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 It's a good book, if a little outdated, and, if I could summarize it in one glib sentence, its lesson is "If you want people to like you, then be nice to them, be genuine, and show enthusiasm and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."
Bill & Ted said it most pithily: be excellent to each other.
I ask because I'm bad at conversation. I hear this "genuinely care" and I just, usually, can't get myself to do it. I don't care. I would like to have a nice conversation and I try to care in the moment but the odds are pretty high that 5 minutes after it's over I'll not even know their name and move on with my life. That's not "genuine care" to me.
I'd argue that there is a very strong value in doing something good, not just because it's genetically or socially imprinted on you, but because you actually decide to do it.
This applies to everything, there is no merit in being good at something just because you were born that way.
I would posit that no, it is not. And it's not even unambiguously a good thing. There are plenty of cultures where people are described as cold until you get to know them, but once you do - they'd die for you. To me, that is genuine care. The American "Hiii! How ARE you? I don't actually care if you keel over and die!" approach feels fake.
I think the idea is that if the stranger on the bus has a haircut you genuinely find to be wonderful: tell them about it. You don't need to force yourself to be nice, just take action on the things you're genuinely excited to do.
And if you don't ever want to be nice to people, then you have some digging and reflection to do (including about if/when you are nice to yourself).
When someone else has that spark, and their eyes sparkle, and they beam as they talk about "their interest"? Idk, I love that. It makes me feel good to hear them. I feel like we both come away better for the conversation.
I guess not everyone is like this?
That being said, if you go through a bit of game theory and apply it to the real world - the experience of the last few millennia of recorded history is the strategy most likely to get people what they want is lots of communication and setting up win-win deals for everyone. Someone who reliably offers win-win deals has a natural advantage over the more common person who thinks in terms of win-lose deals. Communities that make a habit of setting up win-win deals for their members have an overwhelming advantage over those that don't. If you tap in to that type of thinking it tends to translate into taking a real interest in how other people are going because it is easier to set win-win deals up if you know what their problems and goals are. And a sensible sub-strategy is making sure to be as kind as possible to everyone to get into the habit of thinking empathically and keep channels of communication as open as possible.
So if "genuine care" means you literally feel something... nobody has much use for your feelings, we can't tell what your feelings are anyway and you probably can't call them up on demand. If "genuine care" means you try to figure out what other people want and then help them get it then that's simply good strategy and most people should find their way to it if they think about it for long enough. Some people have to think a bit harder than others and there are a few rare maniacs who really just want to cause pain and suffering. The maniacs are bad news.
1. You don't care about X until you do. Like, you can go for years without worrying cholesterol. And then you can have a reason to care about it and all of a sudden you do. The reason can come from something that forces your hand or just because you take an interest in a subject.
2. Altruism. Think less about care and more just doing without expecting anything back. People notice, especially with selfless conversation.
Personally, salespeople have randomly complimented me and repeated my name over and over, and on the receiving end it weirded me out. So the problem is that in certain situations there is an overarching "what did you want to get out of that person?". Don't be those people.
Strike up conversations because you enjoy people and their stories.
(Poor Charlie's Almanack, Charlie Munger)
Also, there are counterexamples to that person's claim, such as the film Before Sunrise, which is an excellent romance film that doesn't involve an arc where the characters are indifferent or dislike each other at first. The films Sideways and even Office Space defy that trope as well.
Even they said that he seemed to be a pretty alright guy who was genuinely nice to people in his personal life, not just in his public persona.
"The airport bestsellers that captured our hearts and ruined our minds"
He was as nice as they can be for a white man living in 1930. Good for fellow white men, not good for anybody female or a different skin tone.
But the book has been changed over time to make it seem like he was always an "pretty alright guy"
I need to read it again, I think about it a few handful of times a year, many years later.
Like, I don't even disagree with what he wrote, but most of the stuff just felt a little out of place and intruding on people who generally want to be left alone or keep it to small talk on a different level.
but long after The Prince was a thing.
No literal red-pill as in the Matrix but the ideas that mainstream "red-pilling" espouses are those of The Prince.
Inspiration for the red pill (which represents choosing knowledge, however ugly, over pleasant ignorance) would be more like... the apple in the Garden of Eden. Or the Allegory of the Cave maybe. Or Alice in Wonderland (which Morpheus directly mentions in the Matrix)
Redpillers latched onto that red pill imagery because they view themselves as, you know, having the best grasp on reality. Unlike the poor ignorant masses. Or so they believe.
"Redpilled" views do have some things in common with Realpolitik, and The Prince, in the sense that they're kind of nakedly amoral and rather ugly.
