually don't. Obviously it can be useful for humans to be able to deceive like this (e.g. maintaining cordial professional relationships with coworkers who you might never choose to spend time with if you didn't work with them), but as someone who struggles to read social cues and gain confidence about what people actually think of me, it can get exhausting.

mock-possum 5mo ago

It’s been a while since I read it, but I don’t remember it being particularly preachy about why you’d want to make friends or influence people - whether you were doing so out of some nefarious manipulative reason, or out of the genuine human goodness of your heart - I think it’s more just about how to do so. And the ‘how’ generally revolves around just being nice to people - being kind, taking care, noticing, being generous and observant and engaging. The whole idea is that you are good to them, which means they’ll be good to you. All of which I was already intimately familiar with - I actually don’t think I read anything new in that book, it all seemed like pretty standard stuff… but then again there will always be stuff that seems obvious to you, and it a revelation to others. I certainly think you could do much worse than treating others according to how that book instructs.

falsemyrmidon 5mo ago

[dead]

dfxm12 5mo ago

"Machiavellian" is probably a better term for a book that describes how to manipulate people (for your own benefit). I don't think a red pilled book would teach you how to manipulate people. I think it would be an attempt to manipulate you towards a specific (red pilled) view of the world. This rant about radiating happiness towards people without expecting something in return... The narrator explicitly says he gets something in return though. I think it's important to understand that seemingly charitable acts are never 100% altruistic, and while that's not necessarily a moral judgement, it is still important to understand people's motivations for doing things.

shermantanktop 5mo ago
As long as you’re open to their motivation being “it makes them feel good” or “they like making other people happy.” The cynical view is that everyone is fundamentally deeply selfish. If you go deep enough, you can convince yourself of that, but you lose what Carnegie talks about. You create your own experience of other people by carrying assumptions like that.

Hnrobert42 5mo ago

I avoided the book after reading it high school and thinking along the same lines. I looked at the suggestions cynically. A college program required I re-read it. That time, I read it as genuine suggestions of good faith actions. In that light, it was fantastic. Almost 30 years later, I still quote from it. Your admirable openness to reconsideration reminds me of, "I could be wrong. I often am. Let's examine the facts."

mtlynch 5mo ago

Oh, I'm glad! Yeah, I don't think you'll find it a red-pill kind of book at all. I know what you mean about books like The 48 Laws of Power feeling like the world is 100% zero sum, so everything is about dominating or outplaying people. How to Win Friends and Influence People is very much focused on win-win. There is an agenda to make friends and influence people, as you'd guess from the title, but the strategies are about taking a genuine interest in people and making them feel good. It's almost 100 years old, so the style is kind of hokey, and only about half the advice resonated with me, but there are 3-4 lessons that had a major impact on me.

SoftTalker 5mo ago
I think it's quite clearly the second part of the title. If it was just "How to Win Friends" it might be something more people don't dismiss just based on the title. "... and Influence People" makes it sound like that's the purpose of befriending someone, i.e. getting them to do what you want, or to do something for you.
- tigen 5mo ago
  It seems to be a rather brilliant piece of marketing to put that phrase in the title. It raises curiosity in a way that a generic "make friends" does not. (The "win" is a subtle move also.) Once the readers are drawn in, whether from base or nobler instincts, the book can try to influence its readers into being nice. Only trouble is that it may push away those who are "already nice" enough to feel bad about manipulating people.
  - gowld 5mo ago
    The book "Getting to Yes" covers similar terrain, from a different angle, but still targeting Win-Win, without sounding as manipulative as "influence people". BTW, Dale Carnagey changed his name to crease a false association with Andrew Carnegie. So there is good reason to distrust Dale and his followers.
  - JohnBooty 5mo ago
    Truthfully (IIRC) the book is more about "Influencing People" than "Making Friends." But, it's about doing it in a genuine way. I think it's puzzling that so many people here attach such a negative connotation to "influencing." I mean, my partner made me really hungry tonight when they cooked dinner and it smelled great. It influenced me. MLK influenced people. Etc. etc.

