How To Win Friends and Influence People

[Stigweard]

Just thought I would throw this up and see what happens

 

How to win friends and influence people.

Dale Carnegie.

 

Part One ~ Fundamental Techniques

1. Don't critcize condemn or complain.

2. Give honest and sincere appreciation.

3. Arouse in the other person an eager want.

 

Part Two ~ Six ways to make people like you.

1. Become genuinely interested in other people.

2. Smile.

3. Remember that a person's name is to that person the sweetest and most important sound in any language.

4. Be a good listener. Encourage others to talk about themselves.

5. Talk in terms of the other person's interests.

6. Make the other person feel important - and do it sincerely.

 

Part Three ~ How to win people to your way of thinking.

1. The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it.

2. Show respect for the other person's opinions. Never say, "You are wrong."

3. If you are wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically.

4. Begin in a friendly way.

5. Get the other person saying, "yes, yes" immediately.

6. Let the other person do a great deal of the talking.

7. Let the other person feel that the idea is his or hers.

8. Try honestly to see things from the other person's point of view.

9. Be sympathetic with the other person's ideas and desires.

10. Appeal to the nobler motives.

11. Dramatize your ideas.

12. Throw down a challenge.

 

Part Four ~ Be a leader.

1. Begin with praise and honest appreciation.

2. Call attention to people's mistakes indirectly.

3. Talk about your own mistakes before critcizing the other person.

4. Ask questions instead of giving direct orders.

5. Let the person save face.

6. Praise the slightest improvement and praise every improvement. Be "hearty in your approbation and lavish in your praise."

7. Give the other person a fine reputation to live up to.

8. Use encouragement. Make the fault easy to correct.

9. Make the other person happy about doing the thing you want.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Stigweard

[Aetherous]

That book is great.

[Mal]

[contrivedname!]

to me these practices seem insincere. i dont think "win friends and influence people" is a very good place to start from mentally. i think if we are sincere we will attract the kind of friends that appreciate sincerity. i think some of those are good guidelines (stigweards), like be a good listener or be sympathetic w/ others ideas and desires, however i believe if you are simply affecting these traits in order to "Win Friends and Influence People" you may not sincerely really care about being a good listener or being sympathetic, you are simply doing so for a precieved benefit to yourself.

 

"...person's name is to that person the sweetest and most important sound in any language" actually reminded me of some neighbors i had some years back. then i was really bad a remembering names, and while i hung out with the neighbors quite a bit, i would always forget their names. this seemed to bug a few of them, but one guy, who coincidentally never called me by my name didnt seem to care. i remember, then making an effort to learn their names and doing so and then one day calling, aaron i believe it was, by name and he says "please dont call me by my name, whenever i heard my name as a kid it was only when i was going to get in trouble" or something like that, so it made sense that he never called me by name and didnt care (or preferred) to not be called by name. this is a small pretty meaningless point at best, but in actual human interactions, ie not via forums, chatting, etc., if some is constantly saying chris this, chris that, hey chris, i feel like, man drop the formality already .

 

as to mal's book, the initial six 'issues' seem to hit on some sociological pointes fairly well, but i dont agree with a lot of the solutions proposed. this one does seem to hit the nail on the head though, "If you don''t control yourself, someone else will" kind of like the idea of following yourself or following the societal standard of how one ought to act, think, etc. a lot of the other techniques, while probably more widely applicable, seem more geared towards leadership and management in a capitalistic sense.

 

in my opinion, it seems that if you are really trying to help a person or even just be their friend, you shouldnt be trying to exert your influence over them, if anything you would want to help them exert influence over themselves, ie get in touch with their own nature. some of the points, especially in "win friends, etc.", seem pretty daoist on the surface, but we know what they say about appearances. i guess my main beef with them is that they both seem geared mainly to benefit the individual practicing them (and their outlook) rather than benefiting the whole (of the situation in which they would be applied).

 

thank you both for bringing up these two, nearly diametrically opposed guidelines to behavior, they paint an interesting dichotomy.

 

chris

[goldisheavy]

Stig,

 

That's a very extremist book. First, friends that you have to win over are false friends. True friends naturally are aligned with your intent and you don't need to win them over by flattery and cajoling. When you meet a true friend, it's like meeting a long lost brother. You know each other right away and you don't need to bullshit or "appreciate" each other to become friends. You know right away where you stand, as there is an instant connection.