Its kind of weird they have such degratory views on sex and
gender, given the directors of their favorite movie they
cant stop talking about.
This is exactly what suave people do to get to know strangers outside of professional context. It's a common TV/movie trope. Asking a stranger's name puts them on the defensive.
At my current office, there is a staff "phonebook" that also uses people's ID badge photo. At this agency, there are about 400 people working here. Plus about 300 more seasonal staff in the "busy season".
If there are "team" photos, see if you can get one and write names on it. You'll get a lot less static from HR if you let them know you have a hard time remembering names and ask them to help you write the names down.
- neighbour watering lawn Jack, wife Gemma, daughter Jane
Then I try to remember it later in the day and confirm with the note. I do that the next couple days and it's locked in and I can delete the note.
Just a quick note somewhere (phone is easy-enough, or for a long time I carried a waterproof Field Notes notebook with a Fisher Space Pen and that worked a bit better), to be reviewed later.
Maybe that review happens an hour from now. Maybe it happens in a week, or a month. Or maybe all of these. Refreshers are good.
I don't even have to write much, if anything, about the person; the mere act of taking down the names usually helps a ton with my ability to recall the context later.
If I can remember when and where I took that note (which I can often do very easily), then the rest of the details fill themselves in quite nicely.
(I don't erase the notes, so as to let them remain useful to me later. I don't care if that creeps anyone out; my intentions are pure and the problem I'm trying to solve is very real. Its creep-value is really no worse than the contact lists that I've transferred between cell phones, pocket computers, and now pocket supercomputers for nearly a quarter of a century.)
I just delete the ones from mine after a while since they aren't needed and makes it more likely to lose focus on the new ones I'm still actively remembering.
I started out by anticipating that somebody would tell me their name at some point and repeating it in my head a few times when I heard it in the conversation. It helps to round off the conversation with "thanks $NAME, pleasure meeting you." so the name is something that gets used and isn't a bit of stale trivia. After the exchange I'd consciously go through what their name was and what they said, trying to attach associations to it. You've got to give them some space in your head. It was kind of a ritual I'd do, like how before I go out I do the "wallet, keys, phone" thing. Now I just do it automatically because of all the repetition.
Honestly I think the biggest things are:
- remembering to make the effort - the anticipation of hearing it, and - using of the name
First, you need to put yourself in situations where you can practice learning and remembering people's names. At the start of college, I had read How to Win Friends & Influence people and it directly influenced me to try and learn how to remember people's names. This was a very good environment for this, I was constantly meeting people, and wouldn't it be nice if I made a good impression on them! Conversely, hard to practice the skill if you aren't meeting people often. It's also not a permanent skill for me, and if I fall into a routine without meeting many new people, then it's not as easy, but thankfully still comes back soon after.
The next thing was that I wasn't trying to remember somebody's name, I was habitually checking during the initial conversation to see if I had forgotten it. Depending on the culture you are in, you have about 15 minutes after meeting someone to ask them their name again, as almost certainly they have forgotten yours, people are not good at this. It's an easy way to indicate that you are interested in continuing to know them, it's social, polite and even charming at times, as why else would you want to know their name if you didn't want to contact them in the future because they're good people? So a few minutes, then ten minutes, then a half hour, you check if you know it, and ask if you don't. That's easier to remember for me, than to remember somebody's specific name.
I have kept a daily journal for most of my adult life, and it's more or less write only, I don't often go back and read it, and often cannot, my handwriting is so bad. But it's helpful on days when I need to write things out, and it's another useful habit in learning to remember names. At the end of the days when I was really training this skill, I made myself write down the names of everyone I had met that day. This was often difficult, and I remember getting headaches doing it at times, trying to write down the names of 20 or 30 people at a time. However, it helped set the expectation that I would remember everyone's names, and that reinforced the behaviors.
I did find that I developed chunking of names for lack of a better term. I would remember names in order of where I met them and maybe even which part of a room I was in. Not unlike a mind palace, but not something I really tried to do consciously. Just the idea of remembering I met Grace, Alice and Bob in that order at this party.
After that, just try and do your best for a couple months and it will improve without a doubt. People tell me they are bad at remembering names, and I ask them honestly, how hard do you try to remember them? Even a little bit of effort goes a very long way here.
What I will say is that I have difficulty learning somebody's name in two specific scenarios, beyond it being a bit harder as I get into my thirties now. If I am on zoom, it does not work at all the same. Their names are right there and so I never really feel the need to learn it and I can feel that I don't really know it. The second is that if I have to learn the name at the same as learning that it is a specific persons name, then I struggle with it. That is to say, if it's a name that is foreign to me, it's harder for me to remember, and so I have a habit of asking them to say it again right off the bat. I'm living in a different country now than before, and I can tell that I've gotten more used to the names and language with the time as it is easier for me to remember most of the people's names now. The trickiest ones for me at times are not putting together names that sound very similar together mentally but are in fact spelled and pronounced differently.
