What do you think?
Rate this book
When I Say No, I Feel Guilty: How to Cope - Using the Skills of Systematic Assertive Therapy
The best-seller that helps you say: "I just said 'no' and I don't feel guilty!" Are you letting your kids get away with murder? Are you allowing your mother-in-law to impose her will on you? Are you embarrassed by praise or crushed by criticism? Are you having trouble coping with people? Learn the answers in "When I Say No, I Feel Guilty," the best-seller with revolutionary new techniques for getting your own way.
324 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1975
954 people are currently reading
6,885 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 252 reviews
September 15, 2019
At first, I was excited about this book. As a woman who often finds it difficult to assert herself, systematic assertiveness training seemed like a wonderful idea. While the assertiveness system was probably good, the examples were so crazy that I couldn't take the book seriously, and ended up looking to see when it had been written. When I saw 1975 as the publishing date, it suddenly made sense why all of the examples were horribly misogynistic. In one example, a man drops a cake on his wife's head, threatens to hit her, and runs out. When they go to therapy together, the author says that the therapy didn't work because the wife wasn't willing to change! The author uses words like: nag, pussywhip, and bitch to describe the behavior of women. In the final section on being assertive about sex, there's a ridiculous example where a husband is trying to get his wife to agree to go to a nudist colony where there is group sex, and when his wife doesn't want to go, the author presents it as being something wrong with her for not agreeing. Seriously, don't read this book. The misogyny is egregious, and there are lots of books about assertiveness that aren't this terrible.
April 12, 2021
This book is certainly dated, but I recommend it for people who struggle with asserting themselves in various situations. It offers helpful methods for coping with criticism, manipulation, and other relationship issues. Chapters 2 and 3, describing our assertive human rights, seem common-sense but are often undermined by family, religion, and culture. Just reading them helped open my eyes to the ways I forfeit these rights to others, and helped me recall those rights during confrontational situations. The "fogging" technique in Chapter 6 I've found most helpful out of all the techniques, for un-learning those knee-jerk reactions to other people's comments and for learning to listen calmly rather than reacting defensively. If you can get past the outdated scenarios and references (it was written in the 1970s), it's worth a read.
December 5, 2024
Ojalá ponerle once estrellas. Un libro de psicología que llevo usando y recomendando desde el año 2000. La terapia asertiva sistemática es una de las herramientas conductuales más potentes que existen y, por lo que sea, pasó de moda a pesar de su efectividad.
Clásico imprescindible.
05 diciembre 24: mejor 12 estrellas
Clásico imprescindible.
05 diciembre 24: mejor 12 estrellas
September 15, 2022
Well! I had great expectations before I began to read this one. And initially, it did keep me interested but later due to excessive recurrence, it became clear that the author has nothing else to offer. Still, I gave 3 stars to the book because of its effective techniques; the author's efforts, and his expertise in the field which was very well perceptible while reading the book.
November 16, 2016
I read this book because I think assertiveness and achieving your goals in the face of other's indifference and/or mild opposition is an important skill. Right off the bat, the first chapter of this book annoyed me, because I felt that there was a lot of speculation, especially about a) the causes of depression and b) the idea that childhood interaction patterns have an inordinately large effect on your adult life. Therefore, I practiced my assertive right to skip it -- and I recommend that you consider doing that too!
However, the next 100 pages or so of the book is pretty great. First he lays out what he calls his ten "assertive rights." As with any discussion about rights, these are most useful as a general framework for how to think about the problem of assertiveness than an actual workable plan. They got me pumped up -- especially the first one. Next he goes into the specifics of a few techniques for how to actually accomplish these lofty assertiveness goals. The most useful ones to me are "BROKEN RECORD," which is about repeating your goals until they are acknowledged and/or you get them, and "FOGGING," which is about agreeing with someone's points to prove that their criticisms of you are not effective. After these 100 pages, I used my assertive right of skimming to the end of the book. A mark of a caring author is someone who makes you feel that this is not a bad thing -- indeed, someone who might even encourage it -- and Dr. Smith is such an author.
Overall, he's clearly an expert in assertiveness, and was able to draw upon a substantial wealth of classroom experiences in each of the topics that he discussed. This made the book richer and more useful. I didn't read all of the dialogues because they were a bit repetitive, but the ones I did read were quite funny -- in particular the "FOGGING" one was hilarious and I wrote "lol" all over the margins. There is a great 100 pages between p. 24 and p. 119 (ch. 2-6) and I recommend checking it out.
