Personally, I see the self-help industry dying because people are starting to realize that it’s just a network of individuals selling products, promoting each other’s products, and creating new avenues to sell more products. I refer to it as the “self-help mafia.” Tim Ferriss kind of created it.
Every time someone has said some goofy thing will go away because people are getting smarter or realizing something, it's absolutely not the case. A large number of people will always want someone to tell them that they have everything figured out and others just don't see how great they are, that they'll wake up rich and famous one day, that they're powerful, that they're beautiful, etc. Many will pay to be told this. Many will pay for subscriptions to become even bigger and better.
As an extreme example, pickup artists had a wave of success a few years back and people paid big money for those ridiculous courses. They got replaced with Andrew Tate style "a real man just smokes and fights and hates women" type content and people paid money with the hopes of becoming like them. Trends and life goals change, but people still gobble up self help.
I went down a rabbit hole of reading some of the "pickup artist" material many years ago, and it was fascinating because there was a whole range from the really ridiculous "one trick" peddlers who in some cases probably were proto-Andre Tates - isogynists who looked for all kinds of underhanded tactics to trick women and saw it as justified because they saw things as stacked against men - to people who were just a hair shy of more mainstream selfhelp of making yourself better to be more attractive. On the extreme end you'd see NLP, hypnosis and in some cases coaches trying to legitimise things that'd easily cross into assault. On the "near mainstream" end you'd see people pushing meditation, exercise, and mainstream authors on getting better at social situations (e.g. Dale Carnegie).
The former imploded in the aftermath of Neil Strauss' The Game, which made some of the popular techniques well known and/or mocked (e.g. you had Howard on Big Bang Theory who in the beginning "demonstrated" several of the more ridiculous methods) and a lot of the field pivoted towards closer to regular self-help because the weirder stuff would get them called out.
I wonder to what extent that contributed to channeling the people who didn't want to put in the work towards people like Andrew Tate, with the mockery that followed and the less extreme coaches in that field moving away from it leaving a whole bunch of angry young men ripe for the picking, now with one more bone to pick.
I went down that rabbit hole too and actually improved myself. I recommend Juggler (old school), Austen Summers and AttractionGym (Dutch). I would still recommend to use your common sense though. Not everything they say is good advice but I find them giving quite good advice while not being toxic (most of the time).
Though what helped me most was a mix of being more assertive, meditation and a strong sense of playfulness.
I always went the improv route, so while I read a lot of mainstream pickup stuff back then, I was too lazy to use it. Also, when it was clearly mean then I didn’t do it either (such as negging). It was fun to get some skill in being cocky and funny, but ultimately I fell in love with being playful. Communicating that way is so much fun, and it’s fun to go balls to the wall creative. Yep, I am in love with a communication style and way of looking at the world. So there’s that (I also was in love with learning Italian for a while). But my default mode is looking at the world in an analytical and data-driven/empirical way (while not noticing my irrationality).
The more reasonable dating coaches are still out there. They simply aren’t part of the mainstream advice.
The current mainstream advice about dating sucks. Though, to be fair: the mainstream pickup artists from back in the day also sucked. It’s a lot like mining: you dig through a lot of advice that is plain dirt so you can find the gems of advice that are sparsely scattered around the dirt.
I gave some dating advice to some HN’ers. If anyone wants some, feel free to message me. My email is in my profile.
I am married nowadays (after a few relationships).
What I do find interesting is: I can turn this part of myself off and then no woman sees me. Mostly because I lack initiative and look at the world too seriously. It’s handy because I never get into weird situations like a certain woman liking me at work, for example. It also helped when I didn’t know how to break off contact with someone who I knew wasn’t for me.
>The more reasonable dating coaches are still out there. They simply aren’t part of the mainstream advice.
I really want to ask: what would their reputation be if they were mainstream, in your opinion?
I find it to be a very interesting spot of culture and society, like at one point you had a bunch of guys who were dealing with the cognitive dissonance between what society asks of men and what society wants from them in a context that wasn't yet politicized.
It is my impression that when it started showing up a little bit in the mainstream, the accusations of misogyny came, and with that most who actually cared about misogyny left the boat, in public terms. So now all we have left is Tate and the likes.
A lot of the accusations of misogyny were well founded, but there were also a lot of people who genuinely just did struggle with why they couldn't meet people, and who wanted to genuinely improve.
I think effectively those coaches who worried most about reputations to a large extent pivoted from focusing on the dating aspect to more general self-improvement, where dating success might still get mentioned but without so much focus on it, and especially not so much focus on getting sex.
There's lots of mainstream self-help around overcoming shyness and getting better at socialising for example that was/is directly relevant to a lot of people who struggle with dating, and there are lots of ways of framing the non-manipulative, non-creepy parts of a lot of dating coach advice in ways that nobody would consider misoygynist.
But, yeah, I think at least to some extent the attention given to some of this subculture unwittingly ended up driving some of them into the arms of people like Tate. It's not that there weren't plenty of those coaches that deserved negative attention, but the end result might well have been worse.
> A lot of the accusations of misogyny were well founded, but there were also a lot of people who genuinely just did struggle with why they couldn't meet people, and who wanted to genuinely improve.
Agreed
> and there are lots of ways of framing the non-manipulative, non-creepy parts of a lot of dating coach advice in ways that nobody would consider misoygynist.
Yea, agreed
One issue is that pickup artists always framed it as men seducing women. But quite frankly, most ideas would also work the other way around. I remember talking to some dating coaches who strongly disagree with me but they view women too much as women and men too much as men, whereas my view is that we’re humans first and our sex/gender second.
Viewing things in such a gendered way was a factor for misogyny.
Back in the day, I coached a woman to be better at dating. I taught her what I knew and she took her own spin on it and had tons of fun.
Just some examples as to what is interchangeable:
1. Being playful
2. Emotional intelligence
3. Good style
4. Cold approaching
5. Disqualification technique (e.g. what work do you do? I’m a hermit in the woods and sing to birds all day - when you are clearly not)
6. Open body language, and the concept of tonality, body language and non-verbal communication in general
7. Good logistics such as having a place of your own, moving a date to a second or nth location etc. (this just requires planning)
8. Being able to signal intent at the right time (I do it 10 to 60 minutes after when the playful vibe is clearly established)
Women can do these things too, and it works. This is just from the top of my dome. There are many more examples. Such as being optimistic, adventurous and genuinely yourself (I know sounds contradictory, it’s a long topic but yeah works for women who want to seduce men too).
I wouldn’t be surprised if all of this also works for gay/lesbian people but I never thought about that.
The funny thing is that a while after having spent time reading up on it but not really tried many of those techniques, I ran into a woman in a club who started running "textbook game" on me, and in that context reciprocating and trying out even techniques I'd never feel comfortable with on someone who didn't know what was going on was fun because I could tell she also immediately recognised it. It ended up being a fun dance of back and forth. The biggest problem with a lot of those techniques is when one side isn't aware - and of course that is often why they were being thought. But, yeah, the part you list are all definitely interchangeable.
Or more like playful banter? Those vibes are super fun, even though I am not much of a banter guy.
> The biggest problem with a lot of those techniques is when one side isn't aware - and of course that is often why they were being thought.
Seducing someone on pure technique, while possible, screws with many things. One of them is one’s self worth, as someone like that is now dependent on being a certain way that isn’t them.
> But, yeah, the part you list are all definitely interchangeable.
She started off with a lot of push-pull and trying to move me around the venue, and it was very blatant. Like taking me along to talk to her friend, and then brusquely dismissing me only to come to dance with me minutes later. If I'd not immediately recognised what was going on it would've messed with my head. Because I did, it was fun. It was also a very good demonstration of how fucked up those techniques can be - she was good at it.
Sounds like a whirlwind of an experience! It really becomes a game when you’re both doing it.
Push pull came up naturally through playfulness so I never consciously thought about it. Sometimes it came through spontaneous ballroom dancing. There were a few times where I taught a woman the latin swing. It feels as push pull but as a dance.
> It was also a very good demonstration of how fucked up those techniques can be - she was good at it.
Yea, can relate. I’m still a fan of women that have a similar style to my game. My game is wholesome. Women have mentioned as much. My wife’s style is similar. The first exchange on Tinder was awesome, I immediately yelled “she gets it!” in front of my computer screen :’)
agree, there's always going to be a belief for a majority of people that by reading or doing this ONE trick, they can avoid the hard work and sacrifice needed to get to a place/do a task
we've seen it with exercise/dieting
we've seen it with women/dating
this types of things always persist
How is the bucket, Mr Crab? Personally I admire all people who want to improve themselves, or crawl out of a hole, or fix their issues. It's not easy, and it's not easy to find the right advice or help.
Hard disagree. I have read lots of books, participated in events and training seminars and had profound results in my life. My marriage is better because of what I learned, I am a better father and leader because of what I learned. And the fact that people sell things as part of that growth journey is how they support their ability to share the lessons and techniques.
Self-help books are so often ridiculued, and that ridicule is often well merited. At the same time there was a self-help book that basically gave me a whole different outlook on life, and cured my depression over night. So I can't deny they have a place and can really help people.
Most of the effective self help advice is personal advice meets trust means relevance at that point in life.
Same book can be ridiculed and appreciated by different people, sometimes even by the same person when they are in different stages of their life (especially if they have less self-awareness).
"You already know whether you are in love or not, you just need to trust this voice."
Depending on where you are in life and who you are as a person, this statement can simultaneously be called a platitude, or a meaningful statement that someone finds allows them to decide what is important in life at that point.
"You already know" advice amplifies your existing belief. It's about taking a 60% confidence guess to a 95% confidence guess. Stated like that it becomes obvious that it's appropriate if someone vaguely suspects the correct thing, but dangerous if they vaguely suspect the wrong thing.
How to Win Friends and Influence People helped my career a ton. I stopped having to job search and started getting pulled up as people I knew from work advanced they would bring me with them. I haven't had to job hunt in 9 years and it's solely because that book made me more likable and personable.
It made me enjoy life more too, because I have a diaspora of cool and interesting connections who would go to bat for me if needed. I'm friends with the grocery store checkout guy now, he asked me to go antiquing with him two weeks ago. I made friends in my neighborhood, I have a lady I walk with every week who offered to help me garden and even when ordering flooring from Home Depot the dude invited me to come to NASCAR with him and his buddies.
It honestly just changed my perspective to see the good in everyone and through this process boosted my personal, professional and family relationships immensely.
I too read the book in my younger years, and it helped me a lot with making friends and my career. However, the book itself is filled with some terrible advice for communicating with people. I realized that as an older person. But as a young person it filled me much needed confidence. Like many of these books, the actual advice is crap, but I think it gives people the confidence they need to change something in their lives they are not happy with.
I highly recommend the podcast: If Books Could Kill. They have an episode on this book.
As someone who has listened to this If Books Could Kill episode and read the actual book, I think the podcast is mostly looking for problems where there aren't any. Despite the book's sleazy title ("influence people") it's mostly just basic, innocent social advice.
The core advice of the book is to smile, flatter, avoid all criticism, and feign “genuine” interest. People can sense this performance from a mile away. It is a dated, salesy, conflict-averse (to the point of dishonesty) way of communicating. It is too surface-level to address real, sustained relationships.
>it's solely because that book made me more likable and personable.
This is the part that gets me to have an almost allergic reaction. It feels like an almost homogenization of people's personalities. In my mind I picture it like this: business man A reads How to Win Friends and Influence People. Businessman B also reads it. Business man A meets B and see that they're doing the psychological tricks of the book and think "wow this guy sure knows how to win friends and influence people like I do" so they get along fantastically.
It's similar to my aversion to books like "The Game" where some men seem to have the idea there's a surefire way to pick up women. Humans are diverse and should have differences in how they treat others and react. "Remember their name, smile, talk about the other person" and all the other tricks often gets me in the mindset of "this person is media trained / inauthentic".
I would reframe the question you’re asking. Instead of assuming that the interaction with business man A and B is fake, that it’s done for an ulterior motive, that it requires being inauthentic and suppressing your personality, all of which isn’t part of what makes people connect to each other ask “but did they enjoy the experience and make a friend”. There are known interactions patterns that result in people connecting to each other. If you want to connect with others learn how to.
And the book “the game” isn’t an example of that skill. People that follow those techniques find out quickly that they end up destroying the connections they make really quickly.
Except that is not what the book teaches at all. Sometimes people can’t take the advice of “just be a better person and care about other people” unless it’s explained to them more specifically and anchored to their goals. It’s not because they are inauthentic, it’s because they are lacking skills and understanding.
I actually crashed out semi-recently about this exact thing, quit church and all and was genuinely surprised when the people who were speaking politeley to me reached out in a genuine, non-public and non-coerced way.
I don't think the word "inauthentic" quite captures why people react negatively to this sort of communication.
At least part of it comes from the fact that this particular style of "kindness-is-cool-coded" (for lack of a better word) communication happens to be the preferred style of insanely passive-aggressive people who take it upon themselves to brutally sabotage anyone who they deem unacceptable. It can also feel like you're being lead on by someone who actively dislikes you but is too polite to say it. Or you just start second-guessing every single thing they say and do.
But honestly, there's a pretty sizable minority of people who are repelled by this type of person and if you're naturally bad at reading the room you're probably better off making friends with other people that say and do dumb things.
I know I went through a "How to Win Friends and Influence People" phase when younger and basically ended up just putting off a whole of people.
If your were (never mind presented as) inauthentic after reading HTWFAIP your reading comprehension was lacking. HTWFAIP is about building authentic, mutually beneficial relationships with people, not shining them on. I’m totally with you about fake people, but HTWFAIP is not about that.
Aside from being about forming sincere relationships, it handles influence with essentially this advice: Stop trying to force people to care about what you want. Understand what they want, treat them with respect, and align your request with their self-interest and self-image. If you come off as false doing those things, it’s because you didn’t actually do them, you pantomimed them.
I see this as a type of psychological manipulation. Almost everyone is interested in other people's story and the basic human trait of listening gets you over that hump. The "and align your request with their self-interest and self-image" part is what gets me. As an off-the-cuff example that someone might use this advice to craft:
“You’re such a generous person. I know you love being there for friends. Could you help me move Saturday?”
It's an example that of course sounds ridiculous to anybody that reads it, but it's essentially what the book teaches. Gather information not even about the person but how the person feels about themselves and then use that as a tool to make them feel good when you're talking to them.
I suppose it's also not helped that many of the people I've met who use this and admire this book have psychopathic traits. They're very good at faking caring but actually can't. It's a cold calculation to them and admittedly it's very effective at getting them ahead.
I guess if you are feigning interest it is manipulation, but the book speaks specifically against that. If you want to make friends, you have to be genuinely interested and invested. If you want to influence people, you have to be sincere and aligned. (Modern politics puts the lie to these requirements, but that is what the book teaches)
I don’t know how you could read that book in a modern frame and get syrupy insincerity out of it in good faith, but it is true that many people read this type of book looking for shortcuts and hacks, so they are not looking for the good faith reading. If you read the rest of NH’s work, you will find that his philosophy is firmly based on genuine good faith and delivering disproportionally high value to the people you interact with. (As well as some very 19th century metaphysics you can safely ignore)
But yes, many people read that book, ape the ideas, and act like asshats. It’s hardly a failing of the book.
> Humans are diverse and should have differences in how they treat others and react.
Even though I agree with you, that's not a fact and, if a bunch of people are happy all being exactly the same, that's great for them. You can have any amount of ideas about how things should be but if someone is happy the way they are, that's what's important, that's the end goal.
I just wonder if some people don't often get to their end years and regret putting on an inauthentic mask their entire life because a book told them to. Having dialogues with people like it's a transaction to win instead of a conversation.
> putting on an inauthentic mask their entire life because a book told them to.
I think the key difference- at least for the book I mentioned - is that it actually teaches to you take a genuine interest in those around you. It's not a mask or a ploy, it is making you engage positively in a way that yields genuine connections.
If at any point in a natural conversation you're going to a trick a book taught you instead of just speaking your mind I'd argue it's a mask of a kind.
Example: if at the start of a conversation a personal anecdote comes to mind but you think 'no that's not what the book said, I should talk about the other person instead' I'd argue you're masking your natural persona. If your natural inclination is to raise an eyebrow but no that's not what I was taught smile instead, that's a mask. You see it often among high earning people and it's pretty transparent. Luckily you often also see people who are not at all like that everywhere and they're the ones I'll prefer having a drink with 10/10 times.
Personality is not a static entity. It’s a feedback loop, a conversation you can have with yourself to adjust over time. My brother had intense anxiety in cars. He applied techniques that improved his ability to handle the situation. Saying he has an anxious personality is ultimately defeatist and not reflective of the agency we each possess.
And twin studies, while persuasive that biology does have a massive impact are not dispositive compared to similar studies on human development theory that has longer population sizes that show self dialogue can shape behavior over time.
Getting Things Done by David Allen gave me a framework to get out of the weeds when I am overwhelmed (usually once or twice a year when I stretch myself): build a to-do list that us complete enough to stop thinking about what you have to do, if a new task take less than 5 minutes just do it right away, and then prioritise the rest.
Deep Work by Cal Newport gave me a way to think about my time management: information work is not the same as a factory line where doing the same thing at similar productivity from 9 to 5 makes sense, and it is important to dedicate long stretch of quality time to be productive (vs busy).
There are no silver bullets, but learning what worked for a group of people, testing it for myself, adapting it, and using it as needed has been helpful to me.
Yes, I read "Getting Things Done": he teaches you to make todo lists! That's it, nothing profound or from another planet. Basically you could get that information in 1 paragraph: "if you're overwhelmed, make a todo list", but he wouldn't have made a lot of money that way...
That's quite a reductionist view of Getting Things Done. There's nothing magic about the system, but someone had to put it together. It has been useful to me.
Most self help books can be boiled down to very obvious tools and coping strategies. If it is the first time you have come across the concepts, it can be useful but if it isnt, it is useless.
Is paying 15$ too much to pay? If learning about an obvious but unknown idea for doing the things saves 10 minutes a week, it is.
Do you need to pay 15$ for the result? No. But a result is better than no result.
After reading digital minimalism I did the digital declutter process and found a lot of extra space in my life once I removed distractions that felt "essential" but didn't actually miss once they were gone. I also found other things that were low value/distractions that I still wanted in my life so I've just accepted them(like browsing reddit occasionally during the day though I've changed it so I don't comment on reddit anymore since that ties me to a feeling of wanting to check responses/look for upvotes/etc)
1. Fact vs interpretation. Many things we think of as facts are really our narrative interpretations that are incomplete. A few self help books talk about the story of 4 blind men that are asked to interact with an object: one says it’s a snake, one says it’s a tree, one says it’s a wall, one says it’s a flag. Their interpretations are all wrong, it’s an elephant trunk, leg, body and ear. So when someone says my boss was unfair and mean, that’s not a fact, it’s a narrative interpretation, for all you know they are committed to mentoring you and sometimes that requires trial by fire. Drill Sargent, medical residency, and many professions have converged on that type of training. It’s much easier to stay connected to a spouse, child or coworker when you are operating on the assumption that your beliefs and their beliefs might both be equally valid. The righteousness of having “the facts” destroys a relationship. It’s not that there aren’t facts or right answers but a little humility as a finite being has a lot of benefits.
2. Dispute resolution. There is a three step process that transforms how you fight. A) what did I do to contribute, B) what I’ll do different next time, C) I am sorry and I’ll do X to make amends. When you do this you stop blaming others, which is what causes defensiveness, escalation, and the cascade of in tractable conflict. When you lead with this you’ll be amazed that your counter party feels heard, seen, validated, and connected to you and all of the sudden stops attacking, defending and starts to listen.
3. Characterization. In our lives we often define people based on aspects of their personality that are incomplete. The problem is that stunts their growth and limits the depth of the relationship. So the “ambitious” daughter, “funny” son, “techy” coworker gets defined as only that and can’t break out of it in relation to the person characterizing them. So when the ambitious kid has a failure they turn to the parent for support and get characterized instead treated like a human being that can change. So when an “ambitious” kid says I don’t want to go to university are they suddenly not ambitious? Are they allowed to redefine themselves? There are entire categories of books written by people with a chip on their shoulder because they were characterized.
I did a leadership training that had a session on purpose. They discussed the Harvard study that followed people over their lives and careers and their reported sense of wellbeing. The clear trend of what creates fulfillment at the end of life makes it hard to dwell on a lot of what most people suffer for during different phases of life. I have seen people in college, law school, early careers, doing startups, being parents, even all grinding it out and then looking back with the realization they were and remain miserable.
"because of what I learned." Do these books/seminars actually teach you something new about being married or a father, that you didn't know before? Like what? I always figured they were more about coaching, persuasion, convincing. To the extent I've scanned them, I never saw any kind of new fact, definitely not about something like being married.
I view self help books in a similar light as management books. They're usually not going to teach me anything new. What they will do is present something I already know, in potentially new ways and new contexts that allow me to contemplate them and keep them more front of mind. I tend to think of it almost like right thought right action. It's also worth noting that sometimes you just need to be at the right moment in time for a lesson to resonate and stick so reading such books can provide more opportunity for that to happen.
I do, however, try to limit who and what I read though because there is a lot of derivative garbage out there.
I also think of reading self-help books (or management books) as giving myself time to engage with the subject. Even if there is no groundbreaking new information, it gives me time to think about the topic. If you couldn't tell yet, I'm a slow reader.
I am not a slow reader, but I realized what you did - that these books give me a chance to engage with the topic and if I spend enough time with a subject, I might learn something from myself even if I learn zero from the actual book.
My solution to this problem is to set these books next to one of the two comfy chairs in the house. When I sit in one of these chairs, I consider whether I want to read a chapter, I can only read one chapter, I can only have two of these books going at one time.
And under the system it takes me about three months to finish one of the books up from less than a week. I also find I no longer hate• most of them and I learn a lot more.
I'm definitely a better father because of a bunch of the self help books I've read. Things like better ways to communicate with my son, more effective ways to transfer knowledge, encourage independence, etc. Other areas of my life have definitely improved too though I agree when people say most self help books could be a blog post and in cases where it's an expansion of a blog post I'll generally just go read that.
With these types of books(and I read a lot of self help) I generally expect to get like 1-2 good pieces of advice/ideas per 200 pages so I generally just scan through them until I hit areas that seem high value then read those areas more deeply. I've read all of Tim Ferriss' books and haven't really gotten anything I can think of from his stuff to be honest they are a bit too general for me but I've gotten some good advice from his podcast though I only listen to maybe one episode in 10 when it is with someone or about something that sounds very interesting and even then I tend to scrub through it since there is a lot of filler in a 2 hour podcast.
Here's the problem: You can be a bad father by being too strict, or you can be a bad father by being too lenient.
In Zion National Park there's a hike called Angel's Landing. You wind up on this ridge, with a 1000 foot cliff on one side and a 500 foot cliff on the other side. And the ridge is not very wide - only a couple of feet in some places.
Parenting is like that. You think, oh, I see people causing problems by being too strict, so I want to back away from that cliff. But there's a cliff behind you, so don't back too far...
And the problem with parenting books is that, if you're the kind of parent who needs the books warning you about being too strict, then the books that warn against being too lenient are probably the ones that resonate more with you. That is, you're drawn to the ones you don't need, not to the ones that you do need.
All that said, yes, get books and read them. Be sure to get a variety of them.
I can't give specifics off the cuff, as I'm well past that phase now.
I read Nurture Shock before my kids were born. One of its main arguments is to praise effort rather than natural abilities ("you worked hard" rather than "you're smart"). Being one who naturally withholds praise, its message of not over-praising resonated with me.
In retrospect, I should have praised kid #1 more. It took me 10+ years to realize that. The book was not wrong but also not the message I needed.
I am definitely of the same generation. I notice my mom will praise my kid’s intelligence while we praise their effort. But I’ve definitely noticed my son responds to praise about ability more than my daughter and likely would appreciate more praise than her.
What did you notice and what were the consequences of the strategy of praise. I’d like to learn from your experience.
I have noticed that my daughter responds so much better to compliments like, "I am really impressed how you handled situation X, you stuck up for yourself in a way that doesn't alienate yourself with your friends. I know how hard that is to do well ..." When I give the reason for the praise it doesn't come off, intended or not as "you did good for a kid." I don't do it everytime, but sometimes the praise works to give another reflective or metacognitive pass over the event.
Praise is a verbal activity. And while words definitely matter, I think holistic encouragement is needed. Pats on the back, hugs, and periodic ambient physical presence when the kid is working on a new skill.
Children the Challenge chapter 3 discusses encouragement.
All this stuff should be done tastefully and without being overbearing. Like the previous poster said, it's a balance.
Totally agree especially since each kid is different and responds to the same technique differently. But there are common things like attachment theory, boundaries creating safety, the tactics of repair after conflict.
I mean this with the purest intentions. I've read Never Split the Difference, Never Eat Alone, Getting More, How to Win Friends and Influence People, etc. How do you get it to feel like it's not manipulation? I get all of these books advertise not to lie, but at the end of the day, I'm reshaping my speech to achieve a certain goal, rather than to convey facts. The best line I've come up with is something like: am I serving the other person's actual interests, and would I be fine with them seeing exactly what I'm doing? Honest persuasion seems to survive that test; manipulation usually needs the other person not to notice. Curious how you draw this line? Keep in mind I don't have kids, so haven't really ventured into white lie territory being a necessity.
> I'm reshaping my speech to achieve a certain goal, rather than to convey facts.
When communicating, you don't simply recite every datum you know. You edit, you choose facts to communicate a specific set of points. Those points themselves are not random; they are in service of helping you achieve some goal (to get someone to laugh, or to get someone to do/not do something, or to change someone's opinion of you, to make someone feel comfortable, to get a person to bond with you, or whatever).
> am I serving the other person's actual interests
This is the key.
> would I be fine with them seeing exactly what I'm doing
See my first paragraph. Nobody thinks you are reciting facts at random when you talk to them. QED to the extent anyone thinks about it, they understand that you are trying to advance some agenda (drop the connotation on that word). Because this is how human communication works.
At their core all these self help books are not teaching you how to reshape your speech, but emotional intelligence. They are teaching better understanding of other and yourself. You can then use this understanding to have more fulfilling relations, or more easily manipulate others if you are less well intentioned. The line is very easy to draw, being honest is natural, you say the truth and are open to genuinely understand and build on the other person responses. On the other hand manipulating takes a very different mindset of faking being open to what others are saying.
Many people, especially in the tech field, have false perceptions about the inner workings of the human brain. We aren't rational automatons receiving exactly the data that has been sent out by the other automatons. That's for a multitude of reasons, the most obvious of that is the fact that only a very miniscule part of our thought is conscious (about 2% is the last number I've read about it). Even the fundamental inner workings of the brain differ from the idea you alluded to. Our brain isn't just a parser interpreting the data we receive - instead it is a black box constantly predicting what happens next, and only uses sensory input, both from the outside and from the inside of the body, to validate or falsify the prediction [1]. One of the obvious side effects if this is for example our tendency to ignore facts that don't fit to our current worldview.
So if I know that these things are as they are, and use them to communicate more successfully, is that manipulation? Then it would also be learning manipulation if kids are sent to school to learn how to write well, or how to do a presentation.
I had a situation with my kid a while ago. They were already tired, but had to take a shower. When I proposed that verbally, they denied. Then I showed them the warm water coming out of the showerhead, and they instantly agreed. So I got what I wanted (the kid getting clean), because I knew how to communicate successfully. But that isn't manipulation: I didn't lie, I didn't have a personal advantage at their cost etc. I just made it easier for them to anticipate what taking a shower would feel like.
So perhaps the distinction should be: If I can honestly and wholeheartedly argue to myself that my intentions are to the best of all participants, then that is communication. If I only care about my outcome, or even want to have adverserial outcome for the others, then that is manipulation.
But we can't use "not noticing" some mode of communication as part of the definition of manipulation simply because we all notice almost nothing consciously, compared to the sensory input we get every second of our lifes.
[1] A pretty approachable book about that, written from a researcher: How emotions are made, from Lisa Feldman Barret
Exactly this. And I'll share a similar comment. I found myself repeating instructions to my 4 year old ans getting frustrated. I watched a parenting video that suggested getting down on her physical level and gently touching her shoulder to get her attention. The theory being when she is focused on something fun or interesting she literally can't hear me or shift her attention.
It worked the first time and has reduced my own emotional reaction and create much more peace.
And while I won't suggest it will work for everyone or this is a scientific process with sufficient information (but should be explored) I find resources like this useful.
I think you’re on the right track. Manipulation is overriding someone’s will in service of your motives. Persuasion is offering new information, while respecting their autonomy to make their own choice. So you are right that intention matters a lot. And the reason it matters is that your commitment to their wellbeing is an investment in the relationship which is a mutual interaction over time not a single event.
That’s also why authenticity and honesty matter. If you lie to your children or spouse or colleague they might do what you want one time but over time not trust you. If you are inauthentic they will also learn that you have ulterior motives and become distrustful.
The last thing I’ll say is it’s not always a negotiation. With young kids or direct reports there is elevation in the relationship, meaning one person gets to make the decision and the other gets to follow the instructions. So when a toddler is saying I don’t want to brush my teeth if you treat it like a negotiation you actually make them less secure about their place in the world because they aren’t ready to make every decision for themself. One good technique I learned is to simply present two choices. “You can brush your teeth or let me brush your teeth”. That’s very different than “let’s go brush your teeth” which can be answered yes or no. So it’s not always necessary to engage in persuasion. Sometimes framing is all you need.
I've often felt the same way; I've read some of these and (think I) can spot people using those learned things a mile away, and it immediately raises my hackles up. Management and sales people especially. Touch my shoulder or try to shake my hand palm-down just raise alarm bells.
But that's the other side of these books, understanding "the other side" of people.
I like to believe it all adds up to a big pile of knowledge that finds its place in one's personality / outwards behaviour. But to more observant, introspective, overthinking, possibly neurodiverse people, it just adds to a giant pile of social behaviours that some people seem to have naturally while others have learned / are forcing them.
