[asaph]

One of the often repeated pearls of wisdom from How to Win Friends and Influence People[0] by Dale Carnegie, is people like to talk about themselves and they’ll like you more if you let them do that in a conversation. I’m paraphrasing. This research seems to counter that.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influ...

[PragmaticPulp]

> from How to Win Friends and Influence People[0] by Dale Carnegie

Implementing the advice in this book too literally makes for very inauthentic sounding conversation.

After reading this book, I found it easy to spot other people who had read it and were trying the techniques on me. For example, when someone uses my name 10 different times in a private conversation for no obvious reason, I have a good idea that they’re trying How To Win Friends techniques on me.

It also feels awkward when someone is trying to shape the conversation to meet some arbitrary goal, rather than having a natural and engaging conversation where both parties are actually interested in the topics being discussed. When someone is just asking me questions not because they’re interested but because they think getting me to talk about it will help them achieve some personal goal, it becomes obvious quickly.

[scruple]

I've also experienced this and I've mentioned it in comments here in the past. I once recommended the book to a (former) colleague and it was maddening to talk to this person after they finished it. FWIW, I'm also always on edge when I talk to someone who I know has read the Rosenberg non-violent communication book(s), so it's not just the books or it's contents but a certain personality type, I guess.

[hbfijcgu]

Wouldn't the unnatural thing be a phase? Consciously practicing something is awkward almost by definition. But then hopefully you internalize it and become more natural and fluent in your application.

[scruple]

I'm sure that's true for some people. What's also true is that some people actively seek out ways to manipulate others and these 2 books in particular can be misconstrued as blueprints to achieve that end.

[solardev]

IMO the book itself addressed that point by suggesting that you try to find something to genuinely like about each person you engage with. The formulaic approach isn't meant to be the end goal, it's just a way to go from zero to some sort of common ground, from which a genuine connection can develop. It's really helpful for people who are totally inept at human conversation (like me) but it's just a starting place.

Nonviolent comms is similar... techniques for lowering people's defensiveness upfront and finding connection so that you can actually move forward with discussing the meat of the issue instead of being caught up in mutual dislike based on first impressions and preexisting biases.

[coldtea]

Dale's book is generic heuristics, hacks, and common sense advice mixed.

Nonviolent communication is more like cult/pseudoscience/horse manure mix.

[solardev]

Maybe they're not for everyone, and I certainly don't think they should be followed literally to the T like a cookbook recipe.

But Dale's book helped me go from virtually no friends to having many treasured relationships in my life, across interests and divides that I never would've even bothered to have explore if not for that book. It made me receptive to actually getting to know people outside my interest groups, and was as illuminating as it was humbling. It was the book that helped me realize there was so much more to people than the tiny bubble I was in. What may be common advice was, to me at the time, completely unheard of to me. If your parents and social groups don't naturally teach you this stuff, and you're an introverted computer nerd, it's a whole lot better than nothing. Are there better books out there? I'd love to hear about them.

Nonviolent comms can definitely feel cult like and wishy-washy. But it's been tremendously helpful for me in engaging with people across ideological gaps (chasms these days). And it may have saved my life on occasions when conversations got especially heated and emotional and violence was a very real possibility. For all of its teletubby tendencies, in the real world, it is much more able to establish slash remind people of human connection than the bitter street protests we've seen over the past few years. Its underlying message is to simply seek common ground and work outwards from there to solve common problems, rather than digging further into ideological trenches and seeing everyone outside it as the enemy. That particular part isn't necessarily cultish. It's just really hard to practice in the heat of the moment, so the rest of the book is a bunch of deescalation techniques mixed with, yes, fluffy feel good stuff.

Shrug. Just my review as someone whose life and relationships were made much more enjoyable after those two books. Not because I can manipulate people (still can't and wouldn't even if I could), but because they opened ways of thinking and feeling about people that I didn't have before. Together they taught me way more respect and empathy for people outside of my own comfort, interest, and ideological zones.