So, you might be asking, why I am giving this book four stars, instead of five? I understand why you'd ask that question, but I'm not interested in answering it right now.
SR Flashcards
q: What is the main reason that passive aggressiveness is bad?
a: it's bad for you, since it means that your thoughts aren't being heard, and you often end up doing something you don't want to
q: Do compromises need to be fair in order to be useful? why?
a: no; life isn't fair
> "If life were fair, you and I would be taking turns visiting the Caribbean and the French Riviera with the Rockefellers! Instead we're in this crummy classroom trying to learn how to be assertive!"
q: What are morals?
a: arbitrary rules people adopt to use in judging their own and other people's behavior"
q: What are legal systems?
q: arbitrary rules society has adopted to provide negative consequences for behavior that society wishes to suppress
q: If someone asks you why you're doing something, do you need to explain yourself?
a: no -- you do *not* need to justify your behavior to anyone else
> you can choose to, but you don't need to
q: Do you have the right to change your mind?
a: yes
q: In most circumstances, instead of saying "sorry", what should you do?
a: state the facts -- e.g., "you're right, I messed up by doing X instead of Y"
> no need to be dogmatic about this, but "sorry" isn't very informative and usually other words are more effective for getting your point across
> plus sometimes it is ♫ too late to say I'm sorry ♫
q: How should you respond to a leading question where someone is clearly trying to manipulate me?
a: "I don't know"
> e.g., "What do you think would happen if everyone did that?" or "What do you think you should have done instead?"
q: What is a good response if a friend asks you to do something this weekend and you don't want to?
a: "No, I just don't feel like it this weekend. Let's try another time?"
> I get that this can be done, and it's important to do now and then to establish that you can, although I do also think that white lies make the world go round
q: What is logic? (in colloquial use)
a: logic is what other people use to prove that you're wrong
> you should reserve the right to be illogical
q: If someone criticizes you about something unserious, what should you do?
a: agree with them as much as possible -- "fogging" -- by saying something like "you might be right"
> do not deny, get defensive, or turn the criticism around onto them
> "unserious" bc a) if you actually made a mistake, you should own it, b) if it's legal or cops or something, you obviously should say "let me talk to my lawyer" ;-)
q: When you're giving a public talk, what is a "South of France" question? how should you answer?
a: when someone says something like, "how does this apply in the South of France", i.e. a highly esoteric question outside of your area of expertise; "I don't know"
Habits
When you want something, be a BROKEN RECORD: "One of the most important aspects of being verbally assertive is to be persistent and to keep saying what you want over and over again without getting angry, irritated, or loud."
Quotes
"If we cope in these ways, not only do we get angry or afraid but we usually lose the battle -- and there are real battles in life, to be won or lost -- with other people; we get frustrated and eventually sad or depressed."
"No one can manipulate your emotions or behavior if you do not allow it to happen."
"Whenever you hear yourself or someone else say 'should', extend your anti-manipulative antennae up as far as possible and listen carefully. In all likelihood, some message that says, "You are not your own judge." will follow."
"Feeling good about yourself is a major goal of assertiveness therapy. Once we feel good about ourselves, our ability to cope with conflict "snowballs."
"You can always find something wrong with someone else if you really want to."
The possible responses for a human to a problem: fight, flight, and verbal problem solving.
However, the next 100 pages or so of the book is pretty great. First he lays out what he calls his ten "assertive rights." As with any discussion about rights, these are most useful as a general framework for how to think about the problem of assertiveness than an actual workable plan. They got me pumped up -- especially the first one. Next he goes into the specifics of a few techniques for how to actually accomplish these lofty assertiveness goals. The most useful ones to me are "BROKEN RECORD," which is about repeating your goals until they are acknowledged and/or you get them, and "FOGGING," which is about agreeing with someone's points to prove that their criticisms of you are not effective. After these 100 pages, I used my assertive right of skimming to the end of the book. A mark of a caring author is someone who makes you feel that this is not a bad thing -- indeed, someone who might even encourage it -- and Dr. Smith is such an author.