Doing them costs me energy and makes me feel underhanded / ungenuine. At the same time maybe doing it more often will make them feel natural? I have no idea.
Touching shoulders and shaking hands palm-down is “persuasion” bullshit.
Can’t say anything about other books, but Never Split the Difference is about hearing and understanding other peoples’s wants and opinions. Not this pickup-artist-like bullshit.
> but at the end of the day, I'm reshaping my speech to achieve a certain goal, rather than to convey facts.
The idea that the only goal of communication is to convey facts is (charitably) a pretty autistic view of interpersonal relationships.
There are many situations where conveying facts is not the primary goal, and there's a world of difference just in how facts are conveyed. Facts probably aren't going to stop your toddler screaming for ice cream. Telling your wife that dress makes her look fat likely isn't going to help either one of you. Calling out a coworker when they are wrong isn't going to improve your working relationship. And so on...
Humans convey emotion and thoughts in conversation. We have mirror neurons that literally model an approximation of the internal mental state of the person you are talking to.
Facts won't stop a toddler crying for ice cream. But a clear unmoving boundary conveyed with love stops the intensity of their request and allowing them to have the sadness and anger at being told no and treating them with kindness and love even while they are expressing big feelings of disappointment creates a trusting, safe relationship.
I’ve genuinely read only Never Split the Difference from your list, and it’s kind of the opposite from manipulation.
The book teaches how to actually hear people even in the very emotionally charged situations, how to properly ask them questions to understand their point of view and their needs.
If I understand my son’s needs and can give him what he wants in exchange of him giving me what I want, how is that a manipulation? I can yell at him, impose sanctions (eg no minecraft for two days) and we both will be greatly dissatisfied. Or we can both get what we want, which is a win-win.
I think we're describing different halves of the same book.
I don't have a problem with generally understanding someone's needs. You ask what he wants, you say what you want, you both find a common middle ground.
But that's not what I'm worried about. He also teaches you things like give gifts to instill a sense of reciprocity. Use odd numbers so it appears as if you've put in research to arrive at this figure. "Bend reality" by moving around deadlines. Take advantage of cognitive biases like loss aversion.
Actual empathy is one thing, steering someone into thinking that your preferred outcome was their own idea is another. And that steering is precisely the manipulation I can't shake off. I'd be fine with the other person knowing I'm actually empathizing. But all those other techniques rely on the other person not noticing, which falls into my definition of manipulation.
Yeah, probably different halves of the book. I've read it a few years ago, and it looks like I've just ignored/forgot all that "bending reality" stuff. It's not my cup of tea, so I remembered only the good parts of it
I have read How to Win friends and Influence People and I haven't felt like its manipulation.
[I can be wrong and I usually am ;)] but the book teaches just some way to better re-phrase your best intentions and I have started to think the phrases in my head...
Just be honest with people is what that book taught me. I highly recommend people reading it.
Now I will be honest that reading the book itself isn't gonna give you something. It depends highly on variety of factors. For example, the book also teaches to listen more often and I genuinely try to do it as well but I sometimes fail to do that as I am a bit expressive/talkative
I think it also depends on who you are and how the book reinforces some particular topics. You dont have to completely do everything the book says to have meaningful impact as then it would feel manipulative to other person, yea.
And at the very least, reading this books makes you aware of some logic behind what he's saying (for example. I speak a lot but I should listen more, because people like me are so many and everyone likes to speak and be heard but people who actually listen are rare)
and then I can realize that I am speaking too much and so I think that I am more aware.
More Awareness of a topic doesn't mean complete and utter mastery of it but long term persistence of that awareness helps out meaningfully.
TLDR: Just be yourself and see if something sticks from the books and to implement it slowly and the way you like. There isn't one perfect way (not one even in the books) to living life. At best, its collection of what other successful people are doing. I wouldn't suggest (completely) living off the books because you have your own life and way of living it and you should be honest about it to yourself as well.
Read AI summary what “Never Split the Difference” is about. And its a bit scary that you think its suitable for talking with kids. Its pure manipulation technique. If you need to do this to your its most likely you were unable to create a real connection with them before.
Thank you for proving Tim Ferris right and showing that AI actually degrades the knowledge adding a second order harm to human society.
The tactics themselves are morally neutral. They can be used to manipulate or elevate another person whose well being you are deeply committed to, the intention behind the tactics are what determines if it is manipulation or connection/persuasion.
The self driven child was one I just finished 2 weeks ago that I really enjoyed and felt had a lot of good advice that ran counter to my natural tendencies.
The How to talk books(there are a few of them for different ages), no drama discipline.
Cal Newports books while not specifically about parenting have helped me with disconnecting more from my tech which has always been a challenge since it's my job and a part of a lot of my hobbies which has definitely led to being a better father.
No worries, I have "Outdoor kids in an indoor world" next that I'm really looking forward to since I struggle with being an indoor dad despite being the type of kid that would leave the house in the morning on my bike and be back at night and went camping every couple weekends. I'll have a look at yours.
Lacking happiness or charisma or confidence or the ability to quit smoking or any other run-of-the-mill self-help topic isn’t caused by a lack of relevant data: it’s a matter of perspective. Often, the best way to push through the problem is getting the perspective of someone that’s thought about it more. Whether self help books are an effective medium for that is another topic, but if they’re not, lacking hard facts wouldn’t be the problem.
Self help usually doesn't teach you anything that is new. Usually they just repackage the same common sense that you've heard a million times before in a new way. That doesn't mean it is useless though, I have had my own life changed by several self help/business books.
Sometimes you just need someone to tell you common sense in the right way so that you actually listen to it.
What if you are raised in a toxic environment? Many are. The news media is also packaged in such a way as to cause fear, alarm and misery. Sometimes you have to break free of that. There is a lot of bad advice out there especially in the modern world.
> Do these books/seminars actually teach you something new about being married or a father, that you didn't know before?
Maybe you were born with all the knowledge necessary to be a good father/husband, but I certainly wasn’t. I imagine most people just have their parents to go off of, and we all know what a can of worms that can be.
I'd wager that most people have just their parents to go off of and a few recallibrate using their own experiences, learning, and introspecting about them. Those are the few to whom books and seminars are useful as sources.
I think, for a large number of people, self-help (especially the short form high intensity style content that influencers post is just "content" to "consume" - a form of cheap entertainment that's thrown out almost as soon as it's consumed. There's no enduring change. That takes time and an semi-innate desire to change. Then, all these things become sensible and useful.
I'm not a big fan of Ferris but I'm willing to bet that someone who sits down with one of his books and works through it slowly applying the lessons to his or her own life will see some kind of change as opposed to the typical person who just asks an LLM to summarise the book or a video about it and then decides that they've changed.
Yes. I learned new techniques like: victim vs author perspective. wife and I did a training where she went first, learned the the technique (tell a story of a fight like you are the most sympathetic victim then tell it again like you were the author) and it immediately shifted both of our perspectives about a conflict we hadn’t been able to resolve for 6 months because she told both versions and immediately understood where I was coming from. I am personally grateful we both know that technique now.
I recently read Attia's Outlive which is about what sort of lifestyle makes one more resilient against diseases of old age.
I'm not in a position to verify more than a few of the factual claims made by the author (and a lot of it sounds like mumbo-jumbo), but it was persuasive enough to get me to exercise for health (instead of performance at a specific event) and my life has gotten much easier since I came to that realisation. Maybe I would have done so eventually without the book, but I'm glad the book sped the process up.
Mainly that the advice was more structured, maybe?
Note that I was exercising before, only I didn't do it for health. But I also didn't suffer from any obvious problems. What I got out of every medical organisation in the world then is "You're fine. Don't worry about it."
I was probably fine, but I'm even more fine now; I'm capable of doing more of the things I enjoy.
> What I got out of every medical organisation in the world then is "You're fine. Don't worry about it."
This is alien to me, because for at least 50 years now, heart disease and diabetes has been at the forefront of basically every developed country’s health problems, for which the only solution proposed by all health authorities has been to eat less and healthier, and to do cardiovascular exercise almost every day. Even from elementary school, I remember being taught in gym or health class that being active and exercising was necessary for long term health.
I think there's a bit of a "marketing" failure happening in this context.
I've been exercising for most of my life, I'm the guy that has been going to the gym since forever to many of my acquaintances, and so they have often talked to me about how they want to start exercising or how they are doing etc.
Nobody, and I mean nobody has ever said anything like "I'm so happy to decrease my risk of diabetes". My father stopped smoking and started riding a bike, motivated by cardiovascular health, what actually makes him happy though is to be able to go up the stairs without breaking into a sweat.
Ask anyone in a gym why they exercise, they will talk about health, just not in the way doctors do. The stick of "You will die in 20 years rather than 35" pales in comparison of the carrot of "you will feel better basically all the time"
It's "learning how to..." rather than "learning that...". Good self-help books can provide a framework to understand how your own childhood development influences your current behaviours, and how you can work to change. I'm currently reading "Parenting from the Inside Out" which goes into both the psychology and neurology of the developing brain, and explains how insecure childhood attachment can propagate across generations. I have a mixture of dismissive/avoidant and anxious attachment thought patterns, and it's been helpful to put this into context by reflecting on my own childhood and where they might have come from. Those patterns gradually feel less like something I'm "stuck with" and more like something I can challenge and master.
That's awesome personal insight. My next door neighbors are childhood psychologists and when my daughter was 18 months old I mentioned I was trying to be very intentional about creating secure attachment and the things I was doing to facilitate it. They said in a very supportive and amused tone "oh it's too late, the attachment window has closed by now" then after a long pause said "she is fine and clearly has secure attachment to you and her mom"
By I myself have done a lot of work to understand ways to shift attachment styles similar to yours.
What I find funny is people saying in social media that they read dozens of books, and when you see what they're reading is mostly self-help volumes! If you read one or two of these books you already know what they'll say in 100s of others. It's very similar to religious books: the content is always the same, they just rearrange things so people will continue consuming more of the same ideas.
I mean I can see it. Books are just a way to transmit one’s thoughts and experiences to other people. So it’s no different to being exposed to someone with a different viewpoint. Common sense isn’t common or innate, it’s tribal knowledge.
There’s that XKCD about someone learning something new that was just thought to be something everyone knew.
Also you don’t know what you don’t know.
Agree though — coaching and persuasion are a huge part which is why I think a lot of these books seem ‘fluffy’ if all you’re wanting is a collection of facts.
Why such a strong reaction? Do you think good leaders exist?
I have received multiple emails from alumni thanking me for my leadership, mentorship, and the culture I created. Leading is a skill like any other it can be improved with practice and I have worked hard at it.
My team has no problem disagreeing with me and knows I don’t want sycophantic agreement, they know that even if I ultimately make a decision I will consider all opinions and have seen me change my mind in response to a direct report disagreeing with me in public.
There are known mechanisms to foster a safe and effective environment like that such as separating people from ideas, removing consequences for failure and commitment to experimentation.
Why reach for a gun? You want to kill people that proclaim to be better leaders because of a self-help book? I know people drew guns for less but this is the first time I am reading something like this on HN.
I’d suggest you’d read a few books so that you don’t have to reach for your gun but can use your words instead. Though the moment you’d claim any of those books helped you will be a bit of an ironic moment but so be it.
I recommend Non-violent Communication by Rosenberg for you. It got me out of a few pickles (arguments). Also going to a meditation retreat helps.
You shouldn't laugh off the recommendation. That is a good book. I haven't read it personally but it affected my life deeply.
My wife and I both grew up in physically violent homes. My mom read that book and taught me and my siblings the lessons along with others. And my children have only ever experienced shouting or physical violence when they went to their grandparents house.
I understand you were using that phrase as hyperbole and did really mean it but there is a lot of evidence that the language we use shapes our prefrontal cortex and limbic system responses in every moment. By using that phrase you're subtlety sending your body and brain and anyone that read that into an anxious fight or flight response. That shuts down the ability to listen, persuade or connect. It triggers defensiveness, avoidance etc.
So even though you have a valid point lot of bad leaders exist, and often claim loudly to be good leaders with no self awareness of their actual weaknesses. Its hard to listen when a rhetorical gun has been drawn.
Thank you for a thoughtful reply. To my reading you demonstrate that you listened, even though I didn’t give you much to work with considering my curt[1] comments, and these resources look helpful.
But I don’t understand the problem with this phrase. Maybe it’s an ESL (second lang.) issue, because I have only read one author that I recall that has used this phrase (poverty of stimulus?). But to my mind it isn’t even hyperbole. It’s just an expression saying “I am on my guard now”. Which means that you are skeptical, maybe even cynical. Yes, the immediate interpretation is that someone is reaching for their holster—not to shoot but to anticipate an ambush. But even that is just, you know, colorful in this context. In this context I am intending to express that I am skeptical. Not that someone is trying to fool me. But I am on guard against just taking someone’s experiences at face value; that their lifeworld is such-and-such is not even under debate, that is fine and no one is doubting that. What is under doubt in this context is what the proverbial room looked like when only one out of five people reported on it. Does that make sense?
> But to my mind it isn’t even hyperbole. It’s just an expression saying “I am on my guard now”.
I'm Dutch, so English is a second language. I started at 7.
To me it comes across as hyperbole or something literal. Maybe different for native English speakers. Though I haven't heard my American family in law using it. And they say, to take some inspiration from you, all kinds of colorful things and I'd expect them to say stuff like this.
I don't live in the US with my wife though, so maybe I didn't have enough interactions with them. I will ask her.
I remember I had a bit of a relationship crisis with someone. Just learning the 10 min. TL;DR of a good friend of mine who was well versed in it helped a ton. Later I read it twice.
Sometimes I think I can get away with and flow on intuition. In tense conversations that sometimes go sideways and then I notice I have to use this way of communicating in order to keep things from not spiraling out of control and ultimately resolve things.
I agree with you. Self-help industry has evolved to cover lot of nuanced topics. Depression, anxiety adjacent topics. Once the basics are recognized, the other aspects like what to expect when you grow old. what to expect after retirement etc.
How to care less about what other people think, but in a healthy way
Pretty sure that's a result of the larger gestalt driven more by your own drive and savviness to seek new ideas on living than the books themselves, as it is for everyone who claims to have benefited. If the books are gone today and only LLMs remain, nothing will change in this front.
Yup, so one just reads up on psychology, psychiatry and neurophysiology branching into sociology and anthropology, approximately to a graduate level. After which all this self-help looks quite naive. This sure takes 10-15 years, but the result is that you begin to understand wtf is going on around.
Academic literature isn't written to be applied. Some of the books I like the most distill the Academic findings into actionable frameworks. I do agree it's a good idea to also look at the research. But also recognize that the research changes as new studies deepen our understanding or invalidate prior findings.
Self-help parenting books and blogs caused my spouse years of anguish and disappointment because most declare they've found the one true way. It just so happens to be the least productive and incompatible with many readers' children, bodies, minds, etc.
Many of the authors are selling their narrow experience as if it's divine revelation, often literally because they're religious. The grift usually continues with sponsorships, plugging their other books (or their friends' books), or seminars.
I've read enough about sociology and psychology now that the whole self help industry disgusts me. Receiving such books or recommendations unsolicited strikes me as an insult from folks to naive or lazy to really get to know me first.
That's an unfortunate experience, sorry to hear that. I think skepticism is healthy. Experimentation is a more effective position that faith in experts.
Exactly. People have just been told that there are some grifters in the field and they're unable to make the mental effort to not lump the entire field together.
Oh and the fact they're making money? Yeah everybody has to eat, psychologists don't work for free either, neither does any doctor for that matter. There are people doing good out there and yes they will charge you plenty of money for it.
Sounds like you need to learn some healthy communication. If this is how you show up in relation to others your network of collaborators will be small, keep you weak and limit your ability to effectuate your will in the world.
What do you feel when you make a comment like that? Satisfied at your intellectual superiority? Confident in your status as someone able to see what’s right? Proud of yourself that you “tell it like it is”
Have you ever stopped to think about the prices you pay for that behavior?
Let’s game it out. You don’t know me. I could be Paul Graham for all you know. I could be the person in the world that would unlock the very door you need to open to get what you’re working towards. I could be someone totally vulnerable and insecure and end up cascading into despair based on your comment.
That being said. I thought it was a funny comment.
Your first paragraph is just a barrage of personal insults.
Your second paragraph is playing the victim while you just acted the agrresor in the previous.
Your third paragraph seems to make it sound like you have a point but it essentially boils down to we are all strangers on the internet. And okay?
If you had just written the last sentence, i would have respected your comment much more.
I know i am just a stranger but we are talking about perception and self help here. And from what I've read, i am not leaving with a positive perception of you based on your comments sorry.
Your interpretation was that they were meant as insults. They weren’t. I was asking a question about their intentions with several posited motives. Based on the statement, I wondered how they were feeling and I invited them to engage in self reflection. I don’t care if they were having those feelings, and I don’t think anyone is wrong for those types of feelings. It’s just that there are consequences to acting on those feelings in the way that they did.
I don’t think anyone is a victim or an aggressor. Both people do something to contribute to any conflict and are responsible to acknowledge what they did as the first step (see my previous post).
The point that we are strangers is that 1. he is making assumptions on incomplete information and expressing it with confidence that is unwarranted and 2. For all he knows I could be someone that, in real life, he would regret alienating like that.
As far as your opinion of my comments, your perspective is as valid as mine. I am curious, what do you think my positions are? What do you think my intentions are in this thread?
Not really passive. I made my position clear. I can take a joke and wasnt offended. It's also true that such behavior has a cost. Your interpretation that I offer that perspective to hurt them or defend myself is inaccurate, I actually want to help improve people, so it was actually an act of kindness.
I cant respond to your last response, probably because it was flagged. But I'll say, after looking at your other posts that drip with disdain and what appears to me to be arrogance masking self loathing I hope you recognize the price you pay for speaking to people that way. You don't know me, who I am or what I have done. And life isn't about the transactional potential of relationships, but saying something like "i guess the prompt engineer thing didn't work out" on hacker news is naive and risky. There are world class engineers, VCs, senior execs and beginners that will end up doing amazing things. Your behavior has consequences for you and the world.
Your pattern matching couldn't be further from the truth. I am in the krugman camp on currencies and economics generally which is to say I have been a long term skeptic of crypto since the beginning.
I am not a failed prompt coder, I personally built am a health care ehr that integrated a wide range of legacy tech well before AI as a coding agent was a glimmer in anyone's eye.
I say that in the hopes that you understand your insults are missing the mark so maybe it's time to update your wetware.
It is wild to me that people consider Dale Carnegie and Tony Robbins in the same boat. "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie completely changed how I communicate with people, for the better.
For nerds (like me) who think data and statistics are the way to persuade people, you're doing yourself a disservice by ignoring the truth. Lots of people think sales are icky, but much of life is influenced by your ability to persuade and sell, even yourself, to others.
the man leveraged the fact that his name was the same as Andrew Carnegie (having no relation) to launch a publishing empire. it was hacks from the beginning
The very first thing I did when coming to this thread was search for if someone had already mentioned "one book theory". My favorite episodes of IBCK are mostly the self-help trash.
I wanted to love it since despite being a self help reader I can definitely see a lot of the bad/dangerous advice given all over the place but I often found them really stretching to make stuff negative and being very smug about it which just made it the same issue as the source material. Especially annoying since in most cases there were really solidly valid negatives to go after in the books. It's very much a lets build a straw man then tear it down podcast.
I think calling these people 'hacks' is not quite the right word. They're very good at what they do, it's just a lot of people don't like or don't value what they do. I actually have a fair bit of respect for their craft (the ability to draw attention and turn that attention in to customers) even if I feel like what they're selling is fake, or fake-adjacent
I can't stop referring to the irony that the gist of "the 4-hour work week" is to write a book about working only 4 hours a week.
But also pretty much all of the self-help books I've read can be summarized in a few paragraphs, that is, a blog post. The rest is repetition or examples. Which are important for learning and understanding, I suppose, but when an AI can both tell you the gist of it while applying it directly to your current situation, they can't compete.
The repetition and examples aren’t there for learning. They are there for monetization.
This is my biggest issue with the self-help industry. There is a lot of self-help books out there with ideas that are genuinely valuable, or at least worth considering. But as you say, the entirety of the idea can be conveyed perfectly well in a blog post. But you can’t sell a blog post. So it has to be padded out with cruft into a book length publication that can be sold to people.
That’s how AI undermines the industry. It has those general ideas and can convey them in the simplistic, cruftless versions that are most helpful, and can iterate back and forth with someone on applications to their own life.
I do not have data, but from first glance, if anything, the overall demand for self-help and self-improvement increases Y/Y. We can correlate it with a sharp drop in alcohol sales, or raising revenues of therapy industry or fitness industry. YT and podcasts still looming too.
But the form of books … Yes, by some reason it collapses. I personally attribute it not to “people realise those guys are salesmen”, but with the fact that none of really good ideas were produced by such books for a while. Now anyone who really has a new angle or new idea to say — they go straight to YT/podcasts, bypassing writing a book altogether. Because of this, me personally, when I check bookshelves, do not see any really new or interesting idea published in the field.
Your comment gave me an idea. First, start with this assumption: Self-help is "someone trying to sell an idea that may improve your life (health, business/wealth, relationships)". Second, consider the mediums that we use to sell self-help. Traditionally, it was in-person/live events. Basically, 100 to 1000 people sit in a big room and listen to a person talk on stage. Usually, there is some Q&A, raise your hands for voting, etc. Now think about the revenue side: How do you scale that business? Publish a book with the same ideas. The in-person events create a personal brand, and books help you scale the business.
Next, consider the mediums for selling self-help: (1) in-person events, (2) books, (3) YouTube. (1) scales the least, but has the highest branding building effect. (2) scales medium, because it costs money for the customer to buy the book. (3) scales infinitely, because it is nearly free. Further, the most financially successful YouTubers first build a personal brand, then begin sell product placement by sponsorships. Further, they also begin selling "merch" (channel merchandise). That is the real gold mine of YouTube. Even sponsonships for most channels with less than one million subscribers pales in comparison to selling "merch".
About (1) (2) and (3) above, I would say that humans are usually more influenced by [the most] (1) seeing a person live, [next most] (3) seeing a person on video, and [the least] (2) reading their book. Thus, it seems logical that YouTube will replace books for self-help.
Without reading the article, my first instinct (after writing the above) is that self-help books are not being replaced with AI/LLMs. Instead, they are being replaced by self-help YouTube channels.
You think people didn't know the same in the 1970s, 80s, 90s, 00s, etc? Related: Every single diet fad in the last 50 years (except GLP-1) did not work. Yet, many people continue to buy into every new diet fad.
Also personally, my self help consumption (across all media) has been dropping lately. Part of it is that quality of content has been worsening over the years. But the part that’s put me off the most is the general burnout I’m facing in life: professional stagnation, uncertain future (will I be employed in a year?), more work, financial pressure, politics upending my life directly etc. Funnily enough I’ve started consuming more content around hobbies, crafts and other fun stuff, which the blog mentions was one of the only two categories that saw growth in sales.
I wonder if that is a reason for the decline rather than AI.
> my self help consumption (across all media) has been dropping lately
I want to propose an alternative theory about why your viewership is dropping. Whatever made you originally watch self-help on a particular topic is no longer as interesting. Let's say you were struggling with (a) exercise/fitness/diet, (b) personal/romantic relationships, or (c) business/"success"/wealth. (These are easily the three biggest categories for self-help.) You watched a few hundred hours of self-help YouTube videos over a few years and you learned how to improve. Now, the content is less interesting.
I share this idea because I see a similar pattern in myself. For the self-help YouTube videos that I do watch, I am/was most interested in (a) exercise/fitness/diet and (b) personal/romantic relationships. After 1000 hours or so of this sort of content, I learned how to improve and "ascended". Now, I don't need to watch as much because my thinking on these topics is more advanced.
Deeper: How will these channels sustain themselves? It does not look obvious to me! If I were running a self-help channel, I might intentionally delete old videos after 6-12 months. Why? So that I can remake the same content again (and again)... to get a revenue boost from new(er) viewers. For anyone who is a full-time self-help content creator, probably 90% of the revenue is made in the first 30 days. (Wild guess, but there will be an extreme cliff of some sort.)
This is a good point. If there was timeless material, they would continue to sell. Maybe War of Art or Meditations still continue to sell. Deep Work is a joke.
Kind of, the 4-hour work workweek was one of the first book's I've read (I started late, was never interested), and it had many good insights that lead to me living a freer and more fulfilling life, that I might have not done otherwise.
Sure, you don't need to read an entire book to get the idea to do something, but that's way in which ideas get into your head and consciously or not, guide your steps in certain directions.
Of course, everything in self-help books should be taken with a grain of salt and also applied differently for each individual. It's just a way to get more ideas of what's possible, similar to travelling: it doesn't force you to do things in a certain way, it just shows you what's out there.
There's an influencer self-help industry, and then there's the likes of Alain De Botton whose output like 'How Proust Can Change Your Life' firmly sits in the self-help arena. Important to distinguish the two imo.
I just don't see it changing, people don't buy knowledge, they pay for trust and authority. It's already been for decades that you could find every workout & workout program for free online or youtube. Yet people decided to buy anyway, because they trust that that person is right, and perhaps they tried the free stuff before and it didnt work (not because it wasn't correct, but because they didn't stick to it)
Not to be a contrarian, because I agree for a lot of the industry, but there are some genuine gems out there. Few examples:
Extreme Ownership really helped me be a better leader and take more accountability for my own actions
Atomic Habits really helped me think about goal setting and what the underlying driver was
Coaching Habit improved my 1:1s drastically (I basically stopped talking or advice giving and just listened -- profound, I know, but the book helped smack me in the face with it)
Many more examples, but there is definitely a ton of self-help hack slop out there as well.
I'd agree with that. A lot of rubbish is out there, but there are some helpful things. Even the Law of Attraction can be helpful if viewed through the lens of positive thinking (i.e. you can handle bad situations better if you are in a good frame of mind which will make your life better.)
Yeah I trust nothing. I listened to a hubermanlab podcast and found myself using AI to take a first pass at verifying claims he was making, but everything he suggested was complete bull crap.
A self-help movement worth their reputation is one that sells more than a book. In fact many give away the book and then charge you a sub for being part of a club
Yeah, there is just too much Tony Robbins referring to cells living of light in some jar linked directly to your work productivity (and thousands of other debunked BS "facts"). The levels of coaches for coaches for coaches for coaches on LinkedIn is approaching levels that shouldn't even be possible. I feel like almost everything about this topic has been said, but the amount of things being said is increasing exponentially, and it's all coming out of thin air. Like an LLM expanding the current body of work.
I for one used to enjoy such books but have turned more to mind-fuck scifi (i.e. I keep hunting for the Ted Chiang level books, although they are also very rare). I find meaning in those.
There was a self-help industry long before Tim Ferriss.
"How to Win Friends and Influence People" is still popular today. Dale Carnegie wrote it in 1936.
Back in the '80s and '90s Tony Robbins infuriated millions of North Americans by spamming late television with his obnoxious self-help infomercials: https://youtube.com/watch?v=gUczh_vsRUI
As long as there have been dissatisfied people, there probably has been someone promising to be a deus ex macchina with the secret to turn their lives around.
Unless you have hard proof this is occurring then I would rather believe my own and others positive testimony on self help. Its powerful and relatively affordable if you are committed to making changes in your own life. Is good advice. Authentic stories (generally). I am just grateful that people take the time and effort to reflect and encode their experience into something digestible by others. It’s pretty cynical to have your view.
Which I’m sharing as a meta point…I think self help books are declining because there’s a better way to get the information without all the filler. But filler makes the books thick enough to sell at the airport
Also - aren’t LLMs the ultimate choose your own adventure version of the information?
I’ve spent time to read the AI summary (which I normally never do) and the original (of course), and I can tell you the AI summary missed the most important point of the writing. I’d say what they are because it would defy the very purpose of what I’m trying to do.
But I can tell you that it’s enough to refute the AI fallacy many believe.
Surely this could be corrected by using the correct prompt? If you ask an AI to summarise a book, it's going to cut out 99% of the content. If you wanted to read some of that 99% of the content, you need to be clear about what you want. Otherwise you're leaving the AI to decide. That summary might be good enough for others, but not you. Tell it the focus you would like it to use. E.g. "include anything about the philosophy behind the decision." Whatever your point of interest.
To be clear, a summary will never replace reading 300 pages. But it might be 95% good enough for most people and in most cases, and that's often good enough.
Most of the time I’ve gotten major value or insight out of a book it’s because it’s said something truly unique or insightful that I genuinely never would have thought of if I hadn’t read it. Your prompt is useless because I might think I care about area A but I’d have my mind blown by area B which your prompt will drop unless it somehow has a perfect theory of my mind.
Agreed. There’s also something about “time under consideration.” The relatively slow pace of reading the book opens the door to personal insight that a summary hides. The words themselves might be important, but I’ve found the additional minutes of a book is critical for me to fully apply the concepts to my life.
If I know what the book contains to write a perfect prompt, why would I need a AI-summary?
I don’t say AI cannot summarize or there is no value in book summary, but I’d say that by stripping off most of a book, you almost certainly lose something valuable about the book, even if it is a prescriptive nonfiction. This most valuable part (besides the advices) is very often the part that actually convinced you and help the arguments stick. And without that, information will just stay as information.
This makes LLM summaries totally useless, then, surely? Without reading the thing, you cannot know which important bits to tell the LLM to retain; if it can't manage that itself, it's useless.
If a standard prompt gives you the wrong or spurious answer, the model is not a good model. In 2026, we should not be having to engineer a summarize prompt.
Liquid meals in a bottle, short form videos, mainlining compressed information... all "more efficient", but lacking the colour and texture that makes things interesting and enjoyable. Maybe that's all worth sacrificing, but what are people actually doing with all the time this saves? From what I can tell it just seems to be more of the same.
People tend to spend about a third of their lives working for someone else, a third sleeping and the remaining third split between relaxing and working for themselves. This seems invariant. As people earn more money they just buy more stuff, they have no idea what to do with the extra time from not working as much so just keeping walking the hedonic treadmill.