[throwaway74829]

You've put to words an intuition I've always had, but been unable to verbalize: it irritates me when someone converses with the intent to reach some end... or just enters a conversation with some notion or emotion that they're holding tight onto, and will not waver no matter what.

Worse are those people with canned lines and vocal inflections... the same ones on repeat over and over again; like they've built up a toolbox of sound bites to navigate them through all of life. It's unbelievably grating to hear.

It feels vulgar... to make one's presence and desires so known and obvious... instead of having a conversation for its own sake... for the sake of amusement or personal expression...

It's as if they're treating socialization as a constant string of business deals to be navigated... gross.

[taeric]

Using someone's name is also a good way to make sure you remember it, though. :(

To an extent, I agree with you. That said, protocols are also not a bad thing and socializing is almost certainly a learnable skill.

[fbdab103]

To summarize the book in a line would be, "Pay attention to the other person." There is little formulaic approaches, mostly just advise to stop thinking of yourself throughout the conversation and give the other person attention.

[tinus_hn]

Mentioning the other persons name is also a trick to remember it, perhaps that’s why they repeat it.

[spookthesunset]

Was gonna say the same thing. I try to repeat the person’s name quite a bit so it can get drilled into my head…

[jules]

I haven't read this book, but I do try to mention a person's name. Not because of them, but because otherwise I will have forgotten their name in 2 minutes.

[agumonkey]

it's the kind of book that make people want to game the metric rather than play, it's typical of this era IMO

[at_a_remove]

I think it highly depends on with whom you are conversing. Extraverts, well, some of them probably could chit-chat with a telephone pole. After working myself out of elective mutism as a teen, I realized I had gotten very physically expressive as a kind of adaptation. As an adult, I invented a slightly cruel game wherein, should I get snagged by one of these kinds of extraverts, I wouldn't say any words, merely react with my face, gestures, postures, that kind of thing. Little nods. The idea was to see how long they would go on talking without any input from me.

Some were of the opinion that I was a good conversationalist, which I find darkly amusing.

[eastbound]

I hadn’t thought of formalizing that little game; but I’ve definitely started counting that women can tell me their life story for 1.5hrs and sometimes 3hrs without me finishing much more than “I… I… So you…”.

It’s double-dark: It awakes misogyny in myself (“speaking 95% of the time shows how little importance they give others, and I want room in my relationship”), but it also shows that we have a lot of speech debt towards women (=everyone needs to speak, but not everyone gets their share”).

Your stance is refreshing. You judge everyone! I used to be timid, then went half-extrovert, so it’s encouraging to see there’s room ahead!

[altdataseller]

I find the conversations can be awkward if you go too far in that direction. And it can feel like an interview. The best conversations are give and take where both sides talk almost an equal amount of time

[sjs7007]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32542260: Good conversations have lots of doorknobs

Related article you might find interesting

[bittercynic]

Some of my most enjoyable conversations have been pretty uneven, where the subject is of mutual interest, but one person knows much more than the other. If my conversation partner knows way more than me about the subject, I want them to talk way more, and if I know way more, it's OK if the other person doesn't do 50% of the talking, but keeps inviting me to continue, or gently steers the conversation to areas of particular interest.

[worble]

My own personal and very much anecdotal experience of this is that's a very American view of conversations; they like to talk about themselves, what they're doing, what they've just bought, their aspirations, etc, while Europeans (and especially Brits) would find such questioning to be bad form and even privacy invasive. Obviously exceptions exist on both sides, but speaking generally.

[ycombobreaker]

What would you suggest as a cultural guideline for an American conversing with a European or Brit?

[keithalewis]

Assume they are insecure and looking for a passive-aggressive way to cut you down to their level. The British^W English are quite adept at doing this in a way where you won't realize until the next day that they were insulting you.

