That would be even worse than our already bad system.
The system is already pretty bad because vendors underinvest in security, and then to fix it, researchers have to volunteer their time to investigate with no guarantee of payment. If the vendor could force researchers to hand over findings for free, nobody would want to do security research except hobbyists having fun. They're basically signing up for hours of tedious forced labor to explain vulnerabilities to the vendor.
I wish there was legislation that allowed the government to fine vendors for security vulnerabilities like this where the amount scales based on how much user data they leaked. And it could function like other whistleblower systems where a researcher who spots a leak can report it to the government and collect 50%. That way, if the vendor says, "We're not paying you," the researcher can turn around and collect the money from fines.
One of the things I like about this is that OP is giving people genuine compliments without any particular agenda.
It reminds me of one of my favorite parts of How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie, where he tells a story about complimenting someone, and a student asks what he was hoping to gain from offering the compliment. Carnegie is incensed:
> I was waiting in line to register a letter in the Post Office at Thirty-Third Street and Eighth Avenue in New York. I noticed that the registry clerk was bored with his job[...] So while he was weighing my envelope, I remarked with enthusiasm: “I certainly wish I had your head of hair.”
> He looked up, half-startled, his face beaming with smiles. “Well, it isn’t as good as it used to be,” he said modestly. I assured him that although it might have lost some of its pristine glory, nevertheless it was still magnificent. He was immensely pleased. We carried on a pleasant little conversation, and the last thing he said to me was: “Many people have admired my hair.”
> I told this story once in public; and a man asked me afterwards: “What did you want to get out of him?”
> What was I trying to get out of him!!! What was I trying to get out of him!!!
> If we are so contemptibly selfish that we can’t radiate a little happiness and pass on a bit of honest appreciation without trying to screw something out of the other person in return—if our souls are no bigger than sour crab apples, we shall meet with the failure we so richly deserve.
> Oh yes, I did want something out of that chap. I wanted something priceless. And I got it. I got the feeling that I had done something for him without his being able to do anything whatever in return for me. That is a feeling that glows and sings in your memory long after the incident is passed.
I avoided this book for a long time. for some reason I got it in my head that it's a sort of red pilled book that teaches you how to manipulate people. I know it's very shallow on my side, but I somehow crystallized this opinion based on a few acquaintances that claimed to read it and instead that they include the name of a person they just met in every sentence because it made that person like them more.
Your comment made me consider reading it. This rant about radiating happiness towards people without expecting something in return gives me a different insight on his reasons for writing the book.
> I avoided this book for a long time. for some reason I got it in my head that it's a sort of red pilled book that teaches you how to manipulate people.
FWIW this book came out in the 1930s, long before "red pilling" was a thing. I've read it before and it's not about manipulating people unless you consider being a genuinely sincere person to be manipulative in some way. It's a good book, if a little outdated, and, if I could summarize it in one glib sentence, its lesson is "If you want people to like you, then be nice to them, be genuine, and show enthusiasm and interest in what they show enthusiasm and interest in."
My read on the book was "humans are really good at telling if you genuinely care about them or not and will respond well to that, so you should genuinely care about the people around you, and good things will result from that overall, especially if you're not super mercenary about it."
Bill & Ted said it most pithily: be excellent to each other.
Serious question - what is your definition of "genuinely care"? The Carnegie example doesn't show "geninuely care" to me. It's nice, I think I should do it. Give people random but geninue complements. It's nice. It costs nothing. It makes both of us feel good. But, is that "genuinely care"?
I ask because I'm bad at conversation. I hear this "genuinely care" and I just, usually, can't get myself to do it. I don't care. I would like to have a nice conversation and I try to care in the moment but the odds are pretty high that 5 minutes after it's over I'll not even know their name and move on with my life. That's not "genuine care" to me.
You can genuinely care in one moment and forget about them five minutes later, that's ok. Part of making conversation is also stopping the conversation when you are done, not letting it bleed out. My favorite is: "I really enjoyed this conversation, now I'm going to read my book".
I find it nice to connect to strangers in real life, if only for a moment. It can be about something silly as sharing a very bright bird you see while waiting for the bus. It can be giving two dollars to the woman in front of you at the grocery store, cause she's short.
Also, having this connection with people when it is about nothing (small talk) helps build communication skills you need when it is about something.
I genuinely hope you will get answers on your question, maybe even in this thread. But I'll also forget about it in two minutes.
That's kind of the point. Ask yourself: which people would you genuinely be excited to make a little happier? (through a compliment or otherwise) Whose opinion are you keen to carefully listen to and consider? Who do you like enough such that you will want to put in the effort to remember their name?
I think the idea is that if the stranger on the bus has a haircut you genuinely find to be wonderful: tell them about it. You don't need to force yourself to be nice, just take action on the things you're genuinely excited to do.
And if you don't ever want to be nice to people, then you have some digging and reflection to do (including about if/when you are nice to yourself).
I'd argue that there is a very strong value in doing something good, not just because it's genetically or socially imprinted on you, but because you actually decide to do it.
This applies to everything, there is no merit in being good at something just because you were born that way.
But the question was different: it wasn't "can I get good at this flowery small talk if it doesn't come naturally?", it was "is flowery small talk genuine care?"
I would posit that no, it is not. And it's not even unambiguously a good thing. There are plenty of cultures where people are described as cold until you get to know them, but once you do - they'd die for you. To me, that is genuine care. The American "Hiii! How ARE you? I don't actually care if you keel over and die!" approach feels fake.
Giving someone, as in this thread, a genuine compliment that you mean sincerely isn't "flowery small talk" and it's sort of depressing that you think that it is.
No one in this thread is talking about your example except for you, and it would perhaps do you well to reflect on why you read things that way.
I think a reasonable proxy for "care" is genuine curiosity about who a person is, how they came to be where they are, what makes them tick, coupled with a general desire for positive things to happen to them in their life.
If you believe that most people have things about them that are fundamentally interesting, you will put effort in to find those things, and you'll generally be successful in finding them. If you have a belief that most people are fundamentally uninteresting, you will not put in the work, and your beliefs will be validated because you will fail discover anything of interest in most people around you.
The act of earnestly wondering about a person is very flattering - this will help people open up to you and share their interestingness. If you can layer that with an additional thought of what useful thing you might be able to do for them, such as another person who might be able to help them, or a piece of advice you can give that might save them time, you will develop a reputation as a person one should talk to.
This then will increase your hit rate on being useful which is a nicely positively compounding cycle.
I’m not so hung up on the semantics. The fact that you’ll likely never meet someone again can render an act of kindness towards them, no matter how small, more meaningful, not less.
I think when it comes to small talk and small moments with people, caring is meant literally. You care that they have a decent day, a brief nice moment. So in carnegie's example, he notices that the fellow looks bored, and he sees an opportunity to take care of him, in the form of a compliment.
I think your comment reflects that you're waiting for someone to say or do something which will cause you to care. And that's effectively waiting to get something from them. You need to cultivate the sense that everyone in some sense has the same daily struggle, and be the bigger person who strives to alleviate some of that loneliness and suffering in others.
> Give people random but genuine complements. It's nice. It costs nothing. It makes both of us feel good.
I'm worried it'll come off as creepy/weird so I never do. I've seen the power of other people doing it, but I cannot do it free from that worry so it's always gonna be off vOv
The only path to cool is through cringe. You can do it!
I think a lot of people after a random compliment might be wondering if the other person is trying to get something out of them, like a date or a business deal. When it becomes clear that you're leaving it there with no expectation of reciprocation they can truly internalize the compliment.
Its not really about "genuinely caring" about the individual scenarios or things. Its about genuinely caring about the lives of other people and things which you may not have direct experience, aptitude, or a prexisting joy for.
I genuinely care about my friend. He's really into bee-keeping. I don't care at all about bees. But he cares about it, so I ask questions because I care about him. I have now learned enough about his bee-keeping to be legitimately interested in whether, say, his bees survived the winter or to be upset with him that an invading swarm killed them.
The simple answer to your question, I think, is that you probably can't "make yourself" care about a specific thing at the drop of the hat. But if you care deeply about other things, especially tangential things, it's relatively easy to learn to care about new things you learn about.
1. You don't care about X until you do. Like, you can go for years without worrying cholesterol. And then you can have a reason to care about it and all of a sudden you do. The reason can come from something that forces your hand or just because you take an interest in a subject.
2. Altruism. Think less about care and more just doing without expecting anything back. People notice, especially with selfless conversation.
For me, I find most things can be fascinating. There are so many domains I have zero personal, surface-level interest in, but have nuances that are super interesting.
When someone else has that spark, and their eyes sparkle, and they beam as they talk about "their interest"? Idk, I love that. It makes me feel good to hear them. I feel like we both come away better for the conversation.
> How can you make yourself genuinely care about something you don't care about? It sounds as plausible as changing your own sexual orientation.
Most people don't care about the gym but they care about their health and their health as they age so many learn to care about going to the gym even if they don't love every minute of their gym time. I'm one of those people.
Not sure what the downvotes are for on this one. It depends a lot on what "genuine care" is supposed to mean. If you want to interpret that as a subconscious feeling then you're right. Feelings aren't normally controllable and calling them up on demand is pretty much impossible.
That being said, if you go through a bit of game theory and apply it to the real world - the experience of the last few millennia of recorded history is the strategy most likely to get people what they want is lots of communication and setting up win-win deals for everyone. Someone who reliably offers win-win deals has a natural advantage over the more common person who thinks in terms of win-lose deals. Communities that make a habit of setting up win-win deals for their members have an overwhelming advantage over those that don't. If you tap in to that type of thinking it tends to translate into taking a real interest in how other people are going because it is easier to set win-win deals up if you know what their problems and goals are. And a sensible sub-strategy is making sure to be as kind as possible to everyone to get into the habit of thinking empathically and keep channels of communication as open as possible.
So if "genuine care" means you literally feel something... nobody has much use for your feelings, we can't tell what your feelings are anyway and you probably can't call them up on demand. If "genuine care" means you try to figure out what other people want and then help them get it then that's simply good strategy and most people should find their way to it if they think about it for long enough. Some people have to think a bit harder than others and there are a few rare maniacs who really just want to cause pain and suffering. The maniacs are bad news.