If you can ingest compressed forms of ten self help books in the time it would have taken you to read one, does that mean you can now evaluate them all together, or include the best bits of all of them? Or are you really just addicted to trying to "get on top" and wasting your precious life away sitting at a computer talking to a fake person?
Self help books are the most filler heavy books. They often have a useful point, but they just don't need to be a book much of the time. This is unfortunate for the authors who have often put significant time into producing the information. Technical manuals typically need all of their content due to the level of detail, and novels need all of their content because it's the content which provides enjoyment. For self help, people just want to know what they need to do to make their lives better? Maybe the work has to move into academia where we have existing infrastructure for rewarding non profitable work for the good of the public?
I disagree about the filler. People who read self help books are there for the journey, to feel they too can take on the challenge. Otherwise that brief document about how to fix yourself becomes something without substance, that can't be attached to real changes that are needed.
The most effective self help books I can recommend are Easy Way to Stop Smoking, which needs all the preamble to get the message to your addicted brain, and Marcus Aurelius' Meditations. I'd posit that reading just one of his entries doesn't leave you with a lifetime commitment to stoicism.
I think it may be a meta statement on people who summarize with AI on others behalf. The value doesn’t exist and we’re left wondering if the tool user is making a statement, or messed up, or can’t do anything unless claude does it for them.
Idk, the average youtube video repeats the same question five times, dragging shit out with filler as much as possible to reach the required 10 minutes to qualify for two ad runs. It's become a horrible race to the bottom in terms of quality in recent years, though unlike TV documentaries at least it's possible to skip to the conveniently marked highlight these days.
There was this recent Tom Scott interview where he recommends people start their video with quesiton A, ask B before A is resolved, then when that happens, already ask C, etc. and solve C and D at the very end to keep the viewer engaged. Most people seem to just ask A over and over and over with filler in between until the viewer's head explodes.
It's funny. Back when we had it so good, I absolutely hated that aspect of a Tom Scott video.
To some extent, his awkward personality didn't help matters either, but he was the only one covering a niche topic I didn't know I cared about. So much of his catalog is unimitable.
After his hiatus and return, I must humbly recognize his genius and real passion.
I think you're confusing video-essays with documentaries tbf.
The notion that 'My Octopus Teacher' or 'Boys State' - to name just two award winners of the last decade - could be replaced with some Youtube AI-narrated slop is just disingenuous in the extreme.
IMO the WORST thing you can use chat for is advice in a field you are unfamiliar with. It's way better at search and grunt work when you already know what you want.
All IMO:
Syncophancy (and in extreme cases AI psychosis) is a huge problem when you take advice from AI.
It's risky to learn a new field as you often just fall for a superficial, glib explaination and just nod along without learning. AI will do that because humans will train it to - everyone likes a pop science style easy and fake explaination.
OTOH if you just want advice, the AI will need context. Advice is worthless without context. And the AI will use the context to tell you what the dumb human (you) will agree with - that's implicitly what humans want it to do, it's how we will train the AI.
I don't see it getting better either - as long as a human in the loop fine tunes the AI, the smarter the AI the better it is at telling the human what the human wants.
Scary stuff if a major current use of AI is self help.
Chiming in here to say that while yes, often AI/LLMs will tend to agree with you, I have also definitely had many (high context) conversations where the AI/LLM disagreed strongly with me. The danger is in people not having a parallel thread running in their mind while using these systems about 'how agreeable is it being with me right now?' as a meta-axis along which to evaluate the information.
But that's a concretey very well scoped problem with a clear truth state. Anything mental has none of these properties. Ask an AI if you have depression or another disorder, and keep asking with more details and back and forth, and a few hours later you might be convinced.
You can summarize any “self-help” books which I read in single pages. And most of them even in a few sentences without loosing any information from them.
One of the first which I’ve ever read fully was Getting Things Done after a Lifehacker article eons ago. The book had zero additional information compared to the article. Back then I didn’t know that these books information density was almost zero, and still is.
Last year I bought a book about eating well. I could read only the first half, because it repeated until then basically a single mantra: eat fermented and macronutrient rich food. This was repeated different ways, without adding anything to this summary. Sometimes literally the same sentences. Reasons were not provided, or was on the level “I knew somebody whom this helped”, without even trying to convince me that it was really this what helped them, and not anything else.
The dietary guidelines from the US is a way better read, and that’s free. Even the current, clearly politically distorted one.
Maybe, that’s the main reason. Free information is better or at least good enough. I haven’t learned anything from these kinds of books which was not available freely (and legally… because you can obviously get almost any books illegally).
This is a brilliant summary. I recall following Michael Lynch's journey while he built TinyPilot (https://tinypilotkvm.com/). I was blown away by how hard he grinded to build that business. It just never let up -- the competition. As successful as he was, the exit value seemed like a let down (I say that as a fan!). So, I agree: "Draw circle" by far the hardest part. For "rest of owl", just hire other (grind-ier/thirst-ier) people to do it for you!
Hard to tell without numbers to back it up. The author's baseline is the year chatGPT was released, i have no idea at what rate they've been declining before that.
> prescriptive nonfiction is the canary in the coal mine
Self-help is not the canary for other genre. Self-help doesn't comme with significant art. Their consumer gets a better experience through LLM that extracts the substance and contextualizes it.
It doesn't tell what will happen at scale regarding fiction and other content where people tends to expect a genuine human contribution. Sure you can get success with AI-written or AI-assisted writing, but it doesn't mean human written books will no longer catch interest.
Some of the best books on JS which were online went recently off-line for that reason. Blog post by the author: https://2ality.com/ (Dr. Axel Rauschmayer)
I read the blog post. It is interesting to me. First, a dumb question: Does putting your website behind a Cloudflare "human tester thingy" help prevent this situation? If not, continue reading. Let's construct a parallel universe. Suppose AI/LLM scaped all JavaScript content except his website(s). Would the outcome look different? I doubt it. In the end, technical books are dead. They will be replaced with AI/LLMs. Even Stack Overflow (which I started using in 2010) effectively killed my need to buy expensive technical books from O'Reilly. And AI/LLMs basically killed Stack Overflow.
I have read countless self help books where I complained about fluffy filler material and the book should have been fifty pages instead of two hundred. Not a surprise to me that a topic distilled through an LLM is a better experience.
Or youtube. The youtube video essays can still be way too much waffle, but it's at least capped out at about 30 minutes and cost you nothing so you can quit if it's not useful.
For better or worse, AI is beating on video essays too.
Maybe my attention span is truly stuffed, but I really can't stand it when a video essay is the most succinct source on a topic - waiting for someone to express their thoughts in speech, with sometimes slow cadences or their own waffling, combined with sponsor segments (yes I use SponsorBlock, but sometimes or on other devices ads get through), etc.
So I use AI summary for a lot of informational videos now unless I actually am watching it for the entertainment and production value. I don't need 10 minutes on "this will change the way we look at XYZ" that has only 1 minute of real information in it.
In the last few months, I have watched many YouTube videos from the Australia Broadcasting Corp (ABC) subtitled "If You're Listening" [1]. They are primarily about geo/political issues, but there are some odd-ball ones about Japanese land-use & development policy. I think that the production is very high quality. (1) They do they research. (2) They find lots of interesting funny old video clips. (3) They add helpful "infographics". (4) They stitch all together with a modestly funny script. All in combination: It works very well. I find that I never need to skip boring parts -- either the script is interesting or the visual content is interesting. Would you consider this type of video a "video essay"?
I am honestly curious why ABC produces such high quality content that is given away for (nearly) free on YouTube. I would hazard a guess that they spend no less than 10K USD to produce each episode (surely more, to be honest -- skilled labour isn't cheap in Australia). Does anyone know if these videos are also aired on Australian broadcast TV? (That would help for advertising revenue.)
They are provided for free because a quick scroll through the playlist shows they are soft propaganda tools for Australia's geopolitical interests. These video essays "explaining" geopolitics are the contemp version of Buggs Bunny and Donald Duck making fun of Japan and Germany.
They are more tolerable as background noise on the TV while you are cooking. Where the length is a feature so you don't have to queue up something else for a while.
Can you imagine the day when an AI/LLM-assisted tool can watch a YouTube video at super speed and then clip X% of the video to show you the best parts? I can see it coming. It might really hurt YouTube revenues.
Recently, I had a similar idea when I tried to watch the TV series "SAS: Rogue Heroes". I quit after a few episodes because it was so damn slow. I spent most of each episode skipping pointless dialog and overly long landscape/driving scenes that added little to the story. I am sure the two seasons (10-20 hours) could easily be condensed into a much more exciting 2-4 hour film. I have heard the saying that the hardest type of novel to write is the shortest one. Constraint forces an author to carefully select the words, characters, and storyline that make the most compelling novel. When I was younger, films were rarely more than 90 minutes. These days, so many of them are more than 120 minutes with very little gained... just the same story was watered down over 30+ more minutes.
The trick is to use a hundred shell companies so they can't figure out who to sue. As I said recently... it seems like everything worth doing is illegal
I set up my claw to be able to do that and it’s infinitely better than searching through hours of content myself.
I set it up as experts on topics I already know and like to reduce noise. So I can say “ask [NAME] what I should do about XYZ” and I get back contextualized info and cited video clips
Came here to say the same thing. How could the author possibly illustrate the point of the book without at least 4 case studies and a reference to prehistoric humans?
Long ago a friend of a friend described a job interview at an ice cream / chocolate shop in a local mall.
The interviewer asked something like "who is our competition here?", and the friend of friend listed off other places in the mall to get ice cream, candy, deserts, etc.
Wrong answer. The ice cream and chocolate store was in competition with every other store in the mall. Time or money spent at the GAP can't be time or money spent here.
---
Whether or not people are using LLMs for news specifically, any new, large eater of eyeball-time is going to hurt the business landscape for all other eyeball harvesters.
> Wrong answer. The ice cream and chocolate store was in competition with every other store in the mall. Time or money spent at the GAP can't be time or money spent here.
Was the interviewer a macroeconomics grad student working his way through school at the ice cream shop? Because I can't imagine anyone but a macroeconomics student aggregating all demand into a generic concept of "time and money" without regard for qualitative distinctions between entirely different product categories.
Did he also think the shop was in competition with United Airlines or the local dentist's office, because time and money spent on a trans-Atlantic flight or getting a root canal was time and money that couldn't be spent at the ice cream shop?
> Whether or not people are using LLMs for news specifically, any new, large eater of eyeball-time is going to hurt the business landscape for all other eyeball harvesters.
Which demonstrates that the model of treating the content users are looking for as bait so you can sell their attention to someone else was always an adversarial one in the first place.
Users themselves were never looking for time sinks, they were looking for specific information or experiences that they've had to increasingly endure time sinks to get to due to the perverse incentives in the social media landscape.
AI destroying the viability of "eyeball harvesters" as a business model is an opportunity for people actually creating interesting content, not engagement-maximizing filler, to pivot back to pitching quality directly to their users. That's exactly the point that Tim Ferriss was making in the article: he points out that he already prefers to sell his books to a niche audience of 10,000 readers who actually find value in them than try to engage with 10 million passers-by on social media.
> Wrong answer. The ice cream and chocolate store was in competition with every other store in the mall. Time or money spent at the GAP can't be time or money spent here.
I would have argued that this is also the wrong answer, as without the GAP to bring people to the mall, nobody would be trafficking their little ice cream store at all. Did a mall vendor really not understand the reason they had opened up shop in a mall?
Maybe the ice cream was just that good, and GAP was lucky to be able to sell their polo shirts to ice cream enthusiasts who'd otherwise have bought them at Old Navy.
There are entire websites built around that, several have been posted to HN. There was even one (I think real news channel) who experimented with generating fake video of fake anchors to deliver “news”.
> 2025 was the first big drop, 2026 looks more severe, and the only thing that’s really changed in that timeframe is the acceleration of AI.
It all hinges on this statement. But I’m not sure it’s really AI that’s doing it, and not just a contributing factor. There’s higher cost of living, inflation, economic uncertainty, seemingly looming financial crisis, etc. A lot of impactful things happened!
Weirdly I would expect those things to boost sales. At least of certain type of content at right sale price. People will always look for easy solutions. And self-help is exactly that. Or maybe we are already over the horizon where no hope is left...
I think this whole genre is an issue of theory of constraints.
-Before the internet, space to publish anything was scarce (and so were methods of finding specific information if it did exist), so newspapers/magazines were valuable and textbooks/guides were great media.
It was difficult to find extremely specific information because a lot of information was so niche it wasn't worth publishing, or because it wasn't worth the effort to find something SO specific.
-The internet made publishing space infinite and search easy, so specific information became super valuable, e.g. "how to do x in 5 steps" blogs. They architected information in ways that wouldn't have been worth publishing in a regional newspaper or small-circulation magazine, but was economically viable at worldwide scale and when publishing was free.
This is the era this article describes.
-Then everything went mainstream and the above production of content was often more frequently done by large companies, with bloggers and other individuals filling even smaller niches
-Now that LLMs have vacuumed all of that up and you can create even more specific content for free, instantly (e.g. you no longer need a generic tutorial on "how to start a business" but summon one that already knows your prior skills etc.)
This has made the previous era of "how-to" content less useful because you can decide whether you want expert/beginner/intermediate level content and what personality etc.)
Now the frontier is first-person narratives and opinions, because even specific information is no longer the constraint.
> Find your 1,000 True Fans. If you started off doing this well but have meandered, it’s time to revisit. Get very clear on who those 1,000 people are.
Well this is the difficult part. You can 10x the number of followers and still have less than 50 true fans.
On the actual content, I am actually not surprised at all. These AI systems are surprisingly convincing when giving personal advise - for better or worse.
depending on the medium one might be better served with a single middling fan with a lot of disposable income, then 10 true with little money available.
followers is a shit metric that only advertisers care for but they also want like 50-100k bare minimum. You need to find 1k people who are willing to give you money, or go out of their way to advocate for you.
I think AI will accelerate this, but I think YouTube, TikTok, and podcasts have splintered the market so much there’s not as much space for mega self-help stars anymore, just a lot of middle class ones.
AI is likely correlation not causation. The generation that resonated with the self-help books has aged out. Short form vids on YT, TT, IG taking mind-share is likely the bigger cause.
If self-help was just about reading the insights then millions of people would have "won friends and influenced people", and those book summary apps would be billion dollar companies. They'are not
Self-help books are absolutely worthless if you don't internalise their insights, practice applying it into your life on a daily basis until it becomes muscle memory, and actually spend time on it. The insight is never actually the bottleneck.
AI can surface insights better and faster than any book. But speed is the problem, not the solution. Books are on the contrary slower, and slowness is the point. Without discpline, AI might be a worse choice.
For deeper topics, I don't think books are going away anytime soon.
The implication is that the self-help books were scraped from Anna's Archive to train the LLMs, thus the content in the books has been integrated into the LLM and may be regurgitated on command. With the content then being available straight from an LLM, there's no need to buy the books.
" they wouldn't be getting sued and aggressively pursued for takedowns"
I don't think so. That behavior only tells you the modest cost of sending takedown notices/threatening letters is less than the (supposed) lost revenue. Kids I know (I'm a teacher) don't seem at all aware of it when complaining about textbook costs and I kind of vaguely hint they look online for it--nothing like the popularity of napster.
1. Guy I know who is an exec coach says that a chatbot can do a lot of what he does.
2. I am absolutely seeing lots of people asking ChatGPT a question and treating its answer as the truth.
So I can well believe that, in an age where you can get a quick answer to anything for free, that the market for books is collapsing.
Having said that, I also suspect that many of these self-help books are effectively a blog post stretched out over hundreds of pages, so maybe a decline in their sales is no bad thing.
> I also suspect that many of these self-help books are effectively a blog post stretched out over hundreds of pages, so maybe a decline in their sales is no bad thing.
You suspect right. I usually compare them to a pamphlet, but a blog post works too. They’re mostly one core idea padded with interminable stories to illustrate the point. Instead of wasting your money and time on the book, search YouTube for a talk the author has given about it (the more popular the book, the more of the same talk there will be) and watch that. It’ll hit all of the major points.
Executive coaches always kind of perplexed me. I’ve tried a few ofer the years and while it was nice to chat with someone smart I found their advice was pretty hit or miss as I read a lot and most of the basic stuff seemed familiar.
So I always wondered how they stayed in business and that they seemed at risk for disruption if anyone cared about their market.
So I guessed that maybe they’re for people who don’t want to spend time finding and reading.
I also was only spending $250/hour so maybe the really good ones cost much more.
This stat is limited to print-books only. He talks about all sorts of other forms of content, but seems to mysteriously miss audio books.
If this source [0] is true then 65% of audiobooks (in 2022) were non-fiction. Likewise that the audiobook industry has grown by nearly 3x since 2022. So, by my math, it's simply that people prefer to listen to self-help books (which matches my own experience).
> If this source [0] is true then 65% of audiobooks (in 2022) were non-fiction. Likewise that the audiobook industry has grown by nearly 3x since a2022.
Lead to
> by my math, it's simply that people prefer to listen to self-help books (which matches my own experience).
I'm not sure I see the math there, when most nonfiction is not self-help books (and an increase in the broader genre says nothing about a specific niche)
> But what about ebooks and audio? Looking at all formats (print + ebook + audio) for the catalog in 2025, the second half of the year was down ~45% versus the first half.
Even more than audiobooks self-help has become the preserve of substack blogs, podcasts and YouTube channels. A lot of the low end of older gen media has moved over to the low end of modern media.
And my experience is that the freebie books available through your local library's online service absolutely pollute the available offerings with self-help and associated types of books.
Self-help non-fiction books killed themselves by focusing on entertainment, in the form of amusing anecdotes, rather than substance. Most self-help books could be reduced to a 3-by-5 card without losing any of the core information.
Conversely: the self-help nonfiction book existed because it was the only practical way to monetize "good advice" or "good ideas" at scale. Now you can do a podcast or a youtube series and try to make money from advertising/affiliates/etc, but for a very long time, "buy my book" was the only game in town
The author even mentions this. Why watch a 20-minute video when you can just scrub to the 40 seconds you need?
A lot of self-help books fall into this category. But if you go to a publisher and say that you're going to publish a 20-page book, they're going to laugh you out of the room.
In my corner of the internet people started to recommend reading fiction rather than self-help. Books like the count of montecristo for example, where the characters overcome through perseverance, patience and planning.
The criticism of self-help books in my little internet bubble is that if you've read one you've read them all. So why not go for works of fiction that are time-tested and are greatly entertaining and nourishing?
For what it’s worth, I personally discovered something similar with another category of nonfiction books - economics and business. I read a lot of these circa 10-15 years ago and the rate of new signal id get from each new one eventually became low enough that I stopped reading in that category altogether.
I think, considering length of "self-help content", there is spectrum, and in the both ends of such spectrum there is conflict of interests - audience vs authors.
In the first end - short-form content: yt shorts, tiktoks, tweets, ig posts - "authors" have interested to just have more engagement, so we end up with ragebait, fringe ideas, etc - everything for just viewers count go up, the substance doesn't matter at all.
In the other end - "long-form" content: books (usually thick ones), writers for some reason need to fill extra content alongside the substance, some off-topic stuff, I'm not professional writer/editor, but I suppose it's protection from some nitpickers, adding some scientific basis to look more solid (don't know why: author can pick any research that support's book idea, even already debunked), maybe there is requierement from publishers, editors, etc.
The sweet spot here are thin books here, but even that case they cannot help much, because even a therapy sometimes cannot help for someone (heck, there is a real person trying help, not just text with ideas!)
I'm going to admit that I tend to hit a brick wall when these books tell me I need to fill out a worksheet if I really want to make a difference. You're telling me I have to do homework now? But ai can give me feedback on my thoughts anyway, directly what I'm interested in, and provide sources, even though it's probably patronizing me? Not a difficult decision.
Craig Ferguson is magnetic isn't he? Great monologue.
I think with ai, when you get feedback, you are putting in a form of work though. You're practicing recall of previous concepts and having them reinforced while you can get on a narrower and narrower path of what worked and what didn't.
Granted, I have no clue whether this is better than other forms of doing the work like going to a support group or filling out worksheets and journaling, but I do think it is beneficial.
There's a misconception about self help books that they teach you "tricks" that you can instantly use to become a completely different person. A lot of the good ones teach you principles that you need to practice constantly to improve. There's hard work and risk taking involved which many people that buy the books are not prepared to do.
The first self help book that actually helped me was How to make friends and influence people. It was hard for me to overcome my shyness and look people in the eye and smile, but with constant practice I got better at it. Taking an interest in people or being agreeable these are all basic principles that genuinely good communicators use, the book just points you in the right direction you have to apply the hard work and courage.
Self help books definitely have a bad reputation, often with good reason - lots of cliches, preachy, etc.
My favorite advice (and central message I think) from "how to win friends" is to really have the other person's interests at heart, not to try to scam or game them.
Some of my other favorite self help-ish books
- a guide to the good life
- thank you for arguing
- algorithms to live by
I think the acquisition of skills need human guidance,AI has created a quality problem making human self-help books more valuable.
From a new language to public speaking to media training.Some books need more than structure by AI, that is professional knowledge and real-life experience.
AI has a vast information ocean, yet a travel book helped me prepare my underwater kit because WiFi does not work underwater, saving me a lot of money I could have wasted on wireless kit.
Take AI apps for teaching languages,Langua is a good example, I think the most successful ones combine human instructors for insights and guidance with AI for drills prescribed and calibrated by the tutor. AI drills are not the same.
I’ve always found that most books within or similar to Ferris’ genre hold a nice message but are 90 fluff.
He picks on summarization as the sort circuit and claims the lived experience imbued within his books is the real draw. Not disagreeing here. LLMs unpack the intentional content stretching rigmarole authors go through as a function of publishers requirements to produce something that is minimally viable to publish.
Some seemingly important questions that come to my mind in a future where LLMs, ad-based revenue, and attention-as-currency prevail:
how do you create a knowledge-based product valuable/compelling enough to make people want to pay for it? And what is the best value-prop way to monetize it? (For BOTH producer and consumer)
Is length a necessary requirement for substantiveness?
If so, where on the spectrum of long-content_vs_short-content should it live?
Unfortunately, I im not confident the internet can fundamentally diverge from an ad-based or subscription monetization model in its current form. IMO, Michael I Jordan has a lot of refreshing ideas on how to build better marketplaces that sustainably benefit producers and consumers (as opposed to mostly just platform-maintaining-rent-seekers).
The rise in sales of GLP-1 products also coincides with the decline in self-help books. Those products are highly effective at delivering some of the hardest self-help outcomes, so why buy a book when you can inject?
I'd like to point out the irony of that blog post checking all the boxes of LLM-generated text, and I'm surprised I don't really see anyone talking about it here. Did Tim Ferriss (who's supposed to be an author) use a LLM to write this? If he actually writes like that, perhaps the reason why his sales have gone downhill is that people have noticed they don't need to pay to get the same result.
Almost zero readers buy a book based on the title or content alone. They buy Dr.Phil because they saw him on TV and know a bit about who he is. On the other end of the spectrum, there's people buying books because they respect and admire the author's other work.
AI can never touch the human interest angle of authors, the best it can do is hope to trick people temporarily, and that doesn't last long.
Ask yourself, how many "self-help" books are published by Anonymous?
I think there are more nuggets of wisdom in great fiction than these self help books.
Maybe if someone put together a list of fiction books that correlate strongly with self-help categories, it would be immensely useful.
A great fiction book helps you vicariously experience a character's life while self-help is an instruction manual which sadly does not provide the same form of connection.
Haruki Murakami's entire body of work is basically self-therapy[1] and personally I feel it's been very therapeutic. The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle is an excellent place to start.
Yea the shift is right in front of our eyes. It's a "if everyone is super, no one will be" situation. People will simply gravitate towards that with less supply, and that's usually smaller but higher quality content(whatever content means for you whether entertainment or software). The line will split in two ways, some will start making higher quality content which stands out beyond the noise and branching in ways that we've never seen before, and the others will chase the higher but more fraudulent numbers of easily generated content.
As an aside, I've been using Claude to search for blog posts from people who went through similar experience to mine. Then use Eleven Readers app which converts the voice to text to listen to it. It's been much better for self therapy vs talking to an LLM.
Most of these non-fiction, non-technical self-help books are just trash.
I say non-technical because the ones about specific subjects like "What to expect in the first year" etc. can be pretty good, but the more general "improve your life" ones are usually awful.
This is me too. Just finished the latest Dungeon Crawler Carl book, bought on day 1. Have completely replaced Google, stackoverflow, medium, digital ocean documentation, etc. Only HN remains and honestly it’s less to keep my finger on the pulse and more habit than anything these days. Went from a large part of my consumption to zero visits since I got Claude code.
Makes me wonder what’s going to happen to AI’s results if all these content streams dry up.
So, probably AI had a significant impact here, but I noticed
this myself, a non-AI using person, where I bought fewer books
than before. There are many reasons for this, financial ones
but also practical ones (don't have to story physical books).
As well as lack of time; I need to manage my time better, so
I have to skip on reading too many new books until I have finished
reading the existing stack. Plus the www also has a lot of
information. AI may have been killing more humans here (it is
skynet after all), but the underlying problems started being
serious way before AI already, in my opinion. Also google
search being ruined by Google; it is so useless nowadays.
He speaks to three examples: YT videos, podcasts, and newsletters/etc. With YT videos and podcasts, I either yank the transcript and pipe it through whisper.cpp, or with YT videos, I'll use the built-in "Ask [Gemini]" and ask it to summarize.
The right 15 seconds of video can be extremely helpful with household tasks. I'm thinking specifically of super-tactile ones like getting such-and-such panel off the car or appliance so that you can get at the bit you're looking to replace. Those can really be worth a thousand words.
Of course I'd prefer a blog post with many looping, silent 5-15 second gifs and no extraneous like-and-subscribe and life-story-delivery. But c'est la vie.
> Of course I'd prefer a blog post with many looping, silent 5-15 second gifs and no extraneous like-and-subscribe and life-story-delivery. But c'est la vie.
This feels like something you could vibe code up (creating the blog posts from YouTube videos). Fascinating times.
Perhaps, but the recently shared vibe-coded blog posts I've seen on HN have been… not that great.
Wouldn't be surprised if this is viable by next year though.
Between the bloat and bad UI in both modern OSes and modern websites, I'm seriously considering if my next OS will be a command line pointing to an LLM where most web browsing is rendered out in plain text (perhaps LCARS, just for fun?), and any apps that actually need a UI are just-in-time generated as each feature is needed.
Yep, for home improvement and work on cars, I’ll take the video every time. Everything else, if only a video is available, I’ll ask Grok to summarize it so I don’t have to sit through it.
But last weekend I had to remove a trim panel under the hood of my car to extract a dead rodent, and I was wondering how to get those round clips off without breaking them. This video helped: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K_rsVDj5s1o&ra=m
The AI summary of the same video explains the exact steps but doesn’t show them actually being done.
It's because you get better ad rates on Youtube than if you made a website and posted the information there. Additionally, the current state of the web (Google only exposing SEO blogspam, AI overviews making it so ~60% of searches end without the user clicking on a site) pushes people further and further away from making websites.
Being able to skim, filter and comprehend large amounts of text is much more rare than you might think. More than half of Americans read below sixth grade level and a fifth is functionally illiterate, struggling even with the most basic reading tasks. Videos are the only way for these people to consume any kind of information.
It's the money that comes from getting people to watch ads, generally speaking. If people write an article, even if it blows up all over the internet, nothing happens. If they make a little shitty short that appeals to kids, with a thumbnail where they make a stupid face, they get a a chunk of actual money. I imagine it's real hard to not get influenced by that.
But as understandable as it may be, a clown whose job is to keep people entertained until the ad break can talk about a lot of things, but cannot be something else. This clown talks about math, the other one just rubs the microphone over materials and then says "smash that like button", but they all have the same purpose and can only differentiate themselves by how much engagement they create. The platform is the payload, the content is whatever.
It's a mixed bag. When you're (for example) repairing a lawnmower, being able to see parts from different angles and hear what it sounds like is very useful.
When you're trying to repair a Playstation motherboard, you gonna need some photos and text.
One would make a long education video to hold eyeballs longer that can lead to more ad revenue (if that's your goal and your video is sufficiently entertaining).
I've commented about this before [1] but a lot of my simple searches lead to monstrous walls of text with tangential information about the query. The answer is buried well past a simple ctrl-F on the page. It definitely varies for domain though.
YouTube handles distribution. Some people search for information by typing their question in the YouTube search box. Whatever article you wrote won't surface there. You have to post to many social media sites if you want to show up everywhere people are looking.
A lot of people are functionally illiterate. Those people are online now. We have image, video, and sound based social media for them. They send each other videos and voice messages instead of texts.
Not only that, they're creating content for each other. People who can barely compose an email run TikTok accounts and YouTube channels and podcasts with audiences in the millions.
I don't even know if I think this is a bad thing. Sure, their education system failed them, but they need to know how to do things, and they often have information worth sharing. Providing video tutorials almost becomes a question of accessibility (in the a11y sense) in some contexts.
I agree that a huge percent of 10+ minute YouTube videos would be better off as a few sentences and a bulleted list.
The success of YouTube and TikTok has shown that video is by far the easiest way for the average person to share whatever they know and have a chance of getting it seen. Where would the average person even post a article?
>Yet a lot of people make and watch serious educational and informational videos
a picture is worth a thousand words. Of course your text article can have pictures, but how can you sure you include all the "useful" pictures. Then there is animation which is impossible to do with static picture.
I wonder why not write an article for people with correct information. Then have the LLM create 5 articles with slightly wrong information with generated plausible URLs.
I'm more curious how Publisher's Weekly defines "sales" in this era of subscription plans (e.g. Kindle Unlimited).
Some of this probably isn't just "AI" but the quantified/journaled lifestyle trends. Do Oura rings and Apple watches impact self help as much as basic health questions on Google and routine doctor visits?
