The Art of Deception

How to make Friends and Influence People...

A book which again has come across my path in terms of reference from someone I would regard as an acquaintance. Today I took it to not be a coincidence and thought to explore the book further, by seeing what Amazon had to say...

"This grandfather of all people-skills books was first published in 1937. It was an overnight hit, eventually selling 15 million copies. How to Win Friends and Influence People is just as useful today as it was when it was first published, because Dale Carnegie had an understanding of human nature that will never be outdated. Financial success, Carnegie believed, is due 15 percent to professional knowledge and 85 percent to "the ability to express ideas, to assume leadership, and to arouse enthusiasm among people." He teaches these skills through underlying principles of dealing with people so that they feel important and appreciated. He also emphasizes fundamental techniques for handling people without making them feel manipulated. Carnegie says you can make someone want to do what you want them to by seeing the situation from the other person's point of view and "arousing in the other person an eager want." You learn how to make people like you, win people over to your way of thinking, and change people without causing offense or arousing resentment. For instance, "let the other person feel that the idea is his or hers," and "talk about your own mistakes before criticizing the other person." Carnegie illustrates his points with anecdotes of historical figures, leaders of the business world, and everyday folks. --Joan Price"

Another book based on the manipulations of others without them knowing that they are being manipulated. The art of Deception never grows old or loses its mass appeal. As they say a lie often travels half way across the world whilst truth is still putting on its shoes. Understanding the psyche of the masses is not something that I would pertain to be an expert at but I know I often see things differently from others.

For instance someone I know commented after a meeting with a competitor, that the competitor was ill equipped to do the job at hand due to the lack of experience. The commentator declared that the competitor was inferior due to the latters' lack of experience and commentator's 20 years seniority in the role enabled that person to do a better job, that in fact the only positive aspect of the competitor was that the competitor was a nice person. The fact the competitor was 20 years or there-abouts, the commentators' junior and in a similar role - surely could not be construed as being indicative of the competitor's abilities in that particular field. The fact the competitor is only 26 or younger surely should not be the gravatas of how well one can perform a job? Or is this modern utopia idealism?

I'll read the book and find out if it has any of the answers - better still let me know your thoughts on this matter.