>it's solely because that book made me more likable and personable.
This is the part that gets me to have an almost allergic reaction. It feels like an almost homogenization of people's personalities. In my mind I picture it like this: business man A reads How to Win Friends and Influence People. Businessman B also reads it. Business man A meets B and see that they're doing the psychological tricks of the book and think "wow this guy sure knows how to win friends and influence people like I do" so they get along fantastically.
It's similar to my aversion to books like "The Game" where some men seem to have the idea there's a surefire way to pick up women. Humans are diverse and should have differences in how they treat others and react. "Remember their name, smile, talk about the other person" and all the other tricks often gets me in the mindset of "this person is media trained / inauthentic".
I would reframe the question you’re asking. Instead of assuming that the interaction with business man A and B is fake, that it’s done for an ulterior motive, that it requires being inauthentic and suppressing your personality, all of which isn’t part of what makes people connect to each other ask “but did they enjoy the experience and make a friend”. There are known interactions patterns that result in people connecting to each other. If you want to connect with others learn how to.
And the book “the game” isn’t an example of that skill. People that follow those techniques find out quickly that they end up destroying the connections they make really quickly.
Except that is not what the book teaches at all. Sometimes people can’t take the advice of “just be a better person and care about other people” unless it’s explained to them more specifically and anchored to their goals. It’s not because they are inauthentic, it’s because they are lacking skills and understanding.
I actually crashed out semi-recently about this exact thing, quit church and all and was genuinely surprised when the people who were speaking politeley to me reached out in a genuine, non-public and non-coerced way.
I don't think the word "inauthentic" quite captures why people react negatively to this sort of communication.
At least part of it comes from the fact that this particular style of "kindness-is-cool-coded" (for lack of a better word) communication happens to be the preferred style of insanely passive-aggressive people who take it upon themselves to brutally sabotage anyone who they deem unacceptable. It can also feel like you're being lead on by someone who actively dislikes you but is too polite to say it. Or you just start second-guessing every single thing they say and do.
But honestly, there's a pretty sizable minority of people who are repelled by this type of person and if you're naturally bad at reading the room you're probably better off making friends with other people that say and do dumb things.
I know I went through a "How to Win Friends and Influence People" phase when younger and basically ended up just putting off a whole of people.
Culturally many Australians have an ingrained and likely healthy aversion to feeling they are being "handled" or manipulated in some manner.
Likely stems from a hundred and fifty odd years of the "always British" types swanning it over the "this is where we live and we love it" crowd.
I haven't read it yet, but reading it is not going to change your personality. Personality defines how you receive it.
If you change your entire personality based on a self-help book.. that probably says a lot about your personality.
And anyway twin studies make the hardware seem more impactful than the software in many ways..
Personality is not a static entity. It’s a feedback loop, a conversation you can have with yourself to adjust over time. My brother had intense anxiety in cars. He applied techniques that improved his ability to handle the situation. Saying he has an anxious personality is ultimately defeatist and not reflective of the agency we each possess.
And twin studies, while persuasive that biology does have a massive impact are not dispositive compared to similar studies on human development theory that has longer population sizes that show self dialogue can shape behavior over time.
> Humans are diverse and should have differences in how they treat others and react.
Even though I agree with you, that's not a fact and, if a bunch of people are happy all being exactly the same, that's great for them. You can have any amount of ideas about how things should be but if someone is happy the way they are, that's what's important, that's the end goal.
I just wonder if some people don't often get to their end years and regret putting on an inauthentic mask their entire life because a book told them to. Having dialogues with people like it's a transaction to win instead of a conversation.
> putting on an inauthentic mask their entire life because a book told them to.
I think the key difference- at least for the book I mentioned - is that it actually teaches to you take a genuine interest in those around you. It's not a mask or a ploy, it is making you engage positively in a way that yields genuine connections.
Good thing that's not what the book is about.