48 Laws Of Power

[Anonymous No.16064468]

Anybody reading this? I think it's pretty insightful even if it's not super scientific. Looking for a good YouTube/video series on it or a review or something.

What else is there in this vein?

[Anonymous No.16064480]

accidentally read it when i was between books. try reading seduction by the same author.

[Anonymous No.16064546]

>>16064468
law number 49:
never mention the 48 laws of power or manipulation of any sort.
Don't feel to comfortable with it. It's far from the most dangerous work about manipulation, but people wont take it well, if they find out you use manipulation.

So don't talk about manipulation.

[Anonymous No.16064553]

such enlightening gems as
>"mask your intentions"
>"stay away from losers"
>"gather intelligence" (lol)
>"stay unpredictable"
>"act with boldness"
>"plan until the end" (whoa..)

should i "pretend to be like them", "act like a king" or "create my own identity"? should i "dont seem too perfect" or "always seem effortless"?

bolstered by various historical anecdotes (evidently 1-2 examples is sufficient to call something a "law")

[Anonymous No.16064565]

>>16064468
Literally knew all of us shit already. God, I can't imagine what life as a brainlet must be like.

[Anonymous No.16064588]

>>16064468
the fact that this piece of literature is popular amongst US prisoners, stuck in a cage and acting out in animalistic behavior, should be evidence enough of the type of character you are attempting to build-one of hedonism, sophistry, and materialism.
I wouldn't even argue with one that lives their life for matter concerning such. A vain attempt of arguing with a narcissist too busy staring at a silver pool.

[Anonymous No.16064593]

>>16064546
>t's far from the most dangerous work about manipulation
What's the most dangerous?

[Anonymous No.16064610]

>>16064593
literally my diary, desu

[Anonymous No.16064628]

>>16064468
activate windows

[Anonymous No.16064699]

>>16064553
a book can only give you a toolbox and show examples of each tool being used effectively. it's up to you to apply the tools intelligently. "muh common sense"... and yet so many supposedly competent people neglect these principles and inadvertently cause their own demise

[Anonymous No.16064721]

>>16064699
i would argue that the aspiring master manipulator who applies this sort of thing in earnest will be far worse off than if he never touched the book in the first place

[Anonymous No.16064762]

>>16064468
I actually did,

[Anonymous No.16064773]

>>16064565
I have autism and this book helped me greatly, mostly by helping me notice when I'm being manipulated.

[Anonymous No.16064788]

>>16064699
my point was that the 'laws' tend to be mundane common sense dressed up as wisdom because of the grandiose war/political context. if i was the author, i could make anything i wanted into a law because his standard for one is simply that a couple of anecdotes (apocryphal or not) that /could be read to support that law/

[Anonymous No.16064851]

>>16064721
Based on what? This type of reversal shit is such an eye-rollingly retarded common man's fallacy

[Anonymous No.16064929]

>>16064851
if you need me to explain why learning how to manipulate someone from a book is something destined to end in failure, i dont know what to tell you. the average person is a lot more socially astute than a 4channel user and having some botched powerplay blow up in your face will leave you an untrustworthy pariah

[Anonymous No.16064948]

>>16064929
The only real value these books have is for self-defense against such types imo

[Anonymous No.16064956]

>>16064929
I think the "EVIL GENIUS" aspect of it is a marketing gimmick.

Nothing in the book is "evil" and it's not really even manipulative. It's about articulating stuff that is instinctive. If you read the book, you'll find that a lot of the stuff Greene says is stuff you already did without realizing it. He's just putting it into words.

[Anonymous No.16064966]

>>16064468
midwit chart why not 50 or 52 or 100 or a trillion i could come out with some more , if you need 48 rules for anything you're a retard that can't see the bigger picture and I'd burn you alive

[Anonymous No.16064994]

>>16064956
>. It's about articulating stuff that is instinctive. If you read the book, you'll find that a lot of the stuff Greene says is stuff you already did without realizing it. He's just putting it into words.
Alright, then read this instead.