I agree with you this was not Dale Carnegie's intent when he wrote the book, but alexmuresan probably takes issue because the "red pilling" crowd have used Carnegie's advice to manipulate people.
Personally, salespeople have randomly complimented me and repeated my name over and over, and on the receiving end it weirded me out. So the problem is that in certain situations there is an overarching "what did you want to get out of that person?". Don't be those people.
Strike up conversations because you enjoy people and their stories.
> Part of Cialdini’s large book-buying audience came because, like me, it wanted to learn how to become less often tricked by salesmen and circumstances. However, as an outcome not sought by Cialdini, who is a profoundly ethical man, a huge number of his books were bought by salesmen who wanted to learn how to become more effective in misleading customers.
Yes, the problem is that every scammer and salesman uses these techniques also, and if you've run into a few of them, having a complete stranger approach you with the standard Dale Carnegie playbook immediately sets off alarm bells.
Yes this is obvious if you think about movies where people become friends or romantic partners- they are usually cold or unfriendly to each other in the first meeting which makes their later connection seem more authentic. I cannot imagine a movie post 1950s in which a man uses these tactics and gets the girl or the sale without difficulty. Of course movies are not real life but they do rely on some verasimilitude.
That's because a movie like that would be boring (at least if it took up more than a minimal amount of screen-time). Interesting stories require some form of conflict, and for movies that focus on romance, the conflict will be interpersonal.
Yeah, that's it exactly. Films aren't reality, although they can be a reflection of what we might think how reality should go. Af the end of the day, films are made to capture an audience, not to paint a perfect portrait of the real world.
Also, there are counterexamples to that person's claim, such as the film Before Sunrise, which is an excellent romance film that doesn't involve an arc where the characters are indifferent or dislike each other at first. The films Sideways and even Office Space defy that trope as well.
Selective memory. Plenty of movies do not require conflict before romance. La La Land, Being Again, Silver Linings Playbook, About Time, ... plenty of others.
Conflict is required, just not necessarily before the romance, or even involving the romance. There's definitely a sub-genre of a low-conflict meet-cute followed by conflict later on.
The inverse is true as well. I read it and thought it was great, but it also put me more on the defense as well. It is kind of sad how I can see relationships going from near symmetric to any kind of assymetry and it shocks me how many times they fall apart because I set limits (and not at all unreasonable limits). Too many many tread water, so i get it but... yeesh.
Someone turned me onto this podcast several months ago and, after a few episodes, my takeaway was they seem to be against every book they review. I couldn't find a single book they actually liked.
Assuming you're not joking, that's the point of the podcast... hence the title "If Books Could Kill". They're reviewing bad and possibly dangerous books.
Did they review the original text of the 1930s book that captures the intent of the writer or the scrubbed latest version which washes away the sexist, racist and problematic text written by the original author?
He was as nice as they can be for a white man living in 1930. Good for fellow white men, not good for anybody female or a different skin tone.
But the book has been changed over time to make it seem like he was always an "pretty alright guy"
I read it as a socially awkward but very bookish very young teen. My one quote summary is “you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.” I never became Mr. Popular but found it very helpful in trying to understand somethings that were unobtainable for me at the time.
I need to read it again, I think about it a few handful of times a year, many years later.
Hah. I'm ADHD and I used to be terrible about remembering people's names -- like, their names didn't even register and I couldn't tell you what it was 30 seconds later. It wasn't that I didn't care about the person, it was just that their name would never stick. Anyway, I finally made enough people feel bad and embarrassed myself enough that I started compensating and made a point to remember basically everybody's name that I met. The change was really surprising, people notice that sort of thing and they make an effort to return the same kind of energy. My general attitude about people since then has become a lot more positive because I realized that overall, most people really don't need a whole lot of impetus to show their better side, and it's not like it costs me anything to treat somebody with a little more consideration.
I wish the protocol was to introduce your name about 5-15 minutes into the conversation because then I would have some other information to attach it to. When it's the first piece of information I receive I think my brain just doesn't really know where to put it and it gets lost immediately. The "use their name several times in the first conversation" trick is a good workaround for this.
> I wish the protocol was to introduce your name about 5-15 minutes into the conversation because then I would have some other information to attach it to.
This is exactly what suave people do to get to know strangers outside of professional context. It's a common TV/movie trope. Asking a stranger's name puts them on the defensive.
I have a list in reminders called names so when someone tells me their name as soon as I can use my phone without it being impolite I open it up and add a quick note with the names.
- neighbour watering lawn Jack, wife Gemma, daughter Jane
Then I try to remember it later in the day and confirm with the note. I do that the next couple days and it's locked in and I can delete the note.
I've found that the same works for me when I put forth the tiny bit of time and effort to actually do it.
Just a quick note somewhere (phone is easy-enough, or for a long time I carried a waterproof Field Notes notebook with a Fisher Space Pen and that worked a bit better), to be reviewed later.
Maybe that review happens an hour from now. Maybe it happens in a week, or a month. Or maybe all of these. Refreshers are good.
I don't even have to write much, if anything, about the person; the mere act of taking down the names usually helps a ton with my ability to recall the context later.
If I can remember when and where I took that note (which I can often do very easily), then the rest of the details fill themselves in quite nicely.
(I don't erase the notes, so as to let them remain useful to me later. I don't care if that creeps anyone out; my intentions are pure and the problem I'm trying to solve is very real. Its creep-value is really no worse than the contact lists that I've transferred between cell phones, pocket computers, and now pocket supercomputers for nearly a quarter of a century.)
The creep-value of keeping your lists is zero. It's no different to a journal or the options you gave.
I just delete the ones from mine after a while since they aren't needed and makes it more likely to lose focus on the new ones I'm still actively remembering.
For me it just required being "consciously conscious" (if that makes sense), motivated by the thought of the inevitable embarrassment if I didn't remember their name.
I started out by anticipating that somebody would tell me their name at some point and repeating it in my head a few times when I heard it in the conversation. It helps to round off the conversation with "thanks $NAME, pleasure meeting you." so the name is something that gets used and isn't a bit of stale trivia. After the exchange I'd consciously go through what their name was and what they said, trying to attach associations to it. You've got to give them some space in your head. It was kind of a ritual I'd do, like how before I go out I do the "wallet, keys, phone" thing. Now I just do it automatically because of all the repetition.
Honestly I think the biggest things are:
- remembering to make the effort
- the anticipation of hearing it, and
- using of the name
Do try to follow the advice of my sibling comments, but its also okay to find out you are simply really bad at remembering names. I think I'm in the bottom 10% percent in that regard. The only way I can somewhat manage to remember the names of the people I would like to is to use Anki (spaced repetition) on a semi-daily bases. This comes down to what others would consider a crazy amount of work, but at least it is somewhat successful. It frustrating for the long tail of people I might not meet again, but where it still would be really helpful to know their name. Where I really fail is situations that don't allow me to write down names shortly after they were used, which is often the case in introduction rounds. Trying to constantly repeat all names in my head means I'm missing on the other stuff people say.
As you point out, in some cases it's better to just accept that you're not good with names if the effort of trying to deal with it is affecting your other interaction with people. A former neighbour of mine was so bad at names and faces that she wouldn't recognise you in the street and walk right past you, making it seem like she was blanking you. Once I experienced that I realised that simply not being able to remember someone's name wasn't really such a killer, a lot of the time you can cover it up. Also, while you may feel bad about it, it's possible the other person has barely even noticed it, or if they have will forget about it 30 seconds later.
For myself, what really helped was working at an office where everyone's pictures were up on one of the walls. Going to the restroom meant passing the pictures. There were about 30 people there.
At my current office, there is a staff "phonebook" that also uses people's ID badge photo. At this agency, there are about 400 people working here. Plus about 300 more seasonal staff in the "busy season".
If there are "team" photos, see if you can get one and write names on it. You'll get a lot less static from HR if you let them know you have a hard time remembering names and ask them to help you write the names down.
Along with the sibling comments I'd mention that being afraid to forget someone's name doesn't help you remember it. Be accepting of the limits of your memory and don't be afraid to ask again. If you're concerned they may be offended then being open about ADHD is always a fair mitigating tactic.
Make up a mnemonic that makes fun of them in a really horrible way and don't tell them it. The more offensive, the better it will stick in your brain because it's so bad.
My party trick is meeting everyone in a room once and then raffling off their names a half hour later. If I was really trying, I can remember them all after a week or a month. Sometimes, I really can try and the name will come back to me after a few minutes. It's magic to some, which is true in that most magic is just lots of intense preparation and practice. So, here's all the tricks I have developed.
First, you need to put yourself in situations where you can practice learning and remembering people's names. At the start of college, I had read How to Win Friends & Influence people and it directly influenced me to try and learn how to remember people's names. This was a very good environment for this, I was constantly meeting people, and wouldn't it be nice if I made a good impression on them! Conversely, hard to practice the skill if you aren't meeting people often. It's also not a permanent skill for me, and if I fall into a routine without meeting many new people, then it's not as easy, but thankfully still comes back soon after.
The next thing was that I wasn't trying to remember somebody's name, I was habitually checking during the initial conversation to see if I had forgotten it. Depending on the culture you are in, you have about 15 minutes after meeting someone to ask them their name again, as almost certainly they have forgotten yours, people are not good at this. It's an easy way to indicate that you are interested in continuing to know them, it's social, polite and even charming at times, as why else would you want to know their name if you didn't want to contact them in the future because they're good people? So a few minutes, then ten minutes, then a half hour, you check if you know it, and ask if you don't. That's easier to remember for me, than to remember somebody's specific name.
I have kept a daily journal for most of my adult life, and it's more or less write only, I don't often go back and read it, and often cannot, my handwriting is so bad. But it's helpful on days when I need to write things out, and it's another useful habit in learning to remember names. At the end of the days when I was really training this skill, I made myself write down the names of everyone I had met that day. This was often difficult, and I remember getting headaches doing it at times, trying to write down the names of 20 or 30 people at a time. However, it helped set the expectation that I would remember everyone's names, and that reinforced the behaviors.
