I'm a chapter into this and I don't feel any less autistic yet. At what point does this book start helping?

It was written with reassuring felicity. There were no abstrusely long sentences, no confounding long words, no bewildering metaphors in an obfuscated system such as he feared finding in simply bound books of thoughts and ideas. No dictionary was necessary to understand its message; no reason to know what Kapila saw when he looked heavenward, and of what the Athenians accused Anaxagoras, or to know the secret name Jahveh, or who cleft the Gordian knot, the meaning of 666. There was, finally, very little need to know anything at all, except how to “deal with people.” College, the author implied, meant simply years wasted on Latin verbs and calculus. Vergil, and Harvard, were cited regularly with an uncomfortable, if off-hand, reverence for their unnecessary existences . . . In these pages, he was assured that whatever his work, knowledge of it was infinitely less important that knowing how to “deal with people.” This was what brought a price in the market place; and what else could anyone possibly want?

>There was, finally, very little need to know anything at all, except how to “deal with people.”

hahah
i like you user

Thats a lot of ten dollar words

pretty expensive wew

praxis my ignorant friend

Don't you mean twenty dollar words?

Sixteen dollar words plus tax, to be exact.

Book can be summed up as "Ask people questions about themselves, don't talk about yourself. Make it seem like you're interested in them and think they're cool".

Everyone wants to be liked, and they want people to like the things they like "Ohh, I like that thing you like!" DING DING DING, the brain lights shine bright, person thinks they've achieved the goal of "other person liking the thing I like" but it could just be a predator who read this book, you'll never know.

This book teaches you how to win friends----okay, but it doesn't teach you how to AUTHENTICALLY win friends.

The missing piece of advice from this book is that you should genuinely become interested in others if you want to win friends, while also being authentic and a good person.

Doesn't work on autists. And most people I know are autistic.

Well, duh. Autists can't genuinely be interested in subjects besides trains, or whatever else it is they're obsessed with. So of course they can't be genuinely interested in other people (unless that other person likes trains).

>most people i know are autistic
people on this website really love that concept and rarely use it with its proper function

nice triple sevens, surely you are favored by the numerological gods

Some people don't like being the center of attention.

>people on this website really love that concept and rarely use it with its proper function
My therapist said I should get checked for autism.

Citation needed.

Get out of here with your hypocritical sincerity bullshit. You're as autistic as Holden Caulfield. To judge others for their insincerity when you yourself is insincere in your apotheosis of sincerity. To be absolutely sincere is to defy civilization. Unless you can say that you have rejected civilization, and is completely free of being influenced by others in anyway, you are an insincere person.

If for whatever reason you feel its necessary to talk about autism when relating to a person you've never met online in order to gain competitive advantage by appealing to people who think that concept is a valid argument then hey gooo fooor iiit duuuude

He literally says you should only compliment others etc. if you mean it.
>t. reading comprehension skills of a 5 yo
Also
>implying being interested in others and asking question about others makes you a bad person
what the actual fuck

im not the dude you're replying to but that title alone ought to off-put anyone with a proper head on their shoulders

>I have no proof for my claims so I'll ignore the argument and attack the use of a figure of speech
Ooooooookaaaaaay paaalllllll

>literally judging a book by its cover
???

idk what you're getting at man
i really dont know what autism is in detail ive never looked it up, but everyone on this site is constantly using it as some kind of argumentative trump card, "yeah okay autist",
im sure its a real thing that matters to parents with kids who have real issues but for people on this site its merely a word you throw around to disengage people in order to ignore the content of any kind of post that is beyond the scope of their experience

also who cares about "proof for claims", im speaking from the heart, from me, my life
are you one of them scientific materialist blokes

for its title, not its cover

here's a title for you

"child ass rape fan fiction"

thats a title

BUT NOOO DONT NOT READ IT BECAUSE (X) STUPID REASON

the title disgusts me, get rekt

>dude suck up to everyone, have no personality of your own and you'll be successful lmao
shit book

>Get out of here with your hypocritical sincerity bullshit. To judge others for their insincerity when you yourself is insincere in your apotheosis of sincerity. To be absolutely sincere is to defy civilization. Unless you can say that you have rejected civilization, and is completely free of being influenced by others in anyway, you are an insincere person.
There are you happy now? You being autistic wasn't even the argument.
Sure, if you feel that ignorance makes you happy you are entitled that right to be ignorant.

Because it is really old. One of the first of its kind. Probably THE first to be so successful.

>judging a book by its title
One of the best books on value investing, The Intelligent Investor, sounds like it's one of those "invest and win today!" scams.