[Anonymous No.16064999]

>>16064994
I'll read both. Thank you for the recommendation - I'll grab a copy when I have time.

[Anonymous No.16065011]

>>16064699
they are surfacelevel maxims not laws, and most of them are contextual in the extreme. their only utility is in how vague they can be so that you can say “look theres theproof!”

[Anonymous No.16065029]

>>16064948
this book has helped me deal with cliques with more harmony than before, in addition to the Gervais Principle series of blogs. a lot of people do this stuff unconsciously because their ego and personal identities, and learning how to navigate these situations helped me socialize on my own terms. if you find somebody who somehow doesn't seem to be "invested" in any of these strategies, then they're a great person. most other people (planned and unplanned) end up falling into these types of situations because they're trying too hard to be a particular somebody, and the last thing you want to do is piss off an otherwise rational gatekeeper.

[Anonymous No.16065070]

>>16065029
>a lot of people do this stuff unconsciously because their ego and personal identities

Bingo. This is all stuff that people do anyway. He just kind of shines a light on it. It's good to see examples and relate it to your experiences because it gives you a framework for consciously understanding shit that was already instinctive.

[Anonymous No.16065116]

>despise the free lunch

D A M A G E D

[Anonymous No.16065136]

>>16065011
They're not objectionably vague, though, because every law comes with concrete examples showing it in action. If he just had the formulations then it would be too vague, but showing it in action gives you something to go by.

[Anonymous No.16065163]

There was some dude in YouRube who was doing one livestream of these laws a day. I can't find his channel tho :/

[Anonymous No.16065184]

>>16064553
>should i "pretend to be like them", "act like a king" or "create my own identity"? should i "dont seem too perfect" or "always seem effortless"?
Is the idea that you behave differently depending on who you're around really confusing to you? Did you know different tools have different applications?

[Anonymous No.16065188]

>>16064468

[DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk No.16065190]

Just like in Art of War, The People who like to point how obvious some points are will fuck up some of what would seem the most simple tasks.

[Anonymous No.16065199]

>>16064588
>attempting to build-one of hedonism, sophistry, and materialism.
you're just pulling buzzwords out of your ass because you're too much of a pseud to say "things I don't like"

[Anonymous No.16065208]

>>16065184
I think it's because "48 Laws" is a misleading title. It makes it sound as if it's supposed to be some rigorous treatise like the laws of physics or something, when really it's more like "here are 48 useful observations about shit people do in situations with power dynamics."

[Anonymous No.16065219]

>>16064468
>Don't push too far in victory.
Wrong, your enemies are to be either befriended or destroyed utterly, no half measures or it will bite you in the ass in the long run.

[Anonymous No.16065228]

>>16065219
ok I'm dumb

[Anonymous No.16065231]

>>16065199
are you an idiot?
my entire post was detailing why "I don't like it"

[Anonymous No.16065233]

>>16065219
He also says "Crush your enemies totally."

Granted, those two laws contradict one another, and that's a common criticism of Greene. On the other hand, it's all contextual. You're not supposed to apply every single law universally; that's why a lot of them come with a "reversal" at the end to show where the law doesn't apply.

[Anonymous No.16065235]

>>16065136
not really. i can give a contextual example of near anything working. but most of the time those things dont work all, or a lot of the time.

[Anonymous No.16065239]

>>16065208
So your only criticism is that it isn't called the "48 Suggestions of Power"? I don't have to obey the speed limit, but it's still called a "law" isn't it? My car isn't limited to 55mph because physics said so, who do I write an angry letter to about the deceptive wording?

[Anonymous No.16065242]

Actively manipulating people through these sorts of mindgames leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but it's still useful to read as a way to be able to recognize when potential bad actors may be attempting to use the same tactics on you

[Anonymous No.16065243]

>>16065235
>i can give a contextual example of near anything working

I mean, if your point is "screw context it has to work 100% of the time or it's wrong," then that's cool.

[Anonymous No.16065247]

>>16065231
explain where hedonism, sophistry and materialism came from then mr big-brain

[Anonymous No.16065249]

>>16065239
Not at all. I was actually *defending* the book, not attacking it.