I did find that I developed chunking of names for lack of a better term. I would remember names in order of where I met them and maybe even which part of a room I was in. Not unlike a mind palace, but not something I really tried to do consciously. Just the idea of remembering I met Grace, Alice and Bob in that order at this party.
After that, just try and do your best for a couple months and it will improve without a doubt. People tell me they are bad at remembering names, and I ask them honestly, how hard do you try to remember them? Even a little bit of effort goes a very long way here.
What I will say is that I have difficulty learning somebody's name in two specific scenarios, beyond it being a bit harder as I get into my thirties now. If I am on zoom, it does not work at all the same. Their names are right there and so I never really feel the need to learn it and I can feel that I don't really know it. The second is that if I have to learn the name at the same as learning that it is a specific persons name, then I struggle with it. That is to say, if it's a name that is foreign to me, it's harder for me to remember, and so I have a habit of asking them to say it again right off the bat. I'm living in a different country now than before, and I can tell that I've gotten more used to the names and language with the time as it is easier for me to remember most of the people's names now. The trickiest ones for me at times are not putting together names that sound very similar together mentally but are in fact spelled and pronounced differently.
With that, that's all my tricks. I am pretty happy with it and it's served me pretty well over the years. I never turned into one of those freaks with the excel spreadsheets full of names and birthdays though ;) That's a step beyond me, and I'm just not socially diligent enough to keep that up long term yet. Good luck!
Deliberately reuse their name in that first conversation and trust you can recall it. It takes discipline and practice I.e at the end of the day, picture the new people you met and repeat their names when you get home. That works about 80% for me
Mine is to associate them with a famous person or character of the same name, and make a point of refreshing their name in my mind soon after meeting, and then more later. it’s not perfect but name retention went through the roof for me.
I remember the book saying something like "a person's name is the most beautiful sound in the world to them." The book may say to say their name back to them (I don't remember right now), but that's not what I took away from it. It reminded me of when people would make fun of my name (first and/or last) or bring up someone famous who has the same first ("Donald Duck") or last name ("are you related Joan Rivers?"), or someone famous who sounds like my first and last name put together (Doc Rivers), and I never thought it was funny. When I see people make fun of other people's names, the recipient never seemed to enjoy it either.
You’re for sure right about the name thing. It’s so hard to resist commenting on names for a lot of people, I think, due to the extreme asymmetry of novelty. When you meet someone named Michael Jackson, that’s such novel information to you: “there’s a guy right here in front of me who is named the same thing as a famous musician!” Meanwhile, from Michael’s perspective, they’ve been named Michael Jackson and getting comments and jokes about it near-daily for 35 years - and it’s really a boring non-story - they’re named after their grandfather, their parents didn’t care about the other Michael Jackson one way or the other, and they themselves also neither like or hate MJ.
This is like when you're working retail and the scanner glitches or the barcode isn't registered and the customer says "I guess that one's free then!" and you have to say "ha ha, very droll sir" as if you didn't hear that same joke yesterday.
I had a friend named Michael Jackson who went by a different first name. I didn't even know until several years later when he showed a group of us his drivers license and accidentally outed himself.
My full first name is Joshua, but when I was a kid everyone would just call me Josh. That was until 5th grade, when another Josh joined my class, and whose last name just happened to come right before mine in the roll call. I loathed that he "stole" my name and (in my head) made me sound like the repeat, so from that point on I decided that I would be Joshua because it sounded "fancier" to me. Years later, my choir teacher would sing that old "Joshua fought the battle of Jericho" song whenever he passed me in the hallways, which always made me laugh.
I've got a life long friend who's full first name is Josh, derived from the Japanese name Yosh. People often try to call him Joshua and it annoys the hell out of him.
> "I remember the book saying something like "a person's name is the most beautiful sound in the world to them.""
Nobody made fun of my name particularly, it's not like anyone famous, I just don't like it very much. I don't call myself by my name in my head, or on the internet. For most of my life my friends and coworkers had nicknames for me and I prefered that. I associate my name with official paperwork, formal situations, negative situations, aquaintances, and salespeople.
Perhaps because of this I have a bit of fixation on names (people, places, and products) and judging them to sound good or bad. Some names sound great or fine and it's no surprise to me if 'Robert' likes his name and likes hearing it. But I struggle to imagine that people called 'Helpless' or 'Abuse-not'[1] thinking those are the most beautiful sound in the world.
Yeah, you also have to remember that someone has heard every possible joke about their name and their appearance a million times.
I do think Dale Carnegie overemphasizes the importance of saying people's names, and in fact saying people's names in conversation often sounds forced and manipulative, but maybe that's just a cultural shift over the past century.
I've got the same last name as a sitcom character from the 1980s. I used to get so tired of people pointing that out. Luckily nobody really remembers the show anymore, let alone the character.
But, yeah, it usually sets off my spidey sense when somebody keeps using my first name in conversation. It's just seems weirdly unnecessary, so it makes me wonder why they're doing it.
I don’t have any problem with my name, and it feels manipulative and overfamiliar and I assume someone’s trying to Carnegie me into something if they use it.
If I'm trying to remember someone's name, I'll say it at the end of interactions more often than I normally would and make some kind of memory device out of it. If it's someone at a place I frequent, I'll add a location based reminder. It's a little much, but I've found that people, more often than not, do like being called by their names.
Oh, no, please don't. Don't use my name before we are actual friends with actual business in remembering each others names. There's very few things that more strongly put me on alert against a person than them mentioning my name to me.
Inspiration for the red pill (which represents choosing knowledge, however ugly, over pleasant ignorance) would be more like... the apple in the Garden of Eden. Or the Allegory of the Cave maybe. Or Alice in Wonderland (which Morpheus directly mentions in the Matrix)
Redpillers latched onto that red pill imagery because they view themselves as, you know, having the best grasp on reality. Unlike the poor ignorant masses. Or so they believe.
"Redpilled" views do have some things in common with Realpolitik, and The Prince, in the sense that they're kind of nakedly amoral and rather ugly.
I think the red pill is a direct reference to the matrix. Its kind of weird they have such degratory views on sex and gender, given the directors of their favorite movie they cant stop talking about.
For sure, the red pill is a direct reference to the Matrix. I think previous poster was asking if the Matrix took that idea from somewhere.
Its kind of weird they have such degratory views on sex and
gender, given the directors of their favorite movie they
cant stop talking about.
Yeah. I think the connection they see is that the reality Neo chose to confront (a humankind enslaved by machines) was unpleasant, and the redpill gang knows their version of reality is very ugly as well.
That would be quite a feat, given that Mr. Carnegie was born in the 1800's and died over 70 years ago.
I'm convinced that 99% of the people who criticize or even just talk about that book have never actually read it, and have zero idea what they're talking about. It's just in that Ayn Rand bucket of books that people talk about, because they see other people getting likes and upvotes for it.
Ayn Rand was a pretty terrible person. But you’re right that there are some interesting ideas in her books. Howard Roark in The Fountainhead is exceedingly interesting as a person living genuinely without much regard for societal norms and expectations. There’s some weird stuff in that book, but Howard Roark is very interesting. A trimmed down version of The Fountainhead would be much better received, I think. (It’s over 700 pages and has some odd and unnecessary scenes where some of Ayn Rand’s less-than-great views probably shine through. It would also just benefit from some good editing.)
Dune is a pretty good book and I attribute that to a ruthless editor. After the author died, the son published many of the notes (sort of the way JRR Tolkien's son did) and one of the books shows several early drafts of the first novel - most of which were stinkers. The notes filled an entire room and he managed to squeeze 15 novels out of them.
Christopher Tolkien was a lot more respectful of his father's legacy than Brian Herbert. However, I think of Barry Humphreys saying that "if you want roses, you need a lot of manure". Even the best writers produce dreck.
A woman who I used to talk to when I worked at a grocery store said something similar to me: "People will forget what was said but they never forget how they feel".
We do get caught up in like "I shouldn't have said x or y" when the reality is if you make other people feel nice they will want to have you around. If you say the perfect words but overall make them feel bad they won't want you around.
I don't want to be too generalizing, but I found the book to be matching a lot of American cultural stereotypes (as I have experienced them) and most of it would just seem corny (but not terrible) to most people from European countries (less in the south or UK maybe).
Like, I don't even disagree with what he wrote, but most of the stuff just felt a little out of place and intruding on people who generally want to be left alone or keep it to small talk on a different level.
I read it over 10 years ago now so I can't remember too much of it, but I mentioned in another comment that the book is so old the author's anecdotes and aphorisms came off as folksy and quaint. I can definitely understand it matching American stereotypes.
also interesting: Dale Carnegie admired Alfred Adler, the Austrian psychologist; Adler said “the solution to the world’s present problems lies in social interest: concerned relationships between people and groups”.
Adler never rose to fame (in the west) - but he also didn't care about it. the book "The Courage to Be Disliked" is about Alfred Adler.
Agreed. Although speaking from the memory, the chapter on keeping wife happy is best not taken literally in modern day and age. It dated considerably, considering how women are way independent nowadays, even if at the time it was relevant.
Yeah, that's what I meant by it being outdated. He uses a lot of examples and aphorisms from the 1930s, which sometimes come off as a little bit quaint or folksy almost 100 years later. I'll also mention that the book was written for men "influencing" other men; any reference to women in the book is usually in the context of them being objects that should be managed using the author's techniques.
That said, it also has all the self help faults. It repeats itself a lot, is full of happy anecdotes that repeat the same thing yet again, and could have fit in a chapter.
I find that I don't necessarily mind when a book repeats itself, and a good helping of anecdotes can help a point get across. Ralph Waldo Emerson famously said, "I cannot remember the books I've read any more than the meals I have eaten; even so, they have made me." Trying to distill a book down to the minimum logically equivalent length is like eating the smallest possible portion of a supplement one time and then wondering why it doesn't do anything for you.
My father gave me this book when I was 12 or 13. It unlocked everything, sort of permission for my teen self to put himself out there. Years later, I've made friends all over the world, some have been in my life for more than 3 decades now, and I continue to make new ones basically by initiating a lot of conversations. I look for something to naturally lean into to start with. For example, I saw a guy in the coffee place with his work badge on so I asked, "coming or going [to work]." Kicked off a 30 min conversation about the economy (he worked at a pawn shop as it turns out and knew a lot about gold, regional poverty, etc). Saw him a couple days later and we picked right back up. The other thing I do is keep it soft focused on them, 100%, until they ask me about me. Nothing kills a conversation faster than someone with a conversational agenda, ie, an go-to opinion. Anyway, I wish more people would start random conversations - it really helps build community.