 

There is place for politeness and basic generic friendliness, but this should not be confused with friendship. You should be friendly to strangers, if the mood allows. If your mood is foul, it's better to avoid fake attempts at friendliness, and better to either enjoy the foul mood, or if you're not enjoying it, improve it. Once the mood is good, then you can be naturally friendly to people. But this natural friendliness has nothing to do with friendship.

 

It's like saying that to make love to girls, you have to undress them and touch their pee-pee. There's some truth to it, but the amount of truth is tiny in proportion to deception. Your book, Stig, sounds like that. It covers the superficial outward aspects of ego-based friendship. It basically says, boost the ego in every way you can, and MEAN it too, don't just pretend. So not only do you need to boost another person's ego, but you can't even pretend while doing it, you have to swallow your own kool-aid too. That's terrible.

 

I've had over a thousand of friends in my life and many deep true friends. Take it from me, friendship is one place where you go to escape the artifice of life. If you start your friendship with flattery, and if you then must make yourself believe your own bullshit in the process, you start on the wrong foot. When something cool or neat arises, you can notice it. You don't have to set out to look for aspects to complement on. Just let it arise naturally, if it's there. If not, be silent. Friend is someone you feel at ease with. Friend is NOT someone you have to abide by the rules of society. Friend is not someone who demands you abide by the rules of polite behavior. And you don't attract truth by lies. You don't fuck for virginity.

[trailmaker]

Stig,

 

That's a very extremist book. First, friends that you have to win over are false friends. True friends naturally are aligned with your intent and you don't need to win them over by flattery and cajoling. When you meet a true friend, it's like meeting a long lost brother. You know each other right away and you don't need to bullshit or "appreciate" each other to become friends. You know right away where you stand, as there is an instant connection.

 

There is place for politeness and basic generic friendliness, but this should not be confused with friendship. You should be friendly to strangers, if the mood allows. If your mood is foul, it's better to avoid fake attempts at friendliness, and better to either enjoy the foul mood, or if you're not enjoying it, improve it. Once the mood is good, then you can be naturally friendly to people. But this natural friendliness has nothing to do with friendship.

 

It's like saying that to make love to girls, you have to undress them and touch their pee-pee. There's some truth to it, but the amount of truth is tiny in proportion to deception. Your book, Stig, sounds like that. It covers the superficial outward aspects of ego-based friendship. It basically says, boost the ego in every way you can, and MEAN it too, don't just pretend. So not only do you need to boost another person's ego, but you can't even pretend while doing it, you have to swallow your own kool-aid too. That's terrible.

 

I've had over a thousand of friends in my life and many deep true friends. Take it from me, friendship is one place where you go to escape the artifice of life. If you start your friendship with flattery, and if you then must make yourself believe your own bullshit in the process, you start on the wrong foot. When something cool or neat arises, you can notice it. You don't have to set out to look for aspects to complement on. Just let it arise naturally, if it's there. If not, be silent. Friend is someone you feel at ease with. Friend is NOT someone you have to abide by the rules of society. Friend is not someone who demands you abide by the rules of polite behavior. And you don't attract truth by lies. You don't fuck for virginity.

 

 

i used to teach high school, and all of the above fits right into the application of method that a teacher must

get good at if one is to have success (and fun).

[Aetherous]

I think the two books could easily work in unison. Haven't read the Infuriate People one yet, though.

 

Anyone who has had to deal with a very annoying person, in a work situation (like if they're your boss) or wherever else...How to Win Friends and Influence People is priceless. You can turn bad situations into decent ones, and make other people's days enjoyable...how very Taoist! They will stop being so annoying because of your actions. It works.

 

I agree that real friendships have a magical quality that you have no control over. And that you should be true with your good friends, and not keep up some kind of act. After having read the book, I don't see it as a science. You don't need to apply it mechanically and expect the best results (although even that works). It's just a bunch of ideas, and stories to support those ideas. So just keep the ideas in mind as you go around 'being yourself', and it helps you change your attitudes.