[skorpeon87]

Additionally, don't attempt to banter even if the Brit initiates it. Brits think that Americans cannot banter and will assume that any banter from an American is intended as a sincere insult. Don't try to explain that Americans frequently banter among each other and no offense is intended, they won't believe you.

It is better to remain cordial as they 'banter' at you, but to never reciprocate.

[chefandy]

Using advice like that as suggested conversational entry points is fine, but they're abjectly oversold as "rules." Repeated attempts to steer the conversation towards yourself or another person (even skillfully) will yield vastly different results in a b2b sales call with a bored MBA in NYC than at a working class football party in Morocco or a rushed business meeting in Japan or an introvert-heavy sci fi book club in Colombia. No set of rules replace EQ and social savvy when interfacing with different personalities, cultures, contexts, and even moods.

[sdwr]

I believe the conversational meta has shifted in the last 80 years. But more than that, people like to talk about themselves IFF they feel safe and unjudged.

[ajkjk]

Agree that this seems to be true. Especially in white-collar / middle-class society, I suspect (no idea how to quantify this) that styles of conversation have dramatically changed and everyone has gotten much more polite and... docile? and, basically, unappealing.

[jonnycomputer]

Yeah, I think there is this unspoken assumption that the answer to this question does not depend on the specific cultural milieu, or the specifics of the context in which engagement occurs.

[nedwin]

any recs on resources on latest "conversational meta"?

[sdwr]

Most of it is garbage!! People talking about conversation, especially online, is total crap. It's all small blogs, and the ones who aren't trying to sell you something are this weird combination of unsure and self-inflated.

I agree with ajkjk, people have gotten safe and boring.

The only advice I have is to try more, and push the envelope over time. Social restrictions feel intense but yield to sustained (unintentional) effort. Most people are some combination of cowardly and egotistical as a default position. Be like flowing water. Negative consequences don't last if you don't feed them, and positive ones build and compound.

[fbdab103]

This is my Everyone Likes Dogs philosophy. If you meet someone and they tell you they like dogs, they have provided you essentially no new information. The status quo is that everyone, everywhere likes dogs. On the other hand, if someone tells you they hate dogs, now this is new information, that is suddenly quite interesting. How can you not like dogs? Did you have a bad experience? So on and so forth. A memorable tidbit about their personality which makes them less forgettable.

The trick is to find those social cracks where the contrarian viewpoint is interesting but does not make you a pariah. That is, even if you hate dogs, I would advise keeping that one to yourself.

[skorpeon87]

The only real meta is to treat everybody as an individual. Pay attention to how they react during different stages of the conversation and tailor your own behavior to make them more comfortable. Some people respond well to being asked about themselves. Other people become nervous and evasive. Pay attention to how they respond and react accordingly.

Besides that, there is no "one size fits all" approach. The only approach that works for everybody is to treat everybody like an individual with a unique personality.

[johnfn]

I talk with a few too many people who take the "let other people talk about themselves" rule as gospel. While it's nice to be given the spotlight, the point of a conversation is that it's an exchange, not a soliloquy. Conversations with people who listen a lot and don't give a lot back start to feel a bit uncomfortable as well.

[piyh]

Your conclusion about the research counter that is wrong. Here's a direct quote from the paper.

> High-question askers were liked more because they were perceived as more responsive to their partner, confirming Carnegie’s advice to focus on the other person in a conversation.

[asaph]

I only read the abstract because the rest of the article is behind a paywall. So I didn’t see this. However, it too, seems somewhat inconsistent with the idea put forth in the title and abstract. Perhaps the advice is: To be more likable, talk less, and focus your talking on lots of questions about the other person.

[karaterobot]

I think you could probably thread the needle on this, and say that both are correct. For example, if you talked a lot about things the other person had expressed interest in, and supported their own opinions, and made them feel like the conversation was "about" them even if you did most of the talking.

But, it's more likely that that's not the case, and the two are in conflict. Between the sources, I tend to think Carnegie is right, both because it's a strategy that has been working for long time, and because it accords with my own experience of the world, and because ... you know... a single social psychology research paper is sort of hard to credit when it conflicts with common sense.