> The other thing I do is keep it soft focused on them, 100%, until they ask me about me.
This is the big one. People like to talk about themselves, and often use others' stories to segue it into something about themselves.
I realized at some point if you can avoid doing that, and instead commit yourself to investing in a person's story - ask questions, make comments, etc, they'll think the world of you and often won't even realize why.
Some of the examples are going to be corny for a young kid, but none of the core concepts are too challenging. Some fashion of the knowledge has probably already been communicated to children, it is just a codification of social interaction that not everyone has passively absorbed.
It's pretty easy to read (but disclaimer : I read the french translation) but it's still nothing more than a list of useful advices on the topic. So the prerequisite is that you have to be interested by the idea of the book in the first place. But if you are, it's nothing more than a big blog post (a good one).
No it's ok, it reads like every american self-help book translated in french. The writing style is pretty bland but it's easy to read and the only difference with most of self help books nowadays is that the advices are actually good.
The good thing about the absence of style is that the book doesn't feel dated and could have been wrote yesterday.
To be honest, the examples stuck with me. They illustrated tons of different social interaction examples that I have seldom, if never, encountered in my life, but have plenty to learn from.
I was given this book as a shy kid. I've read it multiple times. It really should be titled, "How To be a Decent Human". Show genuine interest in everyone you come across, and everyone's day ends up much better. I'm still bad at remembering names no matter how many tricks I use, but I'm really good at remembering other people's stories and interests. I also learned that so many people have amazing stories to share, and are just waiting for someone to ask.
If being friendly with people is manipulation then I don't really know what to say. I'm more likely to help someone if they are not being a jerk and vice versa.
I was in the same boat for a while, but I gave it a shot several years ago when I was doing a lot of driving every day and was powering through audiobooks. This might sound a little hyperbolic, but it actually ended up changing my life in a lot of little positive ways. For example, I used to work with a guy that got made fun of for some of his interests (nothing harsh or super hurtful, just poking fun). I was always really supportive of what he was into and asked questions about it. I wasn't trying to get anything out of it, I just remembered the book and thought it's nice to be nice. When he got married about a year into us working together, I was the only one from our job that he invited to his wedding.
> This rant about radiating happiness towards people without expecting something in return...
This was one of my main takeaways from the book. I would argue that you do get some things in return: richer relationships with the people you already know, pleasant encounters with people you may not know well, and increased enthusiasm for your own interests compounded by hearing someone else explain how enthusiastic they are about their interests.
I was in the same boat as you before I heard enough good things about it that I checked it out. After all, if it was really bad, I would be able to tell as much and stop reading it, nothing lost.
I can confirm it's really good. It's not manipulative at all. The book can large be summed up as "if you want other people to care about you and your desires, you need to care about them and theirs and SHOW them that this is the case: here's how."
> "if you want other people to care about you and your desires, you need to care about them and theirs and SHOW them that this is the case: here's how."
Most people like watching movies or reading books. Other people are the main character of their own life, and I think you can learn to enjoy learning about them.
Like other skills it can absolutely be cultivated.
Even if one doesn't "naturally" care about others, it's also true that even from a totally selfish perspective it still kind of pays dividends to be a good person, be concerned with the welfare of the people around you, and build interpersonal connections.
There's limits to that, for sure. There are a number of biological bases for empathy. And being biological, it stands to reason that different people will have different capacities. But, it also certainly feels like a skill.
Here's another angle. A lot of people, perhaps maybe a lot of engineer types, struggle with empathy because the needs and wants of others just feel like a confusing sea of infinite possibilities. But here's a trick. At any given moment, any given human being is probably just trying to fill one of the needs on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
Only if you think of it that way -- making every human interaction purely transactional.
Conversely, there's something I've used as a guiding principle for a while now that isn't quite the same, but in the same direction: to receive help, be helpful.
Both of these also fall under the greater umbrella of "treat others as you would like to be treated".
No. Being nice to people such that they want to like you (of their own free will) is not manipulative.
Being nice so that people might like you is not manipulative. It’s pointing out that if you’re nice to other people, then other people will tend to like you. It’s something we teach to toddlers.
I take your point, but aren't most social interactions technically manipulative through this lens?
If you wear nice clothes and exercise, then are you just trying to manipulate people into thinking you have taste and are attractive?
If you work hard at your job and are responsive to your boss's requests, then are you just manipulating them into thinking you're a good worker and giving you a raise?
These tools can certainly be misused (see shitty salespeople), but I don't "attempting to convince others that you are cool and likable" is problematic and manipulative.
Just don't fake it. That's the part people have a problem with. I just read it as "if you want people to care about your shit, then it's only fair you care about theirs first."
Yeah, I don't think you'll find it a red-pill kind of book at all. I know what you mean about books like The 48 Laws of Power feeling like the world is 100% zero sum, so everything is about dominating or outplaying people.
How to Win Friends and Influence People is very much focused on win-win. There is an agenda to make friends and influence people, as you'd guess from the title, but the strategies are about taking a genuine interest in people and making them feel good.
It's almost 100 years old, so the style is kind of hokey, and only about half the advice resonated with me, but there are 3-4 lessons that had a major impact on me.
I think it's quite clearly the second part of the title. If it was just "How to Win Friends" it might be something more people don't dismiss just based on the title.
"... and Influence People" makes it sound like that's the purpose of befriending someone, i.e. getting them to do what you want, or to do something for you.
I think it has taken a rather negative connotation with the development of psychology, marketing and "influencers" which are usually people that try to influence you to buy into something.
It seems to be a rather brilliant piece of marketing to put that phrase in the title. It raises curiosity in a way that a generic "make friends" does not. (The "win" is a subtle move also.)
Once the readers are drawn in, whether from base or nobler instincts, the book can try to influence its readers into being nice.
Only trouble is that it may push away those who are "already nice" enough to feel bad about manipulating people.
The book "Getting to Yes" covers similar terrain, from a different angle, but still targeting Win-Win, without sounding as manipulative as "influence people".
BTW, Dale Carnagey changed his name to crease a false association with Andrew Carnegie.
So there is good reason to distrust Dale and his followers.
Truthfully (IIRC) the book is more about "Influencing People" than "Making Friends." But, it's about doing it in a genuine way.
I think it's puzzling that so many people here attach such a negative connotation to "influencing." I mean, my partner made me really hungry tonight when they cooked dinner and it smelled great. It influenced me. MLK influenced people. Etc. etc.
I'm 100% with the GP - I've avoided reading the book due to the manipulative sound to the title... Ironically I have read The 48 Laws of Power, hah.
I read it though thinking "I'll bulwark myself against manipulators by understanding their tactics" whilst the "Influencing People" book just sounded like manipulative self-interest.
You've changed my mind; I'm going to read it right away.
If Books Could Kill did an episode on How to Win Friends and Influence People, it's an interesting listen. iirc the book was written by someone documenting what they learned while breaking into high society or some other class they were not a part of. So it's not so much about manipulating people but more about stroking egos and being as agreeable as possible to avoid any conflict. The podcasters make the point that it was written in the 30s when confrontation, being an individual, and sticking up for one's beliefs wasn't really possible while climbing the social ladder.
Huh, having read the book and about Dale Carnegie, I completely disagree with that take. There's plenty of stories where he does the opposite of avoiding conflict and faces it straight on - such as when he just ignores a cop's random order for him to keep his dog on a leash at the park.
On the road, what percentage of drivers are violating a law? I would say above 50%. Either speeding, windows tinted too much, driving distracted, having something hanging from their rearview, or not having confirmed all their lights work before driving. Now what percentage of those people actually get "told by a cop to follow the law" in any given day?
The same is true for all violations. It's random whether they get enforced - the strongest influence being, where cops are actually deployed, hence why lower income people get snapped up a lot more, since cities tend to put more cops in their neighborhoods.
I avoided the book after reading it high school and thinking along the same lines. I looked at the suggestions cynically.
A college program required I re-read it. That time, I read it as genuine suggestions of good faith actions. In that light, it was fantastic. Almost 30 years later, I still quote from it.
Your admirable openness to reconsideration reminds me of, "I could be wrong. I often am. Let's examine the facts."
> for some reason I got it in my head that it's a sort of red pilled book that teaches you how to manipulate people.
It's two sides of the same coin. Many techniques in that book are things that both genuinely kind people and manipulators do, the difference is intent. In that sense the idea of the book is a bit of a Rorschach test, although the way the author goes about it makes it pretty clear it wasn't meant to teach manipulation.
When I read the book over a decade ago, it did not feel like a red pilled book, it felt like a guide for well-intentioned people to learn how to express that more effectively. On the spectrum between "people orientation" and "task orientation", I was a task oriented person learning how to navigate personal and professional relationships more like a well-adjusted person would, and I suspect I and everyone around me was happier for it.
Makes me think that anything taken too far can be a bad thing. Pity in its raw form is an incredibly empathetic side of our human nature and can be extraordinary.
However, if pity is made a reward system for the people receiving the empathy, it can be used manipulatively. I believe CS Lewis called it "a passion for pity" (I could be wrong).
The book really helped me put things into perspective as a teenager who was habitually "angry", and "on the less adept at social side of things"[0]. Had a much healthier time growing up afterwards. Honestly, I should re-read it.
[0]: I am not formally neurodivergent, but I wouldn't be surprised if I was mildly so.
It's a very good book, I haven't read it since I was a kid.
The title is unfortunate, and doesn't really reflect the book IMO.
It sounds like a seedy way to manipulate people and get what you want.
I think a more appropriate title would be "Treat people with kindness and decency and your life will probably be better as a result." Or "A manual for interacting with fellow humans".
I need to reread it actually.
Edit: It has been decades since I read it, but that is my recollection of it at least.
I've seen many people express the same sentiments about this book.
"The title made it seem shady and underhanded and manipulative. But then I read it and it just says to be a genuinely nice person with no agenda. Everyone likes to be friends with that kind of person."
I think that's why people gravitate towards friendly dogs. Dogs have no deception in their intent, and they communicate it physically well before you reach them.
Animals in general are much more honest than people. They might sometimes engage in minor deceptions (although I sometimes wonder how much of that is projection based on our perceptions of their intentions), but they always make it clear where you stand with them. An animal will never pretend to like you to your face if they actually don't. Obviously it can be useful for humans to be able to deceive like this (e.g. maintaining cordial professional relationships with coworkers who you might never choose to spend time with if you didn't work with them), but as someone who struggles to read social cues and gain confidence about what people actually think of me, it can get exhausting.
If you enjoy it, I would recommend picking through a lot of the classic Self Help books. They were popular for a reason! Wayne Dyer is a good read, Tony Robbins books are usually great (whatever you think of the author), even the much maligned Seven Habits is a really great book. There's even some pretty decent male-oriented stuff out there, like Iron John, Fire in the Belly, and "King, Warrior, Magician, Lover". Pyscho-Cybernetics by Maxwell Maltz even inspired a Dali painting.
It's unfortunate that we treat all books like that as suspect. The goal isn't to manipulate people, but to connect with them! Give them what they want for a more mutually beneficial end result.
People are forgetting how to socialize but being social is more or less a straightforward formula. Sometimes people need a guide. It's not evil or manipulative.
It’s been a while since I read it, but I don’t remember it being particularly preachy about why you’d want to make friends or influence people - whether you were doing so out of some nefarious manipulative reason, or out of the genuine human goodness of your heart - I think it’s more just about how to do so.
And the ‘how’ generally revolves around just being nice to people - being kind, taking care, noticing, being generous and observant and engaging. The whole idea is that you are good to them, which means they’ll be good to you.
All of which I was already intimately familiar with - I actually don’t think I read anything new in that book, it all seemed like pretty standard stuff… but then again there will always be stuff that seems obvious to you, and it a revelation to others.
I certainly think you could do much worse than treating others according to how that book instructs.
The trouble with this book for me was that it often recommends deferring to the other persons sense of self over your own.
There are times this is right, and there are times where it is very shallow. In fact, it can even be very inauthentic & fail to develop your own internal tools.
I think if it helps you start something, great! But for me personally at the youthful age I read the book - it was negative. Today I'm sure I could read it and only take the positive. Mostly it depends on whether you think you "must" behave in those ways, or if you "could, sometimes, by choice"
It's a classic book but as many others have mentioned in comments, a lot of red pillers use this book as a Bible of sorts, so it's gotten a bit of a bad rap.
In my early adulthood I was deep into MLMs and internet marketing and this book was the Bible, but it was a bit tautological because it was assumed that everyone respected and venerated that book, so all the marketing materials (that we had to purchase of course!) referred to the book.
Indeed, the best way to get rich quick is to sell get rich quick schemes.
On another note, an equally good book that is also used for manipulation is How to argue and win every time by late lawyer Gerry Spence. The book does what it says on the tin but it's more on persuasion methods and framing, which of course can be used for nefarious purposes.
> The book does what it says on the tin but it's more on persuasion methods and framing, which of course can be used for nefarious purposes.
An interesting result of reading those books is one starts to recognize when one is being manipulated.
Just the other day a door-to-door salesman appeared at my door, and he tried a number of classic sales techniques on me. He lacked, however, some accouterments that a legitimate salesman would have, so I had to be pretty firm in saying no.
> instead that they include the name of a person they just met in every sentence because it made that person like them more.
I've never read this book but have learned through cultural osmosis that this practice largely originated from it. I always found it rather stilted and ever since discovering where it came from I view it with a degree of suspicion. A contrasting, more generous reading is that the people who read the book and do this are trying to do more of the "win friends" part than "influence people." I'm also notoriously bad with names so I can't really blame somebody for perhaps trying to use mine verbally to commit it to memory :-).
You may be confusing this book with the 48 Laws of Power which is absolutely a book no one on hackernews should read because we have enough people in the tech industry scheming to get the upper hand on society as is.
"Machiavellian" is probably a better term for a book that describes how to manipulate people (for your own benefit).
I don't think a red pilled book would teach you how to manipulate people. I think it would be an attempt to manipulate you towards a specific (red pilled) view of the world.
This rant about radiating happiness towards people without expecting something in return...
The narrator explicitly says he gets something in return though. I think it's important to understand that seemingly charitable acts are never 100% altruistic, and while that's not necessarily a moral judgement, it is still important to understand people's motivations for doing things.
As long as you’re open to their motivation being “it makes them feel good” or “they like making other people happy.” The cynical view is that everyone is fundamentally deeply selfish.
If you go deep enough, you can convince yourself of that, but you lose what Carnegie talks about. You create your own experience of other people by carrying assumptions like that.
I think the association with red pill is probably because men in general read much less than they used to, and the books men do read tend to be nonfiction self-help.
However, How to Win Friends was written in an era where self-help didn’t have those connotations at all.
There is probably some deeper relationship with current reading trends and contemporary winner-takes-all society, but my impression was that the book was more about middle class aspirations e.g. being charming at a dinner party. Not some kind of Machiavellian social maneuvering like 48 laws of power (“crush your enemies completely”).
The author is a fascinating figure. Changed his last name from Carnagey to Carnagie for PR benefits and was a lifelong people pleaser. Keep that last thing in mind while you read.
The book has an unfortunate title. It sounds transactional and manipulative. It could just as well have been named something like "How to communicate well with people."
> it's a sort of red pilled book that teaches you how to manipulate people.
This is not an unfair view of the book IMO. While OPs excerpt is lovely, the core of the book is all about getting people to say yes and do things you want them to do.
Carnegie is just so good at this, he's even managed to convince you that he has your best interests at heart by trying to teach you how to do this to people.
"Manipulation" is a negative form of influence. You can influence people positivly and you can influence people negativly. It's possible to alter peoples behaviour by influencing them in a positive way (for example: Leading by example), in fact, this is the job of any good leader.
Changing peoples behaviours isn't always the negative form of manipulation.
I got it in my head that it's a sort of red
pilled book that teaches you how to manipulate
people.
You're not totally wrong. It's been ages since I read it, but there are parts that feel a little transactional but also many that don't, and it never advocates dishonesty or exploitative behavior or anything like that.
(I also view the ability to influence people as independent from morality. It's like learning MMA or hacking or something. They're not inherently "good" or "bad" skills - your morality determines how you'll use them)
Ultimately I think it's great and I recommend it. It's certainly cheap enough! I'm sure there are a zillion copies on eBay for like two bucks.
It is a great book. I disagree though that all modern books on this are derivatives. I haven’t read many, but The Charisma Myth is a great book on human interactions, that I believe is very novel in its content and approach
Maybe a lot of the books do cover some of the same content, but that’s probably because human nature hasn’t changed much since the 30s, when Carnegie published his book
I haven't read the book but I always try to incorporate people's names into many sentences when they are a new acquaintance as it forces me to remember their name.
Read the book. It's good. I have almost finished it and the biggest criticisms you could make of it, IMO, are "this is all just common sense!" or that the techniques, which are all essentially about treating people well and trying to understand their perspectives, could be abused by unscrupulous people.
The idea that the teachings could be misused frankly says more about the cynicism of the book's critics than the actual content of the book.
In this context it means the alt-right manosphere who 'woke up' to realise that there's no such thing as love, caring, a monogomous committed relationship; that women are conniving shallow cheaters, and that your goal as a 'real man' is to sleep with as many female-objects as possible, no matter what it takess. Your tools are deception, negging, (insincere) flattery, looksmaxing, etc. to present as a 'high-value Alpha male' without actually having to develop a personality or think about others or anything difficult. A book on slick talking influencing people sounds like it fits into that world.
I think you're right to have been uneasy at the title because it's so capitalist in the framing. "Win" friends sounds capitalist, while "influence people" sounds a lot like the vapid propaganda networks we interact with every day
Strongly disagree with this sentiment. Influence can have a lot of sources, from institutional authority to simply being persuasive, which is distinct from manipulation.
In this context influence and persuasion are being used interchangeably, but persuasion is the act of winning someone over to your point of view, so they understand the topic as you do. It respects their autonomy and acknowledges that people can change their mind when presented with different perspectives. Oftentimes, being likeable (or at least respectable) is a prerequisite for getting someone to listen to you in the first place, so it's a central pillar to being influential.
Manipulation on the other hand, doesn't respect someone's autonomy. It might involve deception, threats, coercion, etc, but it ultimately aims to make someone do something that they don't want to do.
If you're getting a little kid to eat his dinner for instance, persuasion might appeal to his motivations (e.g. having more energy to run faster), while manipulation might look like saying not eating would make his mom sad (guilt tripping), or that he wouldn't get to play with his favorite toy (threat).
I'd argue that {someone who is good at getting desired outcomes} is going to have a toolbox of carrots, sticks, and other things and I think sometimes you are going to be 100% ethically happy with how a situation went and sometimes you are going to feel some conflict between your values. [1]
I'm not sure where the line between "manipulation" and "persuasion" is exactly but certainly a person's intent and how they think about themselves and other people has something to do with it. There are many feats that I can do today with ease that my evil twin coveted a few years ago and just couldn't do because he had a bad attitude.
I think that’s exactly what they’re saying. Influence doesn’t have to be manipulative, but it sure can be. Here’s the difference:
Influence for influence sake is selfishly motivated. Doing something charitable garners influence. Influence is a side-effect and not the intended goal—unless it is, and then it’s manipulation.
The fact is correct that the word influence is a euphemism for manipulation. The very fact that people are confused about this is case-in-point on the subtlety of the notion.
Surely you can see that your statements contradict each other.
> Influence for influence sake is selfishly motivated.
Hard disagree. It certainly can be, but doesn’t have to be. A person can be a positive influence for no other reason than they feel like it’s a good thing to do. You could influence your coworkers to be better engineers and not gain anything from it.
I mean, we could retreat to the “oh you feel good about it, so it’s still selfish” stance, but that’s uninteresting.
> But if you read a book about influencing people and suddenly start complimenting people’s hair, time for some introspection.
