Bruce, that is not Dale Carnegie's fault. If you read the book, it is absolutely not like that. I have no knowledge of the seminars focus, but I'm sure they don't focus on either smarm or backstabbing skills.

rkzenrage, I'm not sure how to respond, since this thread is really about the inadvisability of arguing, not about disagreements.

No one has answered it. Some have stated they did not like the way I made statements, some say it does not need to be that way.
Neither shows why people take disagreements personally.
As I stated before, they are important and need to happen. Without them we do not grow.

Neither shows why people take disagreements personally.
As I stated before, they are important and need to happen. Without them we do not grow........rkzenrage

It's been firmly established that once an individual states a position publicly, they are unlikely to change that position. A disagreement is often incorrectly perceived as a personal attack rather than an interesting alternative. This is a flaw that we all suffer from time to time, one that is magnified by this medium......we can't interpret body language or tone of voice. I was at one time a bit put off by the use of smilies, firstly because the term itself is silly and secondly because it seemed a tad childish, but I've accepted the fact that their attempt is to substitute for the missing indications of intent.

As for the latter part of your statement, I accept it as fact......an indisputable fact. :thumb:

A group of "agreers and back-patters" may very well feel better about their position, but this form of gathering in no way verifies that position's validity.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain--and most fools do. But it takes character and self-control to be understanding and forgiving. That breeds sympathy, tolerance, and kindness."

Doesn't sound too smarmy to me.

Sympathy, tolerance, and kindness make you warm and fuzzy.
Fine, I prefer honesty and integrity.

smarmy

One entry found for smarmy. Main Entry: smarmy http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif
Pronunciation: 'smär-mE
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): smarm·i·er; -est
Etymology: smarm to gush, slobber
1 : revealing or marked by a smug, ingratiating, or false earnestness <a tone of smarmy self-satisfaction -- New Yorker>
2 : of low sleazy taste or quality <smarmy eroticism>
- smarm·i·ly http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif /-m&-lE/ adverb
- smarm·i·ness http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif /-mE-n&s/ noun
From Merriam-Webster online.

I've seen this term used a number of times and I've wondered if those that use it with regularity know what it means. Furthermore, how does one go about objectively determining whether a comment or post is smug, ingratiating, or falsely earnest?

:confused:

I hope you're comfortable in your wondering, Hyoi, because you'll never know about those who use it regularly. I certainly think it fits in this well in Cloud's post.

Second, are you wondering how to distinguish if a post is one or the other or the other definition? A given post could be one or any combination of all of those aspects of "smarmy". Or are you wondering how to "objectively" determine the smarminess quotient? I reckon there's no such objective answer. Most adjectives have this same elusive quality. I found the post entertaining. Entertaining--is there an objective measure for this quality? I found your post puzzling. Is there an objective measure for that? Indeed, you may have found your post perfectly clear, and mine obtuse. Which measure is true? Objectivity can be diabolically subjective, neh?

I hope you're comfortable in your wondering, Hyoi, because you'll never know about those who use it regularly..........BigV

I've become comfortable with being uncomfortable, BigV. The post was intended to embellish the very points you're attempting to make PRIOR to your having made them. There IS no objectivity in the use or interpretation of such terms as smarmy, and the use thereof can lead to destructive argument as opposed to healthy debate.

xo used it to describe Dale Carnegie grads, lumberjim used it to characterize a comment made by DanaC, and now Cloud has wondered if her post reads like it, so I wanted to, and did, solidify both the meaning of the term and the smarminess of using it at all.

This is two.....and counting.

Did not answer the question, just restated that people are reluctant to change their stance.

uh, I have no idea what you guys are talking about.

Salesmen may be smarmy, but Dale Carnegie's philosophy, as set out in his own words, emphasizes sincerity. I certainly don't think his viewpoint is inconsistent with honesty and integrity.

I've always considered myself blunt, as in don't ask me what I think of you--I'll tell you. Brutally honest, in fact. I've come to realize that this has done me more harm than good in my life, so I'm trying to change my ways.

Did not answer the question, just restated that people are reluctant to change their stance........rkzenrage

Ego. You could easily have deduced this from my post, and probably did. Why did you continue to harp for a predetermined answer? Ego. Why do you not want to enter a serious debate with the likes of me? Fear.

Sad dodge.
I asked a question and you are angry because I did not answer it after you posted a non-answer?
What strange issues live there.

I'm not the least bit angry. I'm simply pointing out a flaw in your character. One enters a debate in anticipation of an end, whereas it appears your purpose is to merely argue for the sake of arguing. Your question was answered in my original post......you just didn't want to see it. What strange issues live there?

Neither are true. I am quite happy when I am shown to be incorrect and feel nothing but gratitude toward the party that points out the flaw in my logic.
If I had that flaw I would not read as much, participate in these threads as much, be as good a teacher as I am (my students still call me today for help from the professional sector, I continue to learn from them), or continue to audit classes when I can.
The fact is that I do not attach emotion to a disagreement or simple discussion and do not see the need to.
Those that do dislike this about me, that is their issue, not mine.

Are you under the impression that you answered the question?

What Dale Carnegie's mission was in writing the book is anyone's guess. But the result was corporations, large and small, sending their minions off to take his course, how to win friends and influence people. Unfortunately the students aren't required to pledge not to use their powers for evil.

Now the graduates return to the real world of business better equipped to con friends and screw people. Harsh? Think about what the basic charge of the employee is... to do whatever it takes to make you're employer, the company, more successful (richer).

They were also better equipped to climb the corporate ladder over the people with honesty and integrity. Corporate politics is much like public politics... by the time you get very far you've usually sold your soul. I know there are exceptions, I'm speaking in generalities.

Carnegie's philosophy sounds wonderful but so does communism, until you try to integrate it with the real world.