It feels more like a broader information abundance and a more educated consumer base that started over at least a decade ago. AI's impact is hard to measure since it's just the hot feature resting atop existing tech. It certainly did none of the heavy lifting to nudge people this direction.
AI is probably only a small portion of it. I’m betting most self-help content is consumed via short form video these days and typically done by paid influencers. It’s just shifted from his outdated model
Still too narrow a take on what self help techniques are killable by ai. I also think self help as a bunch of life hacks and habits is precisely what’s wrong with the industry writ large. They are based on what sells in a capitalist system targeting the attention economy. Creating scarcity on supply side of attention(work longer) and demand side(addictive apps). Take Atomic Habits, one of the things it says is out of many is making the habit you want to form easy to do, e.g place sneakers and shorts next to your bed to make a habit to run in the morning. It presumes a lot about how exactly habits are actually internalized, retained and how one falls into or out of them. I’ve fallen in and out of such habits even after I did them for a while(months). Techniques are very ripe to disruption because people don’t quite understand or have time to understand or observe their own mental state, so hacks sell because you can do them(presumably) as a monkey would.
It’s not an electronic problem but an human first IRL interface problem. A shining example to the contrary is meditation practice like Vipassana. Saying you can kill that with AI is like saying “Gandalf is here and he explained to you the meaning of life and said now you don’t have to live or learn lessons anymore because you know I can always ask him”. Of course living the actual life is the whole point! It’s also why IRL experiences like classes and communities tend to work better when structured as lived experiences.
If this industry of self help books dies I won’t shed too
many tears.
Self-help is 1 part information and 1 part magnetic point-of-view.
AI is better at personalized information, short-form content offers a snappier and more "real" point-of-view.
What I find most interesting is the appeal to authority aspect. Self-help always has had its gurus. If self-help is getting hit harder than other genres, I wonder what that says about brand trust.
EDIT: could also be that these books are kinda fads. I would expect them to have a shelf-life.
Hardly. I've read several good ones during the AI era and I'm still reading them.
However, that doesn't mean AI is useless for this type of thing. Its very, very good at acting as an "expert" to answer questions you may have after reading the book.
I'm also in an actual informal bookclub with a few friends. It started in the AI era, all nonfiction books and is still going strong.
Depending on the model and size of the book, its also possible to load the entire book into the context window and ask questions.
>The original content doesn’t exactly disappear; it just becomes raw material that most people never touch directly.
It does disappear. There is already much less expert knowledge shared after the breakdown of those platforms that used to be so good at encouraging it. Both what the clankers can regurgitate and what humans can find themselves on the internet is increasingly stale and thinned. My GPU can generate fairly good content now.. 2023 content.
Oh maybe his books are just seen as less relevant now. When times are good, people buy books like "4 hour work week" because they dream of a day when they might not have to work as much. When times are bad, and they face the very real risk of losing their job (if they haven't already), they have more pressing concerns like whether they can afford to buy groceries that week.
Humans already know what's good for them. Self-help books rarely contain new information. All they contain is motivation, depending on how well it's written. People could substitute it with chatGPT, but its unlikely to provide the same motivation. That's why you could ask chatGPT for the 10 most important lessons in the 4 day workweek, but that won't get you anywhere.
I disagree. There are a lot of counter intuitive things we’ve learned from psychology, and early childhood development. And I have learned some of them from books or in person training courses that made a difference.
Humans have know blocks for their own well being. Most struggle with probabilities or long term planning. But they are teachable skills.
I've read a bunch of what could be considered "self help" and while they often have a lot of fluff, they do have interesting points. Many of them reference actual research studies to back those points.
I just skip the motivational fluff and dig out the useful bits. Makes them very fast reads when you can skip majority of it.
For me sure I’ll get a summary of a book or some video but that’s more like let me find out if the whole thing is worth my time instead of replacing the medium. Everyone who has read a non fiction book once’s knows it’s not about what the summary alone can teach you.. it’s the story and the learning through pain and reflection
So, not willing to put much time into researching this, but from a quick Google it looks like sales absolutely _exploded_ in the early 10s. This could be AI... or it could just be reversion to the mean as a fad died.
The other way AI is killing self-help nonfiction: people are generating entire self-help books using AI. The human written are always better, but it's impossible to tell from a book cover and short description.
I suspect that's not always true. There's so many self help books out there from totally unqualified people that I suspect an AI commingling data from multiple reputable sources may beat some of the most inappropriate books
To be (slightly) more charitable to the genre and to AI, self-help books are a blog post's worth of content padded out to look worthy of the sticker price, so LLMs provide a fair bit of value in extracting the signal from the noise (assuming they do it accurately).
I never understood how anyone could write more than 40 pages of “self help”. Especially not for a general audience. All self help boils down to the very foundation of your worldview, all other advice stems from it.
All weight loss books, if they are truthful, boils down to: eat healthy, exercise more, everything in moderation. That doesn't really make you money, which is what the author actually want. Other categories are equally padded, or the topic has been sufficiently covered for 2000 years or more.
The whole spiel about "I just want to help others in the same situation" died with the Internet, because for the past 30 years it has been entirely feasible to publish your advice and guidance for for free. The books are just for money and fame.
It depends on the topic, of course. I have a self-help book for my computer science students that talks about the best way to get a computer science bachelor's it weighs in at 64 pages. It's too small to print, but it really doesn't need to be any bigger.
A lot of non-fiction fits in 50-100 pages or so. Longer than a magazine article. But it's not publishable through a publisher if it's less than 250-300 pages. One of the reasons I probably won't work through a publisher any longer.
"Self-help" readers are probably moving from self-help books to llms because they give them the shallow "fix my life" and "get rich quick" answers they want at a faster rate. Now the redpillers have to think even less about why they are such losers.
Obviously this is mean but I do think "self-help" has been incredibly inflated by these people who think there are some sort of magic answers out there to solve everything about their life. And those people are now moving to short form redpill content and / or llms that gas them up.
Jesus Christ. Here is how AI relates to me—ooh, with suspense-driving one-sentence paragraphs and reflective commandments. Come on, in Q2 2026 this is still a thing?
The self-involved industry is in shambles.
> What’s actually going on?
Need the meander headlines. I told you what is going on. Now. Let me interpret what I just wrote for you.
It would be just boring if self-help books were down because people believe less in astrology and affirmations or something. Couldn’t write about the Zeitgeist that way.
---
I’m not just a cynic. I lived a former life as well. And self-help is something ranging from entertainment to fantasy to small chance of personal transformation. And for books, it’s a cheap hobby compared to one-on-one pscyhology. So would it make sense to replace that with a language soup? Not really. The idiosyncracy is the whole point, jesus.
People might get taken in by it. That doesn’t mean that it will work in the long run.
Everything is an exaggeration. A lot of things aren't on there and the searches/suggestions are warped, and exclude some of the better videos.
I can think of many subjects which are not well served. Scottish history certainly isn't. The only suggestions it tends to give are Scotland History Tours (who is quite good but surface level) and commentators like BBC (who are often way off the mark and have their own agendas)
I think the core problem of most self-help books is that at best, they're usually an article's worth of knowledge and insight stretched to book length for economic reasons.
To be fair, some people probably do benefit from, or at least enjoy, the history, examples and stories used to pad out the length. But in my career I've had to constantly learn new domains to varying depths at high velocity. A good LLM, properly prompted, can be an amazing self-learning tool. Before LLMs I'd often hire an expert, usually a post-doc or professor to spend 2-3 hours one-on-one answering my questions - and those sessions would move at very high-speed, making the investment worth it. For those who are experienced self-learners, an LLM can deliver 60-70% of that value. And, frankly, extracting the relevant knowledge out of the average self-help book is a vastly easier task than that.
I wonder if the '1,000 True Fans' concept, which is basically a traditional model, will still work these days. That aside, isn't the hacking style self help genre itself a kind of outdated relic? Honestly, I've read some of this author's books, and they have a distinctly optimistic 2000s to 2010s vibe. Over time, the delivery of knowledge and methodologies changes. Maybe the issue is that the content no longer fits the times.
Looking at the author's books, they're full of healthy living and optimistic narratives. In my view, maybe the problem isn't the old approach itself, but that we need to answer new questions. Like, 'How do I survive in an era where AI takes away jobs?'
And I think the most critical point in this post is this passage:
'What happens when 99% of the rigorously fact checked media is behind a paywall? The short answer: people skip it and ask the AI.'
We use AI for things we don't consider important. If that's the case, I think the key is to convince the public that what I do is something AI cannot replace.
Fiction books to follow soon? Will kids still sit down and read an assigned book when they can just prompt "generate a movie of Shelley's Frankenstein, faithful to the source, except as required by my_movie_preferences.md". Reading the text may become as rare as learning ancient Greek to read the Odyssey.
I'd like to think people will continue to read because reading is an inherently pleasurable activity, and because the medium captures nuance that can't be replicated in video.
However, the loss of reading self-help books surely will hurt no-one. It is an ill wind, etc ...
I wonder, if the technology will actually get to the point where it can AI/Remix up a bunch of TV shows or movies that are as high quality / nonslop as the original, and if that would satisfy me.
Let's say I'm living in the past and think Star Trek TNG and the X-Files was peak TV. If I could just hit enter and generate an in-all-ways-believably-authentic episode, maybe I just wouldn't watch anything else. Would it matter to my brain that real people didn't make the episode if it was indistinguishable from the real thing?
On a similar vein, I was just thinking of the TNG episode Hollow Pursuits earlier today.
Somehow, this is one of the episodes I never actually watched, but it is interesting to me how often the Trek scripts cover essentially identical ideas to current discussions about AI: Moriarty insisting to Barclay that he was conscious even when his program wasn't running, Pulaski saying Data was just remixing and not actually intelligent, various examples of deep fakes, cyber addiction, AI going weird sometimes while following orders and sometimes just as an emergent bug.
Nothing, Forever was basically this idea applied to Seinfeld. The video quality was low, but some of the ways it captured the same absurdities as Seinfeld was remarkable at the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing,_Forever
It may not yet be fully automated, and you may have to choose between "cheap and bad or the price of a house and kinda acceptable", but it's definitely possible.
Of course it's possible, but reading and watching fiction feel very different and can you see a way to change that? The word may continue to decline compared to image. But the image is soon to become nearly as cheap and hackable as the word.
This may well happen, but the fraction of people still capable of absorbing original texts will have a tremendous advantage over people who never learned to think.
"Self-help nonfiction" have always been a waste of paper. And honestly, most of the time I hear "X was replaced by AI" I find myself thinking "good riddance, but we could drop X altogether and not loose anything of value."
Fiction, on the other hand… Much of fiction's value isn't just the content itself, is that they create a shared language medium. A book might actually be meh (came up with some examples, but then decided to drop it so as not to offend anyone), but the fact that people you talk with have read the same book and understand same references makes reading it valuable. So, it's unlikely to happen, until we delegate all of our communication to AIs, which isn't likely to happen any time soon.
Yes, but only for people that don’t already have an audience.
If Famous Athlete/Entrepreneur writes a self-help type book, people will buy it, because the fame lends legitimacy. Even if the book itself is obviously written by AI.
With an additional caveat: the person needs to have some real, demonstrable authority. Tim Ferris doesn’t really have authority in the sense of “I am a professional athlete” or “I am billionaire startup founder” does. He does have authority as a podcaster and digital products / books creator, but that isn’t what the 4HWW is about.
I guess soon AI will kill __all__ books. If you can just type "please summarize that book into 1 page", or "make a 30 seconds tiktok format clip summarizing this book".
> Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no
Afaik Tim Feriss hasn't done anything notable in the past decade. No surprise that his one best seller is finally dropping off the cliff.
Without some incredible developments in AI, and as long as competition and desire for a better life still exist, I see no future where self-help books go away.
I recently picked up a book at the airport called "Full Stack Human". Wish I hadn't because every second line has "It's not just about X - It's also about Y!" formatting that screamed LLM generated slop. I'd say it most certainly is dead!
Wow, AI finally did something useful, making Tim Ferris and other grifters obsolete. I actually listened to his most recent podcast and it's wild. These people live in a completely different reality.
Remember, Tim Ferris scammed his audience with NFTs lmfao.
>But looking more closely, Self-help had the steepest subcategory decline, with units down 26.3% year-over-year. Only two of 16 subcategories—crafts/hobbies/antiques/games and religion—grew at all (9.6% and 1.6%, respectively). The exceptions alone could make an interesting blog post for another time.
Self help being generally part of a larger grift pipeline for authors (for selling overpriced courses, seminars, retreats, infoproducts etc.), this is an actual positive silver lining for AI in society.
I love books, but I could never understand self-help nonfiction books. What's the point? Just about any idea which these books may communicate can be better communicated through fiction.
There's no life lessons you'll learn reading self help-books that you won't get by just reading the classics.
People will still own the ideas. The way they are shared is changing yet again. Just like a kindle carried a Book to a user, and LLM with RAG will do as well.
Printing books wouldnt make sense anymore except for "Traditionalist who love feeling a crisp page between their fingers"
Or maybe it is just a coincidence that people have grown tired of this kind of bullshits. This genre has been trendy for a while already, there had to be a moment people would just collectively realize their life is not measurably better after reading so many of them.
I had trouble finishing Zen and the Art because my recollection is he drones on and on about the philosophy after the initial set up. The story disappeared. I felt kind of being had because I remember being intrigued by the title in a used bookshop as a teenager and buying it (this was before the internet) so my viewpoint is biased by that. My college philosophy textbooks managed to be more interesting and deeper than Zen, even a book about Aurelius was more interesting to me.
I wouldn't say any fictional book with a philosophical angle fits, but ones that could have been written as non-fiction but for the purposes of getting the point across weren't. Phoenix/Unicorn Project are good examples!
I've never read it but I think Atlas Shrugged might qualify. I don't think I've ever heard anyone praise the plot or talk about it as a novel, instead people who liked it say it changed their life, changed how they view themselves, etc.
I thought it was pretty well paced as a novel until it got to John Galt's big speech which seemed childishly self-indulgent and then after that it goes to hell. The novel is about 1200 pages and it's pretty amazing that it held my attention for the first 800 because I've rarely been able to enjoy a novel for that long.
as a lite-BDSM wish fulfillment romance novel, it's quite compelling. better plotted and written than much successful romantasy today. the whole plot is about a bunch of hot rich guys fighting over who gets to dom the self-insert female protagonist.
there's another fantasy aspect, which is discovering your sense of alienation from family and society is really because you're part of a special but oppressed group and won't admit it to yourself, and once you embrace your identity you can find fulfillment, love, and community.
now, in this case, the repressed identity is "capitalist", which is a peculiar way of looking at the world. but if you ignore this, the emotional beats of the story (finding yourself, coming out, found family) also work for the LGBT experience, even perhaps neurodivergence. I think this is why so many confused teenagers find themselves very moved by the book and are later embarrassed to admit it.
on the whole, it's not high literature but competently executed, the only really stupid thing about it is Objectivism.
I think there are some good things in the 4-hour Work Week but the concept as a whole is problematic: e.g. Tim Ferris himself has more like a 400-hour work week. Rich Dad Poor Dad is a right wing scam. There is a psychotechnology that people call "magic" but The Secret and Think and Grow Rich won't teach you it.
The Secret is good for encouraging positive thinking. I think we have been fed fear mongering non-stop by the media and governments for at least ten years.
If you are in a good frame of mind, you will handle bad situations better, turning them into good situations which means you will have more of them. A better way of thinking about it than just saying you will attract positivity into your life.
I liked Ferris explaining that you can validate a market exists by serving ads pretending you already have a product. What a scumbag. Isn't the rest of the book just drop shipping and selling supplements with high margins? I recall snippets of a manual for unethical but mostly legal small business between stories of people making money on such practices.
I like his description of how you could just call up an expert on the phone and often get a quick answer to any question they can answer quickly. I'd learned that one myself.
Like it or not a lot of successful businesses have some bodies buried somewhere, particularly those that have been successful in two-sided markets such as online communities. There have been legendary successes in marketing enterprise software that didn't quite exist but I can say it didn't work when I tried it.
Yeah, but it's the worst of the four. I remember his advice that you should buy a rental property which is cashflow positive after the mortgage payment on day one. (As opposed to profitable considering that you're building equity)
These were just not on the market except for one that had 8 section 8 apartments and would have driven me crazy trying to manage as a bleeding heart who cares about people.
> What happens when 99% of the rigorously fact-checked media is behind a paywall? The short answer: people skip it and ask the AI.
Perhaps there is a business opportunity for a "rigorously fact-checked" chatbot?
You can test chatbot to see if it gives "correct" (according to the author's opinion) answers on a topic of your choice and fix errors through prompt engineering, RAG (or other "memory" techniques), fine-tuning the base model if previous two approaches didn't work.
You can also probably teach it to use your own voice instead of dreaded LLM-isms, to make it sound less like typical AI-slop. This potentially can attract people, who are annoyed by the typical AI voice.
Perhaps, people who wrote self-help books should craft bespoke, custom-made chatbots instead?
I think the more salient points for the paywalls is people want pay once access everything, instead of piecemeal. I would certainly be happy to subscribe to "news" in general, but not a dozen different providers for one article apiece.
Hmmm, "Spotify for news" that collects subscriptions and distributes them proportionally to articles clicked/read or whatever can be a viable business model.
While it's easy to be cynical and see this as everything getting worse somehow, monetizing a simple idea or premise is tough -- I mean, loads of people just put that stuff out there in comments on social media, blog posts, etc, and move on -- so people fluff it up with endless volumes of filler to justify charging a price for it.
Self-help as a domain is absolutely stuffed with this sort of behaviour, where 300 pages just repeat and spin variations on an extremely simple premise, again and again. The reader tags along, sure there's going to be a twist or next level, but in reality it's just trying to justify this being sold as a "book", when at most it could be a single blog entry.
And yes, every single one of Tim Ferriss' books follows this principal. Entire books can be condensed into one page summaries and absolutely nothing will be lost. Nothing. In many cases one paragraph. Sometimes a single sentence.
This problem afflicts all media. There's a "Glucose Goddess" woman who has made an endless series of videos after she had a book do numbers about reducing glucose spikes. She's spinning four bullet points into endless content and it's just a perfect example. Nothing new or revelatory is being shared, but someone made a whole grifting career on this, all to pitch overpriced vitamins and protein powders.
It's actually interesting that someone mentioned YouTube replacing documentaries because people don't have time for that, so to speak, but YouTube is an absolute scourge of time wasting bullshit. I remember years ago one Apple-sphere guy posting a 10 minute video to answer the question "Should you get 8GB or 16GB in your Macbook". Ten minutes of yapping -- apparently ten minutes was the baseline for getting some monetization metric -- and the answer was an unqualified, worthless "get 16GB", because feels or something.
YouTube recently added an "Ask" AI button, and it includes generating extremely good summaries of videos. So many videos propose some clickbait headline with a clickbait graphic proposing some novel revelation, and in the first few seconds I've seen the summary, see that they have added absolutely nothing new or of value, and click back.
Will these people also post complaints about the drop in viewership about worthless, time inconsiderate content dragging not hitting like it once did? Probably. "Back in my day you could make a career by posting shocked-face thumbnail, a Betteridge's law of headlines question that you promise to answer, and then meander for twenty minutes. Kids these days just don't have the attention span anymore!"
I agree with everything you are saying, especially as someone whose main goal behind going into content is to understand, and have agreed with it for so long, and in my attempt to understand - ever since I was young - what people get from self-help books, I realized something. I do believe this - our - perspective neglects the difference between reading to "get a complex premise", and reading/watching something simple as some sort of lengthy ritual to get you to marinate on the idea and to allow yourself enough time to "change". Those 300 pages have the benefit of making you "stay with the idea" for however long reading 300 pages takes you, and that's what people who are into self-help like. Being persuaded.
Hopefully it will kill off the self-help grifters on social media too, all without telling me that if I drink Huel or Athletic Greens I would be a millionaire too
unfortunately, as a reader, I am not buying any books post-ChatGPT era. Author maybe did their best, but it anyways feels like I will be buying ChatGPT's opinion
I am not reading most things post-ChatGPT era (books, articles, and even Jira tickets), by habit I am looking at the dates (hopefully they are correct) and then adjusting my effort level accordingly, anything post-ChatGPT depending on the blog author I send to summarization, if I really trust and know the author then I read their article.
Personally, I see the self-help industry dying because people are starting to realize that it’s just a network of individuals selling products, promoting each other’s products, and creating new avenues to sell more products. I refer to it as the “self-help mafia.” Tim Ferriss kind of created it.
Every time someone has said some goofy thing will go away because people are getting smarter or realizing something, it's absolutely not the case. A large number of people will always want someone to tell them that they have everything figured out and others just don't see how great they are, that they'll wake up rich and famous one day, that they're powerful, that they're beautiful, etc. Many will pay to be told this. Many will pay for subscriptions to become even bigger and better.
As an extreme example, pickup artists had a wave of success a few years back and people paid big money for those ridiculous courses. They got replaced with Andrew Tate style "a real man just smokes and fights and hates women" type content and people paid money with the hopes of becoming like them. Trends and life goals change, but people still gobble up self help.
I went down a rabbit hole of reading some of the "pickup artist" material many years ago, and it was fascinating because there was a whole range from the really ridiculous "one trick" peddlers who in some cases probably were proto-Andre Tates - isogynists who looked for all kinds of underhanded tactics to trick women and saw it as justified because they saw things as stacked against men - to people who were just a hair shy of more mainstream selfhelp of making yourself better to be more attractive. On the extreme end you'd see NLP, hypnosis and in some cases coaches trying to legitimise things that'd easily cross into assault. On the "near mainstream" end you'd see people pushing meditation, exercise, and mainstream authors on getting better at social situations (e.g. Dale Carnegie).
The former imploded in the aftermath of Neil Strauss' The Game, which made some of the popular techniques well known and/or mocked (e.g. you had Howard on Big Bang Theory who in the beginning "demonstrated" several of the more ridiculous methods) and a lot of the field pivoted towards closer to regular self-help because the weirder stuff would get them called out.
I wonder to what extent that contributed to channeling the people who didn't want to put in the work towards people like Andrew Tate, with the mockery that followed and the less extreme coaches in that field moving away from it leaving a whole bunch of angry young men ripe for the picking, now with one more bone to pick.
I went down that rabbit hole too and actually improved myself. I recommend Juggler (old school), Austen Summers and AttractionGym (Dutch). I would still recommend to use your common sense though. Not everything they say is good advice but I find them giving quite good advice while not being toxic (most of the time).
Though what helped me most was a mix of being more assertive, meditation and a strong sense of playfulness.
I always went the improv route, so while I read a lot of mainstream pickup stuff back then, I was too lazy to use it. Also, when it was clearly mean then I didn’t do it either (such as negging). It was fun to get some skill in being cocky and funny, but ultimately I fell in love with being playful. Communicating that way is so much fun, and it’s fun to go balls to the wall creative. Yep, I am in love with a communication style and way of looking at the world. So there’s that (I also was in love with learning Italian for a while). But my default mode is looking at the world in an analytical and data-driven/empirical way (while not noticing my irrationality).
The more reasonable dating coaches are still out there. They simply aren’t part of the mainstream advice.
The current mainstream advice about dating sucks. Though, to be fair: the mainstream pickup artists from back in the day also sucked. It’s a lot like mining: you dig through a lot of advice that is plain dirt so you can find the gems of advice that are sparsely scattered around the dirt.
I gave some dating advice to some HN’ers. If anyone wants some, feel free to message me. My email is in my profile.
I am married nowadays (after a few relationships).
What I do find interesting is: I can turn this part of myself off and then no woman sees me. Mostly because I lack initiative and look at the world too seriously. It’s handy because I never get into weird situations like a certain woman liking me at work, for example. It also helped when I didn’t know how to break off contact with someone who I knew wasn’t for me.
>The more reasonable dating coaches are still out there. They simply aren’t part of the mainstream advice.
I really want to ask: what would their reputation be if they were mainstream, in your opinion?
I find it to be a very interesting spot of culture and society, like at one point you had a bunch of guys who were dealing with the cognitive dissonance between what society asks of men and what society wants from them in a context that wasn't yet politicized.
It is my impression that when it started showing up a little bit in the mainstream, the accusations of misogyny came, and with that most who actually cared about misogyny left the boat, in public terms. So now all we have left is Tate and the likes.
A lot of the accusations of misogyny were well founded, but there were also a lot of people who genuinely just did struggle with why they couldn't meet people, and who wanted to genuinely improve.
I think effectively those coaches who worried most about reputations to a large extent pivoted from focusing on the dating aspect to more general self-improvement, where dating success might still get mentioned but without so much focus on it, and especially not so much focus on getting sex.
There's lots of mainstream self-help around overcoming shyness and getting better at socialising for example that was/is directly relevant to a lot of people who struggle with dating, and there are lots of ways of framing the non-manipulative, non-creepy parts of a lot of dating coach advice in ways that nobody would consider misoygynist.
But, yeah, I think at least to some extent the attention given to some of this subculture unwittingly ended up driving some of them into the arms of people like Tate. It's not that there weren't plenty of those coaches that deserved negative attention, but the end result might well have been worse.
> A lot of the accusations of misogyny were well founded, but there were also a lot of people who genuinely just did struggle with why they couldn't meet people, and who wanted to genuinely improve.
Agreed
> and there are lots of ways of framing the non-manipulative, non-creepy parts of a lot of dating coach advice in ways that nobody would consider misoygynist.
Yea, agreed
One issue is that pickup artists always framed it as men seducing women. But quite frankly, most ideas would also work the other way around. I remember talking to some dating coaches who strongly disagree with me but they view women too much as women and men too much as men, whereas my view is that we’re humans first and our sex/gender second.
Viewing things in such a gendered way was a factor for misogyny.
Back in the day, I coached a woman to be better at dating. I taught her what I knew and she took her own spin on it and had tons of fun.
Just some examples as to what is interchangeable:
1. Being playful
2. Emotional intelligence
3. Good style
4. Cold approaching
5. Disqualification technique (e.g. what work do you do? I’m a hermit in the woods and sing to birds all day - when you are clearly not)
6. Open body language, and the concept of tonality, body language and non-verbal communication in general
7. Good logistics such as having a place of your own, moving a date to a second or nth location etc. (this just requires planning)
8. Being able to signal intent at the right time (I do it 10 to 60 minutes after when the playful vibe is clearly established)
Women can do these things too, and it works. This is just from the top of my dome. There are many more examples. Such as being optimistic, adventurous and genuinely yourself (I know sounds contradictory, it’s a long topic but yeah works for women who want to seduce men too).
I wouldn’t be surprised if all of this also works for gay/lesbian people but I never thought about that.
The funny thing is that a while after having spent time reading up on it but not really tried many of those techniques, I ran into a woman in a club who started running "textbook game" on me, and in that context reciprocating and trying out even techniques I'd never feel comfortable with on someone who didn't know what was going on was fun because I could tell she also immediately recognised it. It ended up being a fun dance of back and forth. The biggest problem with a lot of those techniques is when one side isn't aware - and of course that is often why they were being thought. But, yeah, the part you list are all definitely interchangeable.
Textbook? So the whole status dance?
The whole status dance was never my thing.
Or more like playful banter? Those vibes are super fun, even though I am not much of a banter guy.
> The biggest problem with a lot of those techniques is when one side isn't aware - and of course that is often why they were being thought.
Seducing someone on pure technique, while possible, screws with many things. One of them is one’s self worth, as someone like that is now dependent on being a certain way that isn’t them.
> But, yeah, the part you list are all definitely interchangeable.
95% of my whole game is listed there, haha.
She started off with a lot of push-pull and trying to move me around the venue, and it was very blatant. Like taking me along to talk to her friend, and then brusquely dismissing me only to come to dance with me minutes later. If I'd not immediately recognised what was going on it would've messed with my head. Because I did, it was fun. It was also a very good demonstration of how fucked up those techniques can be - she was good at it.
Sounds like a whirlwind of an experience! It really becomes a game when you’re both doing it.
Push pull came up naturally through playfulness so I never consciously thought about it. Sometimes it came through spontaneous ballroom dancing. There were a few times where I taught a woman the latin swing. It feels as push pull but as a dance.
> It was also a very good demonstration of how fucked up those techniques can be - she was good at it.
Yea, can relate. I’m still a fan of women that have a similar style to my game. My game is wholesome. Women have mentioned as much. My wife’s style is similar. The first exchange on Tinder was awesome, I immediately yelled “she gets it!” in front of my computer screen :’)
agree, there's always going to be a belief for a majority of people that by reading or doing this ONE trick, they can avoid the hard work and sacrifice needed to get to a place/do a task
we've seen it with exercise/dieting we've seen it with women/dating this types of things always persist
How is the bucket, Mr Crab? Personally I admire all people who want to improve themselves, or crawl out of a hole, or fix their issues. It's not easy, and it's not easy to find the right advice or help.
Hard disagree. I have read lots of books, participated in events and training seminars and had profound results in my life. My marriage is better because of what I learned, I am a better father and leader because of what I learned. And the fact that people sell things as part of that growth journey is how they support their ability to share the lessons and techniques.
Self-help books are so often ridiculued, and that ridicule is often well merited. At the same time there was a self-help book that basically gave me a whole different outlook on life, and cured my depression over night. So I can't deny they have a place and can really help people.
Most of the effective self help advice is personal advice meets trust means relevance at that point in life.
Same book can be ridiculed and appreciated by different people, sometimes even by the same person when they are in different stages of their life (especially if they have less self-awareness).
"You already know whether you are in love or not, you just need to trust this voice."
Depending on where you are in life and who you are as a person, this statement can simultaneously be called a platitude, or a meaningful statement that someone finds allows them to decide what is important in life at that point.
"You already know" advice amplifies your existing belief. It's about taking a 60% confidence guess to a 95% confidence guess. Stated like that it becomes obvious that it's appropriate if someone vaguely suspects the correct thing, but dangerous if they vaguely suspect the wrong thing.
