Reddit reviews How to Win Friends and Influence People in the Digital Age
We found 9 Reddit comments about How to Win Friends and Influence People in the Digital Age. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
How to Win Friends and Influence People in the Digital Age
/u/marspark12 - I read this book in my early 20s, I was/am pretty shy and this helped a ton:
free audiobook on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIZiS0HUStE
amazon: https://www.amazon.com/How-Friends-Influence-People-Digital/dp/1451612591/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=X55AR4NTDJB4DASZW8RE
I read it again now every 1-2 years over when I need a reminder :)
This book has been suggested a few times so I finally got around to reading it. I think it has some good information in it. I'm only about halfway through it, but I like it so far.
Time Management for System Administrators
Other books would be any of the social books like "How to influence people", "7 healthy habits..." Etc.
I haven't read this one yet, but It has been suggested to me if you plan to go more into management/leadership Start with Why
Other books that have I have ear marked due to being mentioned:
Also, do a search for "Books for IT Professionals" to find a lot of other suggestions.
"how to Win friends and influence people" now for the digital age
Under most circumstances, I would suggest for someone to march anywhere, no matter what.
But reading a bit of your posts, I would suggest that you might want to take the summer off to instead practice, work out, take a dance class, and read.
​
https://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0671027034
https://www.amazon.com/How-Friends-Influence-People-Digital/dp/1451612591/
​
This is not intended as snark, but a genuine suggestion if your goal is to make a top corps. It takes more than just finances and ability to play... it is also about "plays well with others".
> I am not going to go into Christian Existentialism because it is one of the most stupid concepts in the history of mankind. Let's just say that I find the Union of an organized religion like Christianity and a philosophy of authenticity and personal freedom ridiculous. If you are one of those natural Atheists, how can you be authentically Christian? He was also an a-moralist which again...let's just not go into that.
It’s only stupid if you have a too-narrow understanding of ‘Christian’ and/or a too-narrow understanding of ‘Existentialism’. Compare this to your too-narrow understanding of ‘organized religion’, which on your view is apparently incompatible with authenticity and freedom—as though people are unable, freely and authentically, to choose to organize for the sake of worshipping God and loving one another. I suppose you are the authority on what counts as “true” freedom and authenticity? Glad to know you have done all our thinking for us.
> As to Nitzsche...I am not happy about putting him in with the Nihilsts. He is often mentioned with them but in his works he criticizes and ridicules them constantly. If you have ever read Nietzsche you know he is not in that camp.
Actually, it’s a bit more complicated than that. Nietzsche distinguishes between ‘active nihilism’, which he praises, and ‘passive nihilism’, which he associates with Christianity and Buddhism and vehemently rejects. (See, e.g., Writings from the Late Notebooks, pp. 146-7.)
> First, the declaration of human rights is not derived from theism. No creator or god is mentioned, there is no indication whatsoever of a theistic origin. It is derived from secular humanism.
Let’s not be so black-and-white about it. There are both secular and religious influences. On the religious side, Dr. Max Stackhouse, director of the Kuyper Center for Public Theology and professor of Christian Ethics at Princeton Theological Seminary, gives us the following important context:
“The background story of how this definition of human rights came to enter the official, cross-cultural, international definition of standards, however, is only now being told. In fresh research, the British scholar-pastor, Canon John Nurser, has documented in extended detail the ways in which, from 1939 until 1947, leading Ecumenical Protestant figures worked not only with key figures in developing the Bretton Woods agreements, anticipating a post-war need for economic stability and development, but formed the Commission for a Just and Durable Peace, the Churches’ Commission on International Affairs, and later the Joint Committee on Religious Liberty, all under the auspices of the Federal Council of Churches, with close connections to the emerging World Council of Churches and the International Missionary Conference. These organizations, notably led by Lutheran O. Frederick Nolde, Congregationalist Richard Fagley, Baptist M. Searle Bates, and Presbyterian John A. Mackay, among others, were dedicated to shaping what they then called a ‘new world order’ that would honor human rights. They worked closely with Jacob Blaustein and Joseph Proskauer of the American Jewish Committee and with twelve bishops of the Roman Catholic Church to encourage the formation of the drafting committees of the United Nations Charter Committee and the committee that composed the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and deeply shaped their results. Further, they worked through their church and synagogue contacts at the local level to build the popular support for what they were doing. In fact, the more of this history that is dug out, the clearer it becomes that they supplied much of the intellectual and ethical substance that formed these so-called ‘secular’ documents. Such data is if particular importance, for it helps correct the secularists’ slanderous treatment of religion as the cause of human rights violations.”
> In fact, it goes against religious laws several times (right to change religion, equality of man and woman, opposition to slavery,...).
Christianity arguably upholds, rather than opposes, these ideas. Jesus and the apostles preach, they do not coerce, and their teachings are consistent with the equality of man and woman as set forth in Genesis 1. And while Paul’s aim is not to oppose slavery directly (thus 1 Cor. 7:17-24), his subtle rhetoric in Philemon is worth noting.
> [the OP] thinks that Nietzsche's atheistic philosophy has to mean he advocates pushing people into microwave ovens.
I find no evidence of that. Similarly, I am having a difficult time finding evidence of your capacity to correct others non-belligerently. Do you really find that huffing and puffing is more likely to persuade others? Here, try this classic. Or, given our present context, this updated version. You’re welcome.
Read Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" to learn how to interact with people really well.
It may seem weird, but a lot of people I know in similar situations will script answers to common questions so they don't ramble on or answer weird or be an asshat, generally. You don't have to repeat them back verbatim like a robot. You just learn a few good answers for the common stock questions and/or any particularly personal questions you don't want to answer or get into.
You don't want to be fake, but being fake is part of the game. If it helps, find another name for "fake".
The book How to Win Friends and Influencing People helped me.
https://www.amazon.com/How-Friends-Influence-People-Digital/dp/1451612591/
I can't give you the advice, too much to type out. I can suggest the right books though. Start with "How Not to Be a Dick: An Everyday Etiquette Guide. Once you've finished that one and have figured out how to at least be civil, move on to "How to Win Friends and Influence People".
If you are a man, you should also read "Manskills: How to Avoid Embarrassing Yourself and Impress Everyone Else". As well as "How to live with a Huge Penis".
Web link for convenience, i know someone will inevitably be curious enough to check it out: http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1451612591/ref=tmm_pap_new_olp_sr?ie=UTF8&condition=new&sr=&qid=