[Anonymous No.16065253]

>>16065249
oh okay so your post just made no sense all on it's own

[Anonymous No.16065408]

>>16065247
wow, you got me. I have no idea what those terms mean. my ruse has been discovered.

[Anonymous No.16065441]

>>16065243
yes, but then you just get apodictic statements like “contextually, contextual solutions work” which isnt that helpful at all. a lot of the “rules” are too vague to be of any real use.

for example “appeal to selfishness, not virtue”

this implies that virtue itself could not be a form of self interest which it often is. getting someone to do something for prestige is a pretty common and useful thing to do.

litterally give me any one of these and i can show you how surface level its aplications are.

[Anonymous No.16065518]

>>16065070
also really helpful for people on the ASD. you don't have to use this to be "manipulative". I use it to have more fun with normal people (we all have our flaws and get lost in our own worlds). ofc, if there's somebody who shows too many red flags (either through the lens of 48LOP or being too obvious in using 48LOP), then I cut them off. the latter is surprisingly rare though. most people have their own organic ways of sliding into a situation and manipulating people to their own benefit. which makes sense because every social situation is unique.

[Anonymous No.16065544]

>>16065441
>always say less than necessary
>surrender to recover
>never outshine the master
>let your victims feel smarter
>ignore what you can't have
>don't seem too perfect
>don't push too far in victory

[Anonymous No.16065624]

>>16064553
it truly is tedious, just a way to sell a bunch of trite historical anecdotes to reddit

[Anonymous No.16065647]

>>16065219
Retard alert, that's entirely situational.

[Anonymous No.16065653]

>>16064468
It's literally just
>how to engage in social interactions to your benefit for autists

[Anonymous No.16065696]

>>16065653
So it's recommended reading for /lit/ ?

[Anonymous No.16065707]

>>16065184
The idea is that it’s infalsifiable. It’s not at all presented in the way you describe. Even if it was, it’d still be useless and the “proof” would be considered proof in the softest of sciences or most permissivebof philosophies. It’s a cheap history book designed to pull in the pseud audience and hoodlums. There’s a reason every dumbass in prison has a copy hidden in their ass.

[Anonymous No.16065712]

>>16065233
>>16065647
oh look, I'm not the only dumbass who can't read

[Anonymous No.16065720]

>>16065219
making the most out of a small and petty squabble will end up alienating most people around you, or perhaps encourage a seemingly defeated person to go all-out on you (he was holding back), both which could result in your destruction. you have to understand the context of your victories in order to best exploit them.

[Anonymous No.16065728]

>>16065707
>muh falsifiable

[Anonymous No.16065730]

even the title triggers me. dorky dweeb with engorged thyroid talmbout "laws of power" like he's returning from the mountain with a tablet. embarrassing

[Anonymous No.16065751]

>>16065707
>The idea is that it’s infalsifiable.
Of course it's not falsifiable. It's not science. It doesn't need to be. Mathematics isn't "falsifiable" either. Neither is literature.

[Anonymous No.16065774]

>>16065728
>an advice book with advice that that can’t NOT be followed isn’t useless
Can’t tell if you’re just a triggered philosocuck or genuinely retarded.

[Anonymous No.16065793]

>>16065751
>Mathematics isn't "falsifiable" either
It can be shown to be inconsistent. Just like the book.
>Neither is literature.
If it’s meant to have practical use, of course it needs to be. How ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.16065807]

>>16065696
Yes, though How To Win Friends and Influence People might be better so they don't become a bunch of autists thinking their master manipulators.

[Anonymous No.16065833]

the 48 laws of narcissism

[Anonymous No.16065864]

>>16064468
Literally the only people who read shit like this are insecure idiots who want to get a one up on other people by trying to emulate the traits of a psychopath.

[Anonymous No.16065937]

>>16065774
I have no problem following the advice and knowing which "rule" to use. The book is meant to outline certain common types of social dynamics, and the stories are analogies meant to illustrate how they work and in what contexts these principles are best applied.