> and cured my depression over night.
Which book is it?
What was the book?
my book was one by Terry Real. The excersise to find love for myself was life changing
Please expand! What’s the exercise!
He also took a course in baiting and suspense short stories
"Read self-help books until they all start sounding the same, then move on with your life"
Can you share an easy-to-understand example for someone who is similarly highly sceptical of self-help products?
How to Win Friends and Influence People helped my career a ton. I stopped having to job search and started getting pulled up as people I knew from work advanced they would bring me with them. I haven't had to job hunt in 9 years and it's solely because that book made me more likable and personable.
It made me enjoy life more too, because I have a diaspora of cool and interesting connections who would go to bat for me if needed. I'm friends with the grocery store checkout guy now, he asked me to go antiquing with him two weeks ago. I made friends in my neighborhood, I have a lady I walk with every week who offered to help me garden and even when ordering flooring from Home Depot the dude invited me to come to NASCAR with him and his buddies.
It honestly just changed my perspective to see the good in everyone and through this process boosted my personal, professional and family relationships immensely.
I too read the book in my younger years, and it helped me a lot with making friends and my career. However, the book itself is filled with some terrible advice for communicating with people. I realized that as an older person. But as a young person it filled me much needed confidence. Like many of these books, the actual advice is crap, but I think it gives people the confidence they need to change something in their lives they are not happy with.
I highly recommend the podcast: If Books Could Kill. They have an episode on this book.
As someone who has listened to this If Books Could Kill episode and read the actual book, I think the podcast is mostly looking for problems where there aren't any. Despite the book's sleazy title ("influence people") it's mostly just basic, innocent social advice.
The core advice of the book is to smile, flatter, avoid all criticism, and feign “genuine” interest. People can sense this performance from a mile away. It is a dated, salesy, conflict-averse (to the point of dishonesty) way of communicating. It is too surface-level to address real, sustained relationships.
>it's solely because that book made me more likable and personable.
This is the part that gets me to have an almost allergic reaction. It feels like an almost homogenization of people's personalities. In my mind I picture it like this: business man A reads How to Win Friends and Influence People. Businessman B also reads it. Business man A meets B and see that they're doing the psychological tricks of the book and think "wow this guy sure knows how to win friends and influence people like I do" so they get along fantastically.
It's similar to my aversion to books like "The Game" where some men seem to have the idea there's a surefire way to pick up women. Humans are diverse and should have differences in how they treat others and react. "Remember their name, smile, talk about the other person" and all the other tricks often gets me in the mindset of "this person is media trained / inauthentic".
I would reframe the question you’re asking. Instead of assuming that the interaction with business man A and B is fake, that it’s done for an ulterior motive, that it requires being inauthentic and suppressing your personality, all of which isn’t part of what makes people connect to each other ask “but did they enjoy the experience and make a friend”. There are known interactions patterns that result in people connecting to each other. If you want to connect with others learn how to.
And the book “the game” isn’t an example of that skill. People that follow those techniques find out quickly that they end up destroying the connections they make really quickly.
Except that is not what the book teaches at all. Sometimes people can’t take the advice of “just be a better person and care about other people” unless it’s explained to them more specifically and anchored to their goals. It’s not because they are inauthentic, it’s because they are lacking skills and understanding.
I actually crashed out semi-recently about this exact thing, quit church and all and was genuinely surprised when the people who were speaking politeley to me reached out in a genuine, non-public and non-coerced way.
I don't think the word "inauthentic" quite captures why people react negatively to this sort of communication.
At least part of it comes from the fact that this particular style of "kindness-is-cool-coded" (for lack of a better word) communication happens to be the preferred style of insanely passive-aggressive people who take it upon themselves to brutally sabotage anyone who they deem unacceptable. It can also feel like you're being lead on by someone who actively dislikes you but is too polite to say it. Or you just start second-guessing every single thing they say and do.
But honestly, there's a pretty sizable minority of people who are repelled by this type of person and if you're naturally bad at reading the room you're probably better off making friends with other people that say and do dumb things.
I know I went through a "How to Win Friends and Influence People" phase when younger and basically ended up just putting off a whole of people.
Culturally many Australians have an ingrained and likely healthy aversion to feeling they are being "handled" or manipulated in some manner.
Likely stems from a hundred and fifty odd years of the "always British" types swanning it over the "this is where we live and we love it" crowd.
If your were (never mind presented as) inauthentic after reading HTWFAIP your reading comprehension was lacking. HTWFAIP is about building authentic, mutually beneficial relationships with people, not shining them on. I’m totally with you about fake people, but HTWFAIP is not about that.
Aside from being about forming sincere relationships, it handles influence with essentially this advice: Stop trying to force people to care about what you want. Understand what they want, treat them with respect, and align your request with their self-interest and self-image. If you come off as false doing those things, it’s because you didn’t actually do them, you pantomimed them.
I see this as a type of psychological manipulation. Almost everyone is interested in other people's story and the basic human trait of listening gets you over that hump. The "and align your request with their self-interest and self-image" part is what gets me. As an off-the-cuff example that someone might use this advice to craft:
“You’re such a generous person. I know you love being there for friends. Could you help me move Saturday?”
It's an example that of course sounds ridiculous to anybody that reads it, but it's essentially what the book teaches. Gather information not even about the person but how the person feels about themselves and then use that as a tool to make them feel good when you're talking to them.
I suppose it's also not helped that many of the people I've met who use this and admire this book have psychopathic traits. They're very good at faking caring but actually can't. It's a cold calculation to them and admittedly it's very effective at getting them ahead.
I guess if you are feigning interest it is manipulation, but the book speaks specifically against that. If you want to make friends, you have to be genuinely interested and invested. If you want to influence people, you have to be sincere and aligned. (Modern politics puts the lie to these requirements, but that is what the book teaches)
I don’t know how you could read that book in a modern frame and get syrupy insincerity out of it in good faith, but it is true that many people read this type of book looking for shortcuts and hacks, so they are not looking for the good faith reading. If you read the rest of NH’s work, you will find that his philosophy is firmly based on genuine good faith and delivering disproportionally high value to the people you interact with. (As well as some very 19th century metaphysics you can safely ignore)
But yes, many people read that book, ape the ideas, and act like asshats. It’s hardly a failing of the book.
> Humans are diverse and should have differences in how they treat others and react.
Even though I agree with you, that's not a fact and, if a bunch of people are happy all being exactly the same, that's great for them. You can have any amount of ideas about how things should be but if someone is happy the way they are, that's what's important, that's the end goal.
I just wonder if some people don't often get to their end years and regret putting on an inauthentic mask their entire life because a book told them to. Having dialogues with people like it's a transaction to win instead of a conversation.
> putting on an inauthentic mask their entire life because a book told them to.
I think the key difference- at least for the book I mentioned - is that it actually teaches to you take a genuine interest in those around you. It's not a mask or a ploy, it is making you engage positively in a way that yields genuine connections.
If at any point in a natural conversation you're going to a trick a book taught you instead of just speaking your mind I'd argue it's a mask of a kind.
Example: if at the start of a conversation a personal anecdote comes to mind but you think 'no that's not what the book said, I should talk about the other person instead' I'd argue you're masking your natural persona. If your natural inclination is to raise an eyebrow but no that's not what I was taught smile instead, that's a mask. You see it often among high earning people and it's pretty transparent. Luckily you often also see people who are not at all like that everywhere and they're the ones I'll prefer having a drink with 10/10 times.
Good thing that's not what the book is about.
I haven't read it yet, but reading it is not going to change your personality. Personality defines how you receive it.
If you change your entire personality based on a self-help book.. that probably says a lot about your personality.
And anyway twin studies make the hardware seem more impactful than the software in many ways..
Personality is not a static entity. It’s a feedback loop, a conversation you can have with yourself to adjust over time. My brother had intense anxiety in cars. He applied techniques that improved his ability to handle the situation. Saying he has an anxious personality is ultimately defeatist and not reflective of the agency we each possess.
And twin studies, while persuasive that biology does have a massive impact are not dispositive compared to similar studies on human development theory that has longer population sizes that show self dialogue can shape behavior over time.
Getting Things Done by David Allen gave me a framework to get out of the weeds when I am overwhelmed (usually once or twice a year when I stretch myself): build a to-do list that us complete enough to stop thinking about what you have to do, if a new task take less than 5 minutes just do it right away, and then prioritise the rest.
Deep Work by Cal Newport gave me a way to think about my time management: information work is not the same as a factory line where doing the same thing at similar productivity from 9 to 5 makes sense, and it is important to dedicate long stretch of quality time to be productive (vs busy).
There are no silver bullets, but learning what worked for a group of people, testing it for myself, adapting it, and using it as needed has been helpful to me.
Yes, I read "Getting Things Done": he teaches you to make todo lists! That's it, nothing profound or from another planet. Basically you could get that information in 1 paragraph: "if you're overwhelmed, make a todo list", but he wouldn't have made a lot of money that way...
That's quite a reductionist view of Getting Things Done. There's nothing magic about the system, but someone had to put it together. It has been useful to me.
There is more than that, though. Deadlines, Next Tasks, Weekly list purge/build, Yearly alignment etc etc.
Also how you teach somebody a thing matters.
Stories have a profound effect on humans since the earliest of our days.
Most self help books can be boiled down to very obvious tools and coping strategies. If it is the first time you have come across the concepts, it can be useful but if it isnt, it is useless.
Is paying 15$ too much to pay? If learning about an obvious but unknown idea for doing the things saves 10 minutes a week, it is.
Do you need to pay 15$ for the result? No. But a result is better than no result.
After reading digital minimalism I did the digital declutter process and found a lot of extra space in my life once I removed distractions that felt "essential" but didn't actually miss once they were gone. I also found other things that were low value/distractions that I still wanted in my life so I've just accepted them(like browsing reddit occasionally during the day though I've changed it so I don't comment on reddit anymore since that ties me to a feeling of wanting to check responses/look for upvotes/etc)
1. Fact vs interpretation. Many things we think of as facts are really our narrative interpretations that are incomplete. A few self help books talk about the story of 4 blind men that are asked to interact with an object: one says it’s a snake, one says it’s a tree, one says it’s a wall, one says it’s a flag. Their interpretations are all wrong, it’s an elephant trunk, leg, body and ear. So when someone says my boss was unfair and mean, that’s not a fact, it’s a narrative interpretation, for all you know they are committed to mentoring you and sometimes that requires trial by fire. Drill Sargent, medical residency, and many professions have converged on that type of training. It’s much easier to stay connected to a spouse, child or coworker when you are operating on the assumption that your beliefs and their beliefs might both be equally valid. The righteousness of having “the facts” destroys a relationship. It’s not that there aren’t facts or right answers but a little humility as a finite being has a lot of benefits.
2. Dispute resolution. There is a three step process that transforms how you fight. A) what did I do to contribute, B) what I’ll do different next time, C) I am sorry and I’ll do X to make amends. When you do this you stop blaming others, which is what causes defensiveness, escalation, and the cascade of in tractable conflict. When you lead with this you’ll be amazed that your counter party feels heard, seen, validated, and connected to you and all of the sudden stops attacking, defending and starts to listen.
3. Characterization. In our lives we often define people based on aspects of their personality that are incomplete. The problem is that stunts their growth and limits the depth of the relationship. So the “ambitious” daughter, “funny” son, “techy” coworker gets defined as only that and can’t break out of it in relation to the person characterizing them. So when the ambitious kid has a failure they turn to the parent for support and get characterized instead treated like a human being that can change. So when an “ambitious” kid says I don’t want to go to university are they suddenly not ambitious? Are they allowed to redefine themselves? There are entire categories of books written by people with a chip on their shoulder because they were characterized.
I did a leadership training that had a session on purpose. They discussed the Harvard study that followed people over their lives and careers and their reported sense of wellbeing. The clear trend of what creates fulfillment at the end of life makes it hard to dwell on a lot of what most people suffer for during different phases of life. I have seen people in college, law school, early careers, doing startups, being parents, even all grinding it out and then looking back with the realization they were and remain miserable.
I could keep going and going and going.
Kudos for delivering.
#1 sounds a lot like stoicism.
Question for you, is my handle orange? I realized my company went stale after a pivot. Just curious if that is reflected on HN.
I was recently surprised by a bookface status change :) might need to reach out to say “hey still alive just not in the original form”.
I’m colorblind but it looks either orange or green, not normal color
Diff person here. Your handle is not orange, it is grey. I have not seen an orange handle. Grey or green (green for new accounts).
"because of what I learned." Do these books/seminars actually teach you something new about being married or a father, that you didn't know before? Like what? I always figured they were more about coaching, persuasion, convincing. To the extent I've scanned them, I never saw any kind of new fact, definitely not about something like being married.
I view self help books in a similar light as management books. They're usually not going to teach me anything new. What they will do is present something I already know, in potentially new ways and new contexts that allow me to contemplate them and keep them more front of mind. I tend to think of it almost like right thought right action. It's also worth noting that sometimes you just need to be at the right moment in time for a lesson to resonate and stick so reading such books can provide more opportunity for that to happen.
I do, however, try to limit who and what I read though because there is a lot of derivative garbage out there.
Exactly that.
I also think of reading self-help books (or management books) as giving myself time to engage with the subject. Even if there is no groundbreaking new information, it gives me time to think about the topic. If you couldn't tell yet, I'm a slow reader.
I am not a slow reader, but I realized what you did - that these books give me a chance to engage with the topic and if I spend enough time with a subject, I might learn something from myself even if I learn zero from the actual book.
My solution to this problem is to set these books next to one of the two comfy chairs in the house. When I sit in one of these chairs, I consider whether I want to read a chapter, I can only read one chapter, I can only have two of these books going at one time.
And under the system it takes me about three months to finish one of the books up from less than a week. I also find I no longer hate• most of them and I learn a lot more.
• they still have a very high DNF rate.
I'm definitely a better father because of a bunch of the self help books I've read. Things like better ways to communicate with my son, more effective ways to transfer knowledge, encourage independence, etc. Other areas of my life have definitely improved too though I agree when people say most self help books could be a blog post and in cases where it's an expansion of a blog post I'll generally just go read that.
With these types of books(and I read a lot of self help) I generally expect to get like 1-2 good pieces of advice/ideas per 200 pages so I generally just scan through them until I hit areas that seem high value then read those areas more deeply. I've read all of Tim Ferriss' books and haven't really gotten anything I can think of from his stuff to be honest they are a bit too general for me but I've gotten some good advice from his podcast though I only listen to maybe one episode in 10 when it is with someone or about something that sounds very interesting and even then I tend to scrub through it since there is a lot of filler in a 2 hour podcast.
Please share “better father” books.
Here's the problem: You can be a bad father by being too strict, or you can be a bad father by being too lenient.
In Zion National Park there's a hike called Angel's Landing. You wind up on this ridge, with a 1000 foot cliff on one side and a 500 foot cliff on the other side. And the ridge is not very wide - only a couple of feet in some places.
Parenting is like that. You think, oh, I see people causing problems by being too strict, so I want to back away from that cliff. But there's a cliff behind you, so don't back too far...
And the problem with parenting books is that, if you're the kind of parent who needs the books warning you about being too strict, then the books that warn against being too lenient are probably the ones that resonate more with you. That is, you're drawn to the ones you don't need, not to the ones that you do need.
All that said, yes, get books and read them. Be sure to get a variety of them.
I can't give specifics off the cuff, as I'm well past that phase now.
Well stated.
I read Nurture Shock before my kids were born. One of its main arguments is to praise effort rather than natural abilities ("you worked hard" rather than "you're smart"). Being one who naturally withholds praise, its message of not over-praising resonated with me.
In retrospect, I should have praised kid #1 more. It took me 10+ years to realize that. The book was not wrong but also not the message I needed.
I am definitely of the same generation. I notice my mom will praise my kid’s intelligence while we praise their effort. But I’ve definitely noticed my son responds to praise about ability more than my daughter and likely would appreciate more praise than her.
What did you notice and what were the consequences of the strategy of praise. I’d like to learn from your experience.
I really enjoyed this 'Newel of Knowledge' video on how to deliver praise w/o triggering someones BS detector https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-ZE601hf28
tl;dw celebrate don't manipulate.
I have noticed that my daughter responds so much better to compliments like, "I am really impressed how you handled situation X, you stuck up for yourself in a way that doesn't alienate yourself with your friends. I know how hard that is to do well ..." When I give the reason for the praise it doesn't come off, intended or not as "you did good for a kid." I don't do it everytime, but sometimes the praise works to give another reflective or metacognitive pass over the event.
Praise is a verbal activity. And while words definitely matter, I think holistic encouragement is needed. Pats on the back, hugs, and periodic ambient physical presence when the kid is working on a new skill.
Children the Challenge chapter 3 discusses encouragement.
All this stuff should be done tastefully and without being overbearing. Like the previous poster said, it's a balance.
Totally agree especially since each kid is different and responds to the same technique differently. But there are common things like attachment theory, boundaries creating safety, the tactics of repair after conflict.
“Never Split the Difference”, which is a book about how to successfully communicate with terrorists. Very suitable for talking with kids!
I’ve even read aloud a few chapters to my kids, because it’s very suitable for communication with parents as well
I mean this with the purest intentions. I've read Never Split the Difference, Never Eat Alone, Getting More, How to Win Friends and Influence People, etc. How do you get it to feel like it's not manipulation? I get all of these books advertise not to lie, but at the end of the day, I'm reshaping my speech to achieve a certain goal, rather than to convey facts. The best line I've come up with is something like: am I serving the other person's actual interests, and would I be fine with them seeing exactly what I'm doing? Honest persuasion seems to survive that test; manipulation usually needs the other person not to notice. Curious how you draw this line? Keep in mind I don't have kids, so haven't really ventured into white lie territory being a necessity.
> I'm reshaping my speech to achieve a certain goal, rather than to convey facts.
When communicating, you don't simply recite every datum you know. You edit, you choose facts to communicate a specific set of points. Those points themselves are not random; they are in service of helping you achieve some goal (to get someone to laugh, or to get someone to do/not do something, or to change someone's opinion of you, to make someone feel comfortable, to get a person to bond with you, or whatever).
> am I serving the other person's actual interests
This is the key.
> would I be fine with them seeing exactly what I'm doing
See my first paragraph. Nobody thinks you are reciting facts at random when you talk to them. QED to the extent anyone thinks about it, they understand that you are trying to advance some agenda (drop the connotation on that word). Because this is how human communication works.
At their core all these self help books are not teaching you how to reshape your speech, but emotional intelligence. They are teaching better understanding of other and yourself. You can then use this understanding to have more fulfilling relations, or more easily manipulate others if you are less well intentioned. The line is very easy to draw, being honest is natural, you say the truth and are open to genuinely understand and build on the other person responses. On the other hand manipulating takes a very different mindset of faking being open to what others are saying.
Many people, especially in the tech field, have false perceptions about the inner workings of the human brain. We aren't rational automatons receiving exactly the data that has been sent out by the other automatons. That's for a multitude of reasons, the most obvious of that is the fact that only a very miniscule part of our thought is conscious (about 2% is the last number I've read about it). Even the fundamental inner workings of the brain differ from the idea you alluded to. Our brain isn't just a parser interpreting the data we receive - instead it is a black box constantly predicting what happens next, and only uses sensory input, both from the outside and from the inside of the body, to validate or falsify the prediction [1]. One of the obvious side effects if this is for example our tendency to ignore facts that don't fit to our current worldview.
So if I know that these things are as they are, and use them to communicate more successfully, is that manipulation? Then it would also be learning manipulation if kids are sent to school to learn how to write well, or how to do a presentation.
I had a situation with my kid a while ago. They were already tired, but had to take a shower. When I proposed that verbally, they denied. Then I showed them the warm water coming out of the showerhead, and they instantly agreed. So I got what I wanted (the kid getting clean), because I knew how to communicate successfully. But that isn't manipulation: I didn't lie, I didn't have a personal advantage at their cost etc. I just made it easier for them to anticipate what taking a shower would feel like.
So perhaps the distinction should be: If I can honestly and wholeheartedly argue to myself that my intentions are to the best of all participants, then that is communication. If I only care about my outcome, or even want to have adverserial outcome for the others, then that is manipulation.
But we can't use "not noticing" some mode of communication as part of the definition of manipulation simply because we all notice almost nothing consciously, compared to the sensory input we get every second of our lifes.
[1] A pretty approachable book about that, written from a researcher: How emotions are made, from Lisa Feldman Barret
Exactly this. And I'll share a similar comment. I found myself repeating instructions to my 4 year old ans getting frustrated. I watched a parenting video that suggested getting down on her physical level and gently touching her shoulder to get her attention. The theory being when she is focused on something fun or interesting she literally can't hear me or shift her attention.
It worked the first time and has reduced my own emotional reaction and create much more peace.
And while I won't suggest it will work for everyone or this is a scientific process with sufficient information (but should be explored) I find resources like this useful.
I think you’re on the right track. Manipulation is overriding someone’s will in service of your motives. Persuasion is offering new information, while respecting their autonomy to make their own choice. So you are right that intention matters a lot. And the reason it matters is that your commitment to their wellbeing is an investment in the relationship which is a mutual interaction over time not a single event.
That’s also why authenticity and honesty matter. If you lie to your children or spouse or colleague they might do what you want one time but over time not trust you. If you are inauthentic they will also learn that you have ulterior motives and become distrustful.
The last thing I’ll say is it’s not always a negotiation. With young kids or direct reports there is elevation in the relationship, meaning one person gets to make the decision and the other gets to follow the instructions. So when a toddler is saying I don’t want to brush my teeth if you treat it like a negotiation you actually make them less secure about their place in the world because they aren’t ready to make every decision for themself. One good technique I learned is to simply present two choices. “You can brush your teeth or let me brush your teeth”. That’s very different than “let’s go brush your teeth” which can be answered yes or no. So it’s not always necessary to engage in persuasion. Sometimes framing is all you need.
I've often felt the same way; I've read some of these and (think I) can spot people using those learned things a mile away, and it immediately raises my hackles up. Management and sales people especially. Touch my shoulder or try to shake my hand palm-down just raise alarm bells.
But that's the other side of these books, understanding "the other side" of people.
I like to believe it all adds up to a big pile of knowledge that finds its place in one's personality / outwards behaviour. But to more observant, introspective, overthinking, possibly neurodiverse people, it just adds to a giant pile of social behaviours that some people seem to have naturally while others have learned / are forcing them.
Doing them costs me energy and makes me feel underhanded / ungenuine. At the same time maybe doing it more often will make them feel natural? I have no idea.
Touching shoulders and shaking hands palm-down is “persuasion” bullshit.
Can’t say anything about other books, but Never Split the Difference is about hearing and understanding other peoples’s wants and opinions. Not this pickup-artist-like bullshit.
> but at the end of the day, I'm reshaping my speech to achieve a certain goal, rather than to convey facts.
The idea that the only goal of communication is to convey facts is (charitably) a pretty autistic view of interpersonal relationships.
There are many situations where conveying facts is not the primary goal, and there's a world of difference just in how facts are conveyed. Facts probably aren't going to stop your toddler screaming for ice cream. Telling your wife that dress makes her look fat likely isn't going to help either one of you. Calling out a coworker when they are wrong isn't going to improve your working relationship. And so on...
Humans convey emotion and thoughts in conversation. We have mirror neurons that literally model an approximation of the internal mental state of the person you are talking to.
Facts won't stop a toddler crying for ice cream. But a clear unmoving boundary conveyed with love stops the intensity of their request and allowing them to have the sadness and anger at being told no and treating them with kindness and love even while they are expressing big feelings of disappointment creates a trusting, safe relationship.
I’ve genuinely read only Never Split the Difference from your list, and it’s kind of the opposite from manipulation.
The book teaches how to actually hear people even in the very emotionally charged situations, how to properly ask them questions to understand their point of view and their needs.
If I understand my son’s needs and can give him what he wants in exchange of him giving me what I want, how is that a manipulation? I can yell at him, impose sanctions (eg no minecraft for two days) and we both will be greatly dissatisfied. Or we can both get what we want, which is a win-win.
I think we're describing different halves of the same book.
I don't have a problem with generally understanding someone's needs. You ask what he wants, you say what you want, you both find a common middle ground.
But that's not what I'm worried about. He also teaches you things like give gifts to instill a sense of reciprocity. Use odd numbers so it appears as if you've put in research to arrive at this figure. "Bend reality" by moving around deadlines. Take advantage of cognitive biases like loss aversion.
Actual empathy is one thing, steering someone into thinking that your preferred outcome was their own idea is another. And that steering is precisely the manipulation I can't shake off. I'd be fine with the other person knowing I'm actually empathizing. But all those other techniques rely on the other person not noticing, which falls into my definition of manipulation.
Yeah, probably different halves of the book. I've read it a few years ago, and it looks like I've just ignored/forgot all that "bending reality" stuff. It's not my cup of tea, so I remembered only the good parts of it
I have read How to Win friends and Influence People and I haven't felt like its manipulation.
[I can be wrong and I usually am ;)] but the book teaches just some way to better re-phrase your best intentions and I have started to think the phrases in my head...
Just be honest with people is what that book taught me. I highly recommend people reading it.
Now I will be honest that reading the book itself isn't gonna give you something. It depends highly on variety of factors. For example, the book also teaches to listen more often and I genuinely try to do it as well but I sometimes fail to do that as I am a bit expressive/talkative
I think it also depends on who you are and how the book reinforces some particular topics. You dont have to completely do everything the book says to have meaningful impact as then it would feel manipulative to other person, yea.
And at the very least, reading this books makes you aware of some logic behind what he's saying (for example. I speak a lot but I should listen more, because people like me are so many and everyone likes to speak and be heard but people who actually listen are rare)
and then I can realize that I am speaking too much and so I think that I am more aware.
More Awareness of a topic doesn't mean complete and utter mastery of it but long term persistence of that awareness helps out meaningfully.
TLDR: Just be yourself and see if something sticks from the books and to implement it slowly and the way you like. There isn't one perfect way (not one even in the books) to living life. At best, its collection of what other successful people are doing. I wouldn't suggest (completely) living off the books because you have your own life and way of living it and you should be honest about it to yourself as well.
Read AI summary what “Never Split the Difference” is about. And its a bit scary that you think its suitable for talking with kids. Its pure manipulation technique. If you need to do this to your its most likely you were unable to create a real connection with them before.
Please read the actual book, it’s kind of the opposite from manipulation. You can read more detailed answers in the near branch of comments.
Thank you for proving Tim Ferris right and showing that AI actually degrades the knowledge adding a second order harm to human society.
The tactics themselves are morally neutral. They can be used to manipulate or elevate another person whose well being you are deeply committed to, the intention behind the tactics are what determines if it is manipulation or connection/persuasion.
The self driven child was one I just finished 2 weeks ago that I really enjoyed and felt had a lot of good advice that ran counter to my natural tendencies.
The How to talk books(there are a few of them for different ages), no drama discipline.
Cal Newports books while not specifically about parenting have helped me with disconnecting more from my tech which has always been a challenge since it's my job and a part of a lot of my hobbies which has definitely led to being a better father.
Thanks for the recs. I’ll check them out. I am reading “How to raise humans” right now. Not far enough in to have an opinion yet.
No worries, I have "Outdoor kids in an indoor world" next that I'm really looking forward to since I struggle with being an indoor dad despite being the type of kid that would leave the house in the morning on my bike and be back at night and went camping every couple weekends. I'll have a look at yours.
How to Talk so Kids Will Listen (and How to Listen so Kids Will Talk) is excellent
[flagged]
Only hard facts change your perspective?
Lacking happiness or charisma or confidence or the ability to quit smoking or any other run-of-the-mill self-help topic isn’t caused by a lack of relevant data: it’s a matter of perspective. Often, the best way to push through the problem is getting the perspective of someone that’s thought about it more. Whether self help books are an effective medium for that is another topic, but if they’re not, lacking hard facts wouldn’t be the problem.
Self help usually doesn't teach you anything that is new. Usually they just repackage the same common sense that you've heard a million times before in a new way. That doesn't mean it is useless though, I have had my own life changed by several self help/business books.
Sometimes you just need someone to tell you common sense in the right way so that you actually listen to it.
You don’t come out of the womb with common sense. And you don’t know all common sense possible.
What if you are raised in a toxic environment? Many are. The news media is also packaged in such a way as to cause fear, alarm and misery. Sometimes you have to break free of that. There is a lot of bad advice out there especially in the modern world.
> Do these books/seminars actually teach you something new about being married or a father, that you didn't know before?
Maybe you were born with all the knowledge necessary to be a good father/husband, but I certainly wasn’t. I imagine most people just have their parents to go off of, and we all know what a can of worms that can be.
I'd wager that most people have just their parents to go off of and a few recallibrate using their own experiences, learning, and introspecting about them. Those are the few to whom books and seminars are useful as sources.
I think, for a large number of people, self-help (especially the short form high intensity style content that influencers post is just "content" to "consume" - a form of cheap entertainment that's thrown out almost as soon as it's consumed. There's no enduring change. That takes time and an semi-innate desire to change. Then, all these things become sensible and useful.
I'm not a big fan of Ferris but I'm willing to bet that someone who sits down with one of his books and works through it slowly applying the lessons to his or her own life will see some kind of change as opposed to the typical person who just asks an LLM to summarise the book or a video about it and then decides that they've changed.
Yes. I learned new techniques like: victim vs author perspective. wife and I did a training where she went first, learned the the technique (tell a story of a fight like you are the most sympathetic victim then tell it again like you were the author) and it immediately shifted both of our perspectives about a conflict we hadn’t been able to resolve for 6 months because she told both versions and immediately understood where I was coming from. I am personally grateful we both know that technique now.
I recently read Attia's Outlive which is about what sort of lifestyle makes one more resilient against diseases of old age.
I'm not in a position to verify more than a few of the factual claims made by the author (and a lot of it sounds like mumbo-jumbo), but it was persuasive enough to get me to exercise for health (instead of performance at a specific event) and my life has gotten much easier since I came to that realisation. Maybe I would have done so eventually without the book, but I'm glad the book sped the process up.