The book's also apparently about winning friends, as well. And the excerpt above seems to be about getting better at being nice to people without an agenda.
I think this is a very subjective matter and depends on how negatively connoted someone's perception of the word 'manipulate' is. By your definition, I would consider 'studying/learning' also a form of manipulation.
The idea is to have genuine compassion without any agenda, actually. Or on a deeper level, just acknowledge people exist, and let them know that their existence is noticed.
> The whole “you could only possibly pretend to care about other people” response to the book is vaguely psychopathic.
I prefer to interpret it charitably: the line between influence and manipulation can be pretty fuzzy, and some people come to a conclusion of, basically, "don't do it at all because it's always selfish."
I think it's a flawed view because it's impossible to go through life not influencing anyone and not wanting anything from anyone, so you may as well try to do it in a way that is generally win-win or at least not win-lose.
I think the most charitable interpretation would be that people expressing that view are deeply self-conscious. They are afraid if they followed the advice in the book, they might be perceived as manipulative and they want to avoid that possibility. They hide from that fear by insisting that it actually must be manipulative.
Outside of that, I can only see less charitable interpretations. e.g. The idea that the only reason someone could ever compliment another person is to manipulate them says either that the person holding the idea literally can’t imagine interacting positively with someone for non-selfish reasons (psychopathy) or that they hold such low opinion of the rest of humanity that they believe no one else could (misanthropy).
This is a very important part of learning how to have real conversations with people.
There is too much bad advice about using tricks or hacks to try to start friendly conversations with people. It’s refreshing to see someone learning that a key to healthy conversation is having selfless motives.
Something surprising about How to Win Friends and Influence People is that it’s not as manipulative as the title suggests. A key theme of the book is that you need to be genuine in your interactions. You can’t pretend to be interested in what other people say, you have to actually approach the conversation with interest.
People will see through hidden agendas and ulterior motives. The bad social advice tries to use too many tricks and hacks to formulate a set of interactions that sound good when you’re reading about them but have the wrong effect when you go into the world and interact with other people with a hidden agenda.
This is why I caution against all of the conversation hacks that are recommended, like coming up with excuses to ask someone for a favor (that you don’t really need) as a way to get them into a conversation or pretending to be interested in their life story when you’re only interested in getting someone to talk to you. Others will recognize when there are hidden agendas. It doesn’t set you up for success.
I once heard "creepiness" defined as "becoming invested in advance in a particular outcome to a social interaction".
In that sense, trying tricks in order to have a "successful conversation" will always fail so long as you are emotionally invested in advance in the conversation being "successful".
It's far better to be genuine and accept that you have only so much control over how things will go.
It's ok to sort of passively want things, everyone does, but the real problem is when you try to try to subtly force an outcome that isn't natural. That's when people get uncomfortable.
If a stranger is light and friendly and asks to hang out, no problem. If they start getting subtly frustrated about your response, your spider sense goes off.
I always try to compliment people if I see they're taking a lot of pride in their work or something they're doing. I was at a conference where the staff each had a coffee/tea/sweets station to maintain. I noticed one woman cleaning and polishing and being super fastidious. I wanted to compliment her, but then I debated with myself if that would be patronizing somehow. Finally, I decided to tell her she had a very nice station, and she just beamed ear-to-ear in response.
Since everyone else is sharing their experiences with this book here is mine:
Reading this books was a huge turning point for me as someone with diagnosed mild Autism. I think a lot of the things in this books are fairly obvious to non neuro-divergent folks. But for me, it was like a manual on how to handle myself in social situations, a thing that was mysterious and frustrating to me before. I wouldn't say I am now some sort of socialite, but I am far from the days of being being excluded from basically every social group I attempted to be part of.
Ironically enough, Dale Carnegie's book is about as far as you can get from genuine human connections. The whole book is centred aruond an underlying desire to gain something from someone.
So good on you for finding that one genuine bit of interaction in the entire book.
„We use the unrevised edition because we believe the revised edition (the revisions were done by Carnegie’s relatives after his death) forcefully makes the language of the book gender neutral and politically correct and takes away from the originality of the work.
They even went so far ahead as to make quotes from other people gender neutral and politically correct.
Most of the revised editions available today do not include Parts 5 and 6. Even the included parts see many paragraphs and examples omitted.
In many places, characters in examples who were male have been edited to be female.
It appears that Carnegie’s relatives decided to heavily excise content and highhandedly edit the work to match their own sensibilities and what appears to the webmasters as a feminist agenda.
The unrevised edition as on this website is complete without exclusions and edits.
We believe this text written by Dale Carnegie himself while he was alive without the alterations made by his relatives after his death is more readable, complete, and enjoyable.“
How to Win Friends and Influence People: Unrevised Version
That book is very good. However, for some (including me at some point), it can be a bit advanced
I highly recommend the book The Charisma Myth, it covers a lot of the same topics, including very good exercises, to help understand and develop human interactions in general
Personally, it helped me be able to get into, the situations that the first book assumes the reader is already in, or comfortable with (like talking to strangers)
> ... OP is giving people genuine compliments without any particular agenda.
It takes some effort to be good at doing this, if people aren't used to getting any kind of compliment then it can land as super awkward.
(hint: avoid commenting on peoples physical appearance directly, always clothing, or hair, make-up, jewellery/watches -- or ideally how they handle themselves)
The "trick" is confidence, knowing in yourself that you mean well and, if challenged doubling down with a broad genuine smile, don't try to half-ass the smile because it makes things awkward-er.
The other thing is that compliments can be broad, but criticisms have to be very specific.
Once you get the hang of it you can make peoples days genuinely better effortlessly, by just saying the positive thing that you're thinking.
"How are you today" → "Better, now you're here" -- Isn't cheesy, if you mean it.
It's interesting also to notice cultural differences like when I moved here I started to receive compliments about my clothes shoes and stuff like that and in my country people prefer to do compliments on people's physical appearance or personality.
> "How are you today" → "Better, now you're here" -- Isn't cheesy, if you mean it.
To me that's super creepy. It's like a cheap pickup line. It's only something I'd say to someone I'd been dating a while.
> avoid commenting on peoples physical appearance directly
Gym bros love compliments on their muscles. It has to come across as "bro to bro" and not with a "broad genuine smile" (as a gay guy, you'd come across pretty gay IMHO lol)
Congratulations on derailing what was otherwise such a nice thread. Well done.
Not everyone in this world is always on edge like you. It is OK to be cheesy sometimes. Humor exists for a reason. Not every unconventional interaction is creepy. Get over yourself, please.
Using a throwaway with 37 karma to come in and act like the HN police and pretending you know me? My friend, it appears it is you who needs to get over yourself.
>> Once you get the hang of it you can make peoples days genuinely better effortlessly, by just saying the positive thing that you're thinking.
>> "How are you today" → "Better, now you're here" -- Isn't cheesy, if you mean it.
> To me that's super creepy. It's like a cheap pickup line. It's only something I'd say to someone I'd been dating a while.
Really, if the person actually means it? I think that's the key point.
I think that particular line would come off as creepy pickup line if it came from a stranger, who couldn't possibly mean it except in the most superficial way. I don't think it would come off that way if your relationship with the person is such that it's plausibly true and they don't overuse it.
On that last point, if you actually want to do something like this, I feel like you'd have to have familiar and confidence to use hundreds of phrases like that, for different situations. I'm reminded of an anecdote I read about Ronald Reagan: he was apparently known as being good with little quips and jokes. He apparently spent a huge amount of time working on them so he'd have something ready at any given time.
Full disclosure: I'm bad at complements and do none of this stuff.
I've never read that book -- no reason; just mostly prefer fiction, and never got around to it.
The funny thing is that I make a habit of doing what Carnegie describes here, and for the same reasons.
As I've gotten older -- I'm 56 -- I also realize I look like the archetypal middle-aged straight white dude, and my cohort doesn't have a GREAT reputation across the board, so I feel like I should be even MORE careful about the energy I put out into the world. And nothing lifts _my_ mood better than being nice to somebody else.
> One of the things I like about this is that OP is giving people genuine compliments without any particular agenda.
IMHO that is as fake as a car salesman. Mature, cultured people will say thank you and think "what a nuisance". I prefer being open about my motives. Smart people appreciate truth over compliments. And if the dumb/immature get offended, good riddance.
I used to be a big fan of HtWFaIP, but eventually I realized it's not healthy.
> Mature, cultured people will say thank you and think "what a nuisance".
It seems like the word you're looking for is "conceited", and it's a great candidate for traits one should attempt to extinguish in themselves.
If your true motives aren't kind and aren't requested, then those are great candidates to be kept inside, especially during random interactions in third-spaces
You misunderstand. You can't claim to speak for all "mature" & "cultured" people. That is, who gets to judge those who don't conform to one specific observed / inferred worldview, aren't "cultured" or "mature" enough? (if it wasn't clear, this question isn't an invitation to debate).
> Let's expand on it a bit. Is the world a mirror to street salespeople? Is the world a mirror to stalkers? To sociopaths?
Are the examples so outdated? I see multiples comments/reviews (here and on the Internet) about the book not being made for modern people/society, but what you pasted looks fine to me.
Sure, there may be cultures where making comments of people out of the blue might not be seen as normal, but almost everywhere I've gone in this world allows for comments like these.
I haven't read it, but I find it hard to believe that good social advice would go out of date. Our brains haven't changed on a fundamental level since then.
If anything, modern social interaction has diverged from what is good for us and what we really want.
Complimenting people was my college party trick. I'd be a little inebriated and I'd just compliment people/say friendly vibey things. "That's a cool hat" or "that song is awesome" or "where did you get that??"
Your comment reminds me of advice I once got as a young person: small talk is an invitation to talk, and if you don't get traction with small talk, you're not ever going to get deep talk. So, hopefully the friendly vibe was a good start to build on!
What's next, do you think parents providing for their children is an agenda, merely so the parents can feel good about that glowing feeling about being a good parent?
Yes it is, and the narrator told us so. There's no need to put words in my mouth; I agree with the narrator that you can want to do a good thing for many reasons. In this case, the narrator tells us why he did what he did.
I'm ctrl+F'ing for "agenda" on the post and getting zero results, sorry. I don't need to "put words in your mouth", you are literally the one who used the word "agenda".
