However, just reading a book on this subject is not enough. You will actually have to apply the principles in your everyday life. Dealing with people is kind of like an art. And just like any art (like painting) you can only get better with deliberate practice. Doing this might feel a little uncomfortable at first, but it's how we grow as people. Where I work, employees are offered tuition reimbursement for taking their official courses (https://www.dalecarnegie.com/en). The Carnegie courses helped me take the knowledge from these books and put it into practice. It was incredibly helpful for me, and aided in overcoming some of my social anxiety.
Another user also recommended toastmasters, which is probably an equal alternative if you can't get your company to pay for the courses.
It's incredibly easy to spot people who utilize concepts in that book and are not being genuine in their interaction. 'Masks' are a great way to prevent authentic connection.
I've found better utility in a combination of books about positive psychology, emotions in relationships, and analytical psychology.
Then they're not taking to heart the book's principles. An common theme behind a lot of his advice is based in being honest, sincere, and genuine. If they're not being any of those things then they're not doing it right.
At the very least, the utility of the book is that it teaches you how to play the game.
But that doesn't mean that someone who seeks to deal constructively and genuinely with people can't benefit from a book of observations on how people work and what does and doesn't work when interacting with them.
Yes, it's possible to take it too far and develop a fake, unnatural persona based on rule-following. So don't do that. But the book isn't about that anyway. For example, one of the chapters is about learning to just admit it when you're wrong. I see that as something a mature person ought to be able to do, and it took me a long time to learn to practice that.
If I find that my natural manner of interaction is offputting, and adopt a set of behaviors with the goal of not angering those around me is that so terrible?
Sometimes "manipulation" isn't some grand scheme to rule the world - it's just an attempt to carve out some autonomy and security in a world where overly emotional people can dictate your life.
One might argue that a coworker who will harm your career if you don't listen to them time waste and drone about their children or extorts you into social interaction (labels you "weird" or "aloof" if you won't go out after work with them) is the manipulative one - doing harm to force others to meet their emotional, non work related needs.
What you're talking about seems very different from that. Everyone faces situations where it just isn't practical to be completely sincere or genuine. We all have to put up a bit of a front from time to time. I don't think there's anything wrong it, as to some extent it's just the grease that keeps the social machine moving smoothly. In fact, if you didn't do it, you'd be creating unnecessary friction that really serves no purpose. As long as it's done for good reasons, it's fine or even good.
Of course, it's definitely much better if it's give and take, with both sides doing their part to adapt to make things work. If two people work together and one is very talkative and social, and the other is quiet and keeps to themselves more, the quiet person needs to engage in a little conversation, and the talkative person needs to understand that the other person isn't always up for that.
How do you know?
To clarify, you don't know how many people you interacted with that utilized those concepts but you haven't noticed at all.
You're right, there may be times I don't notice. I have no data to prove that.
IME, being in the moment and my body instead of in my head made it apparent that we aren't as clever as we think we are in social situations.
There's always something that can be found for mutual sincerity.
Some people interpret this to mean you have to fake interest in the subject, or you have to be honest that you don’t like said subject but it can also mean you take interest in the subject simply because the subject is of interest to the person you’d like to be friends with.
Again, this a bit of a skill and takes practice
What do you do when someone literally does not react to anything you say in any way whatsoever? I could tell them "Yeah, X sounds like a great idea!" or "Please don't do that, I think X would be very harmful to the project", and their reaction would be the same "OK thanks, guess I'll go do X now".
Then if doing X results in failure and they learn nothing from the experience.
1. You can talk to them directly, and say "I feel like we're not on the same page when we talk about X,Y,Z [what can we do to come to an agreement]/[why do you keep doing that?]" (the bracketed parts depend on who has what authority).
2. You bring it up with your manager.
It would help if you gave an idea on what you've tried.
As for your specific scenario, some points:
Don't have a telling posture. Even if you think it is a fact, present it with the posture of an opinion. "This is how I see it." Actively point out you may be wrong, and actively invite opposition "I'd like to hear other perspectives." You'll have to be sincere, because if people perceive you as the person who always wants others' opinions, but always dismisses them, people will very quickly stop offering them. I've seen this happen within a month of a new manager coming to our team.
Also, make sure you're asking open ended questions. Not questions that can be reasonably answered in a few words.
Related to the concept of Strategic Questioning (https://www.context.org/iclib/ic40/peavey/)
They don't react to my statement at all - I don't think they disregard it, I think they don't listen to it in the first place.
There are ways to achieve the same effect without an equally bad appearance:
+ You can break the work into smaller chunks, to create more checkpoints
+ You can have a plan that is very specific about what is to be done that everyone agrees to in a written form (if you have a meeting, someone should take notes and have them circulated after the fact)
+ Most lightweight, you can not present the plan in one chunk, but talk it through, taking ample opportunity to reiterate and solicit agreement (if you do this right, the other person will repeat what you said, without you ever telling them to--everyone is happy)
I'm more than happy to refer you to him. Just pm me
- Know your virtues - https://www.viacharacter.org/www/
- Know your strengths - https://www.gallupstrengthscenter.com/
I recommend starting with these before diving into analytical psychology (they're more actionable than theoretical)
To the OP - in my experience, it's absolutely enough for a dev to be good to move up. That's the beauty of software development. Now, if you ever want to be a manager or a lead, it's definitely a different story.
Don't. You'll become utterly disgusted when you realize how many people use the "hacks" from that book on you and expect certain outcomes. Or if you insist, you can anti-hack them by doing the opposite of what they expected if you are bored (though significantly lowering your chances in the game of politics). Anyway, you'll see a pointless boring game played on all levels. Never seen a (not very capable) person perceivably insincerely asking something in a certain way, self-assured of its success, with arrogant body language, and then considering a person doing what was asked a disposable, predictable trash? Well, that book has something to do with it, even if it seemingly teaches the opposite, but certain agile people use it as a human hacking manual.