I don't think "fake niceness", empty compliments, and subterfuge are tenets of empathy or what the author was trying to express.

The author provides this example interaction:

    Person A: I like this band.
    Person B: They're okay.

Where you might have implied that the author is saying it should've happened like this:

    Person A: I like this band.
    Person B: Yeah, they rule!

I think the author and the case for empathy were thinking along the lines of something more like this:

    Person A: I like this band.
    Person B: Have you ever seen them live? (Begin convo fork into live shows
                you've both seen. Share experiences.)
              

That's how you build value and connect with people.

"They're okay" is not honesty. There's no virtue in arbitrary judgement that does nothing but punish people for revealing their joys to you. It just squanders the opportunity where a connection could've been made.

I think empathetic social skills very much encompass the appreciation of honesty, and connecting with the emotional state of others does require self-control over your own state.

I think you are making the distinction because someone learned it consciously.

People who have high social skills likely do this stuff all the time, perhaps without realising it.

Of course people will speak negatively about "manipulating people" but the fact is that it's simply part of how the world goes round, in which case it's probably best to be one of the people who is skilled and resolve to use your powers for good.

The alternative would be trying to persuade highly sociable people to imitate aspies.

You can try and persuade everyone to be honest, but in a world full of honest people being the only liar will bring huge advantages.

I think the author was getting at actually focusing on having empathy for others when speaking to them to help understand their emotional state. Having empathy for others is not an attempt to manipulate them.

Faking this stuff doesn't work well in the long run. How to win friends and influence people says to give people genuine compliments.

I've gone through this kind of transportation. Certainly doesn't feel malicious to me. The main result is that people are a lot happier to be around me.

Your argument feels analogous to someone worried by the teaching of logic. The students will become too clever and use their skills to outsmart the others.

I've seen hustlers use these skills for malice of course. Some get fooled by them, but they're pretty transparent to most people if used insincerely.

I think it's kind of like how people say having a good product is the best marketing.

Being a nice guy (or girl!) is the same idea made personal.

But is someone telling you their exact feelings at that moment really honesty? If everyone were completely honest with each other, the world would be a vastly different place.

Let's say you invite a co-worker out to lunch. He doesn't like you. He could either say, "I don't like you," or "I'm busy."

In your world, he would be straightforward about his feelings and tell you he doesn't like you. This kind of communication injures egos and causes hostility and friction. It makes for an unpleasant work environment.

Instead when he says, "I'm busy," you don't know if he was really busy or he doesn't like you. He may even say, "I'd love to go out to lunch with you, but I'm busy. So sorry. Let's do it another time."

So you ask him again the next day. He's busy again. You ask him again the day after. Still busy. He never asks you out to lunch and never makes an effort with you.

Now what you have here is a truly honest signal. His actions are an honest signal. His words are bullshit. Everyone's words are bullshit. People will lie to themselves under social pressure and act like they are interested. But a person's actions don't lie.

What you are describing is more of a white lie because you were put into the situation.

You might say I'm busy because telling that person you don't like them has no benefit for either of you, you're gonna have to work with each other and yes that would make things more unpleasant than it had to be.

That I think is very different from actively making an effort to manipulate others for your own gain. It is almost suggesting that you give up your own taste and personality so that you can match with as many people as possible.

This is very strongly evident in the western culture. I can sense it because I'm from a different place where there is no concept of "popularity" or "coolness" unlike what you constantly see in the west through movies and media.

I don't think it's fair to say that all of the skills are aimed at manipulation through means of social interaction.

There's nothing particularly wrong with empathy, it's all about connecting with people and building a better understanding through feeling. Unfortunately numerous self-help book titles often make it seem as if this is a hack, or a manipulation, in its essence though I feel that it's not.

Agreed. I find numerous parallels between that and learning to program.

The new hire who shows up at their desk with "Learn Java in 24 Hours" feels like a "manipulator" and "huckster".

The one who makes a deep study of the Gang of Four book looks like a Carnegie or Clinton from the outside.

The one that grew up around computers looks like a "natural". However, they just went through those previous two stages of learning while nobody was looking.

The "natural" uses the same external behavior as the rest, but at such an unconscious level as to evade easy detection by themselves or others.