[AchieveLife]

IMO, the book is over-hyped and not that helpful.

It's incredibly easy to spot people who utilize concepts in that book and are not being genuine in their interaction. 'Masks' are a great way to prevent authentic connection.

I've found better utility in a combination of books about positive psychology, emotions in relationships, and analytical psychology.

[nikk1]

> It's incredibly easy to spot people who utilize concepts in that book and are not being genuine in their interaction. 'Masks' are a great way to prevent authentic connection.

Then they're not taking to heart the book's principles. An common theme behind a lot of his advice is based in being honest, sincere, and genuine. If they're not being any of those things then they're not doing it right.

[jimmy1]

It definitely is over-hyped, but it really gives you the knowledge of what type of tools and communication styles and techniques that other people in your organization are drawing upon since it contains all the pseudo-intellectual bullshit that HBR and other Harvard MBA (or Harvard MBA wannabes) you will probably encounter use and look for.

At the very least, the utility of the book is that it teaches you how to play the game.

[adrianmonk]

There are people whose goal is to manipulate people. And such people are going to seek out techniques for influencing people, including this book. And such people are likely to at least be insufferably annoying if not downright untrustworthy.

But that doesn't mean that someone who seeks to deal constructively and genuinely with people can't benefit from a book of observations on how people work and what does and doesn't work when interacting with them.

Yes, it's possible to take it too far and develop a fake, unnatural persona based on rule-following. So don't do that. But the book isn't about that anyway. For example, one of the chapters is about learning to just admit it when you're wrong. I see that as something a mature person ought to be able to do, and it took me a long time to learn to practice that.

[clubm8]

>There are people whose goal is to manipulate people. And such people are going to seek out techniques for influencing people, including this book. And such people are likely to at least be insufferably annoying if not downright untrustworthy.

If I find that my natural manner of interaction is offputting, and adopt a set of behaviors with the goal of not angering those around me is that so terrible?

Sometimes "manipulation" isn't some grand scheme to rule the world - it's just an attempt to carve out some autonomy and security in a world where overly emotional people can dictate your life.

One might argue that a coworker who will harm your career if you don't listen to them time waste and drone about their children or extorts you into social interaction (labels you "weird" or "aloof" if you won't go out after work with them) is the manipulative one - doing harm to force others to meet their emotional, non work related needs.

[adrianmonk]

I don't think it's terrible at all. When I say manipulation, I mean something more sinister. It's hard to define, but it's something like using emotional tricks and playing games with people in order to try to exercise a great deal of control over them. Often the target isn't even aware what's going on, and if they were, they probably wouldn't agree to it.

What you're talking about seems very different from that. Everyone faces situations where it just isn't practical to be completely sincere or genuine. We all have to put up a bit of a front from time to time. I don't think there's anything wrong it, as to some extent it's just the grease that keeps the social machine moving smoothly. In fact, if you didn't do it, you'd be creating unnecessary friction that really serves no purpose. As long as it's done for good reasons, it's fine or even good.

Of course, it's definitely much better if it's give and take, with both sides doing their part to adapt to make things work. If two people work together and one is very talkative and social, and the other is quiet and keeps to themselves more, the quiet person needs to engage in a little conversation, and the talkative person needs to understand that the other person isn't always up for that.

[balfirevic]

> It's incredibly easy to spot people who utilize concepts in that book

How do you know?

To clarify, you don't know how many people you interacted with that utilized those concepts but you haven't noticed at all.

[AchieveLife]

Body language and intuition.

You're right, there may be times I don't notice. I have no data to prove that.

IME, being in the moment and my body instead of in my head made it apparent that we aren't as clever as we think we are in social situations.

[supercanuck]

Part of his advice is to take genuine interest in other people. What you may be interpreting as insincere, is someone trying to take genuine interest but failing miserably.. hence the practice part. I have found myself in those situations to be honest.

[AchieveLife]

It's better to be honest about not caring about a subject. Behaving naturally is sincerity.

There's always something that can be found for mutual sincerity.