>inb4 wall street is evil because they hurt my feelings in 2008, and investing is lying to people! oh my gosh!

I think implicit in any argumentative interchange is that the other is ignorant of something

Simply to state that isn't really helpful, care to extrapolate? I'm willing to read and respond

We all have the things we're interesting in and not interested in, judging a book by its title is a pretty simple affair of abiding by our taste in information or literature

I want to manipulate people because my only goal is to become as powerful as possible.

Now THAT is the way to talk!

From that sincere response you can get somewhere!

I don't have the time to go on about that but honesty in people makes me happy, no matter what they're saying

>A good book pertaining to a certain topic has a shitty title
>Yeah but what if I don't like that topic
???

If it has a shitty title then it seems the author isn't very good with words (aka his craft)

Not sure what you meant by care to extrapolate, so I'll assume you meant elaborate. I'll define the sincerity as the absence of pretence, deceit, or hypocrisy, I'm sure that's fair. Civilization makes us defy our own desires, when you're angry at somebody, you don't beat them up, when you're horny, you don't rape. Wouldn't that in essence be a form of pretence? If you have any semblance of self-control, you would be insincere. Even something simple like seeing a chocolate cake and not buying it so you can stick to your diet is insincerity.

Reminds me ¨How to get Rich¨ by Donald Trump where Trump says he did not want to pick the title, but he knew it would incite more readers.

I suppose you don't read non-fiction. That's fine.

You're assuming that your anger or current intensity of sexual drive and the desire to act on it stems from a place of sincerity simply because those emotions are usually linked with more natural impulses

but you're a human, and those impulses are also conditioned, and not thereby "natural" in the full sense, the usual sense

In fact, even figures of speech like yeah wait a second, is a form of insincerity. You know you're gonna take more than a second yet you still say that. Or it's raining cats and dogs. You could argue that it's not insincere if the person knows what you actually mean. But some people don't. That's why only autistic people can truly be sincere. When you tell them I've got eyes on the back of my head, they'll look for eyes at the back of your head.

I do, I don't place much importance on the poetic aspects of a title if the content of the title corresponds directly to something I dig

"Agriculture" is something i dig, and the title doesn't need to be fancy for me to be interested if the book is about agriculture

Though a more specific title would be appreciated, a subcategory or novel approach

There is nothing about a person that is not "natural". Anything you think or is capable of thinking is a result of who you are as a physical being. Perhaps if you became a ghost you could achieve some kind of transcendental sincerity like you claim. But as a human, no.

dont make it seem like thats an extention of my post -_- Veeky Forums can be confusing

So you do acknowledge that judging a book by its title is ridiculous, assuming the topic interests you, which was my point when I said:
>A good book pertaining to a certain topic has a shitty title
>Yeah but what if I don't like that topic

Exactly, Apply what you just said to your own prior posts

No, I'm saying the idea of sincerity is stupid. And perhaps only autistic people can be sincere.

If its fictional then yeah it ought to appeal, if its non-fictional then the appeal lies in the simple fact of its correspondance with things im interested in on a level where a more logial-scientific minded approach is congenial

No, if I apply what I just said to my own prior posts, then everything a person does is sincere, even if its lying or being hypocritical. Since his being a physical being defines what he does, and is natural, he's always sincere.

If sincerity is stupid to you, I suggest you experience more life.

Communication is important.

What is important? When you are suffering, the abating of suffering is important in a very real way.

Honesty, that is to say communication which has the weight of a person's experience behind it, becomes important when you become interested in living happily.

sincerity is important, don't get all absurdly metaphysical about the notion that truth doesnt exist and sincerity is blah blah

Then you can't argue that because of its title of "How to Win Friends and Influence People" it is offputting "for anyone with a proper head on their shoulders", since it is non-fiction, or intended to be. You can only argue that you don't like the book because you're not interested in it.

Yes everyone is always sincere from there perspectives that they currently inhabit, what i am saying is that certain perspectives (models, frames of mind) allow for more lucid, concise expressions of their sincere selves.

To say a person is insincere then is to say that the perspective they inhabit is inconclusive to clearer self expression.

in-conducive*

if thats a word

No, sincerity isn't stupid. YOUR idea of it is. All I'm saying is, you judge others for insincerity but you yourself are insincere. There's nothing wrong with that except it would be insincere by your own idea of sincerity. It wouldn't be insincere in my idea of sincerity, but I do find that ridiculous.

I'm sure you and I both feel our selves to be sincere at this point.

What was my idea of it that you're opposed to?

I always speak from the heart.