TheAtomic 5mo ago

My father gave me this book when I was 12 or 13. It unlocked everything, sort of permission for my teen self to put himself out there. Years later, I've made friends all over the world, some have been in my life for more than 3 decades now, and I continue to make new ones basically by initiating a lot of conversations. I look for something to naturally lean into to start with. For example, I saw a guy in the coffee place with his work badge on so I asked, "coming or going [to work]." Kicked off a 30 min conversation about the economy (he worked at a pawn shop as it turns out and knew a lot about gold, regional poverty, etc). Saw him a couple days later and we picked right back up. The other thing I do is keep it soft focused on them, 100%, until they ask me about me. Nothing kills a conversation faster than someone with a conversational agenda, ie, an go-to opinion. Anyway, I wish more people would start random conversations - it really helps build community.

sebastiennight 5mo ago
Would you say the reading level of the book is easy enough for a young kid? Did you struggle at all in reading it?
- pjerem 5mo ago
  It's pretty easy to read (but disclaimer : I read the french translation) but it's still nothing more than a list of useful advices on the topic. So the prerequisite is that you have to be interested by the idea of the book in the first place. But if you are, it's nothing more than a big blog post (a good one).
  - sebastiennight 5mo ago
    Thanks, that's doubly helpful ; I was thinking of gifting the French version and was also concerned the translation might be subpar.
    - pjerem 5mo ago
      No it's ok, it reads like every american self-help book translated in french. The writing style is pretty bland but it's easy to read and the only difference with most of self help books nowadays is that the advices are actually good. The good thing about the absence of style is that the book doesn't feel dated and could have been wrote yesterday.

munchbunny 5mo ago

> for some reason I got it in my head that it's a sort of red pilled book that teaches you how to manipulate people. It's two sides of the same coin. Many techniques in that book are things that both genuinely kind people and manipulators do, the difference is intent. In that sense the idea of the book is a bit of a Rorschach test, although the way the author goes about it makes it pretty clear it wasn't meant to teach manipulation. When I read the book over a decade ago, it did not feel like a red pilled book, it felt like a guide for well-intentioned people to learn how to express that more effectively. On the spectrum between "people orientation" and "task orientation", I was a task oriented person learning how to navigate personal and professional relationships more like a well-adjusted person would, and I suspect I and everyone around me was happier for it.

butterlesstoast 5mo ago
I really appreciate this share. It's very honest. Makes me think that anything taken too far can be a bad thing. Pity in its raw form is an incredibly empathetic side of our human nature and can be extraordinary. However, if pity is made a reward system for the people receiving the empathy, it can be used manipulatively. I believe CS Lewis called it "a passion for pity" (I could be wrong).

tekla 5mo ago

Almost like don't judge a book by its cover, just like humans

windowshopping 5mo ago

I was in the same boat as you before I heard enough good things about it that I checked it out. After all, if it was really bad, I would be able to tell as much and stop reading it, nothing lost. I can confirm it's really good. It's not manipulative at all. The book can large be summed up as "if you want other people to care about you and your desires, you need to care about them and theirs and SHOW them that this is the case: here's how."

hlynurd 5mo ago
> "if you want other people to care about you and your desires, you need to care about them and theirs and SHOW them that this is the case: here's how." Isn't this highly manipulative?
- 98codes 5mo ago
  Only if you think of it that way -- making every human interaction purely transactional. Conversely, there's something I've used as a guiding principle for a while now that isn't quite the same, but in the same direction: to receive help, be helpful. Both of these also fall under the greater umbrella of "treat others as you would like to be treated".
- dpark 5mo ago
  It’s basically “If you want to be liked, you should try to be likable.” Is the only way to not be manipulative to be a curmudgeonly jerk? If being pleasant means being manipulative, then indeed everyone should try to be a bit more manipulative.
  - JohnBooty 5mo ago
    Yeah. It's only wrong if there's deception involved, or a failure to care about the needs of the other.
- shwaj 5mo ago
  It’s manipulative if you don’t care and pretend you do, especially to achieve a goal of your own. It’s not manipulative if you cultivate the tendency to actually care about others, and not treat them like NPCs who are only important for your goals.

hansvm 5mo ago

It's one of the worst-named books, and it's definitely worth reading. I can't recommend it enough.