You don't seem to understand what the word "agenda" means in social interactions. It has a negative connotation, it is an ulterior motive, something you are hiding from the other person because they wouldn't like it.
That doesn't apply to normal positive-sum social interactions. Again, see my example about parents and children.
You are misunderstanding the meaning and usage of the word "agenda".
As a society, we have a certain tendency to feel sorry for ourselves. If we have “social anxiety”, we like to give it a quasi-medical diagnosis. We rarely suspect that we may actually have something bad in our intentions. Many forms of anxiety are actually rooted in impure motives, especially when there is another part of us that conflicts with that motive. The conflict may result from a shred of conscience that enters into a tug-of-war with our impure motives. It could be rooted in a cognitive denial of those motives, as denial of truth can manifest in subconscious turbulence and nervous expressions of emotional energy. Perhaps we want to indulge those impure motives, but lack the chutzpah to do so, creating internal tension (the chutzpah would produce its own psychic anguish). Perhaps we’re selfish, but fail to recognize it. These sorts of things cause turmoil in the soul that can create anxiety.
Think of the “nice guy”. “Nice Guys” are some of the biggest assholes around. They’re two-faced schemers. A “Nice Guy’s niceness” is instrumental; he will be “nice” to a woman he finds attractive, because he has already imagined in his head that this will ingratiate him with her. He has already created a ledger in his mind: “if I am nice to this woman, then she is in my debt and now owes me the desired approval in return”. But the moment this woman fails to conform to the expectations of this “Nice Guy” is the moment his comes for his pound of flesh. You see the mask drop and his nastiness surface. The anxiety is rooted, among other things, in a failure to recognize the humanity and rights of this woman. For him, her meaning and her being are totally exhausted by his sexual desire, perhaps because he sees his own meaning exhausted by her approval, hence the apparent magnitude and terrific importance of her judgement. He wants to dominate by force or by manipulation rather than allow a woman to choose to surrender voluntarily, because she has determined this is good.
Magnanimity is one of the high virtues of classical virtue ethics - a sort of crowning culmination of them - and one of the features of magnanimous people is that they are at ease around others. It is well worth returning to this virtue ethics, because it does enlighten us about the nature of moral excellence.
Love is willing the genuine good of the other, unselfishly. There is no fear in someone of perfect love.
Which is why you should only give warranted compliments.
You're right, telling someone bald that they have a great head of hair is not going to work well.
Fortunately, virtually everyone has something you can compliment them about. Even if they're a surly old frumpy shopkeeper, maybe they keep their store super clean and organized. Maybe you're impressed by their loyalty to serving the community for so many decades.
Never say anything that isn't genuine. Fortunately, most people have qualities you can be genuine about.
My approach to self-transformation these days is to take on long term projects (months, years) aimed at changing habits from the outside in and inside out simultaneously.
If I was interested in praising people I would task myself to look at people when I am out in the field and find some kind of praise I could give them. Maybe I give them this praise maybe I don't. Doing this over time I will find it bubbles out of me, the desire to give praise and the words to say comes more and more frequently and quickly and it will come out increasingly. Whether the feeling comes spontaneously or whether you consciously plant a seed and let it grow, it comes across better than if it forced.
Lately I've been practicing deep and rapid synchronization when situations are favorable and I'd say I favor listening and observation over praise except in cases where my feeling is very strong, such as somebody really helped me. There is a long list of language patterns that somebody might read as "somebody is trying to butter me up" and in this mode I avoid them almost entirely. It is important to stay in a "I'm OK, you're OK" [1] frame no matter what happens and to have control of your microexpressions (one wince can set you back permanently) which comes not from an act of suppression but rather going into a situation feeling full and practicing radical acceptance.
I guess I should edit it to just compliments are my biggest red flag, and it's born out of experience. These people are looking for something either now or in the future, and this bullshit false niceness is simply their way of cultivating a network of people that they can use.
My wife is a great compliment giver. She'll walk down the street and see a person wearing a great shirt and say "Oh my God, I love that shirt! It looks so great on you!"
The other person will smile and laugh, and they'll exchange a couple other words, and then be on their way.
What do you think my wife is looking for that's a red flag?
It feels different.
I did say red flag and not "People that give compliments are terrible people". Random strangers that I never see again I wouldn't really hold on to flags for.
I'm sorry that's been your experience. I don't know where you live; and I know this can be a cultural thing.
But in America at least, it's not usually bullshit or false. It's not a means to an end. I will compliment servers and cashiers and receptionist just because it makes everyone friendlier and we all enjoy our brief interaction more than we would otherwise. It would be nonsensical to say I was using them. For what?
I am aware that there are cultures out there where nobody does this and it is viewed highly with suspicion. It just makes me very happy I don't live in one of those places.
> I will compliment servers and cashiers and receptionist just because it makes everyone friendlier and we all enjoy our brief interaction more than we would otherwise.
It's been my experience that many of these people hate that, and that the reason they seem to enjoy it is that that's what they're trained to do.
Worth noting that at this point, it's still somewhat trivial to find exploitable remote code execution bugs in Ladybird using AI tools.[0]
The userbase of Ladybug users is so small that it's probably not worth the attackers' time, but keep in mind that it's an enormous step down in security from the mainstream browsers who are actively searching for bugs using the latest tools and paying bug bounties on external reports.
I notice no mention of a bug bounty. Did they not get paid for this?
All I could find of a Dusk bug bounty was this blog post from 2023[0]:
> Although we do not currently have a bug bounty program, we will certainly create an extensive one in the near future, when we are ready to transition toward the auditing, testing, and security assessment phases of our roadmap.
And the roadmap links to a URL that now 404s.
I would be extremely reticent to use a blockchain with no bug bounty, as it means that it's easy for a malicious actor to monetize a vulnerability, but there's no incentive for an honest researcher to report it or even look for one.
I asked Kimi K2.6 to write a blog post in the style of James Mickens.[0] Then I fed the output to Opus 4.7 and asked it who the likely author was, and it correctly identified it as an imitation of James Mickens[1]:
> Based on the stylistic fingerprints in this text, the most likely author is a pastiche/imitation of the style of several writers fused together, but if forced to identify a single likely author, the strongest candidate is someone writing in the voice of James Mickens
> [...]
> The piece could also be a deliberate imitation/homage to Mickens written by someone else, or AI-generated text trained on his style, since the voice is so distinctive it's frequently parodied.
> it correctly identified it as an imitation of James Mickens
How likely is it that it might take into account that it knows for sure it's not anything from Mickens from the latest training data? I'd be curious if it correctly identified a new piece from him that comes out as from him before it gets trained on it.
I fed an unpublished draft of mine to an AI. I saw it searching the internet and prompted it with the fact it could stop searching, it was not published. From there it guessed that it was me on the spot, which I thought was kind of funny. Can't deny the meta-logic there.
It referred to me by my login name on the AI site rather than the name it would have used if it actually found my website, so I think it was more logic than an actual identification, but it had clearly corrupted the search enough to no longer be a valid test.
Which does make me wonder about the original article; if the AI has in context any sort of clue that the user is "Kelsey Piper" (a memory of their name, a username of kpiper or kelseyp, etc.), that will radically tip the balance in favor of the AI guessing that way just by the nature of LLMs. That is to say, it highly increases the odds of that guess even if it's wrong.
Even if that is the case, though, the general identifiability of writing remains true. It's been shown for a while with techniques a lot less powerful than a frontier LLM.
This is unlikely. The way model distribution works is that the model retains a lossy representation of James Micken's writing. Very likely, it cannot repeat Micken's writing verbatim. Neither can it reason about the training cutoff in this manner.
"The study authors took 36 books and divided each of them into overlapping 100-token passages. Using the first 50 tokens as a prompt, they calculated the probability that the next 50 tokens would be identical to the original passage. They counted a passage as “memorized” if the model had a greater than 50 percent chance of reproducing it word for word."
So they fed "It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our " and the llm responded "enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends".
They repeated that for every 100 tokens of the entire book. I think lots of fans could do just as well. It's pretty good evidence that the potter books were in the training corpus, but it's not quite what people think when they say an llm has 'memorized' something. It's not like getting even a few pages out of the model.
Genome analysis is also a lossy process that chops the data up into tiny bits, like a newspaper sent through a shredder. We then piece together matching sequences in a sort of puzzle. It's often a relatively inaccurate solution. Then we try to do that again with a different copy of the newspaper sent through a different shredder. And again. A genome might be comprised of 10x reads, 30x reads, 100x reads, with more replications representing higher confidence.
There might be ten million people who have quoted Harry Potter at some point in their blogs or forum posts. There are only so many words in the books.
That issue is different, when web tools were added to gpt4o it would fetch the site, and basically copy paste the text into the answer body. So, you were able to read the content of the site without the site getting the ad impressions. Now the system prompts put a very tight word limit - 25? - on quotes from sites the model visits
It is lossy, but it is still enough for verbatim recreations. All of Wikipedia is just 24GB of lossless compressed text and all of JK Rowling's work fits into a few MB. So these things would easily be storable verbatim in trillion parameter models. Reasoning about the training cutoff is also something that the newest models do pretty well, because you can teach them to do so after pre training using e.g. SFT. With tool use it can then even check actual current sources, which may happen without you even knowing in the normal chat apps unless you use a controlled API call.
I feel like you're making a logical leap here by assuming lossy and failure to reproduce in entirety implies inability to recognize. As a trivial example, I can take a sha256 hash of your comment here, lose the ability to reproduce it, but still have an extremely accurate ability to recognize whether some text is exactly your comment or not. Obviously hashing every substring would not be a particularly efficient strategy, but my point is that saying "it's lossy" isn't particularly compelling without other details.
Haven’t there been repeated experiments that show if you jailbreak most frontier models’ harnesses you can get them to output near verbatim copyrighted works?
I swear there was a whole court case about this in the last year.
How do you know, how the model works? If there was an index of all Micken's writings, or even if the model searched the web before feeding the response to you, you wouldn't know by observing from the outside.
This seems like a classic case of doing it being proof that it can happen, but not doing it being insufficient proof that it's impossible. I don't think there's a "quick test" of whether there might be a more effective prompt that would cause it to reproduce more effectively.