I think--like many things that are considered to be "an art" that isn't actually art--if you were able to collect an infinite amount of data, had piercing descriptions to categorize and model the universe with, and had an infinite amount of realistic simulations to serve as experimental and control groups, then you would be able to deduce what works in a scientifically rigorous fashion. Unfortunately, that's not how life works, so you'll have to rely on abductive reasoning, common sense, taking risks, using instinct, etc. If you wait for "science" to catch up on all the areas of life that hasn't been rigorously studied, then you're going to be left behind as everybody else moves forward into the unknown. Having "falsifiability" is a profoundly stupid standard for a lot of phenomena. It's nice when you can use it, but you usually can't, so all of this talk of "falsifiable strategies" is just pseud posturing that I highly doubt you even subscribe to in your own life.

[Anonymous No.16065959]

>>16064468

How to be a sociopath in 42 easy lessons. Unfortunately it only works on other sociopaths. Funny how many people in jail and on wall street love this book. Funny how no one who uses these in an actual business gets very far.

When management has nothing to do with the action of making the product and everything to do with the manipulation of people, the company fails.

[Anonymous No.16065975]

>>16065959
>muh prison
>muh wall street
I'm convinced that that's just marketing bullshit. If this book was as widespread as people ITT made it out to be, then we would have evolved an entirely new set of social dynamics as a new "meta". Case in point, we haven't. Everybody seems to act as they typically have, albeit with different flavors, and people continue to fall into very similar traps time and time again.

[Anonymous No.16066063]

>>16065793
>If it’s meant to have practical use, of course it needs to be. How ridiculous.
Bahahaha oh God LOL found the STEM tard

[Anonymous No.16066083]

>>16065937

[Anonymous No.16066117]

you dont read 48LOP to use the things he talks about. you read it to recognize these traits in other people so you aren't manipulated

[Anonymous No.16066151]

>>16065937
>have no problem following the advice and knowing which "rule" to use
Assuming you’re not lying that’s not any thanks to the book. It makes little effort to differentiate between when to apply them aside from the fact that different anecdotes are, obviously, different. For something that would be as essential as the rules themselves, you’d think there’d be a bigger deal made of it.
>Having "falsifiability" is a profoundly stupid standard for a lot of phenomena
It’s not my fault you spergs get so triggered by this word. Again. It’s an advice book, and his advice can never be wrong because he states both cases. One of the choices would always be consistent with the decision you make, it’s useless. Or please, since you understand it so well, tell me the specific rules for differentiating between contradictory laws.

[Anonymous No.16066168]

>>16066151
I'm sorry, but before we can continue, I would like to see some scientific evidence for the validity of your approach to this conversation. Please provide a rigorous meta-analysis, or else I will have to deem your actions as unfalsifiable.

[Anonymous No.16066173]

>>16066151
>Or please, since you understand it so well, tell me the specific rules for differentiating between contradictory laws.

Well, first I'm gonna need a 100% deductively valid formal system that tells me exactly what you will and won't accept.

[Anonymous No.16066180]

>>16066168
Dude, he can't help it that he's retarded. Poor sperg is probably mad that we're distracting him from counting his model trains or whatever the fuck he does.

[Anonymous No.16066237]

Some of the online reviews of this are great. Check your book review channels if you watch any they're awesome

[Anonymous No.16066242]

>>16064468
blatant narcissistic sociopathy

[Anonymous No.16066252]

>>16064468
Dumb self help bullshit, you deserve to be shot, if you're to cowardly to do it yourself please self dox so one of the anons in this thread can at least do that for you

[Anonymous No.16066259]

>>16066242
know thine enemy tho

good way to spot narcs if you hear it from the horse's mouth

[Anonymous No.16066290]

>>16065184
It's inexact surface level advise that's meant to sound insightful without actually being so, only autists that can into social dynamics like the book

[Anonymous No.16066301]

This board really is full of retards.

