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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
PragmaticPulp|3 years ago
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|3 years ago
solardev|3 years ago
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.
throwaway74829|3 years ago
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|3 years ago
To an extent, I agree with you. That said, protocols are also not a bad thing and socializing is almost certainly a learnable skill.
tinus_hn|3 years ago
jules|3 years ago
agumonkey|3 years ago
at_a_remove|3 years ago
Some were of the opinion that I was a good conversationalist, which I find darkly amusing.
eastbound|3 years ago
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|3 years ago
sjs7007|3 years ago
Related article you might find interesting
bittercynic|3 years ago
worble|3 years ago
ycombobreaker|3 years ago
chefandy|3 years ago
sdwr|3 years ago
ajkjk|3 years ago
jonnycomputer|3 years ago
nedwin|3 years ago
johnfn|3 years ago
piyh|3 years ago
> 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|3 years ago
karaterobot|3 years ago
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|3 years ago
starkd|3 years ago
ajkjk|3 years ago
philsnow|3 years ago
bawolff|3 years ago
willmadden|3 years ago
coldtea|3 years ago
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.
aaron695|3 years ago
[deleted]