[Mal]

[Stigweard]

My perception on this book is in line with something I mentioned over in the Virtue is... thread:

Virtue should not be considered as an artificial system of morals or ethics. It is the spontaneous expression of one's personality when one is living true to one's nature. It is the healthy emanation of a wholesome being.

 

However, a symptomatic outcome of our society is that very few of us are living anywhere close to our own true nature ... we have become denatured by the contrivances of our culture.

 

So what are we to do?

 

It is to this last question that the Taoist teachings respond.

 

Classics like the Tao Teh Ching and authenic cultivation practices like Taijiquan are the virtuous expression of the ancient sages. They serve both as a mirror, revealing to us the unnecessary artifices of our own minds, and as a guide, helping us make the necessary corrections, helping us reattune with our own true nature.

 

My illumination of wholesome virtues in this thread is my own personal practice aspiring to the same purpose.

 

Rediscovering virtue/true nature is, perhaps literally, like someone rediscovering Taiji movement. At first we are all tense and rigid with the artificialness of our conditioned state. Then under the guidance of a good teacher we learn the external forms and, after much practice, we work further and further into the core. After much more practice we may eventually rediscover Taiji ... virtue ... true nature.

 

In answer directly to your question: "When we try to cultivate virtues, don't we break the balance, make things more polarized?"

 

Individual virtues are like the individual movements in the Taijiquan form, these movements are the visible expression of Taiji, the essence. Instead of 'cultivating virtues' you should focus on cultivating or achieving your unified personal nature, your essence. Wholesome virtues will be the natural expression of this attainment.

 

However, just like Taiji, sometimes we have to 'fake it until we make it'. What I mean by this is that through diligent study and practice of the individual movements we hope to gain insight into the essence of Taiji. Just so, by diligently and consciously practicing individual virtues we can gain insight into our true nature.

 

Once Taiji is embodied individual movements become Wu Wei, 'doing without conscious effort'; once true nature is embodied individual virtues also become Wu Wei.

 

True it is that "How To Win Friends and Influence People" is an 'external' model of behaviour. However if the the principles of this book had been employed by some on this forum then I am quite certain that several unfortunate conflicts would have been averted.

 

[goldisheavy]

However if the the principles of this book had been employed by some on this forum then I am quite certain that several unfortunate conflicts would have been averted.

 

 

This tells me a lot about your values. You prefer superficial peace to honest conflicts.

 

It kind of reminds me about the "good luck" story with the horses. You don't know if the conflicts are fortunate or unfortunate because the story is not yet finished. As more chapters are added to the story, how the conflicts are seen is changing. So don't jump to conclusions too quickly. Conflicts are good if they are honest.

 

If people create conflicts for trivial and petty reasons, that's one thing. But if a person has an honest disagreement and believes that discussing it is for the best, that's a different matter. Life can't all be smooth. Not every tree has birch's bark. Some trees are oaks and they are just as Tao as anything else. In fact oak gives more shade, even though it has a rough bark. Birch gives less shade, but birch juice is tasty. Everything has its own benefit place and time in nature.

Edited March 24, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Stigweard]

This tells me a lot about your values. You prefer superficial peace to honest conflicts.

 

It kind of reminds me about the "good luck" story with the horses. You don't know if the conflicts are fortunate or unfortunate because the story is not yet finished. As more chapters are added to the story, how the conflicts are seen is changing. So don't jump to conclusions too quickly. Conflicts are good if they are honest.

 

If people create conflicts for trivial and petty reasons, that's one thing. But if a person has an honest disagreement and believes that discussing it is for the best, that's a different matter. Life can't all be smooth. Not every tree has birch's bark. Some trees are oaks and they are just as Tao as anything else. In fact oak gives more shade, even though it has a rough bark. Birch gives less shade, but birch juice is tasty. Everything has its own benefit place and time in nature.

 

Yes thank you for reminding me of the "good luck" story. Perhaps I was too quick to label something as 'unfortunate'. And likewise you are perhaps too rash Gold with your assumptions about my 'values'.

 

I will also question the notion that there is any such thing as an 'honest conflict'. To engage in conflict aren't creating a seperation of conciousness in order to percieve that there are forces in opposition? Aren't we in fact being dishonest when we try and create the illusion of right and wrong?

