What do you think about this book?

What do you think about this book?

I wonder why secular humanists do not ban this book since manipulating people is obviously going against the pinnacle of their though that is to say the consent, which they claim is the biggest non-physical crime that a human can do

>do not ban this book
I mean like they do for books about suicide and euthanasia, even though on this topic, they do it because they cannot deal with those topic since they cannot tell why people must be punished and their consent must be violated when they go for suicide.

I have given several thoughtful responses to this exact question. Stop posting this and review the archive.

meh, save yourself some trouble and just read the table of contents.

why does this question get asked so much?

Ok jokes aside, I read this book almost a year ago in december of 2016, here are my thoughts.

I must really say that at first I didn't thought that this book would help me, then I started to put in practice the teaching of carnegie, I really tried to stay calm with the many arguments I used to had both in my family and in the office, suddenly it started to work, for real, I'm no joking.

Even if you feel that you can't influence people with the method of this book, believe me, it helps you, It totally gives you another mindset and helps you improve how you deal with situations like having to interact with really toxic and degenerated normies.

I've improved my relationship with my parents and siblings, since january when I finished the book I've been studying the points where I feel weak and I always put them in practice first with my relatives and then with my co-workers, It was not a miracle but definitely it has helped me a lot.

I still have no friends but this book helped me rebuild a proper relationship with my arrogant father and my distant siblings, I don't think it can get you laid, probably works for that too if you play your cards properly, but definitely helps.

It taught me how to win friends & influence people

I'm glad someone else has realized modern ethics basically relies on the notion of consent/agency.

How the hell am I supposed to be an inviolable, sovereign individual when I'm so easily manipulated?

Don't ask the moderns. The good ones will bring up education. The bad ones will talk about Darwin.

The powerful manipulate the powerless, and some find this more or less disturbing.

It would be better if there was a book in its place called, "How to be a better friend." That's not a very popular question in America, apparently.

There are no shortcuts to wisdom. Wisdom is always hard-won. You can try and take some of his tips (things like "stay calm in an argument") but they mean nothing floating in space by themselves.

It's one thing to say "stay calm and be agreeable." It's another thing to say, "The person you are talking to is exactly as important as you in the grand scheme of things." The former is a disembodied tip. The latter is a truth, and a gem of wisdom that is subtle and difficult to see.

The gem contains the tip, but the tip does not contain the gem.

Does that make sense? It's good you're "improving your relationships," but do you understand to what end? What does it mean to "improve" a relationship? Do you argue less and laugh more? What about when you need to chastise someone you love? What about when you want to steer them towards good but they insist on steering you towards evil? What about when you have a friend you like and get along with, but both of you encourage each other's bad habits?

I call it a CIA bot

you'd have to be pretty retarded to learn anything substantial from the book

but don't forget to smile and be nice to people user!

Sometimes I think the present era confuses "niceness" with "goodness."

Good people are almost always nice but it's very easy to be nice without being good.

there is no distinction, all values are hollow values in this world. you are making demarcations where they can't exist

It would be better to reply with a thoughtful comment that is engaging. Here you have made a little wall for me, which I can neither climb nor smash.

"I disagree, for my own private and particular reasons."

I just picked this up today for a dollar. Probably just gonna let it sit on my shelf for a little while till I feel like a shitbag again.

>What about when you need to chastise someone you love? What about when you want to steer them towards good but they insist on steering you towards evil?

I've wanted to ask this to someone for a long time but was unsure how to phrase it.

To what extent are you obligated to your loved ones, and if the answer is not at all, then you how do you prevent this from becoming the case? Are you meant to accept someone as they are even if who they are is mostly unreceptive and irresponsible? Is it my duty by blood to try to encourage their potential when I know it's there? How am I to handle the crushing regret and constant frustration that would come with acceptance of their refusal?

Many people will claim it sucks because they dont grasb the content or they just plain dont put it into practice.

whats the point of acquiring knowledge if you dont do anything with it...

How can it not have value when the particular reaction of a person will illicit an emotional reaction within me? That's got to have some value, user.

>I’m super important

It's extremely dated and most of it is stuff you already know yet didn't really think about in everyday life. 4/10.

Forms are real, user.

"How to be a decent person" thats one book that lots should read but none would buy.

I think you should do it anyways. People will resist. You must insist even if it means breaking the relationship. Maybe their refusal means you should rethink your place in that relationship, to a more distant bond, or maybe straight out cut the bond. Relationships need to have a direction, this means they need to let both people grow, they shouldnt be stagnating spaces for indulging in lazyness, sometimes ive felt a couple of mine needed to change stuff of themselves, and ive ended up ending the relationship, because they wont do it, thus dragging me down with their unresolved shit.

prove that distinctions like good and nice exist and are not just appearances that can be easily manipulated with internet era technology
show me a form
emotional stimulus isn’t value, show me value. show me the abstract form of value or a virtue or an essence, they’re just appearances that can be exchanged or sold for/as other appearances. Trump can be a president or a billionaire or a villain or a savior of the white race it doesn’t matter, he is here as leader, he won by playing off of the indecipherability of signs there’s nothing but what people want to see, the secret is out in the open and no one is paying attention.

Haven't finished it but some of the first lessons didn't seem too useful: I can't imagine complimenting a person from the "logical" mode and when you are in the "playful" mode you don't really need books to tell you what to do. Also his advice to ask people about their jobs is total garbage: wast majority hates their jobs and can't say anything interesting about it. His example of botanist shows this one in a million outlier, wow good job, now do the same with an accountant or cashier. I mean okay they can have something to share but do they really want to talk about their jobs? And sure they may if I was more open person myself but then again do I need lessons from this book?

>he won by playing off of the indecipherability of signs there’s nothing but what people want to see, the secret is out in the open and no one is paying attention
Can you explain this, user?