Get away from this manager-level crap.

I've read it

Teaches you how to do "active conversations", i.e., how to talk about feelings of everyone involved in a relatively useful way without, how to keep the discussions on track, how to stop feelings getting too involved etc.

Still, I hate when people use the techniques presented, it's become a bit overdone in some circles ("How do you feel about Timmy having taken your toys? I want you to describe your feelings to Timmy!")

Useful if you have to "manage" conversations relatively often (partner/work etc.), not useful if you're a NEET who plays Dwarf Fortress, it does NOT talk about dem dorfs

>>7509646
What would you recommend instead? My normal style is to err on the side of blunt

>>7509650
>How do you feel about Timmy having taken your toys? I want you to describe your feelings to Timmy!

If that's an example from the book, I think the first half alone is fine, but combined with the second part feels almost like a power play. Makes the counterparty feel like a fucking child

>>7509654
There's nothing like a single book “How to Speak Correctly”. You should instead focus on the language itself and actively secure your grammar and orthography skills before moving on. Learning argumentation and a bunch of Latin terms is really useful to order your speech and get a functional and coherent structure, with the aforesaid knowledge in language will lead to very efficient, neatly tailored sentences. Bringing yourself on the next level require much more reading and patience. You could read Aristotle or comments on Aristotle, but overall your best bet is to learn to identify a well-written text and carefully detect the reasons of its efficacy. Ask yourself what is the author's intention, how he ruses and lures the reader into approving his thesis and evaluate how well he does it. Here is an example:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/07/31/the-moral-imperative-for-bioethics/JmEkoyzlTAu9oQV76JrK9N/story.html

In this article posted by Steven Pinker, an Harvard psychologist, the point is to deny bioethics any utility. The first paragraph gives a techinal tone to let you think it's going to be a logical, almost mathematical proof, while the second one already suppresses any such line of reasoning by appealing to your emotion. “Did you lost a friend? Then listen the fuck up, I'm going to tell you the truth”. Each word is selected to prevent the reader to ask unwanted questions and you should pay attention to sneaky sentences like “In 2010 [the number of lost to premature death or compromised by disability] was 2.5 billion, which means that about a third of potential human life and flourishing goes to waste. The toll from crime, wars, and genocides does not come anywhere close”. He doesn't give you the right to ask if disabled are “wasted” or wonder about the relevance of drawing comparisons with such abstract things like “potential human life”. He gives a fact and you must agree. The whole article is fitted in this way and either convince you or is made in a way any refutal would be painful and difficult to write up.

Study your language, study the logical relation between parts of speech, then relations between sentences and finally the way you can sort up the arguments to make a coherent and fruitful argumentation.

>>7509617
meh, just read the one star review on your link and you'll get your opinion.

>I had to read this book for a class or I never would have picked it up. Basically it comes down to: consider the other person's viewpoint and act politely. If you can handle those couple of things, I may have just saved you having to read this book.

I did mine and I saved myself some time.

>>7509693

10/10 post

>>7509693
Orwell's Politics and The English Language is a great essay on that

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

All of Orwell's essays are amazing

>>7510505
Great one, although he overdoes a bit and condemns a lot of useful term I don't see any problem with.