Comment by scoofy

Comment by scoofy 17 days ago

There is some good stuff here, but I generally disagree.

The difference for me is, I don't like everybody, and not everybody has to like me. That's okay, and it's not about disrespect, it's just that I like to surround myself with people who are thoughtful before they are opinionated.

If you know me, and you respect me, and I say something you think is crazy... if they first think you think is "Wait, I thought I respected him, but he's a bad person" instead of "Wait, I respect this person and they're saying something I disagree with. Am I wrong about that?", then, guess what, I'm not actually interested in having a deep relationship.

I studied philosophy in college and grad school. I had to "relearn" how to interact with people outside of the university setting for many of the reasons in this essay. However, upon reading the horrifying "how to win friends and influence people" way of interacting with normal people through flattery and shallow interaction, I thought fuck it, I just don't actually want to be close with people I can't have a real conversation with.

Not everyone gets to the right position right away, that's okay. I'm a strong small-"L" liberal, and I have friends that are conservatives, socialists, and even the occasional anarchist. The difference is that we're all still trying to figure it all out. We're not all pretending that "well if those people didn't exist then we'd have utopia already" because, well, all these system exist all over the earth and it ain't a utopia anywhere. We'll make our points, we'll needle each other in a friendly way, and we'll all say "fuck it, we're doing our best."

That doesn't mean I'm friendly with everyone (remember, I don't like everyone, and not everyone likes me), because there are plenty of political positions that pretty much require people to be unthoughtful. The views need to be consistent, and pretty much anything that end advocating substantial discrimination against certain people over other people isn't going to be internally consistent. Axioms are arbitrary, reason is not.

ThrowawayR2 17 days ago

> "However, upon reading the horrifying 'how to win friends and influence people' way of interacting with normal people through flattery and shallow interaction"

Say what now? The book is littered with passages urging the reader to be sincere in interactions.

Reply View 3 replies

scoofy 17 days ago

The book has you meta-analyze every aspect of your conversation. You're basically treating everyone with kid gloves all the time. Never tell someone they're wrong, go out of your way to praise people, treat everyone like the noble protagonist in their own story.
All of this is fine and dandy, and incredibly practical in practice, but it presupposes that you're talking to someone whose thinking processes are in opposition to any analytical thinking or self-critique.
I'm not saying the book isn't useful, my point is that the type of people for whom the book is effective are not the type of people I want to be close friends with.
To put it another way, my friend's parents are classic NIMBYs. If I want to hold their hand, and walk them to a place where they can see that their actions are harming the next generation, then, yes, Dale Carnegie's prescriptions are very effective. My point is I don't actually want to be close friends with anyone who needs their hand held just to see things from a different person's perspective.
I try to be kind, I try to be honest, I try to be upfront about who I am and what I stand for. I have made lots of close friends just by being willing to be patient with people who have different views from my own, without actually having to pretend I don't have any views at all. My friends are mature enough to understand that we are both smart people, and if I say something that puts them off, then we ought to be able to discuss it and learn from each other.

Reply View | 2 replies
- ThrowawayR2 17 days ago
  
  > "You're basically treating everyone with kid gloves all the time. Never tell someone they're wrong, go out of your way to praise people, treat everyone like the noble protagonist in their own story."
  The book says that a person can deliver criticism and disagreement in ways that don't make the recipient defensive and that people respond positively when their accomplishments are recognized in a sincere and meaningful way. As for the last, that's simply the way most, if not all, people are; it's a failing that's almost universal.
  It's about learning to be a person that is thoughtful to others and considerate of the foibles of humanity. I suppose a person could use it as a template for faking empathy and generally being manipulative but that's very much not what it suggests.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  scoofy 17 days ago
  
  I mean, I'm not going to change your mind. I don't want to. I've read the book. I found it very helpful in a practical sense, while at the same time as finding it horrifying.
  >that's simply the way most, if not all, people are; it's a failing that's almost universal.
  Again, I don't disagree with you that this is a problem for the median person. My point is that, for the most part, I'm not really interested in being close friends with the median person. Friends in a sense? Sure. Chat at a bar? Sure. But not people I really talking about interesting things with. The median person isn't going to mesh very well with my personality.
  The ivory tower was an isolated tower for a reason. Intellectuals were literally under threat of execution for the vast majority of human history. The underlying currents for that are basically reflected in the assumptions that Carnegie makes.
  I want intellectual friends. I want be shown that I'm wrong. I learn something when I'm wrong. I understand that's not a common trait, but it's how I am, and how I want to be.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

shw1n 17 days ago

I'm not sure where I see we disagree?

I actually agree with everything you said, mostly just want people whose views are actually tribal and not open to discussion to acknowledge them as such, via:

"If someone is self-aware enough to consciously acknowledge their choice to remain in the bubble, that’s totally fair. I respect it like I’d respect anyone who chooses to participate in a more traditional religion. My issue is when this view is falsely passed off as an intellectually-driven one."

unless you're saying I shouldn't bother being polite and avoiding the convo at times, which I guess I disagree there

Reply View 1 reply

scoofy 16 days ago

My point mostly that you're probably not actually close friends with people you can't discuss politics with. And if you are, then you are interested in different types of friendships than I am.

Reply View | 0 replies