I wish someone would do a study on self-help books/materials, to see if they actually have ever helped anyone.
My issue is not that the advice they give is necessarily wrong, but it's that the format usually goes something like this:
1. Survey lots of "successful" people.
2. Identify common behaviors of these people.
3. Recommend that other people practice these behaviors.
I mean, just look at the title, "Never eat alone". I don't doubt that most successful people have a wide network and rarely eat by themselves. I just don't think that telling an introvert, or worse, someone who is painfully shy, that making them engage in a behavior that is naturally uncomfortable for them will lead to equivalent level of success. I kind of feel like it's the same as telling an alcoholic "stop drinking".
> I just don't think that telling an introvert, or worse, someone who is painfully shy, that making them engage in a behavior that is naturally uncomfortable for them will lead to equivalent level of success. I kind of feel like it's the same as telling an alcoholic "stop drinking".
Half of the battle in many struggles is convincing the person that it’s possible to change their situation. Telling stories of people who succeeded in changing can be enough to show that the reader has some control.
Some people get stuck feeling as though everything in their life is purely the result of external factors out of their control. This leads to a sense of helplessness and no attempts to change the situation.
Some self-help books really are helpful at inspiring people to believe that they actually do have some, albeit usually not total, control over their situation. This can be enough of a nudge to get people making the changes they need to make to start moving in the right direction.
They’re not usually miracle fixes or one-shot solutions, but they can shake up the status quo and point the reader in the right direction. No self-help book would simply tell an alcoholic to “just stop drinking”, but they might provide steps for identifying triggers that lead to drinking, taking gradually more control and accountability for their consumption, and provide example success stories to show that people really can overcome alcoholism.
Personally I read the book years ago and found many pieces of actionable advice. For example after years of having very distinct friend groups, I started mixing them together and the result was great. Tons of small tips like that.
Yes you're right, this book isn't for a serious introvert. But Keith never claims it is? Writing a book for everyone leaves you with a book that's useful to no one.
If I write a book about compilers, maybe even mention my book will make someone a better programmer, I don't expect the frontend guys to complain it's not accessible to them. I honestly struggle to understand where this mindset comes from.
The marketing for self help books rarely seems to indicate who the target audience is, other than everyone. I imagine the blurb for your compiler book would not be "The book everyone needs to read to understand how to use a computer better."
Why would a publisher narrow its target purchasing demographic preemptively?
At the end of the day, the point is book sales, not to actually make you successful (even if that’s the effect for some small slice of the people who actually buy it).
I don’t know. Telling an alcoholic to “stop drinking” seems like pretty unambiguously directionally correct advice (albeit difficult to execute) in a way that “never eat alone” is not. In that way “never eat alone” is probably much worse advice.
Telling an alcoholic to "stop drinking" is also completely useless advice. How many alcoholics do you think are like "Oh wow, you're right, if only I had known that all along..."
Telling an alcoholic who knows they are one and is trying to recover to “stop drinking” is probably useless. There are numerous alcoholics who are some combination of unaware or in denial and for whom that advice is not (necessarily) useless.
Yeah, being unaware of your alcoholism doesn't make it any less influential on your behavior. If anything, telling someone who is in denial about their alcoholism to "stop drinking" seems like the most useless option.
This is why I tried to develop A-B.fit. The hard part is working out what messaging leads to good outcomes, not what actions.
"You're overweight", says the Doctor, "you need to eat less and move more." "No s*t Sherlock with my IQ of 147 I'd never managed to put that one together myself," I replied.
"never eat alone" is probably useful advice in the sense of "oh, i always eat alone, but this book says that successful people are doing literally the opposite of what i always do, maybe that means that there is a huge blind spot that i am missing, and that maybe i should try doing something to at least not miss that blind spot, and then i can decide what actions i need to take"
The person you're responding to was not saying that "stop drinking" is directionally incorrect, but that it was not helpful (that it will not lead to an equivalent level of success).