>it was persuasive enough to get me to exercise for health
Why was this one guy more persuasive than the recommendation of basically every medical organization in the world?
Also, his correspondence with Epstein is quite damning.
Mainly that the advice was more structured, maybe?
Note that I was exercising before, only I didn't do it for health. But I also didn't suffer from any obvious problems. What I got out of every medical organisation in the world then is "You're fine. Don't worry about it."
I was probably fine, but I'm even more fine now; I'm capable of doing more of the things I enjoy.
> What I got out of every medical organisation in the world then is "You're fine. Don't worry about it."
This is alien to me, because for at least 50 years now, heart disease and diabetes has been at the forefront of basically every developed country’s health problems, for which the only solution proposed by all health authorities has been to eat less and healthier, and to do cardiovascular exercise almost every day. Even from elementary school, I remember being taught in gym or health class that being active and exercising was necessary for long term health.
I think there's a bit of a "marketing" failure happening in this context.
I've been exercising for most of my life, I'm the guy that has been going to the gym since forever to many of my acquaintances, and so they have often talked to me about how they want to start exercising or how they are doing etc.
Nobody, and I mean nobody has ever said anything like "I'm so happy to decrease my risk of diabetes". My father stopped smoking and started riding a bike, motivated by cardiovascular health, what actually makes him happy though is to be able to go up the stairs without breaking into a sweat.
Ask anyone in a gym why they exercise, they will talk about health, just not in the way doctors do. The stick of "You will die in 20 years rather than 35" pales in comparison of the carrot of "you will feel better basically all the time"
> Do these books/seminars actually teach you something new about being married or a father, that you didn't know before? Like what?
I'm as skeptical as you are, but teaching you something you didn't know before ain't the only channel they could conceivable help through.
Eg reading their bible can help a devout christian, even though there's nothing in there they didn't already know.
It's "learning how to..." rather than "learning that...". Good self-help books can provide a framework to understand how your own childhood development influences your current behaviours, and how you can work to change. I'm currently reading "Parenting from the Inside Out" which goes into both the psychology and neurology of the developing brain, and explains how insecure childhood attachment can propagate across generations. I have a mixture of dismissive/avoidant and anxious attachment thought patterns, and it's been helpful to put this into context by reflecting on my own childhood and where they might have come from. Those patterns gradually feel less like something I'm "stuck with" and more like something I can challenge and master.
That's awesome personal insight. My next door neighbors are childhood psychologists and when my daughter was 18 months old I mentioned I was trying to be very intentional about creating secure attachment and the things I was doing to facilitate it. They said in a very supportive and amused tone "oh it's too late, the attachment window has closed by now" then after a long pause said "she is fine and clearly has secure attachment to you and her mom"
By I myself have done a lot of work to understand ways to shift attachment styles similar to yours.
What I find funny is people saying in social media that they read dozens of books, and when you see what they're reading is mostly self-help volumes! If you read one or two of these books you already know what they'll say in 100s of others. It's very similar to religious books: the content is always the same, they just rearrange things so people will continue consuming more of the same ideas.
Knowledge has to come from somewhere. Not everyone has perfect parents to couch them on marriage and parenthood.
Yes. I think about a few framings from books all the time.
I mean I can see it. Books are just a way to transmit one’s thoughts and experiences to other people. So it’s no different to being exposed to someone with a different viewpoint. Common sense isn’t common or innate, it’s tribal knowledge.
There’s that XKCD about someone learning something new that was just thought to be something everyone knew.
Also you don’t know what you don’t know.
Agree though — coaching and persuasion are a huge part which is why I think a lot of these books seem ‘fluffy’ if all you’re wanting is a collection of facts.
I reach for my revolver when someone says that they are a better leader. That might mean that they have a captive audience of sycophants.
The outdated sense of leader of the willingly lead is a different matter.
Why such a strong reaction? Do you think good leaders exist?
I have received multiple emails from alumni thanking me for my leadership, mentorship, and the culture I created. Leading is a skill like any other it can be improved with practice and I have worked hard at it.
My team has no problem disagreeing with me and knows I don’t want sycophantic agreement, they know that even if I ultimately make a decision I will consider all opinions and have seen me change my mind in response to a direct report disagreeing with me in public.
There are known mechanisms to foster a safe and effective environment like that such as separating people from ideas, removing consequences for failure and commitment to experimentation.
There’s not much to it. There’s a difference between performed N and N as reported by the performer.
Why reach for a gun? You want to kill people that proclaim to be better leaders because of a self-help book? I know people drew guns for less but this is the first time I am reading something like this on HN.
I’d suggest you’d read a few books so that you don’t have to reach for your gun but can use your words instead. Though the moment you’d claim any of those books helped you will be a bit of an ironic moment but so be it.
I recommend Non-violent Communication by Rosenberg for you. It got me out of a few pickles (arguments). Also going to a meditation retreat helps.
Thanks for the laugh wizard of Metta.
You shouldn't laugh off the recommendation. That is a good book. I haven't read it personally but it affected my life deeply.
My wife and I both grew up in physically violent homes. My mom read that book and taught me and my siblings the lessons along with others. And my children have only ever experienced shouting or physical violence when they went to their grandparents house.
I understand you were using that phrase as hyperbole and did really mean it but there is a lot of evidence that the language we use shapes our prefrontal cortex and limbic system responses in every moment. By using that phrase you're subtlety sending your body and brain and anyone that read that into an anxious fight or flight response. That shuts down the ability to listen, persuade or connect. It triggers defensiveness, avoidance etc.
So even though you have a valid point lot of bad leaders exist, and often claim loudly to be good leaders with no self awareness of their actual weaknesses. Its hard to listen when a rhetorical gun has been drawn.
Thank you for a thoughtful reply. To my reading you demonstrate that you listened, even though I didn’t give you much to work with considering my curt[1] comments, and these resources look helpful.
But I don’t understand the problem with this phrase. Maybe it’s an ESL (second lang.) issue, because I have only read one author that I recall that has used this phrase (poverty of stimulus?). But to my mind it isn’t even hyperbole. It’s just an expression saying “I am on my guard now”. Which means that you are skeptical, maybe even cynical. Yes, the immediate interpretation is that someone is reaching for their holster—not to shoot but to anticipate an ambush. But even that is just, you know, colorful in this context. In this context I am intending to express that I am skeptical. Not that someone is trying to fool me. But I am on guard against just taking someone’s experiences at face value; that their lifeworld is such-and-such is not even under debate, that is fine and no one is doubting that. What is under doubt in this context is what the proverbial room looked like when only one out of five people reported on it. Does that make sense?
[1] in sense 1(a) according to Merriam Webster
Makes sense.
> But to my mind it isn’t even hyperbole. It’s just an expression saying “I am on my guard now”.
I'm Dutch, so English is a second language. I started at 7.
To me it comes across as hyperbole or something literal. Maybe different for native English speakers. Though I haven't heard my American family in law using it. And they say, to take some inspiration from you, all kinds of colorful things and I'd expect them to say stuff like this.
I don't live in the US with my wife though, so maybe I didn't have enough interactions with them. I will ask her.
> That is a good book.
I remember I had a bit of a relationship crisis with someone. Just learning the 10 min. TL;DR of a good friend of mine who was well versed in it helped a ton. Later I read it twice.
Sometimes I think I can get away with and flow on intuition. In tense conversations that sometimes go sideways and then I notice I have to use this way of communicating in order to keep things from not spiraling out of control and ultimately resolve things.
Tell us about this good leader concept and why you think it's outdated? Is it just uncommon?
And why can't you believe someone's statement about themselves? How is it different to saying they're a good runner?
Thank you for demonstrating leadership on this topic. Maybe that illustrates the point.
I agree with you. Self-help industry has evolved to cover lot of nuanced topics. Depression, anxiety adjacent topics. Once the basics are recognized, the other aspects like what to expect when you grow old. what to expect after retirement etc.
How to care less about what other people think, but in a healthy way
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uyR_cXGBMY
Willing to bet the fact that you went looking to improve is the thing that made the difference, not anything you learned from those seminars.
Pretty sure that's a result of the larger gestalt driven more by your own drive and savviness to seek new ideas on living than the books themselves, as it is for everyone who claims to have benefited. If the books are gone today and only LLMs remain, nothing will change in this front.
There are no doubt a lot of good self-help books out there. But there's very likely way more crap ones out there from armchair psychologists
Yup, so one just reads up on psychology, psychiatry and neurophysiology branching into sociology and anthropology, approximately to a graduate level. After which all this self-help looks quite naive. This sure takes 10-15 years, but the result is that you begin to understand wtf is going on around.
Academic literature isn't written to be applied. Some of the books I like the most distill the Academic findings into actionable frameworks. I do agree it's a good idea to also look at the research. But also recognize that the research changes as new studies deepen our understanding or invalidate prior findings.
> Academic literature isn't written to be applied.
Thank you. You made my point.
Yes, because the PhDs in those fields famously have their lives all figured out and are extremely happy and successful at everything.
It's your life. To the left there is the tank for those like you. Please jump.
lol, seems like people struck a nerve. I’d assume all your study would have given you more equanimity. Might be time for a self help book.
Self-help parenting books and blogs caused my spouse years of anguish and disappointment because most declare they've found the one true way. It just so happens to be the least productive and incompatible with many readers' children, bodies, minds, etc.
Many of the authors are selling their narrow experience as if it's divine revelation, often literally because they're religious. The grift usually continues with sponsorships, plugging their other books (or their friends' books), or seminars.
I've read enough about sociology and psychology now that the whole self help industry disgusts me. Receiving such books or recommendations unsolicited strikes me as an insult from folks to naive or lazy to really get to know me first.
That's an unfortunate experience, sorry to hear that. I think skepticism is healthy. Experimentation is a more effective position that faith in experts.
Exactly. People have just been told that there are some grifters in the field and they're unable to make the mental effort to not lump the entire field together.
Oh and the fact they're making money? Yeah everybody has to eat, psychologists don't work for free either, neither does any doctor for that matter. There are people doing good out there and yes they will charge you plenty of money for it.
You know it's a cult when you can't tell if it's an erowid LSD trip report conclusion or a comment about the self-help community
Well grifters can also be marks. It sounds like you're both.
Sounds like you need to learn some healthy communication. If this is how you show up in relation to others your network of collaborators will be small, keep you weak and limit your ability to effectuate your will in the world.
> limit your availability to effectuate your will in the world.
It might limit his ability to effect his will in the world, but I see his availability as unchanged.
What do you feel when you make a comment like that? Satisfied at your intellectual superiority? Confident in your status as someone able to see what’s right? Proud of yourself that you “tell it like it is”
Have you ever stopped to think about the prices you pay for that behavior?
Let’s game it out. You don’t know me. I could be Paul Graham for all you know. I could be the person in the world that would unlock the very door you need to open to get what you’re working towards. I could be someone totally vulnerable and insecure and end up cascading into despair based on your comment.
That being said. I thought it was a funny comment.
Your first paragraph is just a barrage of personal insults.
Your second paragraph is playing the victim while you just acted the agrresor in the previous.
Your third paragraph seems to make it sound like you have a point but it essentially boils down to we are all strangers on the internet. And okay?
If you had just written the last sentence, i would have respected your comment much more.
I know i am just a stranger but we are talking about perception and self help here. And from what I've read, i am not leaving with a positive perception of you based on your comments sorry.
Your interpretation was that they were meant as insults. They weren’t. I was asking a question about their intentions with several posited motives. Based on the statement, I wondered how they were feeling and I invited them to engage in self reflection. I don’t care if they were having those feelings, and I don’t think anyone is wrong for those types of feelings. It’s just that there are consequences to acting on those feelings in the way that they did.
I don’t think anyone is a victim or an aggressor. Both people do something to contribute to any conflict and are responsible to acknowledge what they did as the first step (see my previous post).
The point that we are strangers is that 1. he is making assumptions on incomplete information and expressing it with confidence that is unwarranted and 2. For all he knows I could be someone that, in real life, he would regret alienating like that.
As far as your opinion of my comments, your perspective is as valid as mine. I am curious, what do you think my positions are? What do you think my intentions are in this thread?
> That being said. I thought it was a funny comment.
This is very passive aggressive. You should think about how you communicate to people.
Not really passive. I made my position clear. I can take a joke and wasnt offended. It's also true that such behavior has a cost. Your interpretation that I offer that perspective to hurt them or defend myself is inaccurate, I actually want to help improve people, so it was actually an act of kindness.
Not if that boorish behavior alienated their administrative assistant.
Thanks for proof reading for me.
That's fine, but at least I don't sound like a Linkedin serial entrepreneur.
I cant respond to your last response, probably because it was flagged. But I'll say, after looking at your other posts that drip with disdain and what appears to me to be arrogance masking self loathing I hope you recognize the price you pay for speaking to people that way. You don't know me, who I am or what I have done. And life isn't about the transactional potential of relationships, but saying something like "i guess the prompt engineer thing didn't work out" on hacker news is naive and risky. There are world class engineers, VCs, senior execs and beginners that will end up doing amazing things. Your behavior has consequences for you and the world.
Maybe, but you're gullible enough to buy self-help books, so you'll probably lose any money you make in a crypto scheme.
Your pattern matching couldn't be further from the truth. I am in the krugman camp on currencies and economics generally which is to say I have been a long term skeptic of crypto since the beginning.
I am not a failed prompt coder, I personally built am a health care ehr that integrated a wide range of legacy tech well before AI as a coding agent was a glimmer in anyone's eye.
I say that in the hopes that you understand your insults are missing the mark so maybe it's time to update your wetware.
Ironically, I can think of a half dozen self help books that you appear to be desperately in need of, given your nasty comms here.
But you’re too smart for all that, right? So smart you spend your time trolling anonymous people online lol
Like Paul Graham or dalton Caldwell or half of YC? We are all serial entrepreneurs
I guess the prompt engineer thing didn't work out huh
I think you're arguing with a trollbot
too much sugar is never healthy.
> it’s just a network of individuals selling products, promoting each other’s products, and creating new avenues to sell more products
I've got some bad news for you about the SaaS industry
Considering he named it “the Tim Ferris mafia” makes me think he’s fully aware of that.
The sooner people realize that, the better.
Dale Carnegie created it, Tim Ferriss is a century too late to point as origin.
Or you could say in other words: Everything is a remix!
Dale Carnegie and Steven Covey have both been heavily influenced by Alfred Adler, the Austrian psychotherapist and founder of individual psychology.
Dale Carnegie -> Jim Rohn -> Tony Robbins -> [all hacks now]
It is wild to me that people consider Dale Carnegie and Tony Robbins in the same boat. "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie completely changed how I communicate with people, for the better.
For nerds (like me) who think data and statistics are the way to persuade people, you're doing yourself a disservice by ignoring the truth. Lots of people think sales are icky, but much of life is influenced by your ability to persuade and sell, even yourself, to others.
the man leveraged the fact that his name was the same as Andrew Carnegie (having no relation) to launch a publishing empire. it was hacks from the beginning
Highly recommend "If Books Could Kill"
https://bsky.app/profile/ifbookspod.bsky.social
It really is all the same book.
The very first thing I did when coming to this thread was search for if someone had already mentioned "one book theory". My favorite episodes of IBCK are mostly the self-help trash.
All the writers that I love to hate - hariri, gladwell! Will give it a listen
I wanted to love it since despite being a self help reader I can definitely see a lot of the bad/dangerous advice given all over the place but I often found them really stretching to make stuff negative and being very smug about it which just made it the same issue as the source material. Especially annoying since in most cases there were really solidly valid negatives to go after in the books. It's very much a lets build a straw man then tear it down podcast.
I listened to a couple episodes and concur, the overt-criticality and smugness was off putting.
[dead]
Even worse he changed his name from Carnagey, presumably to deliberately cause confusion.
people in tech i.e engineers discount sales - but damn the book by Caldini - Influence & Jim Rohn In terms of sales training - help a lot.
Robbins is much more an unintentional heir to Sartre (ducks) than Carnegie.
Why is Tony Robbins a hack?
I think calling these people 'hacks' is not quite the right word. They're very good at what they do, it's just a lot of people don't like or don't value what they do. I actually have a fair bit of respect for their craft (the ability to draw attention and turn that attention in to customers) even if I feel like what they're selling is fake, or fake-adjacent
Why can’t you go back to things like Meditations? Or Proverbs in the Old Testament?
It’s almost like the designation of “self help” is so broad as to be totally useless.
I can't stop referring to the irony that the gist of "the 4-hour work week" is to write a book about working only 4 hours a week.
But also pretty much all of the self-help books I've read can be summarized in a few paragraphs, that is, a blog post. The rest is repetition or examples. Which are important for learning and understanding, I suppose, but when an AI can both tell you the gist of it while applying it directly to your current situation, they can't compete.
Tim Ferriss has been called out on these "ironies" for years now: https://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2009/01/08/5-time-management-...
The repetition and examples aren’t there for learning. They are there for monetization.
This is my biggest issue with the self-help industry. There is a lot of self-help books out there with ideas that are genuinely valuable, or at least worth considering. But as you say, the entirety of the idea can be conveyed perfectly well in a blog post. But you can’t sell a blog post. So it has to be padded out with cruft into a book length publication that can be sold to people.
That’s how AI undermines the industry. It has those general ideas and can convey them in the simplistic, cruftless versions that are most helpful, and can iterate back and forth with someone on applications to their own life.
I do not have data, but from first glance, if anything, the overall demand for self-help and self-improvement increases Y/Y. We can correlate it with a sharp drop in alcohol sales, or raising revenues of therapy industry or fitness industry. YT and podcasts still looming too.
But the form of books … Yes, by some reason it collapses. I personally attribute it not to “people realise those guys are salesmen”, but with the fact that none of really good ideas were produced by such books for a while. Now anyone who really has a new angle or new idea to say — they go straight to YT/podcasts, bypassing writing a book altogether. Because of this, me personally, when I check bookshelves, do not see any really new or interesting idea published in the field.
I'm curious how correlated they are to decline of books in general
Your comment gave me an idea. First, start with this assumption: Self-help is "someone trying to sell an idea that may improve your life (health, business/wealth, relationships)". Second, consider the mediums that we use to sell self-help. Traditionally, it was in-person/live events. Basically, 100 to 1000 people sit in a big room and listen to a person talk on stage. Usually, there is some Q&A, raise your hands for voting, etc. Now think about the revenue side: How do you scale that business? Publish a book with the same ideas. The in-person events create a personal brand, and books help you scale the business.
Next, consider the mediums for selling self-help: (1) in-person events, (2) books, (3) YouTube. (1) scales the least, but has the highest branding building effect. (2) scales medium, because it costs money for the customer to buy the book. (3) scales infinitely, because it is nearly free. Further, the most financially successful YouTubers first build a personal brand, then begin sell product placement by sponsorships. Further, they also begin selling "merch" (channel merchandise). That is the real gold mine of YouTube. Even sponsonships for most channels with less than one million subscribers pales in comparison to selling "merch".
About (1) (2) and (3) above, I would say that humans are usually more influenced by [the most] (1) seeing a person live, [next most] (3) seeing a person on video, and [the least] (2) reading their book. Thus, it seems logical that YouTube will replace books for self-help.
Without reading the article, my first instinct (after writing the above) is that self-help books are not being replaced with AI/LLMs. Instead, they are being replaced by self-help YouTube channels.
Self-help industry is something that literally can't die. It's in the same category as astrology and technical analysis.
"It’s just a network of individuals selling products, promoting each other’s products, and creating new avenues to sell more products"
That's hardly unique to the self-help world - doesn't a lot of tech also fall into that category?
If you're looking for self-help, why would you read a book written by somebody else?
- George Carlin
For real? Because certain people might know things about the way the world works that could help you?
Also personally, my self help consumption (across all media) has been dropping lately. Part of it is that quality of content has been worsening over the years. But the part that’s put me off the most is the general burnout I’m facing in life: professional stagnation, uncertain future (will I be employed in a year?), more work, financial pressure, politics upending my life directly etc. Funnily enough I’ve started consuming more content around hobbies, crafts and other fun stuff, which the blog mentions was one of the only two categories that saw growth in sales.
I wonder if that is a reason for the decline rather than AI.
I share this idea because I see a similar pattern in myself. For the self-help YouTube videos that I do watch, I am/was most interested in (a) exercise/fitness/diet and (b) personal/romantic relationships. After 1000 hours or so of this sort of content, I learned how to improve and "ascended". Now, I don't need to watch as much because my thinking on these topics is more advanced.
Deeper: How will these channels sustain themselves? It does not look obvious to me! If I were running a self-help channel, I might intentionally delete old videos after 6-12 months. Why? So that I can remake the same content again (and again)... to get a revenue boost from new(er) viewers. For anyone who is a full-time self-help content creator, probably 90% of the revenue is made in the first 30 days. (Wild guess, but there will be an extreme cliff of some sort.)
Yeah I got a free medical "coach" and the coaching was sub par, and mostly used to try and press me into non free services.
A lot of those non free services seemed to involve very poorly written and syndicated coaching apps.
This is a good point. If there was timeless material, they would continue to sell. Maybe War of Art or Meditations still continue to sell. Deep Work is a joke.
Kind of, the 4-hour work workweek was one of the first book's I've read (I started late, was never interested), and it had many good insights that lead to me living a freer and more fulfilling life, that I might have not done otherwise.
Sure, you don't need to read an entire book to get the idea to do something, but that's way in which ideas get into your head and consciously or not, guide your steps in certain directions.
Of course, everything in self-help books should be taken with a grain of salt and also applied differently for each individual. It's just a way to get more ideas of what's possible, similar to travelling: it doesn't force you to do things in a certain way, it just shows you what's out there.
There's an influencer self-help industry, and then there's the likes of Alain De Botton whose output like 'How Proust Can Change Your Life' firmly sits in the self-help arena. Important to distinguish the two imo.
Self help is just education from a book rather than from an in person instructor.
I just don't see it changing, people don't buy knowledge, they pay for trust and authority. It's already been for decades that you could find every workout & workout program for free online or youtube. Yet people decided to buy anyway, because they trust that that person is right, and perhaps they tried the free stuff before and it didnt work (not because it wasn't correct, but because they didn't stick to it)
Is this really a new revelation?
Anyway, "self help" is still one of the largest sections at my local barnes and noble—certainly by far the largest non-fiction section.
Why now though? Based on the sharp decline since 2022 (according to Ferris’s numbers), s/books/chatbots seems like the Occam’s Razor explanation here.
> the self-help industry
About 15 years ago my friend showed me this video of a "self-help" guy he was impressed with and inspired by.
..it was over 30 minutes of rambling that sounded like it makes senses but meant nothing and lead nowhere.
Looking back it was like listening to how early LLMs were: Just long strings of random words and vague sentences without actually saying anything.
Or how Saruman's power of the tongue was described as.
It's depressing and obvious to see how many people could be misled by this kind of charlatanism.
AI if done right could cut a lot of crap from human society.
you've giving people way too much credit here. People never start to realise en-masse.
Not to be a contrarian, because I agree for a lot of the industry, but there are some genuine gems out there. Few examples:
Extreme Ownership really helped me be a better leader and take more accountability for my own actions
Atomic Habits really helped me think about goal setting and what the underlying driver was
Coaching Habit improved my 1:1s drastically (I basically stopped talking or advice giving and just listened -- profound, I know, but the book helped smack me in the face with it)
Many more examples, but there is definitely a ton of self-help hack slop out there as well.
I'd agree with that. A lot of rubbish is out there, but there are some helpful things. Even the Law of Attraction can be helpful if viewed through the lens of positive thinking (i.e. you can handle bad situations better if you are in a good frame of mind which will make your life better.)
Totally agree. So many people talk when they should listen.
Yeah I trust nothing. I listened to a hubermanlab podcast and found myself using AI to take a first pass at verifying claims he was making, but everything he suggested was complete bull crap.
A self-help movement worth their reputation is one that sells more than a book. In fact many give away the book and then charge you a sub for being part of a club
I'd say it's just moved from books to influencers on social media. Still plenty of money in misleading vulnerable people.
Yeah, there is just too much Tony Robbins referring to cells living of light in some jar linked directly to your work productivity (and thousands of other debunked BS "facts"). The levels of coaches for coaches for coaches for coaches on LinkedIn is approaching levels that shouldn't even be possible. I feel like almost everything about this topic has been said, but the amount of things being said is increasing exponentially, and it's all coming out of thin air. Like an LLM expanding the current body of work.
I for one used to enjoy such books but have turned more to mind-fuck scifi (i.e. I keep hunting for the Ted Chiang level books, although they are also very rare). I find meaning in those.
There was a self-help industry long before Tim Ferriss.
"How to Win Friends and Influence People" is still popular today. Dale Carnegie wrote it in 1936.
Back in the '80s and '90s Tony Robbins infuriated millions of North Americans by spamming late television with his obnoxious self-help infomercials: https://youtube.com/watch?v=gUczh_vsRUI
As long as there have been dissatisfied people, there probably has been someone promising to be a deus ex macchina with the secret to turn their lives around.
This isn't a new phenomenon. Tony Robbins was doing this 40+ years ago.
* Tim Ferriss kind of created it.*
There’s literally 100 years of self-help books before, who?
Then you could frame the collapse of this writer's book as a 'hit'
this self help industry completely reversed my diabetes, brought my adventure and satisfaction, and let me to making the best friends of my life.
maybe you are judging and dismissing something with prejudice?
This description fits a LOT of economic activity in general.
OP is describing Dave Ramsey
Tim Ferris? Bro humanity has invented religion that served exactly this purpose long since before it even invented the wheel.
[dead]
Unless you have hard proof this is occurring then I would rather believe my own and others positive testimony on self help. Its powerful and relatively affordable if you are committed to making changes in your own life. Is good advice. Authentic stories (generally). I am just grateful that people take the time and effort to reflect and encode their experience into something digestible by others. It’s pretty cynical to have your view.
Here I had Claude rewrite his post into a 300 word version without all the filler.
https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/d49d81d6-7aab-4730-9c3c-4...
Which I’m sharing as a meta point…I think self help books are declining because there’s a better way to get the information without all the filler. But filler makes the books thick enough to sell at the airport
Also - aren’t LLMs the ultimate choose your own adventure version of the information?
I’ve spent time to read the AI summary (which I normally never do) and the original (of course), and I can tell you the AI summary missed the most important point of the writing. I’d say what they are because it would defy the very purpose of what I’m trying to do.
But I can tell you that it’s enough to refute the AI fallacy many believe.
It's a shame grandparent's link gives a 404 now, I'd love to compare the two.
Surely this could be corrected by using the correct prompt? If you ask an AI to summarise a book, it's going to cut out 99% of the content. If you wanted to read some of that 99% of the content, you need to be clear about what you want. Otherwise you're leaving the AI to decide. That summary might be good enough for others, but not you. Tell it the focus you would like it to use. E.g. "include anything about the philosophy behind the decision." Whatever your point of interest.
To be clear, a summary will never replace reading 300 pages. But it might be 95% good enough for most people and in most cases, and that's often good enough.
Most of the time I’ve gotten major value or insight out of a book it’s because it’s said something truly unique or insightful that I genuinely never would have thought of if I hadn’t read it. Your prompt is useless because I might think I care about area A but I’d have my mind blown by area B which your prompt will drop unless it somehow has a perfect theory of my mind.
Sometimes you just have to read to damn book.
Agreed. There’s also something about “time under consideration.” The relatively slow pace of reading the book opens the door to personal insight that a summary hides. The words themselves might be important, but I’ve found the additional minutes of a book is critical for me to fully apply the concepts to my life.
If I know what the book contains to write a perfect prompt, why would I need a AI-summary?
I don’t say AI cannot summarize or there is no value in book summary, but I’d say that by stripping off most of a book, you almost certainly lose something valuable about the book, even if it is a prescriptive nonfiction. This most valuable part (besides the advices) is very often the part that actually convinced you and help the arguments stick. And without that, information will just stay as information.
This makes LLM summaries totally useless, then, surely? Without reading the thing, you cannot know which important bits to tell the LLM to retain; if it can't manage that itself, it's useless.
If a standard prompt gives you the wrong or spurious answer, the model is not a good model. In 2026, we should not be having to engineer a summarize prompt.
Liquid meals in a bottle, short form videos, mainlining compressed information... all "more efficient", but lacking the colour and texture that makes things interesting and enjoyable. Maybe that's all worth sacrificing, but what are people actually doing with all the time this saves? From what I can tell it just seems to be more of the same.
People tend to spend about a third of their lives working for someone else, a third sleeping and the remaining third split between relaxing and working for themselves. This seems invariant. As people earn more money they just buy more stuff, they have no idea what to do with the extra time from not working as much so just keeping walking the hedonic treadmill.
If you can ingest compressed forms of ten self help books in the time it would have taken you to read one, does that mean you can now evaluate them all together, or include the best bits of all of them? Or are you really just addicted to trying to "get on top" and wasting your precious life away sitting at a computer talking to a fake person?
Don't know if you did it on purpose or not, but this is hilarious.
Thought so too lol
Self help books are the most filler heavy books. They often have a useful point, but they just don't need to be a book much of the time. This is unfortunate for the authors who have often put significant time into producing the information. Technical manuals typically need all of their content due to the level of detail, and novels need all of their content because it's the content which provides enjoyment. For self help, people just want to know what they need to do to make their lives better? Maybe the work has to move into academia where we have existing infrastructure for rewarding non profitable work for the good of the public?
I disagree about the filler. People who read self help books are there for the journey, to feel they too can take on the challenge. Otherwise that brief document about how to fix yourself becomes something without substance, that can't be attached to real changes that are needed.
The most effective self help books I can recommend are Easy Way to Stop Smoking, which needs all the preamble to get the message to your addicted brain, and Marcus Aurelius' Meditations. I'd posit that reading just one of his entries doesn't leave you with a lifetime commitment to stoicism.
404 on your link
I think it may be a meta statement on people who summarize with AI on others behalf. The value doesn’t exist and we’re left wondering if the tool user is making a statement, or messed up, or can’t do anything unless claude does it for them.
