How to Win Friends and Influence People: A Review That Will Probably Not Win Me Friends
3
16
0
Disclaimer: I imagine that Dale Carnegie was a nice person who had good intentions, so please don't read this as an indictment of him.
This book is destructive.
I really wanted to like this book. My dad gave it to me when I was 15 years old. He loved it, and he is a wonderful and very well-liked human being. These are qualities most of us strive to emulate.
The Problem: We live in a time of rampant misinformation. One reason for this is that most people focus on conclusions, and not the methodology that led to those conclusions.
Most of Carnegie's advice/conclusions are very intuitive (e.g. "Smile"), almost to the point of condescension (which may be a personal trigger more than an objective problem). What is an objective problem is that the logic and evidence used to arrive at each conclusion is mostly garbage, and I suspect some of his anecdotes simply never happened.
While I was teaching at DePaul University, I created a class project for one of my English as a Foreign Language classes, with a goal of exposing students to how problematic this book and media like it can be. You can view it here.
Because 80-90% of his conclusions are obvious, readers learn to stop questioning how he arrives at those conclusions. By the time we encounter the 10-20% of his conclusions that are either inaccurate or at least poorly argued, readers have already become accustomed to not questioning his poor argumentation or likely-fabricated anecdotes.
Reminder: An anecdote is a story made up by a person to illustrate a point. Just a story. Usually to convince you that two actions have a cause-and-effect relationship.
It may be true.
It may be missing a large amount of context, such as factors that support the possibility that there isn't a cause-effect relationship.
It may be a total fabrication.
Anecdotes can be helpful, but they're not a substitute for data. You should want to see the outcome of repeated observed experiences (as well as an examination of other factors that may have affected those experiences).
Why is this book so destructive? I am writing this blog post a few months before the U.S. presidential election, where one of the candidates is constantly making provably false statements. I worry that media such as this book have contributed to a culture where most voters have abandoned the habit of critical analysis or fact-checking.
My Advice: If you decide to read this book, ask yourself these questions:
Each chapter title states the conclusion of the whole chapter. What evidence would you need to see to make you comfortable accepting each conclusion as true?
For each chapter, does Carnegie meet those requirements you just created (Hint: He will probably fail them almost every time.)
How did he find this evidence. Is there a cited source?
Most of Carnegie's anecdotes tell you that Action X led to Outcome Y. What other factors could have led to Outcome Y?
Does Carnegie acknowledge these other factors?
I suspect (and hope) that Carnegie's primary aim was to increase the level of civility in the world. It's a lovely goal, but I don't believe this book helps us get there.
I don't expect you to automatically accept my conclusions; in fact, I encourage you to verify them yourself (here's a PDF copy of the book I found online).
Either way, don't forget to smile.