[supercanuck]

It isnt that they dont care about the subject, its that you care enough about the person that you try to understand why they like the subject.

Some people interpret this to mean you have to fake interest in the subject, or you have to be honest that you don’t like said subject but it can also mean you take interest in the subject simply because the subject is of interest to the person you’d like to be friends with.

Again, this a bit of a skill and takes practice

[ThePadawan]

I've often tried to find better methods of communicating with people, but I'm still struggling with one major problem:

What do you do when someone literally does not react to anything you say in any way whatsoever? I could tell them "Yeah, X sounds like a great idea!" or "Please don't do that, I think X would be very harmful to the project", and their reaction would be the same "OK thanks, guess I'll go do X now".

Then if doing X results in failure and they learn nothing from the experience.

[hyperpape]

You have two choices, either of which may be right in the circumstance:

1. You can talk to them directly, and say "I feel like we're not on the same page when we talk about X,Y,Z [what can we do to come to an agreement]/[why do you keep doing that?]" (the bracketed parts depend on who has what authority).

2. You bring it up with your manager.

[BeetleB]

>I've often tried to find better methods of communicating with people, but I'm still struggling with one major problem:

It would help if you gave an idea on what you've tried.

As for your specific scenario, some points:

Don't have a telling posture. Even if you think it is a fact, present it with the posture of an opinion. "This is how I see it." Actively point out you may be wrong, and actively invite opposition "I'd like to hear other perspectives." You'll have to be sincere, because if people perceive you as the person who always wants others' opinions, but always dismisses them, people will very quickly stop offering them. I've seen this happen within a month of a new manager coming to our team.

Also, make sure you're asking open ended questions. Not questions that can be reasonably answered in a few words.

[trhaynes]

I wonder if there's a way to ask the right questions so they can come to the conclusion that X is a bad idea, on their own and before doing it. For example, asking about the merits of X, then acknowledging them and asking about possible downsides. If they don't mention the downside you had in mind, ask about other potential downsides. You'll also learn more about their decision-making process, how deeply they've thought through it, what weights they ascribe to the various pros/cons, etc.

Related to the concept of Strategic Questioning (https://www.context.org/iclib/ic40/peavey/)

[ThePadawan]

Is that really what is happening though?

They don't react to my statement at all - I don't think they disregard it, I think they don't listen to it in the first place.

[denimalpaca]

Ask someone to repeat back what you said so you know they actually understood what you were saying.

[hyperpape]

My opinion is that this will come across as domineering/micromanaging, even if you really do need to verify that someone understands things the same way you do.

There are ways to achieve the same effect without an equally bad appearance:

+ You can break the work into smaller chunks, to create more checkpoints

+ You can have a plan that is very specific about what is to be done that everyone agrees to in a written form (if you have a meeting, someone should take notes and have them circulated after the fact)

+ Most lightweight, you can not present the plan in one chunk, but talk it through, taking ample opportunity to reiterate and solicit agreement (if you do this right, the other person will repeat what you said, without you ever telling them to--everyone is happy)

[AchieveLife]

What you are describing is difficulty with 'facilitating a decision' aka selling. I had to find a mentor to effectively learn that ability.

I'm more than happy to refer you to him. Just pm me

[mdgrech23]

Can you give specific recommendations?

[AchieveLife]

Yes! Thank you for asking :)

Starter Pack: Positive Psychology - Know your virtues - https://www.viacharacter.org/www/ - Know your strengths - https://www.gallupstrengthscenter.com/

Relationships - https://www.amazon.com/Relationship-Skills-Workbook-Do-Yours...

I recommend starting with these before diving into analytical psychology (they're more actionable than theoretical)

[madeuptempacct]

Absolutely this - it's in the same bucket as The Prince and 48 Laws of Power. Lot of hype, zero useful advice. Some books are worth the hype, e.g. The Art of War.

To the OP - in my experience, it's absolutely enough for a dev to be good to move up. That's the beauty of software development. Now, if you ever want to be a manager or a lead, it's definitely a different story.