It is the same thing with documentaries.
Youtube killed them because it is just a faster delivery of knowledge and information. For super-specific questions chatbots are even faster.
Idk, the average youtube video repeats the same question five times, dragging shit out with filler as much as possible to reach the required 10 minutes to qualify for two ad runs. It's become a horrible race to the bottom in terms of quality in recent years, though unlike TV documentaries at least it's possible to skip to the conveniently marked highlight these days.
There was this recent Tom Scott interview where he recommends people start their video with quesiton A, ask B before A is resolved, then when that happens, already ask C, etc. and solve C and D at the very end to keep the viewer engaged. Most people seem to just ask A over and over and over with filler in between until the viewer's head explodes.
It's funny. Back when we had it so good, I absolutely hated that aspect of a Tom Scott video.
To some extent, his awkward personality didn't help matters either, but he was the only one covering a niche topic I didn't know I cared about. So much of his catalog is unimitable.
After his hiatus and return, I must humbly recognize his genius and real passion.
“And as for B, well, your guess is as good as mine”
In my opinion documentaries are too short anyway. I greatly prefer "The Great Courses" vs a 1-2 hour documentary.
There I can listen to a 6 hours about the Olmec civilization.
I think you're confusing video-essays with documentaries tbf.
The notion that 'My Octopus Teacher' or 'Boys State' - to name just two award winners of the last decade - could be replaced with some Youtube AI-narrated slop is just disingenuous in the extreme.
Not to mention that you can also ask LLM to summarize any of his books, and get the gist.
Reading an entire book may be more beneficient for habit forming, but most readers probably don't care about this.
One man's filler is another's phatic communication (if done well and not to pad)
[dead]
IMO the WORST thing you can use chat for is advice in a field you are unfamiliar with. It's way better at search and grunt work when you already know what you want.
All IMO:
Syncophancy (and in extreme cases AI psychosis) is a huge problem when you take advice from AI.
It's risky to learn a new field as you often just fall for a superficial, glib explaination and just nod along without learning. AI will do that because humans will train it to - everyone likes a pop science style easy and fake explaination.
OTOH if you just want advice, the AI will need context. Advice is worthless without context. And the AI will use the context to tell you what the dumb human (you) will agree with - that's implicitly what humans want it to do, it's how we will train the AI.
I don't see it getting better either - as long as a human in the loop fine tunes the AI, the smarter the AI the better it is at telling the human what the human wants.
Scary stuff if a major current use of AI is self help.
Chiming in here to say that while yes, often AI/LLMs will tend to agree with you, I have also definitely had many (high context) conversations where the AI/LLM disagreed strongly with me. The danger is in people not having a parallel thread running in their mind while using these systems about 'how agreeable is it being with me right now?' as a meta-axis along which to evaluate the information.
idk. it helped me fix my washing machine.
But that's a concretey very well scoped problem with a clear truth state. Anything mental has none of these properties. Ask an AI if you have depression or another disorder, and keep asking with more details and back and forth, and a few hours later you might be convinced.
Ask that a book... Better?
4 hour work weeks is:
Draw circle: Set up a highly successful business (prerequisite)
Rest of owl: Delegate stuff (what the book says to do).
It is pretty useless. Not suprised sales have declined especially since startups probably got harder since when it was written.
You can summarize any “self-help” books which I read in single pages. And most of them even in a few sentences without loosing any information from them.
One of the first which I’ve ever read fully was Getting Things Done after a Lifehacker article eons ago. The book had zero additional information compared to the article. Back then I didn’t know that these books information density was almost zero, and still is.
Last year I bought a book about eating well. I could read only the first half, because it repeated until then basically a single mantra: eat fermented and macronutrient rich food. This was repeated different ways, without adding anything to this summary. Sometimes literally the same sentences. Reasons were not provided, or was on the level “I knew somebody whom this helped”, without even trying to convince me that it was really this what helped them, and not anything else.
The dietary guidelines from the US is a way better read, and that’s free. Even the current, clearly politically distorted one.
Maybe, that’s the main reason. Free information is better or at least good enough. I haven’t learned anything from these kinds of books which was not available freely (and legally… because you can obviously get almost any books illegally).
This is a brilliant summary. I recall following Michael Lynch's journey while he built TinyPilot (https://tinypilotkvm.com/). I was blown away by how hard he grinded to build that business. It just never let up -- the competition. As successful as he was, the exit value seemed like a let down (I say that as a fan!). So, I agree: "Draw circle" by far the hardest part. For "rest of owl", just hire other (grind-ier/thirst-ier) people to do it for you!
Perhaps, but them how do you explain the claimed pattern that sales had been unusually consistent until just recently?
Well, the If Books Could Kill episode about The 4 Hour Workweek came out September 2023... https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-4-hour-workweek/id...
They took him down, good work gents!
Hard to tell without numbers to back it up. The author's baseline is the year chatGPT was released, i have no idea at what rate they've been declining before that.
> prescriptive nonfiction is the canary in the coal mine
Self-help is not the canary for other genre. Self-help doesn't comme with significant art. Their consumer gets a better experience through LLM that extracts the substance and contextualizes it.
It doesn't tell what will happen at scale regarding fiction and other content where people tends to expect a genuine human contribution. Sure you can get success with AI-written or AI-assisted writing, but it doesn't mean human written books will no longer catch interest.
Some of the best books on JS which were online went recently off-line for that reason. Blog post by the author: https://2ality.com/ (Dr. Axel Rauschmayer)
I read the blog post. It is interesting to me. First, a dumb question: Does putting your website behind a Cloudflare "human tester thingy" help prevent this situation? If not, continue reading. Let's construct a parallel universe. Suppose AI/LLM scaped all JavaScript content except his website(s). Would the outcome look different? I doubt it. In the end, technical books are dead. They will be replaced with AI/LLMs. Even Stack Overflow (which I started using in 2010) effectively killed my need to buy expensive technical books from O'Reilly. And AI/LLMs basically killed Stack Overflow.
This makes me indescribably sad. Dr. Rauschmayer's books and articles helped me tremendously early in my career. I owe him a debt of gratitude.
I have read countless self help books where I complained about fluffy filler material and the book should have been fifty pages instead of two hundred. Not a surprise to me that a topic distilled through an LLM is a better experience.
Or youtube. The youtube video essays can still be way too much waffle, but it's at least capped out at about 30 minutes and cost you nothing so you can quit if it's not useful.
For better or worse, AI is beating on video essays too.
Maybe my attention span is truly stuffed, but I really can't stand it when a video essay is the most succinct source on a topic - waiting for someone to express their thoughts in speech, with sometimes slow cadences or their own waffling, combined with sponsor segments (yes I use SponsorBlock, but sometimes or on other devices ads get through), etc.
So I use AI summary for a lot of informational videos now unless I actually am watching it for the entertainment and production value. I don't need 10 minutes on "this will change the way we look at XYZ" that has only 1 minute of real information in it.
I am honestly curious why ABC produces such high quality content that is given away for (nearly) free on YouTube. I would hazard a guess that they spend no less than 10K USD to produce each episode (surely more, to be honest -- skilled labour isn't cheap in Australia). Does anyone know if these videos are also aired on Australian broadcast TV? (That would help for advertising revenue.)
[1] YouTube playlist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN7rBX00xjQ&list=PLDTPrMoGHs...
They are provided for free because a quick scroll through the playlist shows they are soft propaganda tools for Australia's geopolitical interests. These video essays "explaining" geopolitics are the contemp version of Buggs Bunny and Donald Duck making fun of Japan and Germany.
What are Australia's geopolitical interests?
They are more tolerable as background noise on the TV while you are cooking. Where the length is a feature so you don't have to queue up something else for a while.
Can you imagine the day when an AI/LLM-assisted tool can watch a YouTube video at super speed and then clip X% of the video to show you the best parts? I can see it coming. It might really hurt YouTube revenues.
Recently, I had a similar idea when I tried to watch the TV series "SAS: Rogue Heroes". I quit after a few episodes because it was so damn slow. I spent most of each episode skipping pointless dialog and overly long landscape/driving scenes that added little to the story. I am sure the two seasons (10-20 hours) could easily be condensed into a much more exciting 2-4 hour film. I have heard the saying that the hardest type of novel to write is the shortest one. Constraint forces an author to carefully select the words, characters, and storyline that make the most compelling novel. When I was younger, films were rarely more than 90 minutes. These days, so many of them are more than 120 minutes with very little gained... just the same story was watered down over 30+ more minutes.
There was a tivo competitor called ReplayTV that would record tv and then replay clipping out commercials.
They got sued out of existence.
The trick is to use a hundred shell companies so they can't figure out who to sue. As I said recently... it seems like everything worth doing is illegal
that future is here!
I set up my claw to be able to do that and it’s infinitely better than searching through hours of content myself.
I set it up as experts on topics I already know and like to reduce noise. So I can say “ask [NAME] what I should do about XYZ” and I get back contextualized info and cited video clips
Came here to say the same thing. How could the author possibly illustrate the point of the book without at least 4 case studies and a reference to prehistoric humans?
I work for a large online news publisher, one of the oldest in the US. Our traffic is down 50% in year. We likely won’t survive for much longer.
What do the AI vendors think is going to happen when the content creation ecosystem drops off a cliff? Do they realize they will drop with them?
We are heading for a future where the internet is frozen in time with a cutoff date created when the LLM summaries started.
How is the email newsletter business/department doing? Are people opening/engaging with your emails or that's declining too?
People use LLMs for news?
I suspect AI summaries are just reducing peoples need to click through on anything, possibly.
Long ago a friend of a friend described a job interview at an ice cream / chocolate shop in a local mall.
The interviewer asked something like "who is our competition here?", and the friend of friend listed off other places in the mall to get ice cream, candy, deserts, etc.
Wrong answer. The ice cream and chocolate store was in competition with every other store in the mall. Time or money spent at the GAP can't be time or money spent here.
---
Whether or not people are using LLMs for news specifically, any new, large eater of eyeball-time is going to hurt the business landscape for all other eyeball harvesters.
> Wrong answer. The ice cream and chocolate store was in competition with every other store in the mall. Time or money spent at the GAP can't be time or money spent here.
Was the interviewer a macroeconomics grad student working his way through school at the ice cream shop? Because I can't imagine anyone but a macroeconomics student aggregating all demand into a generic concept of "time and money" without regard for qualitative distinctions between entirely different product categories.
Did he also think the shop was in competition with United Airlines or the local dentist's office, because time and money spent on a trans-Atlantic flight or getting a root canal was time and money that couldn't be spent at the ice cream shop?
> Whether or not people are using LLMs for news specifically, any new, large eater of eyeball-time is going to hurt the business landscape for all other eyeball harvesters.
Which demonstrates that the model of treating the content users are looking for as bait so you can sell their attention to someone else was always an adversarial one in the first place.
Users themselves were never looking for time sinks, they were looking for specific information or experiences that they've had to increasingly endure time sinks to get to due to the perverse incentives in the social media landscape.
AI destroying the viability of "eyeball harvesters" as a business model is an opportunity for people actually creating interesting content, not engagement-maximizing filler, to pivot back to pitching quality directly to their users. That's exactly the point that Tim Ferriss was making in the article: he points out that he already prefers to sell his books to a niche audience of 10,000 readers who actually find value in them than try to engage with 10 million passers-by on social media.
> Wrong answer. The ice cream and chocolate store was in competition with every other store in the mall. Time or money spent at the GAP can't be time or money spent here.
I would have argued that this is also the wrong answer, as without the GAP to bring people to the mall, nobody would be trafficking their little ice cream store at all. Did a mall vendor really not understand the reason they had opened up shop in a mall?
Maybe the ice cream was just that good, and GAP was lucky to be able to sell their polo shirts to ice cream enthusiasts who'd otherwise have bought them at Old Navy.
As such I don't. Nevertheless, it explains me what's going on better than the news articles.
Also, I think we have oversold the concept of story-telling. Many news articles start with story telling and take a while before coming to the point.
There are entire websites built around that, several have been posted to HN. There was even one (I think real news channel) who experimented with generating fake video of fake anchors to deliver “news”.
Remember a few years back when many of us were shocked to learn that...
people use Facebook for news?
I don't do news at all. If it's important, someone in my life who spends time on social media will tell me.
Most of it isn't news, it's filtered opinion serving someone's interest
> 2025 was the first big drop, 2026 looks more severe, and the only thing that’s really changed in that timeframe is the acceleration of AI.
It all hinges on this statement. But I’m not sure it’s really AI that’s doing it, and not just a contributing factor. There’s higher cost of living, inflation, economic uncertainty, seemingly looming financial crisis, etc. A lot of impactful things happened!
Weirdly I would expect those things to boost sales. At least of certain type of content at right sale price. People will always look for easy solutions. And self-help is exactly that. Or maybe we are already over the horizon where no hope is left...
I doubt people who need desperate help buy these books. Desperate help meaning if you can’t pay rent, medical bills, maintain a family, etc.
Yes, I'd be interested in seeing this compared to book sales in general.
I think this whole genre is an issue of theory of constraints.
-Before the internet, space to publish anything was scarce (and so were methods of finding specific information if it did exist), so newspapers/magazines were valuable and textbooks/guides were great media.
It was difficult to find extremely specific information because a lot of information was so niche it wasn't worth publishing, or because it wasn't worth the effort to find something SO specific.
-The internet made publishing space infinite and search easy, so specific information became super valuable, e.g. "how to do x in 5 steps" blogs. They architected information in ways that wouldn't have been worth publishing in a regional newspaper or small-circulation magazine, but was economically viable at worldwide scale and when publishing was free.
This is the era this article describes.
-Then everything went mainstream and the above production of content was often more frequently done by large companies, with bloggers and other individuals filling even smaller niches
-Now that LLMs have vacuumed all of that up and you can create even more specific content for free, instantly (e.g. you no longer need a generic tutorial on "how to start a business" but summon one that already knows your prior skills etc.)
This has made the previous era of "how-to" content less useful because you can decide whether you want expert/beginner/intermediate level content and what personality etc.)
Now the frontier is first-person narratives and opinions, because even specific information is no longer the constraint.
> Find your 1,000 True Fans. If you started off doing this well but have meandered, it’s time to revisit. Get very clear on who those 1,000 people are.
Well this is the difficult part. You can 10x the number of followers and still have less than 50 true fans.
On the actual content, I am actually not surprised at all. These AI systems are surprisingly convincing when giving personal advise - for better or worse.
depending on the medium one might be better served with a single middling fan with a lot of disposable income, then 10 true with little money available.
With a book you cannot do "that's not what I wanted to read, I'll adjust the prompt."
followers is a shit metric that only advertisers care for but they also want like 50-100k bare minimum. You need to find 1k people who are willing to give you money, or go out of their way to advocate for you.
That is a better frame of mind - it is not 1000 true fans but a 1000 customers.
That's the exact idea!
https://kk.org/thetechnium/1000-true-fans/
I think AI will accelerate this, but I think YouTube, TikTok, and podcasts have splintered the market so much there’s not as much space for mega self-help stars anymore, just a lot of middle class ones.
+1 that motivation reel on IG hit so hard...
AI is likely correlation not causation. The generation that resonated with the self-help books has aged out. Short form vids on YT, TT, IG taking mind-share is likely the bigger cause.
If self-help was just about reading the insights then millions of people would have "won friends and influenced people", and those book summary apps would be billion dollar companies. They'are not
Self-help books are absolutely worthless if you don't internalise their insights, practice applying it into your life on a daily basis until it becomes muscle memory, and actually spend time on it. The insight is never actually the bottleneck.
AI can surface insights better and faster than any book. But speed is the problem, not the solution. Books are on the contrary slower, and slowness is the point. Without discpline, AI might be a worse choice.
For deeper topics, I don't think books are going away anytime soon.
Something not mentioned that links to both LLM training AND drop in book sales... Anna's Archive
I would be extremely surprised if piracy accounts for any serious dent in the sales of books.
The implication is that the self-help books were scraped from Anna's Archive to train the LLMs, thus the content in the books has been integrated into the LLM and may be regurgitated on command. With the content then being available straight from an LLM, there's no need to buy the books.
If this was true, they wouldn't be getting sued and aggressively pursued for takedowns
" they wouldn't be getting sued and aggressively pursued for takedowns"
I don't think so. That behavior only tells you the modest cost of sending takedown notices/threatening letters is less than the (supposed) lost revenue. Kids I know (I'm a teacher) don't seem at all aware of it when complaining about textbook costs and I kind of vaguely hint they look online for it--nothing like the popularity of napster.
To get the DOJ and FBI to move on on this takes a lot more than submitting paperwork, costs a lot more too.
Suing is a lucrative business in America, so much so that there are entire businesses dedicated to it. It doesn't have to actually protect anything.
I still buy paper books and audit books even with Anna's Archive.
Couple of other anecdotal data points:
1. Guy I know who is an exec coach says that a chatbot can do a lot of what he does. 2. I am absolutely seeing lots of people asking ChatGPT a question and treating its answer as the truth.
So I can well believe that, in an age where you can get a quick answer to anything for free, that the market for books is collapsing.
Having said that, I also suspect that many of these self-help books are effectively a blog post stretched out over hundreds of pages, so maybe a decline in their sales is no bad thing.
> I also suspect that many of these self-help books are effectively a blog post stretched out over hundreds of pages, so maybe a decline in their sales is no bad thing.
You suspect right. I usually compare them to a pamphlet, but a blog post works too. They’re mostly one core idea padded with interminable stories to illustrate the point. Instead of wasting your money and time on the book, search YouTube for a talk the author has given about it (the more popular the book, the more of the same talk there will be) and watch that. It’ll hit all of the major points.
Executive coaches always kind of perplexed me. I’ve tried a few ofer the years and while it was nice to chat with someone smart I found their advice was pretty hit or miss as I read a lot and most of the basic stuff seemed familiar.
So I always wondered how they stayed in business and that they seemed at risk for disruption if anyone cared about their market.
So I guessed that maybe they’re for people who don’t want to spend time finding and reading.
I also was only spending $250/hour so maybe the really good ones cost much more.
I agree. And the funny thing is the most enjoyable part of LLMs is it's nice to chat with someone smart.
This stat is limited to print-books only. He talks about all sorts of other forms of content, but seems to mysteriously miss audio books.
If this source [0] is true then 65% of audiobooks (in 2022) were non-fiction. Likewise that the audiobook industry has grown by nearly 3x since 2022. So, by my math, it's simply that people prefer to listen to self-help books (which matches my own experience).
[0] - https://electroiq.com/stats/audiobook-statistics/
How does this
> If this source [0] is true then 65% of audiobooks (in 2022) were non-fiction. Likewise that the audiobook industry has grown by nearly 3x since a2022.
Lead to
> by my math, it's simply that people prefer to listen to self-help books (which matches my own experience).
I'm not sure I see the math there, when most nonfiction is not self-help books (and an increase in the broader genre says nothing about a specific niche)
He does mention audiobooks, see quoted below
> But what about ebooks and audio? Looking at all formats (print + ebook + audio) for the catalog in 2025, the second half of the year was down ~45% versus the first half.
This compares to 46% on print only
Even more than audiobooks self-help has become the preserve of substack blogs, podcasts and YouTube channels. A lot of the low end of older gen media has moved over to the low end of modern media.
And my experience is that the freebie books available through your local library's online service absolutely pollute the available offerings with self-help and associated types of books.
Self-help non-fiction books killed themselves by focusing on entertainment, in the form of amusing anecdotes, rather than substance. Most self-help books could be reduced to a 3-by-5 card without losing any of the core information.
Conversely: the self-help nonfiction book existed because it was the only practical way to monetize "good advice" or "good ideas" at scale. Now you can do a podcast or a youtube series and try to make money from advertising/affiliates/etc, but for a very long time, "buy my book" was the only game in town
The article gives anecdotal evidence that combining personal stories with advice in a book is more effective than delivering distilled information.
The author even mentions this. Why watch a 20-minute video when you can just scrub to the 40 seconds you need?
A lot of self-help books fall into this category. But if you go to a publisher and say that you're going to publish a 20-page book, they're going to laugh you out of the room.
In my corner of the internet people started to recommend reading fiction rather than self-help. Books like the count of montecristo for example, where the characters overcome through perseverance, patience and planning.
The criticism of self-help books in my little internet bubble is that if you've read one you've read them all. So why not go for works of fiction that are time-tested and are greatly entertaining and nourishing?
I like your corner of the internet
For what it’s worth, I personally discovered something similar with another category of nonfiction books - economics and business. I read a lot of these circa 10-15 years ago and the rate of new signal id get from each new one eventually became low enough that I stopped reading in that category altogether.
[dead]
I think, considering length of "self-help content", there is spectrum, and in the both ends of such spectrum there is conflict of interests - audience vs authors.
In the first end - short-form content: yt shorts, tiktoks, tweets, ig posts - "authors" have interested to just have more engagement, so we end up with ragebait, fringe ideas, etc - everything for just viewers count go up, the substance doesn't matter at all.
In the other end - "long-form" content: books (usually thick ones), writers for some reason need to fill extra content alongside the substance, some off-topic stuff, I'm not professional writer/editor, but I suppose it's protection from some nitpickers, adding some scientific basis to look more solid (don't know why: author can pick any research that support's book idea, even already debunked), maybe there is requierement from publishers, editors, etc.
The sweet spot here are thin books here, but even that case they cannot help much, because even a therapy sometimes cannot help for someone (heck, there is a real person trying help, not just text with ideas!)
I'm going to admit that I tend to hit a brick wall when these books tell me I need to fill out a worksheet if I really want to make a difference. You're telling me I have to do homework now? But ai can give me feedback on my thoughts anyway, directly what I'm interested in, and provide sources, even though it's probably patronizing me? Not a difficult decision.
I’m not going to defend the self-help industry, but your dismissal made me think of how Craig Ferguson described bad rehabs VS good rehabs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZVWIELHQQY
Yes, of course you need to put in work to enact change. The bigger the change, the more work you need to put in.
That desire for a quick and easy solution to hard problems is exactly what lead to the proliferation of scams.
Craig Ferguson is magnetic isn't he? Great monologue.
I think with ai, when you get feedback, you are putting in a form of work though. You're practicing recall of previous concepts and having them reinforced while you can get on a narrower and narrower path of what worked and what didn't.
Granted, I have no clue whether this is better than other forms of doing the work like going to a support group or filling out worksheets and journaling, but I do think it is beneficial.
[dead]
There's a misconception about self help books that they teach you "tricks" that you can instantly use to become a completely different person. A lot of the good ones teach you principles that you need to practice constantly to improve. There's hard work and risk taking involved which many people that buy the books are not prepared to do.
The first self help book that actually helped me was How to make friends and influence people. It was hard for me to overcome my shyness and look people in the eye and smile, but with constant practice I got better at it. Taking an interest in people or being agreeable these are all basic principles that genuinely good communicators use, the book just points you in the right direction you have to apply the hard work and courage.
Good self-help books are rare but they do exist.
Self help books definitely have a bad reputation, often with good reason - lots of cliches, preachy, etc.
My favorite advice (and central message I think) from "how to win friends" is to really have the other person's interests at heart, not to try to scam or game them.
Some of my other favorite self help-ish books - a guide to the good life - thank you for arguing - algorithms to live by
[dead]
I think the acquisition of skills need human guidance,AI has created a quality problem making human self-help books more valuable.
From a new language to public speaking to media training.Some books need more than structure by AI, that is professional knowledge and real-life experience. AI has a vast information ocean, yet a travel book helped me prepare my underwater kit because WiFi does not work underwater, saving me a lot of money I could have wasted on wireless kit.
Take AI apps for teaching languages,Langua is a good example, I think the most successful ones combine human instructors for insights and guidance with AI for drills prescribed and calibrated by the tutor. AI drills are not the same.
When Tim Ferriss (net worth of ~ $100m?) of all people gets back to a humble "find your 1000 true fans" what chance do I have? :')
Sturgeon’s Law abounds.
I’ve always found that most books within or similar to Ferris’ genre hold a nice message but are 90 fluff.
He picks on summarization as the sort circuit and claims the lived experience imbued within his books is the real draw. Not disagreeing here. LLMs unpack the intentional content stretching rigmarole authors go through as a function of publishers requirements to produce something that is minimally viable to publish.
Some seemingly important questions that come to my mind in a future where LLMs, ad-based revenue, and attention-as-currency prevail:
how do you create a knowledge-based product valuable/compelling enough to make people want to pay for it? And what is the best value-prop way to monetize it? (For BOTH producer and consumer)
Is length a necessary requirement for substantiveness?
If so, where on the spectrum of long-content_vs_short-content should it live?
Unfortunately, I im not confident the internet can fundamentally diverge from an ad-based or subscription monetization model in its current form. IMO, Michael I Jordan has a lot of refreshing ideas on how to build better marketplaces that sustainably benefit producers and consumers (as opposed to mostly just platform-maintaining-rent-seekers).
The rise in sales of GLP-1 products also coincides with the decline in self-help books. Those products are highly effective at delivering some of the hardest self-help outcomes, so why buy a book when you can inject?
Great point actually.
I'd like to point out the irony of that blog post checking all the boxes of LLM-generated text, and I'm surprised I don't really see anyone talking about it here. Did Tim Ferriss (who's supposed to be an author) use a LLM to write this? If he actually writes like that, perhaps the reason why his sales have gone downhill is that people have noticed they don't need to pay to get the same result.
Almost zero readers buy a book based on the title or content alone. They buy Dr.Phil because they saw him on TV and know a bit about who he is. On the other end of the spectrum, there's people buying books because they respect and admire the author's other work.
AI can never touch the human interest angle of authors, the best it can do is hope to trick people temporarily, and that doesn't last long.
Ask yourself, how many "self-help" books are published by Anonymous?
I think there are more nuggets of wisdom in great fiction than these self help books.
Maybe if someone put together a list of fiction books that correlate strongly with self-help categories, it would be immensely useful.
A great fiction book helps you vicariously experience a character's life while self-help is an instruction manual which sadly does not provide the same form of connection.
Haruki Murakami's entire body of work is basically self-therapy[1] and personally I feel it's been very therapeutic. The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle is an excellent place to start.
[1]: https://bloomsburyliterarystudiesblog.com/2022/02/i-always-s...
None of Ferris' books is younger than 10 years. Used copies are plentiful, hardly a library who has not been touched.
At some time, the market has been satisfied.
That might be true but why the steep drop rather than a slow decline?
Yea the shift is right in front of our eyes. It's a "if everyone is super, no one will be" situation. People will simply gravitate towards that with less supply, and that's usually smaller but higher quality content(whatever content means for you whether entertainment or software). The line will split in two ways, some will start making higher quality content which stands out beyond the noise and branching in ways that we've never seen before, and the others will chase the higher but more fraudulent numbers of easily generated content.
As an aside, I've been using Claude to search for blog posts from people who went through similar experience to mine. Then use Eleven Readers app which converts the voice to text to listen to it. It's been much better for self therapy vs talking to an LLM.
Most of these non-fiction, non-technical self-help books are just trash.
I say non-technical because the ones about specific subjects like "What to expect in the first year" etc. can be pretty good, but the more general "improve your life" ones are usually awful.
I suspect AI is replacing my need for productivity content much faster than it’s replacing my need for books.
I read fewer blog posts, fewer newsletters, fewer “10 lessons from…” articles, and fewer productivity videos than I did three years ago.
But I still buy books.
The first casualties seem to be the intermediaries, not necessarily the original sources.
This is me too. Just finished the latest Dungeon Crawler Carl book, bought on day 1. Have completely replaced Google, stackoverflow, medium, digital ocean documentation, etc. Only HN remains and honestly it’s less to keep my finger on the pulse and more habit than anything these days. Went from a large part of my consumption to zero visits since I got Claude code.
Makes me wonder what’s going to happen to AI’s results if all these content streams dry up.
So, probably AI had a significant impact here, but I noticed this myself, a non-AI using person, where I bought fewer books than before. There are many reasons for this, financial ones but also practical ones (don't have to story physical books). As well as lack of time; I need to manage my time better, so I have to skip on reading too many new books until I have finished reading the existing stack. Plus the www also has a lot of information. AI may have been killing more humans here (it is skynet after all), but the underlying problems started being serious way before AI already, in my opinion. Also google search being ruined by Google; it is so useless nowadays.
He speaks to three examples: YT videos, podcasts, and newsletters/etc. With YT videos and podcasts, I either yank the transcript and pipe it through whisper.cpp, or with YT videos, I'll use the built-in "Ask [Gemini]" and ask it to summarize.
> How-to YouTube videos. Why scrub through a 24-minute video to find the 40 seconds you need, when an AI can watch it for you and hand you the steps?
Why make a 24-minute Youtube video instead of an article with proper navigation?
This is slightly off-topic, but this is a pet-peeve of mine. I believe that for most practical purposes hypertext beats video:
- you can Ctrl-F through text (well, now you sort of can search through a video, but it is much less efficient)
- you can quickly skim through text to find what you need
- text can have proper navigation (chapters etc)
- texts can be linked to each other. Link could lead to a specific part of the text (proper navigation)
- text is much quicker and cheaper to produce
Yet a lot of people make and watch serious educational and informational videos. Why? I don't get it.
The right 15 seconds of video can be extremely helpful with household tasks. I'm thinking specifically of super-tactile ones like getting such-and-such panel off the car or appliance so that you can get at the bit you're looking to replace. Those can really be worth a thousand words.
Of course I'd prefer a blog post with many looping, silent 5-15 second gifs and no extraneous like-and-subscribe and life-story-delivery. But c'est la vie.
> Of course I'd prefer a blog post with many looping, silent 5-15 second gifs and no extraneous like-and-subscribe and life-story-delivery. But c'est la vie.
This feels like something you could vibe code up (creating the blog posts from YouTube videos). Fascinating times.
Perhaps, but the recently shared vibe-coded blog posts I've seen on HN have been… not that great.
Wouldn't be surprised if this is viable by next year though.
