Do Dale Carnegie Principles Work on the Internet

[Zinjanthropos]

"Of course, you are interested in what you want. But no one else is. The rest of us are just like you: we are interested in what we want."
DALE CARNEGIE
http://ctt.ec/f9H0e

---

 
This principle is absolutely key in influencing others.  
To convince someone to do something, we have to frame it in terms of what motivates them. And in order to do that, we have to be able to see things from their point of view as well as our own.  

The above is one of his principles I copied from a summary of How to Win Friends and Influence People. Many successful business persons including Warren Buffet have read the book. From my perspective, after years on various forums, the advice quoted is not often used. Whether it is impossible to on an anonymous forum is what I'm wondering. 

First thing that comes to my mind is that in most cases posters not only must contend with their respondent(s) but a potential for the world listening. On top of that being expected to see things from another person's point of view. Have not witnessed this happening very often. So can Carnegie's famous book be applied to forum participants or Internet friendships for that matter?

[Carol]

"Of course, you are interested in what you want. But no one else is. The rest of us are just like you: we are interested in what we want."
DALE CARNEGIE
http://ctt.ec/f9H0e

---

 
This principle is absolutely key in influencing others.  
To convince someone to do something, we have to frame it in terms of what motivates them. And in order to do that, we have to be able to see things from their point of view as well as our own.  

The above is one of his principles I copied from a summary of How to Win Friends and Influence People. Many successful business persons including Warren Buffet have read the book. From my perspective, after years on various forums, the advice quoted is not often used. Whether it is impossible to on an anonymous forum is what I'm wondering. 

First thing that comes to my mind is that in most cases posters not only must contend with their respondent(s) but a potential for the world listening. On top of that being expected to see things from another person's point of view. Have not witnessed this happening very often. So can Carnegie's famous book be applied to forum participants or Internet friendships for that matter?

I have no understanding of why some people seem compelled to say insulting things, so I do not understand their point of view and what it is they want.   They commonly object to my concern that we respect each other and they do seem to get defensive.  It seems they understand being rude and crude as the meaning of liberty rather than the violation of another.   It seems like insulting or disrespectful people think what they are doing is not a violation of others, but this article in Psychology Today says it is.  

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/out...srespected

Psychologists call slights ‘narcissistic injuries' - they bruise our egos, make us feel belittled. Ultimately, all types of slights boil down to the same basic feeling: of being devalued or disrespected.

Slights may seem trivial, but they can have dangerous consequences. They can play on our minds for days, opening up psychic wounds which are difficult to heal. We replay the situation over and over again, until the hurt and humiliation eat away at us inside. This usually leads to an impulse to fight back, to avenge the damage to our self-esteem. This could mean slighting the person back: ‘She didn't invite me to her party, so I'm not sending her a birthday card;' ‘He didn't thank me, so I'm going to ignore him from now on.' A grudge may develop: you end up looking the other way when you pass the person on the street, or making bitchy comments behind their back. And if the person reacts to your resentment, it could end up in a full scale feud. A good friendship could dissolve into acrimony, a close family could needlessly fall apart.

Even more dangerously - especially with young men - slights can trigger a violent reaction. Criminologists have noted that many acts of violence stem from a sense of slight. The psychologists Martin Daly and Margo Wilson estimated that two-thirds of all murders were the result of men feeling that they had been disrespected and acting to save face. In recent years, in the US there has been a disturbing rise in the number of ‘flashpoint killings' - casual murders triggered by trivial confrontations. Typically, the flashpoint killer is a young man who becomes furious after feeling that he's been slighted in front of friends.

[Secular Sanity]

I have no understanding of why some people seem compelled to say insulting things, so I do not understand their point of view and what it is they want.   They commonly object to my concern that we respect each other and they do seem to get defensive.  It seems they understand being rude and crude as the meaning of liberty rather than the violation of another.   It seems like insulting or disrespectful people think what they are doing is not a violation of others, but this article in Psychology Today says it is.  

I understand what you're saying but I don't really feel that way.  I think that online forums give you the opportunity to exercise your skills in communication.  How can you be consistently honest if you don't have the courage to take a hit?  I've had to tap out before, admit that I was wrong, apologize.  It's a little uncomfortable, but that's how I learn my limits, and how I expand them.

From the book:

Criticism is futile because it puts a person on the defensive and usually makes then strive to justify themselves.  Criticism is dangerous, because it wounds a person’s precious pride, hurts their sense of importance, and arouses resentment.

But like Nietzsche said, “One ought still to honour the enemy in one's friend. In one's friend one shall have one's best enemy.”