And what is the nature of this "sincere self"? Again as I've said, unless you're a ghost, your idea of transcendental sincerity is impossible.

It's written for and by 1930 jetset burger, get a clue.

Now this is the kind of conversation I dig.

I have a strong appreciation or uh aesthetic digging of the style and ideas of Zen.

The direct transmission of self beyond concepts and thoughts and words.

I couldn't really say exactly what I mean by that, only that it means something real to me.

If you want to refute all my prior argumentation based on this response feel free to do so.

I've explained multiple times how very simple things are insincere to the "self" by your definition. I'm opposed to your idea of self-body dichotomy, as if the body isn't the self itself. You claim to always speak from the heart but by denigrating the insincere while probably still doing blatantly insincere things by your definition, you are insincere by your definition.

It almost seems like you want to denegrate the notion of personal preference. To prefer this and not prefer that. That is the basis on which any sane human makes choices moment to moment.

I am saying it is important, and we as humans communicate like this and share our values in the commons and the values that resonate more deeply are integrated and the arguments that don't are discarded, and those that discard the real suffer and those that integrate the real benefit.

Am i saying something insensible?

The unfolding drama of ideas we are currently participating in

Zen Buddhism? It is about the rejection of the physical self and attempting to achieve transcendence, yes. But other than that I don't see how that has anything to do with what you're saying. The transcendence claimed in Buddhism has no self, not even the kind you claim. As you might or might not know, Zen Buddhism descends from Mahayana Buddhism, where the ultimate goal is to achieve bodhisattva. Now that really has nothing to do at all with what you're saying. So I'm confused.

You asked me about this whole "sincere self" idea, which was important in the ideas I've been putting forward.

The self, what is it?

It isn't known through conversation, like this, obviously. We're getting nowhere, heh.

It is through silence.
Now, that takes a measure of faith in existence itself, that existence is good, and it has something real to communicate, and is capable of communicating something real to you. Existence itself. That idea might seem "sparse", "bare", and it is. To align with it you must also become that way. Thoughts are a kind of filter of reality. When you think, you're attention goes into those words, invisible, in your mind's ear or eye, and through them do you engage with your sense-data. It's like a heads up display.

Anyways what was i getting at i've forgotten

I have no clue what you're saying. I did not "denigrate the notion of personal preference" like you claim in any of my arguments. And your idea of universal value resonance confuses me as well. It nearly has nothing to relate to the book in question. Please explain.

I am sorry user but I've lingered too long on this site its 6am, please don't take this as a sign of inconsideration of yourself, this forum is already an inadequate one. I have to go clean dishes for minimum wage pay in 7 hours.

that which is left unexpressed is the space in which

Again, you're making some weird baseless claims that contradicts with what you say. Earlier you say that all you say comes from the heart and your experience and that's all there is, and that's sincere. Now you claim that there is "a way" for you to align with, or try to, to be sincere

"In the scenery of spring, nothing is better, nothing worse; The flowering branches are of themselves, some short, some long."

Your pseudo-intellectual ramblings really have no meaning. Perhaps during your work breaks when cleaning dishes for minimum wage or other free time you can read some philosophy books recommended in the Veeky Forums wiki's Philosophy project. Or even some Mahayana Buddhist suttras. It would help free you from this pseudo-cult dogmatic slumber you've gotten yourself into.

Premise: Your platonic/romantic person of interest picking up sincerity and good intent and returning your interest comes 90% from attractive visceral, nonverbal communication, on the (pre)condition of you having something they subjectively need on a visceral level whether that's a good heart, humor, status inside their culture/subculture, potential knowledge, wisdom, cash which all implies security, adventurousness, risk taking which implies capacity to rise in rank, slay the hordes etc. or simply being reliable, non-judgemental and stuff like that so they feel at ease with you because they happen to crave a good reliable judge of character. All of this is not to be confused with rational needs and the person using you.
And what comes before that is cognitive bias, things like the halo effect, a (subjectively) agreeable countenance, all of the personal biases and impressions the person has about you and the world and so on.

Conclusion: Drop this book and all logocentric analyses, get off the Internet and cease all pseudo socializing so you genuinely crave human contact again, stop watching porn so you are genuinely horny again, meditate so you stop worrying and overthinking and thereby neglecting emotional contact with people in the moment and exercise/dress better/etc. for the halo effect, attracting the people you want in your life and finding your nieche.

Improve Your Social Skills - Daniel Wendler

Start with the basics if you want to cure your autism. Then move onto body language and improv. That should make you a pleasant person to have a conversation and spend time with.

>Start with the basics if you want to cure your autism.
Can you sum up the basics please or at least the general direction?