Oh, I observe this too. But when reading, you might come across a tidbit of information that might be useful. I am planning to follow it up with books in contrast: Deep Work and Quiet. You can think of a book as a buffet, and you pick and choose what is applicable and toss the rest.
The way how I meet people tend to be like, do something interesting then people contact me, simple formula, more introvert style.
In this case I think the title is just meant to be something provocative that will get you to take an interest in the book.
The actual book focuses more on the importance of networking and relationships.
I haven’t finished reading it myself yet, so I can’t say with 100% certainty, but so far it seems pretty clear that the author’s main intent is not to suggest that you should always eat with someone else.
You could do the same for anything that purports to help people: training centres, home schooling, higher education.
They'd all have the same result: works for some, not for others. Works better for those that put in the work, than for those that expect the product to do all the heavy lifting.
14. In 1973, when the same class was resurveyed, the differences between the goal setters and everyone else were stunning. The 13 percent who had goals that were not in writing were earning, on average, twice as much as the 84 percent of students who had no goals at all. But most surprising of all, the 3 percent who had written their goals down were earning, on average, ten times as much as the other 97 percent of graduates combined!
It might make a difference, but not 10x in 20 years.
Even if it were real, pretty stupefying that nobody considers if it's an outlier or why the study was never repeated at any other college. Provides some insight into the critical analysis vs confirmation bias in these books.
Yup, and even if the stat were true the presentation is textbook conflation. Did the 3 percent "succeed" because they wrote down their goals, or did they write down their goals because they were driven to "succeed"?
Do we seriously think that if every one of the 84 percent were tasked with sitting down and writing goals they would have morphed into 10x earners? A few would, sure, but not most or even many.
I also personally object to the singular focus on monetary income (I want numbers on how many of the 3/84 percenters reported being happy, doing work they considered important, fulfilled, etc.) but that's just a side note. It's standard cherry-picking fare for this kind of advice.
I recently took "the compound effect" out at the library. It was one of the worst pieces of "success grifter" bullshit I've read (audiobook) in over 10 years.
A steaming pile of trash from the founder of "Success" magazine.
Imagine my surprise when I read the original source of that was an article in the pages of the same magazine.
All I've found is that the more I help people, the more I get taken advantage of. It hasn't stopped me from helping others (although I probably should...), but it really galls me when they toss me aside after my usefulness to them has passed.
For much of my life, I engaged in "Nice Guy" behavior.
A common Nice Guy pattern is helping someone else with the (unstated) expectation that they will reciprocate. Glover calls it a "covert contract." I had to learn that I was doing this, and it was embarrassing to learn that I was, in fact, doing it.
Google "Robert Glover" and "Nice Guy Syndrome" if you want to check whether this might have some applicability to your situation.
There's not too much of a difference between what Keith Ferrazzi is saying and "Nice Guy". He's saying the more you help people, the more you'll get back. The only difference is that he's not saying that each person you help will help you back, and that you shouldn't expect they will. But the overall message in the book is that the more you help people, the more they'll help you in the long run.
With that pointed out, the top comment in the parent cannot be dismissed by a mere labeling of "Nice Guy". His experience is a valid criticism of Keith's message, and it is a reality that the message is not universally applicable. You definitely will get people who'll take advantage of you. They'll see that you're willing to help them, and they'll keep coming to you for more and more help. There will even be folks who'll get upset when you don't help them. That you have to put barriers between yourself and such folk is not something the book handles well (read it years ago so I may be wrong).
His book was really interesting, although there is at least one decent online summary that should suffice to get the idea.
Another one - I don't know if it's in that book - is that people generally feel the need to reciprocate nice gestures. Unwanted help can feel a lot like unwanted debt.
No, that doesn't seem to match what I'm dealing with.
Specifically to my situation: I help someone I've known for awhile, and afterwards I expect that it will develop a closer working relationship of some sort in the future because they'll remember that I helped them out and that we can work together to accomplish things.