[agumonkey]

I've been unable to behave around people, a need not to harm their feelings, or maybe a fear of expressing my self (trauma based upbringing or something). This means I get locked in with verbal flooders regularly and they indeed seem to love having me around to spill their mind out.

[starkd]

Another pearl of his is to be "profuse in your praise". Even if it risks sounding empty or pure flattery, because it always leaves a good impression and works.

[ajkjk]

Profuse praise is so weird and off-putting to be a recipient of. I don't know what you're talking about. Maybe this was true however many years ago but it doesn't feel true all the time today.

[dghlsakjg]

The man who gave that advice also paired it with being authentic: "Give honest and sincere appreciation."

That advice was actually given in the context of a supervisor or superior working to improve a report: 'Praise the slightest improvement and praise every improvement. Be “hearty in your approbation and lavish in your praise.”'

So in context, its about noticing the things you as a person like about people and vocalizing them, and separately drawing attention to when someone improves. Pretty sound advice

If you read the actual book, its as much about not being a bore, and how not to piss people off. Some people take the advice in it WAY too far, and that's when it comes across as off-putting and inauthentic.

[bawolff]

Nothing spikes my anxiety like when my supervisor out of nowhere starts to praise little things that don't matter (especially when the thing being praised is not new and has not changed).

Because you know they took the compliment sandwich advice to heart, and the other shoe is about to drop.

[californical]

I’ve apparently been doing this for a long time without noticing. I just like telling people that appreciate them or reminding them that they’re doing well, etc!

Had no idea it had a name or “strategy” associated with it… I just like other people to know when they’re having a positive impact on me (or something else). And people always seem to like knowing that, and get into a better mood in response!

Edit: maybe I’m not understanding the concept very well, and “profuse praise” the strategy is more belligerent than I thought

[coldtea]

You'd be surprised.

Also, if you are of the personality type/disposition that this doesn't work on, don't underestimate the huge percentage of people on which it does work.

[scatterhead]

It needs to be subtle. So maybe "profuse" is the wrong word.

For example, throwing in phrases like "with your experience, you would know that..." or "that thing you said was hilarious" make people feel good, hopefully while also being true. This is a huge part of likeability.

[sdwr]

Yeah genuine praise is just ok, habitual or forced praise is the worst.

[philsnow]

I wonder if this works because true-ringing praise has to be about the particular person, and the production of it demonstrates that you're paying (sole) attention to them, and the attention is what causes them to enjoy the interaction, not necessarily the praise itself. If so, "active listening" might produce the same results.

[bawolff]

I mean, i suspect its because true ringing praise doesn't come with strings. Inauthentic praise is often used as a strategy to manipulate someone into doing what you want.

[bawolff]

Honestly people who do this make me super uncomfortable.

[willmadden]

Dale Carnegie already had a well established reputation when he allowed the others to speak about themselves. Apples and oranges if you are not already famous.

[coldtea]

It's not about the others knowing who you are or your reputation, and thus not needing to establish that if you're already famous, etc.

The insight is rather that others could not give less fucks if they knew about you more, what they like is to talk about themselves.

This is true even if you're totally non famous and unknown to them, like a random taxi driver and you. They still like to talk about themselves over hearing about you.

[willmadden]

It IS about your reputation. Peoples’ motivations are selfish. They want to be perceived as higher status and are constantly assessing “what’s in it for me” through their personal frame of reference.

Having someone they perceive to be influential, powerful etc. listen to them spill their guts about themselves means a lot more than if they explained their worldview to a homeless person on the street. They wouldn’t shut up about the former experience at a dinner party, but wouldn’t even engage with the latter!

The point is, if your reputation does not already proceed you, talking more about yourself (assuming you aren’t a dolt) increases your perceived social value with a stranger. If your reputation is good and proceeds you already, listening more matters.