ChoosesBarbecue 5mo ago

The book really helped me put things into perspective as a teenager who was habitually "angry", and "on the less adept at social side of things"[0]. Had a much healthier time growing up afterwards. Honestly, I should re-read it. [0]: I am not formally neurodivergent, but I wouldn't be surprised if I was mildly so.

PaulHoule 5mo ago
As I teen I had the hardest time finding the "there" there. With my unusual nervous system my expectation was "I know if I tried taking an interest in people all hell would break lose" and it would. I think Covey's 7 Habits of Highly Effective People [1] covers similar ground and is more complete and more specific. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_7_Habits_of_Highly_Effective_People https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_7_Habits_of_Highly_Effecti...

stronglikedan 5mo ago

> they include the name of a person they just met in every sentence because it made that person like them more That's stretching the definition of manipulation a bit. That's more like having (or emulating) charisma, which isn't a bad thing.

zuzululu 5mo ago

Same here I got this book as a present and haven't read it because it felt like one of the PUA/Huckster vibe books. Guess I'm reading it too this weekend.

jrm4 5mo ago

It's great in its simplicity. In a way, it's kind of a sneaky way to make a wholesome point. I mean, the title really really implies something potentially dark. But it's just solid, simple stuff through and though. For me it really hits home that ideas don't have to be new or fresh or amazing to be important. We just need reminders of like, kindergarten ethics.

PaulHoule 5mo ago

See https://www.dailygood.org/story/2216/grief-is-praise-martin-prechtel/ https://www.dailygood.org/story/2216/grief-is-praise-martin-...

jcul 5mo ago

It's a very good book, I haven't read it since I was a kid. The title is unfortunate, and doesn't really reflect the book IMO. It sounds like a seedy way to manipulate people and get what you want. I think a more appropriate title would be "Treat people with kindness and decency and your life will probably be better as a result." Or "A manual for interacting with fellow humans". I need to reread it actually. Edit: It has been decades since I read it, but that is my recollection of it at least.

matwood 5mo ago

I was given this book as a shy kid. I've read it multiple times. It really should be titled, "How To be a Decent Human". Show genuine interest in everyone you come across, and everyone's day ends up much better. I'm still bad at remembering names no matter how many tricks I use, but I'm really good at remembering other people's stories and interests. I also learned that so many people have amazing stories to share, and are just waiting for someone to ask. If being friendly with people is manipulation then I don't really know what to say. I'm more likely to help someone if they are not being a jerk and vice versa.

1718627440 5mo ago
> [The book "How to find friends" should actually be called "How To be a Decent Human"] Well, that's basically the point.

ekropotin 5mo ago

That’s the only book you need to read, really. All modern books on this topic are derivatives of it.

nico 5mo ago
It is a great book. I disagree though that all modern books on this are derivatives. I haven’t read many, but The Charisma Myth is a great book on human interactions, that I believe is very novel in its content and approach Maybe a lot of the books do cover some of the same content, but that’s probably because human nature hasn’t changed much since the 30s, when Carnegie published his book

chasd00 5mo ago

If Books Could Kill did an episode on How to Win Friends and Influence People, it's an interesting listen. iirc the book was written by someone documenting what they learned while breaking into high society or some other class they were not a part of. So it's not so much about manipulating people but more about stroking egos and being as agreeable as possible to avoid any conflict. The podcasters make the point that it was written in the 30s when confrontation, being an individual, and sticking up for one's beliefs wasn't really possible while climbing the social ladder. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-to-win-friends-and-influence-people/id1651876897?i=1000729678024 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-to-win-friends-and...