[Anonymous No.16066307]

>>16066168
>>16066173
I hope you’re samefagging and there’s not two people THIS retarded in one thread. Never asked anything close to this other than the use of the word falsifiable. Or maybe you’re not retarded and I just kicked up some PTSD from STEM kids calling you a retard. Or I don’t know, maybe you really do think asking an advice book to have any kind of practical advice is a crazy concept. Either way, they’re all you problems. Retards.

[Anonymous No.16066318]

>>16066307
Excuse me, but if your standards are so low that all you need is falsifiability, then you're clearly not prepared for this discussion.

If you cannot supply a rigorous formal system with the same power as Peano arithmetic proving every single one of your statements, then you're not scientific enough and I am still cooler than you.

[Anonymous No.16066374]

>>16066252
I already shot myself and I'm dead but I'm still not dead. How do I do it now

[Anonymous No.16066381]

>>16066301
>durrrr /lit/ won’t circle jerk with me about the merits of the biggest and most generic pseud magnet in history, they must all be retards
If you’re so pissed about this, /mu/ would make you suicide

[Anonymous No.16066399]

>>16066381
dude you just compared yourself to hipsters "hurr durr you've probably never heard of it"

[Anonymous No.16066411]

>>16066301
You only see americans shilling this self help nonsense because we can't actually get affordable psychiatric help.

[Anonymous No.16066418]

>>16066411
I agree. If someone even clicks on this thread it should alert you to the fact that they're a fucking moron

[Anonymous No.16066436]

>>16066399
Find me one thread currently on there that’s like that

[Anonymous No.16066438]

>>16065707
Do you need a PhD standing next to you at all times using his special, unique brand of Science™ to verify that the next breath you take is going to be as safe as the last one? No? Do you keep breathing anyway because you're a living human being capable of deciding for themselves and verifying through personal experience what information is accurate enough to be useful and what can be discarded as inaccurate? Seriously, what's your actual criticism here? At first you seem to be claiming that the book contradicts itself, but have since walked back on that and just resorted to hurling insults.

>>16066290
>It's inexact surface level advise
What does that mean? It went into great detail specifying how each 'law' should be applied, to who, when, and in what circumstances.

[Anonymous No.16066439]

>>16066436
dude why the fuck would i read /mu/

waste of time

[Anonymous No.16066453]

>>16066438
he's a poor tardsperg who probably yelled at his parents about statistics until they kicked him out at 32

[Anonymous No.16066466]

>>16066318
Sorry you’re right. I’m probably too dumb to understand the answer. But for the sake of all the other anons ITT who are just trying to take a little piece out of this tree of knowledge, please, stop avoiding the question and share with them the power bestowed upon you by the great Greene.

[Anonymous No.16066473]

>>16066466
Okay, here's my answer: laskdjfhask*&*7876BHJS

use your mighty STEM brain to write an algorithm to decrypt that hash and it will give you your answer!

[Anonymous No.16066486]

>>16066307
You're too stupid. It's not worth talking to you, since it would be a pointless struggle that could only benefit you at my own expense.

[Anonymous No.16066491]

>>16066473
Thanks for proving my point. Try prison next time. I’m sure those people will be much more willing to tell you about all the great things they learned from the book and how far it got them.

[Anonymous No.16066503]

>>16066491
How did I "prove" your point? Your point wasn't falsifiable. Unless you can prove that it is, of course.

[Anonymous No.16066504]

>>16066491
niggers don't read. the idea that 48LOP is some kind of prison bible is a joke.

[Anonymous No.16066526]

>>16065544
>>always say less than necessary
often true but sometime keeping things in reserve can prove disastrous, especially when you might be implicated. if you cannot find a good reason too (there often is) then why.
> surrender to recover
pithy. surrender is one way to recover, and often time surrender precludes recovery, ie a trial. socialy it is often useful though.
> never outshine the master
sounds good, but it would be more informative (but less catchy) to say do not deminish the prestige of those in power above you through your own as it may cause them to seek reprisals. aphoristic and basically saying try to be in good graces when it benifits you to be.
>let your victims feel smarter
a specific tactic, not a rule
>ignore what you can't have
do not go for what you cannot achieve. of course what you cant achieve is rather hard to determine now is it
>don't seem too perfect
if anything is too much its kind of by definition unwanted. if something is perceivable as being too perfect it is by definition too much.