Today it is mostly understood that a friend is someone ‘who wants the best for you.’ Nietzsche considers this too shallow and his response is similar as in the case of the Christians who would like to live only in their ‘heaven.’ A true friend for Nietzsche is someone who by wishing you the ‘best’ wishes you ‘the worst,’ – struggle, strife, obstacles, fear, and ‘many good enemies.’ A friend for Nietzsche is not someone who accepts your every word and blindly follows in your steps or even someone who tries to ‘offer you a helping hand’ – this only promotes laziness, acceptance of one’s status, weakness and decadence. To wish truly one best also means to be in opposition, to propose contra-arguments, to go one’s own way and even destroy and fight against a friend’s plans. In the Nietzschean sense, the friend is the one ‘who wishes you to be strong.’ In contrast to a Christian who wishes you ‘heaven,’ that is meekness and decadence in otherworldly piety.

Consider also this assumption: what is for Nietzsche the difference between friend and enemy? One can easily derive from the above mentioned that there is no difference at all. Both friend and enemy is someone who you consider your equal. It is someone who you think is worth fighting against. From the fight, you both learn and ultimately strengthen your resolve. In fact, it might be said that ‘your best friend is also your best enemy, and your best enemy is your best friend.’ Similarly, Nietzsche mentions Christ’s ‘love thy enemy’ as a commendable principle to follow, but not in the ‘Christian sense.’ For Nietzsche, since love and hate are almost inseparable, the enemy, your antithesis, is also someone to be truly admired, because this enemy inevitably forms a part of ‘who you are,’ the enemy shows you a different side of the coin, and thus makes you stronger in the end. [1]

Let me ask you something, Zinman.  Do you think that’s why men feel that women are incapable of friendship?  Do you think that all men see us as the weaker sex?  

Ben sort of implied that in PM.

[C C]

"Of course, you are interested in what you want. But no one else is. The rest of us are just like you: we are interested in what we want." [...] This principle is absolutely key in influencing others. To convince someone to do something, we have to frame it in terms of what motivates them. And in order to do that, we have to be able to see things from their point of view as well as our own.

The above is one of his principles I copied from a summary of How to Win Friends and Influence People. Many successful business persons including Warren Buffet have read the book. From my perspective, after years on various forums, the advice quoted is not often used. Whether it is impossible to on an anonymous forum is what I'm wondering. 

First thing that comes to my mind is that in most cases posters not only must contend with their respondent(s) but a potential for the world listening. On top of that being expected to see things from another person's point of view. Have not witnessed this happening very often. So can Carnegie's famous book be applied to forum participants or Internet friendships for that matter?

Since anonymous arguably rules out or at least significantly hampers "economic" transactions to begin with, most people (especially males) in such turf probably get online specifically to vent, proselytize, do battle, deter enemy fronts from acquiring adherents, or just to flex some contentious sophomoric inner personality that's been suppressed by physical, adult social environment etiquette for years.

Accordingly, fixed unilateral dispositions will be a common characteristic of walk-in participants, which are minus Carnegie's proposed perspectival receptivity, give-and-take "bridge-building" that might serve converging differing interests from the standpoint of trade relationships or compromisingly delivering to each what they seek.

Exceptions can be instructional workshops, hobby or exchange stories discussion boards, "become acquainted with our service, product, organization" Q&A message sites, etc.

The familiar watering-holes of local community, friends, and relatives usually aren't anonymous. They distribute so much personal information about themselves over time that even if a member did try to veil themselves a bit from malevolent onlookers, the latter would still be able to piece together the location of their residence to rob when they announce they're going on vacation or going to be away one day for ___.

- - -

[Syne]

Quite frankly, unless you already share the views held by most people where you post, any attempt at bridge building will be exploited as a weakness...only serving those who disagree in further discrediting your opinions. Sadly, the rhetoric principle of charity is not common online.

"In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity requires interpreting a speaker's statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

[Zinjanthropos]

 Let me ask you something, Zinman.  Do you think that’s why men feel that women are incapable of friendship?  Do you think that all men see us as the weaker sex?  

I'd rather talk to women, they are much more interesting. Men are boring as hell. Have many female acquaintances but no one other than my wife would I call a friend. I've been around the block a couple of times and I realize one thing, it's important to be nice. Not all men think of women as the weaker sex. There's very little reward for it IMHO. I could never understand how women end up with a control freak or abuser. 

 During my working days I was in a position of authority. I made it a point to be on the same terms with everyone, just be friendly and treat everyone equal. It's amazing how rewarding that can be, maybe not right away but eventually kindness is returned in some way.

Anyways, this is about making friends on the Internet. Very very difficult. Anonymity is the biggest reason. Easy to hide behind or attack from. It's all about ambush and a lot of listening to yourself. We all want to be noticed for our cleverness, try that in the real world and you won't win any popularity contests.

Not knowing a person's mental state is difficult in a face to face confrontation but one is at least able to pick up on body language, voice inflection etc. to possibly ascertain whether an individual is delusional for instance. Without visual and auditory signals it is very difficult to know when to take the foot off the pedal and ease off during conversation on the Internet. For example, Psychologists would tell you that arguing with a deluded mind is one of the worst things you can do for that person. But there's nothing in the typed word that can help one make the connection and the practice is to charge ahead regardless of suspicion.