The key to social skills is building connections with other people, which means you need to build rapport, find common ground, and share new experiences together. This is both an exercise in developing practical skills and overcoming psychological hurdles. Improve Your Social Skills by Daniel Wendler will give you all the basics you need to know. Then go out and talk with people. Get a firm grasp on the basics while observing your strongpoints and weakpoints. Write them down, think about how to improve, and then practice again. Maybe you're not that funny or spontaneous (try learning about improv), maybe you're nervous about other people's opinions (try cognitive behavioral therapy), maybe you don't give off a friendly impression (try learning about body language and practicing), maybe you're too naive to read between the lines (try The Games People Play by Eric Berne), or maybe you're too wishy-washy to be respected (try No More Mr. Nice Guy by Robert Glover). As long as you PRACTICE extensively after reading, you'll grow into your own shoes and achieve some sort of mastery over yourself.

>provides good advice
>kills thread
Every. Fucking. Time. Let us shitpost in peace you faggot.

>"Ask people questions about themselves, don't talk about yourself. Make it seem like you're interested in them and think they're cool".

I feel like knowledge of this technique has actually made socializing more difficult for me. Now when someone asks me questions about myself I assume they're not actually interested and are merely applying the techniques in this book for personal gain.

>people only do a certain action for one reason only
stop being autistic and take advantage of an opportunity to get people interested. if you want to know if somebody is truly interested, get better at reading physical and verbal cues

Fuck off

This is the most autistic conversation I have ever read.

You are way too autistic, my man.

Good advice, and nice dubs. Thanks.

actually when someone is asking me questions about myself, it reminds me to shut the fuck up and ask them about themselves instead, so it helped me immensely

bump

>missed the entire chapter that talked about the need to become genuinely (the book's wording) interested in people

did u not read the whole part where he talks about how u should learn from "man's best friend"? maybe he should have written it in some orientalist mindfulness style instead like "dog's mind, welcoming mind" or whatever trite crap the buddhism industry churns out, but he had a point, if you like people they will like you back, even in the most darwinian place high school, the most popular guy is always the one who takes the time to talk to and get to know even the nerds and weird kids who play dnd at the table way in the back of study hall etc, while his beta orbiters are more likely to beat those kids up etc.

>reduces human relating to some kind of scientific data
Someone is butthurt about the truth

Does anybody find this advice to be useful in any way?

Yeah.

Why?

No amount of books will help you be more social if it's not in your nature. You can force yourself to go through life in a psychopathic manner, but what would be the point of life then. Maybe that is what you want, I just believe that wearing a mask for too long can deeply hurt you.

I think there's a difference between being social and being extroverted. Everybody with functioning levels of intelligence can learn to be social, which means understanding how to communicate and have fun with other people, and I think that guide you quoted would help achieve that goal. Not everybody can be party hounds or social butterflies but nobody said that you had to. What was our goal again? To gain a sense of "know-how" so you can stand on your own feet and learn from your own experiences. If you learn the basics, become attuned to the less subtle "language" and moods, and gain the experience to really feel what socializing entails, then I think you can become a lot better and more confident at socializing than you ever were before, barring sociopaths who feel like they're a robot in a human shell.

Nobody is forcing you to be a pretender, and whether you wear a mask or simply become more self-actualized is up to you for the most part. Actually learn to use the tools like a natural, and understand the significance of those tools, and then you'll be functionally equivalent, internally and externally, to other social people.

When you start going out and talk to people. No book will make you more confident. Confidence is attained through practice. I'm a shy little bitch boy but tomorrow I'm lecturing a bunch of army officers on political education. Why am I able to do that? Because I fight the urge to run away and hide every day by taking on new obstacles.

No amount of books will help you be more social if it's not in your nature. You can force yourself to go through life in a psychopathic manner, but what would be the point of life then. Maybe that is what you want, I just believe that wearing a mask for too long can deeply hurt you. That's why I never learnt to walk and talk as a child, it's just too insincere and fake. How can an innocent child who doesn't know how to walk and talk force himself to do so? I shiver at that chilling thought.

if i had the inclination that somebody liked me and thought i was interesting and 'cool', I'd fuck them off right away for fear that they'd change their mind

if someone is interested in me, they're fucking retarded

Check your privilege.
Some people just wnat some form of life and require manuals because we aren't wired to perceive this normie magic you speak of. You can keep your magic and fun while I try to somehow adapt to society using self-help books.

Eh I didn't find this advice helpful. I'm not going to read a book, even if I practice afterwards. But thanks for trying. The /NEET/ lifestyle is comfy desu.

bumper