Carnegie’s paradox

I have recently been on a classics kick of sorts, exploring books I have long heard referenced but never read. Having considered Viktor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning, which contemplates the purpose of our individual lives, I am now immersed in a book that tackles an even more perplexing question: How the heck can we get along with each other?bookcover

Enter Dale Carnegie and How to Win Friends and Influence People, which remains as astute – and discomfiting — as it was when first published 80 years ago. Astute, because Carnegie nails the fundamental human need to feel important. Discomfiting, because he then unabashedly explains how to exploit that need to further our own ends.

Maybe it was the precipitous drop from the lofty existential heights of Frankl’s work, but Carnegie’s unflattering characterizations of human nature initially made me squirm.  To wit:

“When we are dealing with people, let us remember we are … dealing with creatures of emotion, creatures bristling with prejudices and motivated by pride and vanity.”

And: “Of course, you are interested in what you want. You are eternally interested in it.  But no one else is. The rest of us are just like you: we are interested in what we want.”

And: “People are not interested in you. They are not interested in me. They are interested in themselves—morning, noon and after dinner.”

Too harsh?  Maybe.  Too broad, at least.  Some people are devoid of empathy and thus accountability; they truly care only for themselves. We call them narcissists.  Many fewer are selfless,  not from a penchant for martyrdom — a perverted form of ego gratification — but because they are that spiritually evolved. We call them saints.   Most of us fall in the vast in-between.carnegiemug

But Carnegie’s overarching point is well-taken. People desperately need to feel important, he says – if not in the calculus of the world at large, at least in the smaller circle of the people around them. He quotes philosopher and psychologist William James: “The deepest principle in human nature is the craving to be appreciated.”

Not simply a desire or a need, Carnegie emphasizes – a craving.

“Here is a gnawing and unfaltering human hunger,” he writes, “and the rare individual who honestly satisfies this heart hunger will hold people in the palm of his or her hand.”

Can we really be that small? That self-absorbed, that ego-driven? When it’s all said and done, are we primarily motivated by the need to feel that we matter, and attached to other people on the basis of how well they fulfill that need?suzycard

I didn’t want it to be true. And then I looked at the aging card on my coffee table, a long-ago gift from my young co-worker Suzy. “You are such a brightly shining light in my workday,” she wrote. “You make my heart smile with your hugs.”

That card meant a lot to me – an almost embarrassing lot. And feeling the warmth of Suzy’s gratitude wash over me again, I had to cede Carnegie’s point: feeling seen and appreciated matters a great deal.

I am left, then, to wrangle with the rest of the equation: Carnegie’s implicit assertion that it is fine to leverage this vulnerability to our own ends, and his simple, explicit techniques for doing so.

It all seems too calculating, too tactical. Carnegie was a salesman, after all, and businessmen were his prime audience, though the book has since found a much broader readership. Repeatedly, he skirts the edge of behaviors most of us find repugnant — empty flattery, for instance — only to step back and clarify. We should not flatter, he says, but rather express sincerely felt appreciation.  We should not approach others solely to get what we want; rather, we should carefully discern their interests and find ways to satisfy their wants as well as our own. “Both parties,” Carnegie says, “should gain from the negotiation.”

eagerwantThat’s a reasonable moral standard — one we routinely fail to meet in our self-absorption. Sometimes,  we ask other people directly for what we want. More often, we proceed indirectly and often unconsciously, through various forms of pressure and manipulation.  If we “win” in such instances, it’s a Pyrrhic victory, engendering resentment and mistrust. And neither avenue considers the other person.

Carnegie suggests that we instead bring some detachment, intelligence and intention to our seeking. The great virtue of his approach is that it requires us to step out of the World of Me at least long enough to consider the interests of others.  In that regard, it’s a paradox:  Once acknowledged, the fact that we are all self-interested can actually make us less so, causing us to consciously reflect on others’ needs – even if only to better meet our own.

Maybe that’s why Carnegie’s book and associated courses remain so popular, eight decades after How to Win Friends and Influence People first saw the light of day.  True, his view of humanity is not flattering. No surprise, there: Once again, we fall short of the angels. But his view is not cynical, either — just honest.  Carnegie calls a spade a spade.  And then shows us how,  shoulder to shoulder, we might better dig.



This post was first published in January 2016;  I am now re-reading and re-appreciating Carnegie’s magnum opus.  I purchased a vintage paperback edition because, while my local library owns six copies of the book,  I’ve been on the wait list for more than a month.  More than 82 years after it was first published, How to Win Friends and Influence People remains that popular. 






  1. Hi
    I recently read this book. While looking for reviews from other people I came across your review. I agree that the author offers good advice on many things for example the power of a smile or giving someone a compliment when they deserve it. At the same time, I found some of the examples to be too-good-to-be-true. The idea of listening to someone for a long time without disagreeing or saying a lot also came across as manipulative.

    A great article overall.

    My full review at Ppaer Ecstasy:


    1. Thanks for reading my take and sharing yours!

      Liked by 1 person

  2. this book greatly increased
    my ability to express interest
    in others when i was a teen.
    thanks for bringing it back into
    the discussion, Cate 🙂


    1. You’re welcome, David. Each time I read it, I’m impressed with how pertinent it remains to human relations.


  3. You know when you mentioned Man’s Search for Meaning, and then going for this book, my interest piqued. I think I’ll check it out, after reading your post.


    1. Great! Very different books, but both certainly worth the read. Thanks for responding to this post.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Hm, yeah they are. But I liked how you wrote about it! 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I hope you will like some of my writings too. 🙂


  4. Sue McMillin · · Reply

    Thanks, Cate. Just what I needed to read today. I’ve never read the book … but I think I have my Dad’s copy somewhere. Maybe I should find it.


    1. Totally find it! There’s something delightful about the old-fashioned writing style, in addition to Carnegie’s clear-sighted counsel. I’m having the same positive reaction now as when I first read it.

      So glad you enjoyed the post, Sue!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: