Chapter Three of How to Win Friends and Influence People is one of the most extensive sections in the entire book. As such, we will be breaking it up into two halves!

This section mostly concerns discussions with other people, and specifically those of arguments. For Carnegie however, he tends to frame such conversations through a different lens in which it is more cooperative rather than competitive. Rather than having a debate with the other person, Carnegie emphasizes the kindness and empathy throughout previous chapters and that we should remember that the individuals we are speaking to are human beings with their own convictions.

Similar to the concept in part one regarding the construction manager, Carnegie's argument is similar to the idiom of “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink”.

While teaching people and directly correcting their errors may succeed, it’s much more effective to give somebody the tools and let them figure it out on their own. In doing so, it serves as their own “aha” moment rather than it just being another lesson. This motif of critical thinking and respect for the other party will be further emphasized later in the book.

Carnegie suggests that the baseline for a particularly difficult conversation is to reemphasize the dialogue in a friendly manner. Doing so allows for more mature and composed discussion rather than starting off antagonistically, which has been condemned throughout the book.

• It is Best to Avoid Arguments Whenever Possible

• Always Respect the Opinions of Others

  • Never say "You're Wrong"

• If you are wrong, admit it quickly and empathically

• Before beginning your conversation, emphasize friendliness over antagonism

• Get the other person saying "yes, yes" immediately

When having a discussion with somebody, it is important to avoid arguments whenever possible and instead frame it in a positive light. With a solid foundation of empathy, as well as recognition that the other party simply has their world view as a result of their specific experiences, it is much easier to find solutions rather than simply focusing on whether one party is "right". Difficult conversations should be seen as dialogues and conversations, rather than arguments.

As for the applicability of some of these principles, we can start with principle one and the ways in which academic debate has become prominent as a source of entertainment. This, in tandem with the oftentimes politically-charged topics, lead to polarization and antagonism of "the other side" without any work towards real solutions.

In principle two, Carnegie emphasizes that we must respect the opinions of others. Failure to do so will only cause others to double-down on their convictions. By leading people to your way of thinking and allowing them to have their own epiphanies, such discoveries only become more potent.

Conversely, principle three teaches that one should always admit their own faults in order to show one's own fallibility rather than remaining steadfast in their own convictions. A sense of humility is always important and shows the fundamental humanity in learning from one's mistakes.

By contrast, Carnegie's principle five demonstrate some key things to avoid in order to remain the "friendly" nature suggested in principle four. More specifically, "no" is one of the most antagonistic words one could use. As such, it is important to avoid such an outright response as it often suggests that things are in an "I win means you lose" scenario.

Instead, getting somebody to agree with your point once again emphasizes it is about cooperation and communication. When combined with principle three (in which you admit your own faults whenever possible), it becomes easy for any "arguments" or feelings of frustration to subside.

In short, disagreements are always cooperative and not competitive. After all, Carnegie did name it "How to Win People to Your Way of Thinking" rather than "How to Prove People Wrong", once again highlighting the idea of treating people with dignity.