[jaloo]

This tells me a lot about your values. You prefer superficial peace to honest conflicts.

 

It kind of reminds me about the "good luck" story with the horses. You don't know if the conflicts are fortunate or unfortunate because the story is not yet finished. As more chapters are added to the story, how the conflicts are seen is changing. So don't jump to conclusions too quickly. Conflicts are good if they are honest.

 

If people create conflicts for trivial and petty reasons, that's one thing. But if a person has an honest disagreement and believes that discussing it is for the best, that's a different matter. Life can't all be smooth. Not every tree has birch's bark. Some trees are oaks and they are just as Tao as anything else. In fact oak gives more shade, even though it has a rough bark. Birch gives less shade, but birch juice is tasty. Everything has its own benefit place and time in nature.

 

Interesting post. I can't argue that at times conflict may bring forth benefit and its hard to see the full play of any interaction. In my opinion though, it can be very hard to be sure your not just creating conflict to make sure your opinion gets across (an ego driven conflict) vs. stirring up conflict for the benefit of another being.

[thelerner]

This tells me a lot about your values. You prefer superficial peace to honest conflicts.

 

Seems to me, the opposite of an honest conflict is a dishonest one. I think the dishonest conflict is the foe. Honest conflict welcomes debate and opposing views. A good conflict is one where there's a meeting of the minds, a problem is turned over; both sides may stay where they are, but both are better for the discussion.

 

There's a dishonest conflict when ego's get involved and it quickly becomes a pissing contest. The question becomes secondary to name calling, at worst it becomes 'if you believe that then something is wrong w/ you'. And that is at the heart of a dishonest conflict.

 

Take this topic. Mal disagreed w/ Stigweard and brought up a book diametrically opposed. Some found the rules manipulative, others found value in the everyday use of its them, not for making 'friends' but in smoothing out everyday relations w/ people. To me that's good stuff, conflicting thoughts mixed together, mutual sorting out of good and bad, learning all around.

 

Dishonest conflicts involve passive aggression and innuendo, going from discussing a problem, to insulting others who don't hold your views.

 

 

Michael

[goldisheavy]

And likewise you are perhaps too rash Gold with your assumptions about my 'values'.

 

Point taken.

 

I will also question the notion that there is any such thing as an 'honest conflict'. To engage in conflict aren't creating a seperation of conciousness in order to percieve that there are forces in opposition? Aren't we in fact being dishonest when we try and create the illusion of right and wrong?

 

Right and wrong is complicated. It's illusion and it's not, depending on how you look at it. For example, let's say I enjoy beer and dislike wine. Is drinking beer right and drinking wine wrong? And if I think that, is it an illusion?

 

That's actually a complicated question. The answer will depend on what I expect. For example, if I think that drinking beer is right, do I mean that all beers are good? If I that's what I mean, then imagine one day I drink a foul beer and it turns out badly, so I am disappointed by my self-imposed right/wrong maxim. In that case I think we should say I was under the spell of illusion. The same thing can happen if I refuse to drink wine, because it's wrong, but one day out I drink one glass for pretentious reasons, only to find I enjoy it! This time the disappointment comes again, because I am thinking, gee, what else have I been missing all this time due to my narrow-minded right/wrong framework? So again this shows the illusory nature of some beliefs.

 

But if I don't take my "drinking beer is right" too seriously, then when I drink a foul beer, I am not disappointed. And if I don't take "drinking wine is wrong" too seriously, and I continually dabble in wine here and there, I am not surprised if a good one turns up and I don't feel like I am missing out. This way I am participating in something illusory in a way that doesn't lead to disappointment, and so because I don't feel deceived or cheated, I don't call this illusion. It's kind of like going to a stage magician's show knowing you're going to see "fake" tricks for the sake of entertainment. So on one hand, those are illusions, but on the other hand, you're under no illusion when you observe those illusions for what they are.

 

In life we all want some things, don't we? I think it's only honest to admit to it. Even the most detached person has passion. For example a detached person has passion for phenomena that are concomitant with non-attachment. Just look, for example, what praise Buddha Gotama has lavished on experiences of Jhanas. And so on.

 

Once you admit that you want something, you realize someone else may want something that's in conflict with what you want. What to do then? It's not an easy question. Please don't trivialize it.