What really happens is that after I've helped them, they're not interested in any collaboration anymore unless it meets their immediate needs, and definitely aren't interested in helping out if I need it in future.
I think you’ll be happier, and possibly more charitable, if you overtly propose collaboration or quid pro quo up front with the people you tacitly hope will reciprocate, and do the giving in situations where you honestly do not expect or want reciprocation. In both situations you’re communicating more clearly what you are doing and wanting, which helps.
That wasn't how Robert Glover described it. Quoted from his website:
Who is a Nice Guy?
* He is the relative who lets his wife run the show.
* He is the friend who will do anything for anybody, but whose own life seems to be in shambles.
* He is the guy who frustrates his wife because he is so afraid of conflict that nothing ever gets resolved.
* He is the boss who tells one person what they want to hear, then reverses himself to please someone else.
* He is the man who lets people walk all over him because he doesn't want to rock the boat.
* He is the dependable guy at work who will never say “no,” but would never tell anyone if they were imposing on him.
* He is the man whose life seems so under control, until BOOM, one day he does something to destroy it all.
----------------
This is very different from someone who does someone else a solid, and then that person "owes him one". Someone gets you free tickets to the game, and 3 months later you get them an introduction that helps them out. It's not a 1:1 thing obviously, but there's an expectation of loose reciprocity over the years.
In all relationships you have to be on the giving part at least some of the time, otherwise you're just a user. And if you're on the giving part all of the time, you're a doormat. Both are unhealthy.
It can be tough no doubt. I like to view it as the cost of being the kind of person who helps. It takes an excess of strength to help, so you can see yourself as being strong because of that. You have an excess of capability in some dimension and you're willing to share it. Sometimes a person may take advantage of you, but that's a commentary on them, not on you.
Oddly enough, you'd have better results if you asked the person to help you out instead. I'm missing the research but hand-wavy explanation is that you justify having done something for someone by becoming more attached to them. I also think asking for help is a sign of vulnerability and signals trust
I can relate somewhat and found that when the foundation of the relationship is "helping," then after that need is gone, most of the time so is the relationship. I was hoping for some sort of deeper or more meaningful friendships, or sense of community. It's been hard to come by from those situations. From my side, I realized that the longing for something deeper and authentic actually made the relationship transactional and inauthentic.
Here's something I wrote a couple of days ago[0], that sort of applies to any of these "recipe for success" books/speakers/videos/TED Talks/fireside chats/whatever:
> Of course, the issue is that for every 10,000 appalling, messy, featured-on-rotten-dot-com failures, there's one spectacular success. Since humans are biased to think of successful outcomes as more likely than they actually are, the ingredients for that success become a "recipe," and are slavishly reproduced, without any critical thought, or flexibility.
> It's like a witch doctor's formula for headache cure is bat urine, dandruff from the shrunken head of a fallen warrior chief, eye of newt, boiled alligator snot, and ground willow bark. The willow bark is what did it, but the dandruff thing is the most eye-catching ingredient, so it gets the credit, and everytime the chief gets a hangover, they start a war.
> Somewhere down the road, a copycat substitutes hemlock for the willow bark, and headaches become a death sentence.
But all that said, it's fairly commonsense stuff. Relationship-building is important.
For me, I'm an introvert, and I don't believe that superficial relationships are ideal (but are, nonetheless, often absolutely required). I like to have more meaningful ones, if possible; with deeper human connections.
But I won't start a meaningful relationship, unless I am willing to commit to it.
Part of "commit to it," is that I hold up my end of the relationship, and act with Integrity.
“When you help others, they often help you.”
But also “Stop keeping score” … “Never keep score.”.
You can’t ever know if the first statement is true without keeping score.
In other words: to get the things you want, convince yourself and others you are being selfless then ask them for stuff.