Between the bloat and bad UI in both modern OSes and modern websites, I'm seriously considering if my next OS will be a command line pointing to an LLM where most web browsing is rendered out in plain text (perhaps LCARS, just for fun?), and any apps that actually need a UI are just-in-time generated as each feature is needed.
After all, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VibeOS already exists.
Yep, for home improvement and work on cars, I’ll take the video every time. Everything else, if only a video is available, I’ll ask Grok to summarize it so I don’t have to sit through it.
But last weekend I had to remove a trim panel under the hood of my car to extract a dead rodent, and I was wondering how to get those round clips off without breaking them. This video helped: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K_rsVDj5s1o&ra=m
The AI summary of the same video explains the exact steps but doesn’t show them actually being done.
It's because you get better ad rates on Youtube than if you made a website and posted the information there. Additionally, the current state of the web (Google only exposing SEO blogspam, AI overviews making it so ~60% of searches end without the user clicking on a site) pushes people further and further away from making websites.
Being able to skim, filter and comprehend large amounts of text is much more rare than you might think. More than half of Americans read below sixth grade level and a fifth is functionally illiterate, struggling even with the most basic reading tasks. Videos are the only way for these people to consume any kind of information.
Isn't it obvious? The creator gets paid much more, in whatever currency they care about:
- ad revenue - youtube algorithm placement - sponsored content - street cred
With an article, if you're lucky google will base their AI overview on it, and the creator gets bupkis.
It's the money that comes from getting people to watch ads, generally speaking. If people write an article, even if it blows up all over the internet, nothing happens. If they make a little shitty short that appeals to kids, with a thumbnail where they make a stupid face, they get a a chunk of actual money. I imagine it's real hard to not get influenced by that.
But as understandable as it may be, a clown whose job is to keep people entertained until the ad break can talk about a lot of things, but cannot be something else. This clown talks about math, the other one just rubs the microphone over materials and then says "smash that like button", but they all have the same purpose and can only differentiate themselves by how much engagement they create. The platform is the payload, the content is whatever.
It's a mixed bag. When you're (for example) repairing a lawnmower, being able to see parts from different angles and hear what it sounds like is very useful.
When you're trying to repair a Playstation motherboard, you gonna need some photos and text.
One would make a long education video to hold eyeballs longer that can lead to more ad revenue (if that's your goal and your video is sufficiently entertaining).
I've commented about this before [1] but a lot of my simple searches lead to monstrous walls of text with tangential information about the query. The answer is buried well past a simple ctrl-F on the page. It definitely varies for domain though.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45830763
YouTube handles distribution. Some people search for information by typing their question in the YouTube search box. Whatever article you wrote won't surface there. You have to post to many social media sites if you want to show up everywhere people are looking.
A lot of people are functionally illiterate. Those people are online now. We have image, video, and sound based social media for them. They send each other videos and voice messages instead of texts.
Not only that, they're creating content for each other. People who can barely compose an email run TikTok accounts and YouTube channels and podcasts with audiences in the millions.
I don't even know if I think this is a bad thing. Sure, their education system failed them, but they need to know how to do things, and they often have information worth sharing. Providing video tutorials almost becomes a question of accessibility (in the a11y sense) in some contexts.
There can be a lot to gain from the graphics and audio, depending on the topic.
A certain portion of people just prefer learning from video instead of text.
And audio. This also explains the popularity of podcasts, the descendants of a century or so of radio shows.
I thought the explanation for podcasts was people who drive to and from work, and don't care for current radio shows.
More than just your commute. Any downtime where you are doing a mindless chore is prime podcast time.
Personally, I don't care for podcasts much around the house. I listen to them much less now that I don't commute.
> text is much quicker and cheaper to produce
I agree that a huge percent of 10+ minute YouTube videos would be better off as a few sentences and a bulleted list.
The success of YouTube and TikTok has shown that video is by far the easiest way for the average person to share whatever they know and have a chance of getting it seen. Where would the average person even post a article?
>Yet a lot of people make and watch serious educational and informational videos
a picture is worth a thousand words. Of course your text article can have pictures, but how can you sure you include all the "useful" pictures. Then there is animation which is impossible to do with static picture.
>Why make a 24-minute Youtube video instead of an article with proper navigation?
Because increasingly many people wont even stoop to reading an article, but will put on some bs video - even for tutorials
I wonder why not write an article for people with correct information. Then have the LLM create 5 articles with slightly wrong information with generated plausible URLs.
> Why make a 24-minute Youtube video instead of an article with proper navigation?
Which one is more likely to result in more ad revenue for you?
It’s because large fractions of internet users today are functionally illiterate and can’t follow an article.
Yeah since most are visual learners. Of course reading is quicker.
Text is not cheaper to produce. Most people can type out a lot of drivel but something worth reading takes practice and talent to write.
>Why? I don't get it
Because articles make no money?
Because, money. Nothing else.
I'm more curious how Publisher's Weekly defines "sales" in this era of subscription plans (e.g. Kindle Unlimited).
Some of this probably isn't just "AI" but the quantified/journaled lifestyle trends. Do Oura rings and Apple watches impact self help as much as basic health questions on Google and routine doctor visits?
It feels more like a broader information abundance and a more educated consumer base that started over at least a decade ago. AI's impact is hard to measure since it's just the hot feature resting atop existing tech. It certainly did none of the heavy lifting to nudge people this direction.
AI is probably only a small portion of it. I’m betting most self-help content is consumed via short form video these days and typically done by paid influencers. It’s just shifted from his outdated model
Still too narrow a take on what self help techniques are killable by ai. I also think self help as a bunch of life hacks and habits is precisely what’s wrong with the industry writ large. They are based on what sells in a capitalist system targeting the attention economy. Creating scarcity on supply side of attention(work longer) and demand side(addictive apps). Take Atomic Habits, one of the things it says is out of many is making the habit you want to form easy to do, e.g place sneakers and shorts next to your bed to make a habit to run in the morning. It presumes a lot about how exactly habits are actually internalized, retained and how one falls into or out of them. I’ve fallen in and out of such habits even after I did them for a while(months). Techniques are very ripe to disruption because people don’t quite understand or have time to understand or observe their own mental state, so hacks sell because you can do them(presumably) as a monkey would.
It’s not an electronic problem but an human first IRL interface problem. A shining example to the contrary is meditation practice like Vipassana. Saying you can kill that with AI is like saying “Gandalf is here and he explained to you the meaning of life and said now you don’t have to live or learn lessons anymore because you know I can always ask him”. Of course living the actual life is the whole point! It’s also why IRL experiences like classes and communities tend to work better when structured as lived experiences.
If this industry of self help books dies I won’t shed too many tears.
Self-help is 1 part information and 1 part magnetic point-of-view.
AI is better at personalized information, short-form content offers a snappier and more "real" point-of-view.
What I find most interesting is the appeal to authority aspect. Self-help always has had its gurus. If self-help is getting hit harder than other genres, I wonder what that says about brand trust.
EDIT: could also be that these books are kinda fads. I would expect them to have a shelf-life.
Hardly. I've read several good ones during the AI era and I'm still reading them.
However, that doesn't mean AI is useless for this type of thing. Its very, very good at acting as an "expert" to answer questions you may have after reading the book.
I'm also in an actual informal bookclub with a few friends. It started in the AI era, all nonfiction books and is still going strong.
Depending on the model and size of the book, its also possible to load the entire book into the context window and ask questions.
>The original content doesn’t exactly disappear; it just becomes raw material that most people never touch directly.
It does disappear. There is already much less expert knowledge shared after the breakdown of those platforms that used to be so good at encouraging it. Both what the clankers can regurgitate and what humans can find themselves on the internet is increasingly stale and thinned. My GPU can generate fairly good content now.. 2023 content.
Oh maybe his books are just seen as less relevant now. When times are good, people buy books like "4 hour work week" because they dream of a day when they might not have to work as much. When times are bad, and they face the very real risk of losing their job (if they haven't already), they have more pressing concerns like whether they can afford to buy groceries that week.
Humans already know what's good for them. Self-help books rarely contain new information. All they contain is motivation, depending on how well it's written. People could substitute it with chatGPT, but its unlikely to provide the same motivation. That's why you could ask chatGPT for the 10 most important lessons in the 4 day workweek, but that won't get you anywhere.
I disagree. There are a lot of counter intuitive things we’ve learned from psychology, and early childhood development. And I have learned some of them from books or in person training courses that made a difference.
Humans have know blocks for their own well being. Most struggle with probabilities or long term planning. But they are teachable skills.
I've read a bunch of what could be considered "self help" and while they often have a lot of fluff, they do have interesting points. Many of them reference actual research studies to back those points.
I just skip the motivational fluff and dig out the useful bits. Makes them very fast reads when you can skip majority of it.
My recommendation is to find a talk by the author online. It’s free and serves the same purpose.
For me sure I’ll get a summary of a book or some video but that’s more like let me find out if the whole thing is worth my time instead of replacing the medium. Everyone who has read a non fiction book once’s knows it’s not about what the summary alone can teach you.. it’s the story and the learning through pain and reflection
Probably not. And you certainly cannot use a retrospective analysis to answer this question.
What you needed was a survey.
So, not willing to put much time into researching this, but from a quick Google it looks like sales absolutely _exploded_ in the early 10s. This could be AI... or it could just be reversion to the mean as a fad died.
As I understood it, they were only a US thing anyway. Because of healthcare issues etc.
The other way AI is killing self-help nonfiction: people are generating entire self-help books using AI. The human written are always better, but it's impossible to tell from a book cover and short description.
> The human written are always better
I suspect that's not always true. There's so many self help books out there from totally unqualified people that I suspect an AI commingling data from multiple reputable sources may beat some of the most inappropriate books
Most self help books are useless if not harmful.
Now most are just a 300 page self pitch for some subscription or another product.
Most self help books are too general to be useful to anyone. You're writing your own guidebook for an audience of one.
Yep, if AI is killing the self-help book market, all I can say is good riddance.
Makes sense. Self-help books are kinda the human slop of the publishing business. Easily replaced by AI slop? Probably.
To be (slightly) more charitable to the genre and to AI, self-help books are a blog post's worth of content padded out to look worthy of the sticker price, so LLMs provide a fair bit of value in extracting the signal from the noise (assuming they do it accurately).
also assuming there's signal in that noise...
If you work for only 4 hours a week, what practical things could you complete and do you really like the things what you are doing?
If you really like to do the things, you will spend many hours on it.
Good to see a whole genre of scam artists and their books being displaced.
I never understood how anyone could write more than 40 pages of “self help”. Especially not for a general audience. All self help boils down to the very foundation of your worldview, all other advice stems from it.
All weight loss books, if they are truthful, boils down to: eat healthy, exercise more, everything in moderation. That doesn't really make you money, which is what the author actually want. Other categories are equally padded, or the topic has been sufficiently covered for 2000 years or more.
The whole spiel about "I just want to help others in the same situation" died with the Internet, because for the past 30 years it has been entirely feasible to publish your advice and guidance for for free. The books are just for money and fame.
It depends on the topic, of course. I have a self-help book for my computer science students that talks about the best way to get a computer science bachelor's it weighs in at 64 pages. It's too small to print, but it really doesn't need to be any bigger.
A lot of non-fiction fits in 50-100 pages or so. Longer than a magazine article. But it's not publishable through a publisher if it's less than 250-300 pages. One of the reasons I probably won't work through a publisher any longer.
It certainly has killed some people looking to it for self help.
People have already actioned most best practise health advice. Weight loss done, sleep fixed, healthy eating done, exercise done.
Only mental health and longevity remain outstanding.
LLMs can chew through all the latest in medical research papers, psychological research papers etc. and output better more targeted info for users.
No, they can’t, because LLMs cannot detect utter nonsensical bullshit.
https://theconversation.com/a-weird-phrase-is-plaguing-scien...
"Self-help" readers are probably moving from self-help books to llms because they give them the shallow "fix my life" and "get rich quick" answers they want at a faster rate. Now the redpillers have to think even less about why they are such losers.
Obviously this is mean but I do think "self-help" has been incredibly inflated by these people who think there are some sort of magic answers out there to solve everything about their life. And those people are now moving to short form redpill content and / or llms that gas them up.
Betteridge's law of headlines applies. "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." Why would anyone ask AI?
> [the numbers]
> Let that sink in for a minute.
Jesus Christ. Here is how AI relates to me—ooh, with suspense-driving one-sentence paragraphs and reflective commandments. Come on, in Q2 2026 this is still a thing?
The self-involved industry is in shambles.
> What’s actually going on?
Need the meander headlines. I told you what is going on. Now. Let me interpret what I just wrote for you.
It would be just boring if self-help books were down because people believe less in astrology and affirmations or something. Couldn’t write about the Zeitgeist that way.
---
I’m not just a cynic. I lived a former life as well. And self-help is something ranging from entertainment to fantasy to small chance of personal transformation. And for books, it’s a cheap hobby compared to one-on-one pscyhology. So would it make sense to replace that with a language soup? Not really. The idiosyncracy is the whole point, jesus.
People might get taken in by it. That doesn’t mean that it will work in the long run.
AIs and podcasts (which also grew a lot recently) are free alternatives, and pricing matters as much as attention.
Personally for me I realized I could learn everything from YouTube for free so I stopped buying most books, just to save money.
Everything is an exaggeration. A lot of things aren't on there and the searches/suggestions are warped, and exclude some of the better videos.
I can think of many subjects which are not well served. Scottish history certainly isn't. The only suggestions it tends to give are Scotland History Tours (who is quite good but surface level) and commentators like BBC (who are often way off the mark and have their own agendas)
I defininitely read fewer nonfiction books but not because of AI but because I like reading Littler Books.
I think the core problem of most self-help books is that at best, they're usually an article's worth of knowledge and insight stretched to book length for economic reasons.
To be fair, some people probably do benefit from, or at least enjoy, the history, examples and stories used to pad out the length. But in my career I've had to constantly learn new domains to varying depths at high velocity. A good LLM, properly prompted, can be an amazing self-learning tool. Before LLMs I'd often hire an expert, usually a post-doc or professor to spend 2-3 hours one-on-one answering my questions - and those sessions would move at very high-speed, making the investment worth it. For those who are experienced self-learners, an LLM can deliver 60-70% of that value. And, frankly, extracting the relevant knowledge out of the average self-help book is a vastly easier task than that.
self help books aren't really my thing, but I have to say I love the guy's attitude in that post.
I wonder if the '1,000 True Fans' concept, which is basically a traditional model, will still work these days. That aside, isn't the hacking style self help genre itself a kind of outdated relic? Honestly, I've read some of this author's books, and they have a distinctly optimistic 2000s to 2010s vibe. Over time, the delivery of knowledge and methodologies changes. Maybe the issue is that the content no longer fits the times.
Looking at the author's books, they're full of healthy living and optimistic narratives. In my view, maybe the problem isn't the old approach itself, but that we need to answer new questions. Like, 'How do I survive in an era where AI takes away jobs?'
And I think the most critical point in this post is this passage:
'What happens when 99% of the rigorously fact checked media is behind a paywall? The short answer: people skip it and ask the AI.'
We use AI for things we don't consider important. If that's the case, I think the key is to convince the public that what I do is something AI cannot replace.
Fiction books to follow soon? Will kids still sit down and read an assigned book when they can just prompt "generate a movie of Shelley's Frankenstein, faithful to the source, except as required by my_movie_preferences.md". Reading the text may become as rare as learning ancient Greek to read the Odyssey.
I'd like to think people will continue to read because reading is an inherently pleasurable activity, and because the medium captures nuance that can't be replicated in video.
However, the loss of reading self-help books surely will hurt no-one. It is an ill wind, etc ...
You say soon but what you just described is still sci-fi as far as I can tell.
I wonder, if the technology will actually get to the point where it can AI/Remix up a bunch of TV shows or movies that are as high quality / nonslop as the original, and if that would satisfy me.
Let's say I'm living in the past and think Star Trek TNG and the X-Files was peak TV. If I could just hit enter and generate an in-all-ways-believably-authentic episode, maybe I just wouldn't watch anything else. Would it matter to my brain that real people didn't make the episode if it was indistinguishable from the real thing?
On a similar vein, I was just thinking of the TNG episode Hollow Pursuits earlier today.
Somehow, this is one of the episodes I never actually watched, but it is interesting to me how often the Trek scripts cover essentially identical ideas to current discussions about AI: Moriarty insisting to Barclay that he was conscious even when his program wasn't running, Pulaski saying Data was just remixing and not actually intelligent, various examples of deep fakes, cyber addiction, AI going weird sometimes while following orders and sometimes just as an emergent bug.
Nothing, Forever was basically this idea applied to Seinfeld. The video quality was low, but some of the ways it captured the same absurdities as Seinfeld was remarkable at the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing,_Forever
It may not yet be fully automated, and you may have to choose between "cheap and bad or the price of a house and kinda acceptable", but it's definitely possible.
Of course it's possible, but reading and watching fiction feel very different and can you see a way to change that? The word may continue to decline compared to image. But the image is soon to become nearly as cheap and hackable as the word.
This may well happen, but the fraction of people still capable of absorbing original texts will have a tremendous advantage over people who never learned to think.
"Luke… I am your father."
"…You're absolutely right!"
c'mon, spoiler alert, jeez
Spoiler alert: Luke had a father. No cloning with this guy, just a bonafide byproduct of two bad actors and some awkward sand ...
"Self-help nonfiction" have always been a waste of paper. And honestly, most of the time I hear "X was replaced by AI" I find myself thinking "good riddance, but we could drop X altogether and not loose anything of value."
Fiction, on the other hand… Much of fiction's value isn't just the content itself, is that they create a shared language medium. A book might actually be meh (came up with some examples, but then decided to drop it so as not to offend anyone), but the fact that people you talk with have read the same book and understand same references makes reading it valuable. So, it's unlikely to happen, until we delegate all of our communication to AIs, which isn't likely to happen any time soon.
Yes, but only for people that don’t already have an audience.
If Famous Athlete/Entrepreneur writes a self-help type book, people will buy it, because the fame lends legitimacy. Even if the book itself is obviously written by AI.
With an additional caveat: the person needs to have some real, demonstrable authority. Tim Ferris doesn’t really have authority in the sense of “I am a professional athlete” or “I am billionaire startup founder” does. He does have authority as a podcaster and digital products / books creator, but that isn’t what the 4HWW is about.
I think the same will be true of the ‘popular science’ category of nonfiction
Probably podcasts killed them.
Good.
The vast majority of self-help books out there are ghost-written upsales trash.
This felt like a vacuous post by a LinkedIn influencer.
I guess soon AI will kill __all__ books. If you can just type "please summarize that book into 1 page", or "make a 30 seconds tiktok format clip summarizing this book".
Betteridge law [1]
> Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no
Afaik Tim Feriss hasn't done anything notable in the past decade. No surprise that his one best seller is finally dropping off the cliff.
Without some incredible developments in AI, and as long as competition and desire for a better life still exist, I see no future where self-help books go away.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
Is there anything AI will not kill eventually?
I recently picked up a book at the airport called "Full Stack Human". Wish I hadn't because every second line has "It's not just about X - It's also about Y!" formatting that screamed LLM generated slop. I'd say it most certainly is dead!
Ferris isn’t doing himself any favor by writing “Let that sink in” in this blog post.
Wow, AI finally did something useful, making Tim Ferris and other grifters obsolete. I actually listened to his most recent podcast and it's wild. These people live in a completely different reality.
Remember, Tim Ferris scammed his audience with NFTs lmfao.
>But looking more closely, Self-help had the steepest subcategory decline, with units down 26.3% year-over-year. Only two of 16 subcategories—crafts/hobbies/antiques/games and religion—grew at all (9.6% and 1.6%, respectively). The exceptions alone could make an interesting blog post for another time.
Self help being generally part of a larger grift pipeline for authors (for selling overpriced courses, seminars, retreats, infoproducts etc.), this is an actual positive silver lining for AI in society.
Grifter publishing-slop sector devastated by slop automation.
Finally AI-skeptics found something positive
Tim Ferris bemoaning AI in self-help books is like John Henry vs. the drilling machine, except for bullshitting instead of driving rail road spikes.
Nothing of value would be lost if it did. I feel the same way about the OnlyFans economy.
everyone has their own contribution to this observation
but how is everyone missing the enormous amount of self published slop released since 2022?
that stuff actually is selling, diluting the interest in the rest
its the law of diminishing returns
this may coincide with people also realizing they bought slop, as well as all the other distractions and ways of consuming that people identified
but just like software is experiencing this year, the same has been occurring in writing for 4 years
You can only hope.
I love books, but I could never understand self-help nonfiction books. What's the point? Just about any idea which these books may communicate can be better communicated through fiction.
There's no life lessons you'll learn reading self help-books that you won't get by just reading the classics.
People will still own the ideas. The way they are shared is changing yet again. Just like a kindle carried a Book to a user, and LLM with RAG will do as well.
Printing books wouldnt make sense anymore except for "Traditionalist who love feeling a crisp page between their fingers"
Still books would disappear, mate.
Or maybe it is just a coincidence that people have grown tired of this kind of bullshits. This genre has been trendy for a while already, there had to be a moment people would just collectively realize their life is not measurably better after reading so many of them.
There's a lot of self help YouTube videos.
It has sort of killed books. I'm hesitant to buy anything published after 2022 if I don't know the author. So much slop out there...
"AI has become good enough at writing bullshit at scale that many bullshit industries are struggling"
Good riddance, that genre was the slop in literature before AI slop even existed.
Now I'm curious, were there any self-help fiction books?
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance comes to mind, I suppose also the business-parable style books like Who Moved My Cheese?.
If you count Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, almost any fiction book with a philosophical angle would fit that description.
Or even books like “The Phoenix(/Unicorn) Project”.
I had trouble finishing Zen and the Art because my recollection is he drones on and on about the philosophy after the initial set up. The story disappeared. I felt kind of being had because I remember being intrigued by the title in a used bookshop as a teenager and buying it (this was before the internet) so my viewpoint is biased by that. My college philosophy textbooks managed to be more interesting and deeper than Zen, even a book about Aurelius was more interesting to me.
I wouldn't say any fictional book with a philosophical angle fits, but ones that could have been written as non-fiction but for the purposes of getting the point across weren't. Phoenix/Unicorn Project are good examples!
Pretty much all of them.
perhaps they made the fiction/non-fiction Freudian slip? Here I was thinking "Are there any non-fiction (actually true) self help books?"
I've never read it but I think Atlas Shrugged might qualify. I don't think I've ever heard anyone praise the plot or talk about it as a novel, instead people who liked it say it changed their life, changed how they view themselves, etc.
I thought it was pretty well paced as a novel until it got to John Galt's big speech which seemed childishly self-indulgent and then after that it goes to hell. The novel is about 1200 pages and it's pretty amazing that it held my attention for the first 800 because I've rarely been able to enjoy a novel for that long.
I think it appeals to people with toxic "lone wolf" mentality.
The other, of course, involves orcs.
as a lite-BDSM wish fulfillment romance novel, it's quite compelling. better plotted and written than much successful romantasy today. the whole plot is about a bunch of hot rich guys fighting over who gets to dom the self-insert female protagonist.
there's another fantasy aspect, which is discovering your sense of alienation from family and society is really because you're part of a special but oppressed group and won't admit it to yourself, and once you embrace your identity you can find fulfillment, love, and community.
now, in this case, the repressed identity is "capitalist", which is a peculiar way of looking at the world. but if you ignore this, the emotional beats of the story (finding yourself, coming out, found family) also work for the LGBT experience, even perhaps neurodivergence. I think this is why so many confused teenagers find themselves very moved by the book and are later embarrassed to admit it.
on the whole, it's not high literature but competently executed, the only really stupid thing about it is Objectivism.
Huh, if this is what we're talking about, I think Starship Troopers may qualify.
“The Alchemist” by Paulo Coelho qualifies.
The art of war is probably fictional.
Yes! plenty of them: The Secret, The 4-hour Work Week, Rich Dad Poor Dad, Think and Grow Rich, etc…
I think there are some good things in the 4-hour Work Week but the concept as a whole is problematic: e.g. Tim Ferris himself has more like a 400-hour work week. Rich Dad Poor Dad is a right wing scam. There is a psychotechnology that people call "magic" but The Secret and Think and Grow Rich won't teach you it.
The Secret is good for encouraging positive thinking. I think we have been fed fear mongering non-stop by the media and governments for at least ten years.
If you are in a good frame of mind, you will handle bad situations better, turning them into good situations which means you will have more of them. A better way of thinking about it than just saying you will attract positivity into your life.
I liked Ferris explaining that you can validate a market exists by serving ads pretending you already have a product. What a scumbag. Isn't the rest of the book just drop shipping and selling supplements with high margins? I recall snippets of a manual for unethical but mostly legal small business between stories of people making money on such practices.
I like his description of how you could just call up an expert on the phone and often get a quick answer to any question they can answer quickly. I'd learned that one myself.
Like it or not a lot of successful businesses have some bodies buried somewhere, particularly those that have been successful in two-sided markets such as online communities. There have been legendary successes in marketing enterprise software that didn't quite exist but I can say it didn't work when I tried it.
> Rich Dad Poor Dad is a right wing scam.
I think he was actually saying that by calling it fiction, lol.
Yeah, but it's the worst of the four. I remember his advice that you should buy a rental property which is cashflow positive after the mortgage payment on day one. (As opposed to profitable considering that you're building equity)
These were just not on the market except for one that had 8 section 8 apartments and would have driven me crazy trying to manage as a bleeding heart who cares about people.
[dead]
> What happens when 99% of the rigorously fact-checked media is behind a paywall? The short answer: people skip it and ask the AI.
Perhaps there is a business opportunity for a "rigorously fact-checked" chatbot? You can test chatbot to see if it gives "correct" (according to the author's opinion) answers on a topic of your choice and fix errors through prompt engineering, RAG (or other "memory" techniques), fine-tuning the base model if previous two approaches didn't work.
You can also probably teach it to use your own voice instead of dreaded LLM-isms, to make it sound less like typical AI-slop. This potentially can attract people, who are annoyed by the typical AI voice.
Perhaps, people who wrote self-help books should craft bespoke, custom-made chatbots instead?
I think the more salient points for the paywalls is people want pay once access everything, instead of piecemeal. I would certainly be happy to subscribe to "news" in general, but not a dozen different providers for one article apiece.
Hmmm, "Spotify for news" that collects subscriptions and distributes them proportionally to articles clicked/read or whatever can be a viable business model.
The average non fiction book is 200 pages, can be summarized in under 10, and is repackaging someone else’s ideas
Literary slop being replaced with AI
While it's easy to be cynical and see this as everything getting worse somehow, monetizing a simple idea or premise is tough -- I mean, loads of people just put that stuff out there in comments on social media, blog posts, etc, and move on -- so people fluff it up with endless volumes of filler to justify charging a price for it.
Self-help as a domain is absolutely stuffed with this sort of behaviour, where 300 pages just repeat and spin variations on an extremely simple premise, again and again. The reader tags along, sure there's going to be a twist or next level, but in reality it's just trying to justify this being sold as a "book", when at most it could be a single blog entry.
And yes, every single one of Tim Ferriss' books follows this principal. Entire books can be condensed into one page summaries and absolutely nothing will be lost. Nothing. In many cases one paragraph. Sometimes a single sentence.
This problem afflicts all media. There's a "Glucose Goddess" woman who has made an endless series of videos after she had a book do numbers about reducing glucose spikes. She's spinning four bullet points into endless content and it's just a perfect example. Nothing new or revelatory is being shared, but someone made a whole grifting career on this, all to pitch overpriced vitamins and protein powders.
It's actually interesting that someone mentioned YouTube replacing documentaries because people don't have time for that, so to speak, but YouTube is an absolute scourge of time wasting bullshit. I remember years ago one Apple-sphere guy posting a 10 minute video to answer the question "Should you get 8GB or 16GB in your Macbook". Ten minutes of yapping -- apparently ten minutes was the baseline for getting some monetization metric -- and the answer was an unqualified, worthless "get 16GB", because feels or something.
YouTube recently added an "Ask" AI button, and it includes generating extremely good summaries of videos. So many videos propose some clickbait headline with a clickbait graphic proposing some novel revelation, and in the first few seconds I've seen the summary, see that they have added absolutely nothing new or of value, and click back.
Will these people also post complaints about the drop in viewership about worthless, time inconsiderate content dragging not hitting like it once did? Probably. "Back in my day you could make a career by posting shocked-face thumbnail, a Betteridge's law of headlines question that you promise to answer, and then meander for twenty minutes. Kids these days just don't have the attention span anymore!"
I agree with everything you are saying, especially as someone whose main goal behind going into content is to understand, and have agreed with it for so long, and in my attempt to understand - ever since I was young - what people get from self-help books, I realized something. I do believe this - our - perspective neglects the difference between reading to "get a complex premise", and reading/watching something simple as some sort of lengthy ritual to get you to marinate on the idea and to allow yourself enough time to "change". Those 300 pages have the benefit of making you "stay with the idea" for however long reading 300 pages takes you, and that's what people who are into self-help like. Being persuaded.
That said, a lot of it is really filler.
Good, they where always slop
Hopefully it will kill off the self-help grifters on social media too, all without telling me that if I drink Huel or Athletic Greens I would be a millionaire too
author says:
Before we dive into my dirty laundry,
dude, why would i want to dive into your dirty laundry man?
[flagged]
[flagged]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
has bruv updated said book to include tips on using AI to automate?
unfortunately, as a reader, I am not buying any books post-ChatGPT era. Author maybe did their best, but it anyways feels like I will be buying ChatGPT's opinion
How can you read LLM generated text, it makes me feel nausious ?
The same phrases and patterns repeated over and over again, blech.
> How can you read LLM generated text
I am not reading most things post-ChatGPT era (books, articles, and even Jira tickets), by habit I am looking at the dates (hopefully they are correct) and then adjusting my effort level accordingly, anything post-ChatGPT depending on the blog author I send to summarization, if I really trust and know the author then I read their article.