komali2 5mo ago
Huh, having read the book and about Dale Carnegie, I completely disagree with that take. There's plenty of stories where he does the opposite of avoiding conflict and faces it straight on - such as when he just ignores a cop's random order for him to keep his dog on a leash at the park.
- lotsofpulp 5mo ago
  Cop’s telling someone to follow the law is the opposite of random.
  - komali2 5mo ago
    No, it's the definition of random. On the road, what percentage of drivers are violating a law? I would say above 50%. Either speeding, windows tinted too much, driving distracted, having something hanging from their rearview, or not having confirmed all their lights work before driving. Now what percentage of those people actually get "told by a cop to follow the law" in any given day? The same is true for all violations. It's random whether they get enforced - the strongest influence being, where cops are actually deployed, hence why lower income people get snapped up a lot more, since cities tend to put more cops in their neighborhoods.
- birdsink 5mo ago

alexjplant 5mo ago

> instead that they include the name of a person they just met in every sentence because it made that person like them more. I've never read this book but have learned through cultural osmosis that this practice largely originated from it. I always found it rather stilted and ever since discovering where it came from I view it with a degree of suspicion. A contrasting, more generous reading is that the people who read the book and do this are trying to do more of the "win friends" part than "influence people." I'm also notoriously bad with names so I can't really blame somebody for perhaps trying to use mine verbally to commit it to memory :-).

theredleft 5mo ago

I think you're right to have been uneasy at the title because it's so capitalist in the framing. "Win" friends sounds capitalist, while "influence people" sounds a lot like the vapid propaganda networks we interact with every day

abustamam 5mo ago

It's a classic book but as many others have mentioned in comments, a lot of red pillers use this book as a Bible of sorts, so it's gotten a bit of a bad rap. In my early adulthood I was deep into MLMs and internet marketing and this book was the Bible, but it was a bit tautological because it was assumed that everyone respected and venerated that book, so all the marketing materials (that we had to purchase of course!) referred to the book. Indeed, the best way to get rich quick is to sell get rich quick schemes. On another note, an equally good book that is also used for manipulation is How to argue and win every time by late lawyer Gerry Spence. The book does what it says on the tin but it's more on persuasion methods and framing, which of course can be used for nefarious purposes.

WalterBright 5mo ago
> The book does what it says on the tin but it's more on persuasion methods and framing, which of course can be used for nefarious purposes. An interesting result of reading those books is one starts to recognize when one is being manipulated. Just the other day a door-to-door salesman appeared at my door, and he tried a number of classic sales techniques on me. He lacked, however, some accouterments that a legitimate salesman would have, so I had to be pretty firm in saying no.

LPisGood 5mo ago

The book was written well before the internet was invented, but it still warns against exactly that kind of shallow manipulation. The book may as well be called “how to be a cool person that is well liked and people respect”

CaptWillard 5mo ago

I'm curious what "red pilled" means to you. I would think a "red pilled" book would focus on resisting manipulation, specifically emotional manipulation.

jodrellblank 5mo ago
https://old.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/x7btd6/what_does_it_mean_to_be_redpillblue_pillblack/ https://old.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/x7btd6/w... In this context it means the alt-right manosphere who 'woke up' to realise that there's no such thing as love, caring, a monogomous committed relationship; that women are conniving shallow cheaters, and that your goal as a 'real man' is to sleep with as many female-objects as possible, no matter what it takess. Your tools are deception, negging, (insincere) flattery, looksmaxing, etc. to present as a 'high-value Alpha male' without actually having to develop a personality or think about others or anything difficult. A book on slick talking influencing people sounds like it fits into that world.

asdfman123 5mo ago

It's unfortunate that we treat all books like that as suspect. The goal isn't to manipulate people, but to connect with them! Give them what they want for a more mutually beneficial end result. People are forgetting how to socialize but being social is more or less a straightforward formula. Sometimes people need a guide. It's not evil or manipulative.

stewx 5mo ago

Read the book. It's good. I have almost finished it and the biggest criticisms you could make of it, IMO, are "this is all just common sense!" or that the techniques, which are all essentially about treating people well and trying to understand their perspectives, could be abused by unscrupulous people. The idea that the teachings could be misused frankly says more about the cynicism of the book's critics than the actual content of the book.

jimmydddd 5mo ago

The book has an unfortunate title. It sounds transactional and manipulative. It could just as well have been named something like "How to communicate well with people."

c22 5mo ago

I haven't read the book but I always try to incorporate people's names into many sentences when they are a new acquaintance as it forces me to remember their name.