Anyone who is interested in helping people out truly selflessly can secretly send me money on a regular basis, and I’ll make sure it goes to people who need it and take credit for it. You can be helping and not keeping score just like the book suggested.
Wait… to get the book or a course or coaching I need to pay first? Oh I see… it’s “give me exactly this much stuff first, so I can tell you how you should never do that.”
Yeah - loved the book but this one was hard to swallow. I agree with him in one sense[1], but not to the extreme.
At some point in your life your time and resources will be quite constrained, and you simply can't help everyone. You need to strategize who to help, and identifying "leeches" requires some level of score keeping.
I've certainly had multiple people speak ill of me to others saying that I stopped trying to connect with them. They fail to mention that in the last N years, they never connected with me. It was always me initiating the phone call/email, etc. And I can say that definitively only because I had phone and email records going back years. Simple thing to script.
(BTW, not recommending you stop calling people because they never call you - merely illustrating people's lousy behavior in response to it).
[1] You're always going to have to give a lot more than you receive. Networking is fundamentally very inefficient, if you make this a metric.
I wouldn't mind the message if it were delivered a bit more honestly. Maybe: do some favours to folks before you need any in return... then don't be shy about asking for help when you need it... especially from those you've done favours for (and their peers and family). But don't expect help in return from everyone.
Failing to keep score has gotten me robbed and conned. Definitely keep score. Not exact score, but when your "friend" asks you for a loan, do consider if they paid off the previous one.
This type of “advice” never was free, but I feel like since about mid 2020 the economy of fictional goods exploded. E.g. everyone and their pony got a monetized podcast now, teasing you with access to their mental production. I really hope this isn’t driven by necessity, but boredom, or I fear we are heading for a major crisis. I don’t see how the economy can sustain this much bullshit. Liebe. Freiheit. Ad nauseam.
The one thing I like about any engineering and sales position is that you just can't lie about your skills, you can either build or sell something or you can't. There is no bullshit you can create at least within the organisation. And contrast it with other managerial jobs, where you can pretend to do the job as long as you can and 'network' around and when you're called out, you can just jump to another ship.
I'm not sure what I expected -- I'd heard of this book before, and think it's generally good/great advice -- the title.
but the first thing i saw when i went to the link was something like:
> Help others. Because when you do, they often help you back.
That put me off.
Just because it seems selfish and/or manipulative and/or it's advising you to corrupt one of the things that makes the world occasionally bearable -- helping people because they need some help.
Instead, this book is saying, help people because you can get something in return.
At least according to that summary.
I guess I don't have _too_ much of a problem with that, but...can we cay 'billionaires'? Their entire lives revolve around helping people in the name of getting something in return -- like Benioff Children's Hopsital. oh gawd. :-D
c'mon, bro. like what evil shit are you doing in your life that you have to sponsor a _children's hospital_??
nevermind. i can imagine.
pretty soon a legion of billionaires is going to be funding a 'child sex trafficking rescue organization'.
Alternative reading: productize your life, whore yourself, network and back-scratch others, and keep your eyes on the rat race, to achieve some kind of endpoint (measured as a career progression) that it was instilled on you into a young age as "success".
There’s always a lot of criticism when it comes to books like these. For those of you critical, I would encourage you to ask “what do the anecdotes in this book say about universal human patterns” instead of “what is the recipe I’m supposed to follow to be successful.”
> 2. Poverty, I realized, wasn't only a lack of financial resources; it was isolation from the kind of people that could help you make more of yourself.
A.k.a. social capital, which is another way people of some races and backgrounds are privileged, and others marginalized. And which makes books like these utter nonsense that victim-blames the very people they are ostensibly trying to help.
I live in a poorer part of a rich city and even things like playdates for kids are difficult to arrange because people have been conditioned to fear this part of the city. "It's too far" is a common excuse, but the same parents are driving twice as far to hang out with other people in the group (but don't you dare point that out!).