>don't push too far in victory
see above for the implication of “too”

they are literally all truisms.

[Anonymous No.16066535]

>LMAO this book is just another edgy meme self-help book for midwits! *posts picture of dumb person reading it*
Have you actually read it? What specifically does it say that you find wanting?
>No I haven't! I don't need to! It's just surface level advice for autists that everyone else already understands inherently! *posts brainlet wojak image*
How do you know what the advice is or that it's surface level when you haven't actually read it?
>*quietly stops responding*

Every time.

[Anonymous No.16066541]

>>16066535
The funny thing is, I actually don't like this book at all, but it would be nice if people could articulate why they didn't like it rather than just jack off into their own faces about how dumb it is.

Like, I can pinpoint issues with it, but nobody wants to have a real discussion.

[Anonymous No.16066554]

>>16065441
>this implies that virtue itself could not be a form of self interest which it often is
He literally covers this in the book. You did read it before posting all this, didn't you?

[Anonymous No.16066567]

>>16066526
I don't see anything wrong with these principles, as they can be easily overlooked at great expense. I've seen it happen over and over again in my own personal experience, so it's nice to have these dynamics crystallized and examined so I can be more aware of them when they arise.

what's wrong with pithy truisms? what is, in comparison, a good advice book? I'm not quite understanding your frame of reference here.

[Anonymous No.16066599]

ITT: people still getting over our century-long hangover from logical positivism

[Anonymous No.16066607]

>>16064468
My brother read it and he said it was really helpful because he started to notice all the manipulative moves of shitbags on his job.

[Anonymous No.16066625]

>>16066567
>as they can be easily overlooked at great expense.
You talk like a fag and your shit’s all retarded. The perfect target audience I guess.

[Anonymous No.16066629]

>>16066625
epic rebuttal, you win. I guess your position makes more sense.

[Anonymous No.16066637]

>>16066625
penispenispenis I read 48 laws of power

But seriously >>16066567 I think you're onto something here. Greene doesn't tell you anything *new*, really, but he frames things in a way that might work for some people.

[Anonymous No.16066641]

>>16066567
yes, but they are presented in a weirdly cynical manner when they could be much more neutral and have just the same, if not more correct, effect.

[Anonymous No.16066646]

>>16066629
>>16066637
SETHING retards
Prove me wrong though. What hedge funds did you end up managing?

[Anonymous No.16066659]

>>16066646
what is there to prove wrong? you haven't said anything substantial.

[Anonymous No.16066670]

>>16066659
True, all of his arguments are just tautologies.

>>16066641
I think it's kind of a marketing gimmick. He makes it sound more evil than it is to make it sell. His advice is still useful tho

[Anonymous No.16066681]

>>16066659
That you’re not a faggot retard

[Anonymous No.16066686]

>>16066681
Thank you for your contribution to this thread.

[Anonymous No.16066690]

>>16066670
i guess as a systemization of common sense. basically modern sun tsu. but the number seems oddly specific and they are just truism. i feel like i could do the same easily and give them a farer wording.

[Anonymous No.16066700]

>>16066641
>>16066670
good point. see >>16065029. I would imagine that a large percentage of drama could be classified under one or more of the 48LOP. most "manipulative" stuff is a lot more basic than any particular principle anyway. e.g., lying, stealing, bragging, arguing, bullying, etc. 48LOP is more "meta" in that regard. it should be read alongside Carl Jung and Eric Berne if anything.

[Anonymous No.16066709]

>>16066681
why do I need to prove this? what benefit do I get out of making an effort to prove this to you? why do I care if I am actually faggot retard

[Anonymous No.16066711]

>>16066700
Holy shit some actualy discussion lol
>it should be read alongside Carl Jung and Eric Berne if anything.

Which works of Jung and Berne do you have in mind?