malux85 5mo ago

"Manipulation" is a negative form of influence. You can influence people positivly and you can influence people negativly. It's possible to alter peoples behaviour by influencing them in a positive way (for example: Leading by example), in fact, this is the job of any good leader. Changing peoples behaviours isn't always the negative form of manipulation.

ihaveajob 5mo ago

Yes, same here. The title hasn't aged well, I suppose.

janalsncm 5mo ago

I think the association with red pill is probably because men in general read much less than they used to, and the books men do read tend to be nonfiction self-help. However, How to Win Friends was written in an era where self-help didn’t have those connotations at all. There is probably some deeper relationship with current reading trends and contemporary winner-takes-all society, but my impression was that the book was more about middle class aspirations e.g. being charming at a dinner party. Not some kind of Machiavellian social maneuvering like 48 laws of power (“crush your enemies completely”).

heddhunter 5mo ago

No, you were correct to avoid it. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-to-win-friends-and-influence-people/id1651876897?i=1000729678024 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-to-win-friends-and...

deadbabe 5mo ago

You may be confusing this book with the 48 Laws of Power which is absolutely a book no one on hackernews should read because we have enough people in the tech industry scheming to get the upper hand on society as is.

WalterBright 5mo ago
I read it and you will soon be under my sway! HAHAHAHHAHHAAAA
samsepia 5mo ago
You're selling the book :D

Barbing 5mo ago

Same! The name spam phenomenon turned me off, but if it preaches compliments without expectations it must be my kind of book…

chrisweekly 5mo ago

"Focus on becoming a better person" is the chief lesson I took away from it. Easier said than done, but the 7 habits seem like good ones to me.

JohnBooty 5mo ago

I got it in my head that it's a sort of red pilled book that teaches you how to manipulate people. You're not totally wrong. It's been ages since I read it, but there are parts that feel a little transactional but also many that don't, and it never advocates dishonesty or exploitative behavior or anything like that. (I also view the ability to influence people as independent from morality. It's like learning MMA or hacking or something. They're not inherently "good" or "bad" skills - your morality determines how you'll use them) Ultimately I think it's great and I recommend it. It's certainly cheap enough! I'm sure there are a zillion copies on eBay for like two bucks.

petesergeant 5mo ago

If you enjoy it, I would recommend picking through a lot of the classic Self Help books. They were popular for a reason! Wayne Dyer is a good read, Tony Robbins books are usually great (whatever you think of the author), even the much maligned Seven Habits is a really great book. There's even some pretty decent male-oriented stuff out there, like Iron John, Fire in the Belly, and "King, Warrior, Magician, Lover". Pyscho-Cybernetics by Maxwell Maltz even inspired a Dali painting.

m463 5mo ago

For some reason I thought of the book "What do you care what other people think?" which should be read after "Surely, You're Joking Mr Feynman" Completely unrelated books about curiosity not people skills, but still lots of fun.

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

nephihaha 5mo ago

Charles Manson claimed that he had read Carnegie's book while in prison in the fifties, and that it gave him some of the tools to manipulate people...

konschubert 5mo ago

> that teaches you how to manipulate people Well, it's called "... and influence people", so I see where you were coming from in your assumption.

__alexs 5mo ago

> it's a sort of red pilled book that teaches you how to manipulate people. This is not an unfair view of the book IMO. While OPs excerpt is lovely, the core of the book is all about getting people to say yes and do things you want them to do. Carnegie is just so good at this, he's even managed to convince you that he has your best interests at heart by trying to teach you how to do this to people.

user____name 5mo ago

The author is a fascinating figure. Changed his last name from Carnagey to Carnagie for PR benefits and was a lifelong people pleaser. Keep that last thing in mind while you read.

sokka_h2otribe 5mo ago

Certainly an OK book to read. The trouble with this book for me was that it often recommends deferring to the other persons sense of self over your own. There are times this is right, and there are times where it is very shallow. In fact, it can even be very inauthentic & fail to develop your own internal tools. I think if it helps you start something, great! But for me personally at the youthful age I read the book - it was negative. Today I'm sure I could read it and only take the positive. Mostly it depends on whether you think you "must" behave in those ways, or if you "could, sometimes, by choice"