Didn't we get this with Harry Potter back in like gpt3.5? I'm sure I saw some news about it, someone getting it to output a book's intro word by word, couple pages?
That's neat, though it impresses me less that the article. Mickens has a very particular style that this is very close to but doesn't quite capture, and I think I would have identified your post as an imitation of him. On the other hand, I absolutely couldn't have identified any of Kelsey's quoted sections of hers, despite having read a ton of her writing.
It is very close, but what's more interesting to me is that it's actually amusing. I've yet to see an LLM actually be originally funny (entirely possible I've missed the crossing of that line) and the opening lines put a wry grin on my face.
A newspaper ran a contest to write prose in the style of Graham Greene. Greene sent in the opening two paragraphs of an unfinished work. He came in _second_ in the contest. Many years later, Greene sent in an entry to a similar contest. This time he didn’t win any prizes but got an honorable mention from the judges.
The part that stands out is that it identified the text as an imitation rather than simply guessing James Mickens.
That suggests it is picking up not only on style, but on the gap between authentic style and performed style. Useful for detecting pastiche, but pretty unsettling for pseudonymous writing.
Why this is surprising? This is exactly kind of task LLM excel best. This is all about text analysis and searching patterns in it? More, for a pretty long time (like 10 years) we had systems that were detecting copy-pasted master/PhD thesis, they are used commonly by majority of universities.
I'm way less famous than Kelsey Piper, but I showed it a snippet of a book I'm working on (not yet published), and it immediately guessed me:
> Based on the writing style and content, this text is likely by Michael Lynch, who writes on his blog refactoringenglish.com (and previously mtlynch.io).
> Several stylistic clues point to him:
> - The "clean room" analogy applied to writing is consistent with his engineering-influenced approach to writing advice (he's a former software engineer who writes about writing).
> - The structural technique of presenting a flawed excuse, then drawing a parallel to an absurd scenario (the time bomb) to expose the logical flaw, is characteristic of his didactic style.
> - The topic itself—practical advice about using AI tools without letting AI-generated tone contaminate your prose—aligns closely with recent essays he's published on his "Refactoring English" project, which is a book/blog about writing for software developers.
> - The conversational-but-precise tone, use of quotes around terms like "clean room," and the focus on workflow/process advice are all hallmarks of his writing.
> If you can share the source URL or more context, I could confirm with higher confidence, but the combination of subject matter, analogical reasoning style, and formatting conventions makes Michael Lynch the most probable author.
This one's trickier — it doesn't have the same crisp metaphor-driven structure as the Lynch piece. The voice here is more conversational, a bit more meandering, and self-aware about its own contradictions ("how do we reconcile...").
A few guesses:
Henrik Karlsson — he writes thoughtfully about writing and AI, but his style is usually more lyrical and essayistic than this. Probably not.
Simon Willison — possible. He writes a lot about LLMs, is balanced about their usefulness, and has a casual blog voice. But he tends to be more technical and specific.
Scott Alexander — no, too short and the rhythm is off.
Paul Graham — the directness fits, but PG doesn't really write about LLM slop in this register.
My best guess is someone in the rationalist/tech-blogger AI-commentary space — possibly Gergely Orosz, Nat Eliason, or Dan Shipper at Every. The "I still type everything myself" framing followed by a defense of AI writing quality has a Dan Shipper-ish flavor to it.
But honestly, I'm less confident here. Want me to search for a distinctive phrase to identify it?
---
I'd say all of those people have significantly different styles so I think Opus is relying heavily on topic and skewing towards very prolific writers in its guesses
> I'd say all of those people have significantly different styles so I think Opus is relying heavily on topic and skewing towards very prolific writers in its guesses
In other words, that there's a bit of Akinator to how Claude is doing so well at identifying famous or somewhat-famous online writers. And of course it's not surprising that a machine-learning system will take every opportunity left open to it to "cheat". OTOH there are things like the "Large-scale online deanonymization with LLMs" paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.16800 which seem to show that current LLMs really can deanonymise many or most ordinary posters based on prose style, though I'm not able to evaluate those claims myself. Do we know whether the LLM providers have actively tried to steer their (easily-accessible) systems away from being able or being willing to do mass deanonymisation?
I wouldn't use AI to write even if it could match my tone, but it currently doesn't do a good job of writing like me.
I tried with Opus 4.5 a few months ago to have it read my monthly retrospectives and then write a new one based on my weekly updates for that month. It was similar to the example I showed for James Mickens[0] where I see the similarities to my writing, but it feels more like someone parodying me than actually writing like me.
>For a while, leaving GitHub felt like a symbolic move mostly made by smaller projects or by people with strong views about software freedom. I definitely cringed when Zig moved to Codeberg! But I now see people with real weight and signal talking about leaving GitHub. The most obvious one is Mitchell Hashimoto, who announced that Ghostty will move.
I didn't understand this. I perceive the Zig project and Mitchell Hashimoto / Ghostty to be at similar levels of "weight and signal." Especially because Ghostty is written in Zig.
It feels kind of like saying, "Oh, I didn't take this seriously when it was just Fabrice Bellard, but now that an actual influential person like Guido van Rossum is doing it, it's real."
I agree with you. But I do see one crucial difference between the Zig and Ghostty announcements, namely that Ghostty did it purely for service degradation reasons while Zig did also mention ideological reasons such as GitHub’s relationship with ICE and their push for AI. Those were, naturally, much discussed points on HN. I can’t help but wonder if that contributed to the “cringing”.
Our announcement had plenty of examples of service degradation as well. People just become blind to all reason when somebody touches one of their political pet peeves (which sometimes might even be just referencing politics in the first place).
It’s because the more visible people are, the stronger they have a pull on others. It’s not so much about person A vs person B but about what likelihood am I attributing to an individual or project to pull others along. For me projects moving off GitHub prior to Zig didn’t have that yet and even Zig itself didn’t feel that meaningful to me.
Their own example is an example of this. I've heard the name Fabrice Bellard but don't know who he is and don't know why I'd care, but Guido is a well-known name among python users and does hold weight. Looking up what Bellard is known for, I kind of expect this to be true of more people than not.
He's not as visible. I know those projects, not the people behind them. I don't know most of the people behind Python either, but I know Guido because his name keeps coming up when the Python project is talked about.
It's ridiculous to me that they're concerned about the trustworthiness of AI-generated code when their code quality is so low. They don't even have automated tests and ignore attempts to add them.[0, 1, 2, 3]
Last I checked, there's little validity checking in the code, so it's possible to broadcast nonsense values (like GPS coordinates outside of Earth's bounds) and the code happily accepts it.
And that's fine if they're just like a scrappy upstart doing their best, but it annoys me to be so high and mighty about their code quality when they don't invest in it.
I really want to like MeshCore but I feel like its stewardship makes it hard. The main two people I know running it are Scott Powell and Liam Cottle, both of whom are trying to build businesses on closed-source layers on top of the firmware. I don't think there's anything wrong with an open-core business model (I ran such a business myself), but it creates perverse incentives where the core maintainers try to suppress information about the open-source alternatives and push their own closed-source paid products.
Also, MeshCore's recommended broadcast settings for the US are illegal.[4] I emailed the Liam and Scott about this months ago, and they ignored me.
Wow, #4 is frustrating. (Disclosure: am a ham, but not one of the uptight ones. I'm not personally offended when someone breaks the rules, and I'm not gonna run off and call the FCC or something. But I am concerned when they don't seem to know or care why.)
First, I don't know if their interpretation of the rules is correct. For the sake of argument, I'll assume it is. More importantly, most other people in that thread seem to be going along with the idea that it is correct. This is how it reads to me:
Submitter: We're violating the rules and should make this change.
Replier 1: That change would be inconvenient in Seattle so we're not doing it.
Replier 2: It wouldn't work well in Boston, either, so it's a no-go.
Part of me wants to shake them. This isn't 'Nam. There are rules. Whatever you think about the FCC regulations, they're not voluntary, and they certainly don't have an opt-out for "it wouldn't work as well that way". To a first approximation, everyone else using the public airwaves is more or less following the law. If following the law makes your project not work as well, that's your problem. It's on you to fix your project so that it's legal to use.
I'm not one of those old hams who gets hyper cranky about this stuff, but I do understand how they come to be that way. The only reason we can use the spectrum at all is that people are mostly using it legally so that their work isn't interfering with everyone else trying to use the same public resource.
This is also a loaded question. The only specifics they've offered are that he simply used Claude Code. Um... OK? Do the tests pass? Did his changes add any security flaws? Regressions that were untested?
> It's ridiculous to me that they're concerned about the trustworthiness of AI-generated code when their code quality is so low.
Agreed, but at least it's somewhat sensibly structured. AI? Good lord you'll end up with a slopaghetti mess.
> They don't even have automated tests and ignore attempts to add them.[0, 1, 2, 3]
Two people, 540 issues and 270 PRs open at the moment. Not wanting to be that guy... but do the math. The reviewer team is small as hell and after this drama (which probably kept both of them busy with BS) they'll likely be even less willing to trust others.
If you want to stand a better chance at getting your code into other people's hands, go and contact the person behind the Evo fork. IIRC he's part of Hansemesh, Germany's biggest regional MC.
I have heard indirectly multiple times now that the only two ways to get a PR of interest merged is to either gather enough people to Like the issue on Github or to join the Discord and ask.
What do you mean? Is the non-existent millionth floor of the Empire State Building still part of the Empire State Building?
Also, I'm assuming we're in agreement that software should not accept invalid GPS coordinates from untrusted peers regardless of semantics about whether or not they're within Earth's bounds.
I can't read that without assuming the real intent is to deliver bombs accurately, but the startup pitching it knows that'd get bad press, and the investors all know exactly what it really means...
Meshtastic/MeshCore have nothing valuable to offer in terms of delivering bombs accurately. Moreover, militaries already have access to much more robust radio messaging hardware and protocols for data and location transmission.
The main reason both Meshtastic and MeshCore have location data as a part of the protocol is because they emerged from the Ham community which has always taken its role in search and rescue seriously, and because it also appealed early on for other off-grid uses like hiking.
https://blog.noforeignland.com/off-grid-boat-communications-...
reply