[Anonymous No.16066718]

>>16066709
That’s a you problem. You’re the one that felt compelled to respond. Sounds like I hit too close to home.

[Anonymous No.16066733]

>>16066718
lol someone called you a faggot retard on the internet now your gonna cry

[Anonymous No.16066743]

>>16066718
No, I think that's more of a problem for you. I have information that is valuable. Or maybe it isn't valuable, but I think it is. You clearly have a misunderstanding that could be solved by my information. If I were benevolent, I would waste my time proving to you that I wasn't a faggot retard. But I'm not. Why waste my time with a brick wall when knowledge comes at a premium? I'd rather act like a faggot retard for my own amusement than to provide intellectual charity to an obstinate, projecting pseud.
>>16066733
you're actually really stupid if you can't keep track of replies on 4chan of all places.

[Anonymous No.16066748]

>>16064468
Check out laws of human nature. His opus

[Anonymous No.16066753]

>>16066748
You mean his magnum opus i.e. greatest work.

"Opus" just means work. Everything you do is your opus.

[Anonymous No.16066755]

>>16064546
Yeah, this is the trick. If you tell someone about manipulating, theyll be with their guard up. Even when youre foing stoopid stuff. Also says that in the book

[Anonymous No.16066763]

>>16064610
Edgy shit 2/10>>16064788

[Anonymous No.16066776]

>>16064788
You are under a very common effect in psycology. You think its comon sense because someone else already wrote it. But you could have read the oposite first, and still think it was simole common sense. Half of psychollogy is made of assumtions like those "comon sense" ones.
You obviously need to make a deeper analyzis of your personality and biases.

[Anonymous No.16066793]

>>16064610
Lo>>16064999
Trips of truth

[Anonymous No.16066808]

It grinded my gears a bit because he got basic Chinese history wrong - but what is worse is in real life the Chinese actually followed his advice/point and that was hugely detrimental to them

[Anonymous No.16066809]

>>16065653
>>16065807

How To Win Friends and Influence People is 100% just common sense social interaction and if any of his advice is news to you then you probably are autistic. I did not find it helpful to read

48 Laws of Power is more of a guidebook on how to be an effective sociopath, or how to spot sociopathic behavior more clearly. Granted, many normies do in fact behave the way the book describes, maybe it's borne out of egocentrism or just generally lower IQ and running on instinct. Hard to say, I definitely wouldn't always suggest obeying these "laws" or behavior anytime the opportunity arises. Ruthless selfishness has a time and place, it's not for every occasion

[Anonymous No.16066882]

It really tells you everything you need to know about 4channers when they complain about being lonely and friendless and their first instinct is to read a book about manipulation

[Anonymous No.16066900]

>>16066882
But it’s clearly just one or two spergs that actually tried getting anything out of it and they’re clearly not regulars. Everyone else recognized how shit it was.

[Anonymous No.16066901]

>>16066809
>or how to spot sociopathic behavior more clearly.

THAT is why you read it.

[Anonymous No.16066940]

>>16066900
But this shit has been shilled as advice on 4chan since like at least 2012

[Anonymous No.16066942]

>>16066808
Not surprising, really. Greene's degree is in classics so he knows a lot about Rome/Greece but his knowledge of Chinese history is probs not great.

[Anonymous No.16066960]

>>16066940
Literally can’t remember the last time I saw it used as a serious recommendation outside of /b/ like 10 years ago. What board shills it?

[Anonymous No.16066996]

>>16066960
Mainly /fit/, when discussing how to 'make it', sometimes it slips into /lit/ recommended charts

[Anonymous No.16067023]

>>16066996
>Mainly /fit/
Makes sense. Those retards literally had(have?) a guide stating your body consumes muscle to preserve fat in a sticky.

[Anonymous No.16067422]

>>16066882
I disagree. I think that chantards who can't get laid are more likely to read PUA shit.

Greene is not the best writer on this subject (Machiavelli is way better, as is Nietzsche) but he's worth looking at, if only as a secondary source for all those historical examples.