[confused2]

"How to Win Friends and Influence People" - I haven't read it. Unless you have a worthwhile idea there's no point in trying to influence people - to do what? If the 'Friends' in the title are there to be influenced or part of gaining influence then I'll stick with what I've got. The "what I've got" would be a small (and decreasing) number of people who make me smile just by being themselves.

Somebody once said something along the lines of "You'll know more about your friends after two minutes than you will about your acquaintances after twenty years.".

[Carol]

 Let me ask you something, Zinman.  Do you think that’s why men feel that women are incapable of friendship?  Do you think that all men see us as the weaker sex?  

I'd rather talk to women, they are much more interesting. Men are boring as hell. Have many female acquaintances but no one other than my wife would I call a friend. I've been around the block a couple of times and I realize one thing, it's important to be nice. Not all men think of women as the weaker sex. There's very little reward for it IMHO. I could never understand how women end up with a control freak or abuser. 

 During my working days I was in a position of authority. I made it a point to be on the same terms with everyone, just be friendly and treat everyone equal. It's amazing how rewarding that can be, maybe not right away but eventually kindness is returned in some way.

Anyways, this is about making friends on the Internet. Very very difficult. Anonymity is the biggest reason. Easy to hide behind or attack from. It's all about ambush and a lot of listening to yourself. We all want to be noticed for our cleverness, try that in the real world and you won't win any popularity contests.

Not knowing a person's mental state is difficult in a face to face confrontation but one is at least able to pick up on body language, voice inflection etc. to possibly ascertain whether an individual is delusional for instance. Without visual and auditory signals it is very difficult to know when to take the foot off the pedal and ease off during conversation on the Internet.  For example, Psychologists would tell you that arguing with a deluded mind is one of the worst things you can do for that person. But there's nothing in the typed word that can help one make the connection and the practice is to charge ahead regardless of suspicion.

I think social pressure can be as effective on the internet as anywhere else.   However, it seems to me misfits have more time to be on the internet and the people with class and good social lives avoid it.  I have been attacked most for saying good manners and morals are important.  My friends think I am nuts to open myself up to ridicule and very nasty attacks. The person who is insulting is much more accepted than I am.   But I remember in the early days when forums and My Space had no rules and people were much more ferocious than they are today.  Quite a lot of progress has been made.   

The problem is not just with the internet but our whole culture has deteriorated.   Our equality has not meant the masses lifting themselves up, but we threw away the etiquette books and sank to the lowest common denominator.  We favor equality over the Athenian notion of reaching our full potential.   The reasoning for good social thinking is carried by a few people, but the majority think the self-gene is a real winner and idealism is very weak or unjustified.   I am sure there are some here who will prove me right.   If everyone around you is behaving badly and you aren't okay with this, the social pressure will be on you to change, not those who are behaving badly.

---

"How to Win Friends and Influence People" - I haven't read it. Unless you have a worthwhile idea there's no point in trying to influence people - to do what? If the 'Friends' in the title are there to be influenced or part of gaining influence then I'll stick with what I've got. The "what I've got" would be a small (and decreasing) number of people who make me smile just by being themselves.

Somebody once said something along the lines of "You'll know more about your friends after two minutes than you will about your acquaintances after twenty years.".

"How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie has been a must read for many years, as Aristotle and Cicero were must read books following the Renaissance.  To not be familiar with is his book is about like not being familiar with our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.   

My 1872 book "Handbooks fo Home Improvement" a book of etiquette and for running a business, or books like this one, surely had to be in every home of aspiring families.  Before everyone had college educations, and we began judging people by their merit, their character development was very important.  Such books, including "How to Win Friends and Influence People" made many people socially and business wise, very successful people.   

I think believing we don't need these books anymore is a mistake.

[Carol]

It appears this thread has been forgotten and that is disappointing.  It is a better place to discuss the attractiveness of refined and cultivated people, than the thread asking for better access to the threads that interest me.

I finally have a friend who is interested in the classics, history, and philosophy and being with him is like flying with the eagles instead of the turkeys.  The Greeks were very concerned by what is the good life?  I love thinking about them without cars or electricity and all the clutter that is such an important part of our lives, turning to each other for the pleasures of life.  Please, can we discuss further what is the good life and what good manners has to do with living the good life?

[confused2]

Some years ago (almost exactly 18) I used deliver things around the county of Devon (in the Uk). If I had time and it was somewhere nice I'd ring my mother up and ask her if she'd like to come - she always wanted to come. During one outing, in passing conversation, she mentioned "You get pleasure out of giving pleasure." In a theatrical world I'd have stopped the car and asked her why (the hell) she hadn't said that before like when I was 12 instead of 45.