 

My answer to this is to discuss the differences. When we discuss those differences, we implicitly say, "I value you to some extent, even if you disagree." It's honest. It doesn't mean "I value you no matter what." That's a lie. And it doesn't mean "If you disagree you are worthless." It's a middle way between these extremes. It's a place where we come to see if either we can build a bridge, or at least, can we co-exist peacefully without resolving our disagreements?

 

If only the polite and the agreeable members are valued in a community, it's like a marriage where you only value your partner as long as they are having a good day and remain sweet. The second your partner farts in your face or has a bad day, you throw them on the street. That's not "for better or for worse". That's just "for better or get lost" marriage. And a community is really like marriage. If you want a genuine community, you must welcome disagreement into it. You must welcome cranky people. You must welcome upset people. You must welcome disagreeable and somewhat foul people into it. There IS some limit to this of course, but I think one needs to keep in mind, "for better or for worse."

 

Think of it this way. If community is our celestial body, how would you treat it? Compare it with your body. Imagine if your body feels good, and you are happy. So you like it. Then one day your body aches. Do you commit suicide right away? I sure hope not. But at the same time, I can see some rare cases where the pain is so great that an euthanasia is acceptable. But it's not the 1st or the 2nd or even the 20th option on the list. It's way down the list for the cases that are unresolvable in any other way, IMO. The point is, when we have our body, we commit to our body not only if it feels good, but also if it feels a little bad too. And we love ourselves even if we feel bad. The same should be true of the community. We should love our community not only on the days everyone agrees, but also on the days when people argue.

 

Some found the rules manipulative, others found value in the everyday use of its them, not for making 'friends' but in smoothing out everyday relations w/ people. To me that's good stuff, conflicting thoughts mixed together, mutual sorting out of good and bad, learning all around.

 

The book is about influencing people. It's unfortunate that "win friends" is also part of the title. It's well known, it's well documented, and it's common knowledge that flattery works as a method of influence over most people. It's only very rare people that get turned off by flattery.

 

The book tells you in straightforward manner that you need to boost and validate other person's ego. And ego is all it is. It's all ego. Even humility is ego. A humble person thinks, "I am better because I am humble. The other guy is not humble, so he's a moron." There is hypocrisy inherent in humility. A truly humble person doesn't even know what the hell is or is not humble. They can't even understand that measurement and don't find it useful in day to day life. Anyone who can tell a humble person apart from a non-humble one is an arrogant person and a hypocrite. It just takes a little insight to see why that must be so. It's kind of like the people who always ask everyone to drop the ego are the ones that are the biggest egomaniacs in the crowd. Same thing.

 

If you want to influence people just for the sake of influencing them or to get things for yourself, that's a wrongheaded approach. If as part of being who you are people become influenced, that's correct. In the correct case you don't produce an intent to influence people per se. You produce an intent to manifest your highest right, and that's it.

Edited March 24, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Stigweard]

A good conflict is one where there's a meeting of the minds, a problem is turned over; both sides may stay where they are, but both are better for the discussion.

My answer to this is to discuss the differences. When we discuss those differences, we implicitly say, "I value you to some extent, even if you disagree." It's honest. It doesn't mean "I value you no matter what." That's a lie. And it doesn't mean "If you disagree you are worthless." It's a middle way between these extremes. It's a place where we come to see if either we can build a bridge, or at least, can we co-exist peacefully without resolving our disagreements?

 

From my view what you are both describing is my idea of a discussion, and, just like yourselves, I enjoy a good discussion as much as anyone.

 

Conflict however quite literally means "to strike together" and to "dash down and crush". It is two, or more, forces in diametric opposition with the intent of one side claiming ascendancy. It is a win-lose scenario.

 

The book is about influencing people. It's unfortunate that "win friends" is also part of the title. It's well known, it's well documented, and it's common knowledge that flattery works as a method of influence over most people. It's only very rare people that get turned off by flattery.

Part One ~ Fundamental Techniques

2. Give honest and sincere appreciation.

 

Part Four ~ Be a leader.

1. Begin with praise and honest appreciation.

 

There is a difference, a very fundamental differance between the cheap praise of flattery and the sincere action of love which is appreciation.