With that, that's all my tricks. I am pretty happy with it and it's served me pretty well over the years. I never turned into one of those freaks with the excel spreadsheets full of names and birthdays though ;) That's a step beyond me, and I'm just not socially diligent enough to keep that up long term yet. Good luck!
Yoshihiro or Yoshiyuki would likely be called Yoshi by their friends.
I completely support the defensive adoption of a sardonic butler-persona for everybody on the other side of a cash-register. :p
"Why should I have to change? He's the one who sucks!"
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.
But, yeah, it usually sets off my spidey sense when somebody keeps using my first name in conversation. It's just seems weirdly unnecessary, so it makes me wonder why they're doing it.
Doc Rivers is an awesome name though.
I'm convinced that 99% of the people who criticize or even just talk about that book have never actually read it, and have zero idea what they're talking about. It's just in that Ayn Rand bucket of books that people talk about, because they see other people getting likes and upvotes for it.
In general I am of the opinion that a happy woman is a happy woman and that this doesn't look fundamentally different in 2026 than it did in 1926.
This is the big one. People like to talk about themselves, and often use others' stories to segue it into something about themselves.
I realized at some point if you can avoid doing that, and instead commit yourself to investing in a person's story - ask questions, make comments, etc, they'll think the world of you and often won't even realize why.
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.
Well, that's basically the point.
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."
Isn't this highly manipulative?
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.
I suppose this is the question: can caring about others be "cultivated" or is it something we do without being able to affect how much we do it?
Even if one doesn't "naturally" care about others, it's also true that even from a totally selfish perspective it still kind of pays dividends to be a good person, be concerned with the welfare of the people around you, and build interpersonal connections.
There's limits to that, for sure. There are a number of biological bases for empathy. And being biological, it stands to reason that different people will have different capacities. But, it also certainly feels like a skill.
Here's another angle. A lot of people, perhaps maybe a lot of engineer types, struggle with empathy because the needs and wants of others just feel like a confusing sea of infinite possibilities. But here's a trick. At any given moment, any given human being is probably just trying to fill one of the needs on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
Most people like watching movies or reading books. Other people are the main character of their own life, and I think you can learn to enjoy learning about them.
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".
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.
If you wear nice clothes and exercise, then are you just trying to manipulate people into thinking you have taste and are attractive?
If you work hard at your job and are responsive to your boss's requests, then are you just manipulating them into thinking you're a good worker and giving you a raise?
These tools can certainly be misused (see shitty salespeople), but I don't "attempting to convince others that you are cool and likable" is problematic and manipulative.
Just don't fake it. That's the part people have a problem with. I just read it as "if you want people to care about your shit, then it's only fair you care about theirs first."
Being nice so that people might like you is not manipulative. It’s pointing out that if you’re nice to other people, then other people will tend to like you. It’s something we teach to toddlers.
Let's rephrase that.
If you want people to give a f... about you, you need to actually give a f... about them and in a way that comes across. Here's how.
Still manipulative?
Influencing somebody is only wrong if you fail to care about their needs in a reciprocal way... the line you quoted specifically addresses that.
It will be one sided.
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.
"... 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.
Martin Luther King Jr. influenced people. Gandhi influenced people. Mozart influenced people. Your favorite teacher influenced you.
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.
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.
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.
I read it though thinking "I'll bulwark myself against manipulators by understanding their tactics" whilst the "Influencing People" book just sounded like manipulative self-interest.
You've changed my mind; I'm going to read it right away.
> 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.
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.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-to-win-friends-and...
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."
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.
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).
[0]: I am not formally neurodivergent, but I wouldn't be surprised if I was mildly so.
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_Effecti...
Well, it's called "... and influence people", so I see where you were coming from in your assumption.
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.
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”).
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.
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.
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.
"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.
I got it in my head that it's a sort of red
pilled book that teaches you how to manipulate
people.
(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.
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 :-).
"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."
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-to-win-friends-and...
Guess I'm reading it too this weekend.
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
That's stretching the definition of manipulation a bit. That's more like having (or emulating) charisma, which isn't a bad thing.
The book may as well be called “how to be a cool person that is well liked and people respect”
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.
I would think a "red pilled" book would focus on resisting manipulation, specifically emotional manipulation.
Changing peoples behaviours isn't always the negative form of manipulation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Nothing more, nothing less.
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.
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.
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).
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.