> Humans are diverse and should have differences in how they treat others and react.

Even though I agree with you, that's not a fact and, if a bunch of people are happy all being exactly the same, that's great for them. You can have any amount of ideas about how things should be but if someone is happy the way they are, that's what's important, that's the end goal.

I just wonder if some people don't often get to their end years and regret putting on an inauthentic mask their entire life because a book told them to. Having dialogues with people like it's a transaction to win instead of a conversation.

Good thing that's not what the book is about.

> putting on an inauthentic mask their entire life because a book told them to.

I think the key difference- at least for the book I mentioned - is that it actually teaches to you take a genuine interest in those around you. It's not a mask or a ploy, it is making you engage positively in a way that yields genuine connections.

If at any point in a natural conversation you're going to a trick a book taught you instead of just speaking your mind I'd argue it's a mask of a kind.

Example: if at the start of a conversation a personal anecdote comes to mind but you think 'no that's not what the book said, I should talk about the other person instead' I'd argue you're masking your natural persona. If your natural inclination is to raise an eyebrow but no that's not what I was taught smile instead, that's a mask. You see it often among high earning people and it's pretty transparent. Luckily you often also see people who are not at all like that everywhere and they're the ones I'll prefer having a drink with 10/10 times.

Maybe. But many people have a tendency to speak more than listen because they were never taught how to be social and civil. You see that with toddlers. They talk about themselves and what they like. Good parents teach their kids to introduce themselves, ask questions, be curious about their friends and adults in conversation. It’s literally a key developmental phase that determines whether a kid is more narcissistic the rest of their life.

There are similar socialization rituals. When you are in karate you might be taught to bow before entering a dojo or sparring with a partner. Is that an inauthentic mask because you are conforming to the respect rituals? Or how about a military salute? These norms are part of the social lubrication that makes relationships easier to form. And the process of socializing a person is teaching them to incorporate them as authentic parts of themselves.

I haven't read it yet, but reading it is not going to change your personality. Personality defines how you receive it.

If you change your entire personality based on a self-help book.. that probably says a lot about your personality.

And anyway twin studies make the hardware seem more impactful than the software in many ways..

Personality is not a static entity. It’s a feedback loop, a conversation you can have with yourself to adjust over time. My brother had intense anxiety in cars. He applied techniques that improved his ability to handle the situation. Saying he has an anxious personality is ultimately defeatist and not reflective of the agency we each possess.

And twin studies, while persuasive that biology does have a massive impact are not dispositive compared to similar studies on human development theory that has longer population sizes that show self dialogue can shape behavior over time.

Except that is not what the book teaches at all. Sometimes people can’t take the advice of “just be a better person and care about other people” unless it’s explained to them more specifically and anchored to their goals. It’s not because they are inauthentic, it’s because they are lacking skills and understanding.

I actually crashed out semi-recently about this exact thing, quit church and all and was genuinely surprised when the people who were speaking politeley to me reached out in a genuine, non-public and non-coerced way.

I don't think the word "inauthentic" quite captures why people react negatively to this sort of communication.

At least part of it comes from the fact that this particular style of "kindness-is-cool-coded" (for lack of a better word) communication happens to be the preferred style of insanely passive-aggressive people who take it upon themselves to brutally sabotage anyone who they deem unacceptable. It can also feel like you're being lead on by someone who actively dislikes you but is too polite to say it. Or you just start second-guessing every single thing they say and do.

But honestly, there's a pretty sizable minority of people who are repelled by this type of person and if you're naturally bad at reading the room you're probably better off making friends with other people that say and do dumb things.

I know I went through a "How to Win Friends and Influence People" phase when younger and basically ended up just putting off a whole of people.

Culturally many Australians have an ingrained and likely healthy aversion to feeling they are being "handled" or manipulated in some manner.

Likely stems from a hundred and fifty odd years of the "always British" types swanning it over the "this is where we live and we love it" crowd.

If your were (never mind presented as) inauthentic after reading HTWFAIP your reading comprehension was lacking. HTWFAIP is about building authentic, mutually beneficial relationships with people, not shining them on. I’m totally with you about fake people, but HTWFAIP is not about that.

Aside from being about forming sincere relationships, it handles influence with essentially this advice: Stop trying to force people to care about what you want. Understand what they want, treat them with respect, and align your request with their self-interest and self-image. If you come off as false doing those things, it’s because you didn’t actually do them, you pantomimed them.

I see this as a type of psychological manipulation. Almost everyone is interested in other people's story and the basic human trait of listening gets you over that hump. The "and align your request with their self-interest and self-image" part is what gets me. As an off-the-cuff example that someone might use this advice to craft:

“You’re such a generous person. I know you love being there for friends. Could you help me move Saturday?”

It's an example that of course sounds ridiculous to anybody that reads it, but it's essentially what the book teaches. Gather information not even about the person but how the person feels about themselves and then use that as a tool to make them feel good when you're talking to them.

I suppose it's also not helped that many of the people I've met who use this and admire this book have psychopathic traits. They're very good at faking caring but actually can't. It's a cold calculation to them and admittedly it's very effective at getting them ahead.

I guess if you are feigning interest it is manipulation, but the book speaks specifically against that. If you want to make friends, you have to be genuinely interested and invested. If you want to influence people, you have to be sincere and aligned. (Modern politics puts the lie to these requirements, but that is what the book teaches)

I don’t know how you could read that book in a modern frame and get syrupy insincerity out of it in good faith, but it is true that many people read this type of book looking for shortcuts and hacks, so they are not looking for the good faith reading. If you read the rest of NH’s work, you will find that his philosophy is firmly based on genuine good faith and delivering disproportionally high value to the people you interact with. (As well as some very 19th century metaphysics you can safely ignore)

But yes, many people read that book, ape the ideas, and act like asshats. It’s hardly a failing of the book.

You are conflating manipulation and persuasion.

Manipulation seeks to get someone to do what you want against their interests.

Persuasion seeks to align their interests with your interests in a mutually beneficial manner. The act of speaking to their interests by definition takes their well being into consideration.

I would reframe the question you’re asking. Instead of assuming that the interaction with business man A and B is fake, that it’s done for an ulterior motive, that it requires being inauthentic and suppressing your personality, all of which isn’t part of what makes people connect to each other ask “but did they enjoy the experience and make a friend”. There are known interactions patterns that result in people connecting to each other. If you want to connect with others learn how to.

And the book “the game” isn’t an example of that skill. People that follow those techniques find out quickly that they end up destroying the connections they make really quickly.

> It's similar to my aversion to books like "The Game"

Note that The Game isn't a PUA manual, it's investigative journalism into the PUA scene.