The book tells you in straightforward manner that you need to boost and validate other person's ego. And ego is all it is. It's all ego. Even humility is ego. A humble person thinks, "I am better because I am humble. The other guy is not humble, so he's a moron." There is hypocrisy inherent in humility. A truly humble person doesn't even know what the hell is or is not humble. They can't even understand that measurement and don't find it useful in day to day life. Anyone who can tell a humble person apart from a non-humble one is an arrogant person and a hypocrite. It just takes a little insight to see why that must be so. It's kind of like the people who always ask everyone to drop the ego are the ones that are the biggest egomaniacs in the crowd. Same thing.

 

If you want to influence people just for the sake of influencing them or to get things for yourself, that's a wrongheaded approach. If as part of being who you are people become influenced, that's correct. In the correct case you don't produce an intent to influence people per se. You produce an intent to manifest your highest right, and that's it.

Your comments here I find agreement with. Boosting someone else's ego can certainly be not such a desirable thing. But what if by boosting a villain's ego he doesn't put a bullet through someone's skull? Is that wrong then?

 

And this quite nicely circles back around to the 'good luck' story in that we can not judge this book as good/bad, fortunate/unfortunate, right/wrong. There are gifts of empowerment present in this text but as always our prudence and discernment must be in play.

Edited March 24, 2009 by Stigweard

[goldisheavy]

I want to clarify something I said, because I don't think I said it well. Originally I said

 

If you want to influence people just for the sake of influencing them or to get things for yourself, that's a wrongheaded approach. If as part of being who you are people become influenced, that's correct. In the correct case you don't produce an intent to influence people per se. You produce an intent to manifest your highest right, and that's it.

 

I want to restate this. What I mean is that who we are is a complicated organism. In this complicated organism I don't think we can understand all the interdependencies, and so it's wrong to try to get this organism to do what you want by twiddling locally with this or that local aspect. Influencing a person is like twiddling with some knob on a machine you don't understand. A person who you have "influenced" to do what you want, can then turn around and do a lot more things against you than if you never "influenced" them in the first place. A simple example. Suppose you butter someone up, but then one time you find the need to be frank. So you say something frank that's less than flattering, and blammo the person explodes, cause you've set up their expectation on flattery and suddenly you're not singing that tune. So there is a backlash! Now, had you never buttered this person up in the first place, it wouldn't be as shocking to that person to hear something frank from you. A lot of times influencing people gives short-term benefit but digs a hidden long term hole somewhere that we're going to fall into sooner or later.

 

So I was saying it's best not to try to micro-manage reality by influencing people in a twiddly manner. People are not like knobs on a music equalizer. They're not meant to be twiddled.

 

You can't take something false and make it genuine. It's silly to say "compliment the person AND mean it". What does that say? Why does the author have to say "and mean it?" So it means it's not a natural assumption! It means that had the author not said "and mean it", a large percentage of readers would just pile up flattery. So this same percentage of readers who understand compliments as flattery read the additional "and mean it" and what do they think? They think they have to trick themselves into believing that flattery is honest... That's totally wrong. That's like taking a problem and making it worse. Now you have two problems instead of just one.

 

I hope this is better explained.

Edited March 24, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Stigweard]

[goldisheavy]

Stig,

 

Those quotes paint a much different (much better!) picture than does the table of contents. Based on the table of contents I had some negative impressions. Now that I read those quotes, I think the full book would have to be read to determine the real value, if any.

[Stigweard]

Stig,

 

Those quotes paint a much different (much better!) picture than does the table of contents. Based on the table of contents I had some negative impressions. Now that I read those quotes, I think the full book would have to be read to determine the real value, if any.

I agree with you 100%. For a long while I felt the same negative impressions about this book as you did. Until I finally bought an audiobook version of it and was pleasantly surprised at what I discovered. Of course I was extra impressed when the author started quoting Lao Tzu!

 

[Mal]

[goldisheavy]

[Mal]

[WhiteTiger]

Mal, what you've said is so far extremely interesting.

 

Although YOU play the game where you seem on the surface as well... a vulgar player and not much of a high level cultivator.

 

I should not just try to look deeper but actually DO take time to look deeper.