I was slightly aware of this social isolation before having kids, but you could mostly navigate it by learning what you couldn't talk about. Innocuous things poorer people talk about, like expensive housing, gentrification, problems with extended family, fixing your own apartment/house, foodstamps, my childhood... bring any of that stuff up and it's like you suddenly have two heads.
That always made me feel shameful about growing up poor... but navigating that stuff while trying to interact with my kids' friends' parents has become outright infuriating. I live in a nice little house in a quiet neighborhood and because of my zip code it might as well be a leper colony. If you mention any of this you get ostracized in such a polite way you could almost be convinced that they're doing you a favor.
>bring any of that stuff up and it's like you suddenly have two heads.
I feel this is a defensive mechanism against guilt. Those well off feel guilty about not helping their "friends" who are struggling.
Although this ostracization goes both ways, seeing someone talk off handedly about losing more money than your family has seen in a decade doesn't make one feel good or wish to interact with them in the future.
Yeah maybe... it's just exhausting. It feels like there are so many presumptions about how someone is because of what they make or where they live that you don't even have a chance to befriend people who might be in a different economic class. Once you start tying those economic presumptions to race as well, "never eat alone" feels like an impossibility.
I hate networking and loathe networkers. People who get their job done by emailing, making phone calls and sitting in meetings are leaches. They know little which isn't told to them (they're too busy socializing to read a book), produce nothing, leave the details and hard work to others, yet somehow are given all the credit and reap all the benefits.
Never Eat Alone is basically a guide to creating and maintaining insincere relationships with others so you can use them to do work for you. Just like Tom Sawyer, it's considered clever if you get all your friends to paint the fence so you don't have to. I personally find it nauseating.
I've recently started my own software business and the reality is that all the work is going out talking to potential clients and understanding their problems.
Writing some code at the end is usually trivial once I've actually understood the problem.
Most successful useful products do not sell solely based on the merit of the code/engineering behind them. While it's true that without your coding skills they may not make money, it's also true that without people's sales and networking skills, you will not make money.
Of course, when a company gets to a certain size, such leeches that you describe very clearly exist. The notion of "failing upwards"[1] is clear once you look for it. However, don't make the mistake of generalizing from the leeches who are in the minority to the others who are performing a useful role.
[1] Including getting fired only to find better jobs. Over and over again.
I think the important takeaway is for those who have extreme networking as the primary focus, lunch & dinner meetings are just one of the things that should not fail to be exploited.
Like anything else there are only so many meal dates you can make, and no matter how hard you try they will not all come true, so you need to put it into accurate perspective how to take action.
Simply one of the best ways to bond with a variety of associates is through common love of good food and service at your favorite restaurants.
It can be a serious advantage when you're born & raised for this.
OTOH I had an exponential growth phase with a marketer who did not like the fancy food & drink but catered to sports-loving clients with game tickets, plus discreetly for our most lucrative client a generous season package with extra seats for whoever they wanted since we actually went to only a few of the games ourselves.
All compliments of Our Co. which everybody ended up knowing since discretion was of course not fully maintained.
Occasional clients became regulars and everyone wanted to "move up in the rankings".
Anyway, top networkers and persuasive salespeople have always had the most unfair advantage when that is basically their entire focus compared to their other highly successful peers.
But it's not a good idea to let any persuasiveness get the best of an organization. Once a goal is established, the networkers should be working purely in service to the creative, engineering, and technical executives. Not the other way around.
My issue is not that the advice they give is necessarily wrong, but it's that the format usually goes something like this:
1. Survey lots of "successful" people.
2. Identify common behaviors of these people.
3. Recommend that other people practice these behaviors.
I mean, just look at the title, "Never eat alone". I don't doubt that most successful people have a wide network and rarely eat by themselves. I just don't think that telling an introvert, or worse, someone who is painfully shy, that making them engage in a behavior that is naturally uncomfortable for them will lead to equivalent level of success. I kind of feel like it's the same as telling an alcoholic "stop drinking".