Overall, he's clearly an expert in assertiveness, and was able to draw upon a substantial wealth of classroom experiences in each of the topics that he discussed. This made the book richer and more useful. I didn't read all of the dialogues because they were a bit repetitive, but the ones I did read were quite funny -- in particular the "FOGGING" one was hilarious and I wrote "lol" all over the margins. There is a great 100 pages between p. 24 and p. 119 (ch. 2-6) and I recommend checking it out.
So, you might be asking, why I am giving this book four stars, instead of five? I understand why you'd ask that question, but I'm not interested in answering it right now.
SR Flashcards
q: What is the main reason that passive aggressiveness is bad?
a: it's bad for you, since it means that your thoughts aren't being heard, and you often end up doing something you don't want to
q: Do compromises need to be fair in order to be useful? why?
a: no; life isn't fair
> "If life were fair, you and I would be taking turns visiting the Caribbean and the French Riviera with the Rockefellers! Instead we're in this crummy classroom trying to learn how to be assertive!"
q: What are morals?
a: arbitrary rules people adopt to use in judging their own and other people's behavior"
q: What are legal systems?
q: arbitrary rules society has adopted to provide negative consequences for behavior that society wishes to suppress
q: If someone asks you why you're doing something, do you need to explain yourself?
a: no -- you do *not* need to justify your behavior to anyone else
> you can choose to, but you don't need to
q: Do you have the right to change your mind?
a: yes
q: In most circumstances, instead of saying "sorry", what should you do?
a: state the facts -- e.g., "you're right, I messed up by doing X instead of Y"
> no need to be dogmatic about this, but "sorry" isn't very informative and usually other words are more effective for getting your point across
> plus sometimes it is ♫ too late to say I'm sorry ♫
q: How should you respond to a leading question where someone is clearly trying to manipulate me?
a: "I don't know"
> e.g., "What do you think would happen if everyone did that?" or "What do you think you should have done instead?"
q: What is a good response if a friend asks you to do something this weekend and you don't want to?
a: "No, I just don't feel like it this weekend. Let's try another time?"
> I get that this can be done, and it's important to do now and then to establish that you can, although I do also think that white lies make the world go round
q: What is logic? (in colloquial use)
a: logic is what other people use to prove that you're wrong
> you should reserve the right to be illogical
q: If someone criticizes you about something unserious, what should you do?
a: agree with them as much as possible -- "fogging" -- by saying something like "you might be right"
> do not deny, get defensive, or turn the criticism around onto them
> "unserious" bc a) if you actually made a mistake, you should own it, b) if it's legal or cops or something, you obviously should say "let me talk to my lawyer" ;-)
q: When you're giving a public talk, what is a "South of France" question? how should you answer?
a: when someone says something like, "how does this apply in the South of France", i.e. a highly esoteric question outside of your area of expertise; "I don't know"
Habits
When you want something, be a BROKEN RECORD: "One of the most important aspects of being verbally assertive is to be persistent and to keep saying what you want over and over again without getting angry, irritated, or loud."
Quotes
"If we cope in these ways, not only do we get angry or afraid but we usually lose the battle -- and there are real battles in life, to be won or lost -- with other people; we get frustrated and eventually sad or depressed."
"No one can manipulate your emotions or behavior if you do not allow it to happen."
"Whenever you hear yourself or someone else say 'should', extend your anti-manipulative antennae up as far as possible and listen carefully. In all likelihood, some message that says, "You are not your own judge." will follow."
"Feeling good about yourself is a major goal of assertiveness therapy. Once we feel good about ourselves, our ability to cope with conflict "snowballs."
"You can always find something wrong with someone else if you really want to."
The possible responses for a human to a problem: fight, flight, and verbal problem solving.
March 7, 2017
This book not at all what I expected. It covered some case studies of commercial transactions where being persistent and asserting your rights will result in improved results.
Most of the examples covered people simply repeating what they wanted broken record style. I don't think this is effective in many scenarios as things need to be escalated to management, external regulators or through legal action.
There was on example of a parent with irrational fears about the safety of his daughter when she went out in evenings with her friends. The book supported the father chastising his daughter for her being out despite the man's beliefs being largely irrational.
Being assertive is generally good but asserting irrational beliefs is not good and you should be working on being more rational and then perhaps focus on assertiveness training.
There was another example about a woman increasing her assertiveness to not be led into unwanted sexual encounters. A few chapters later the example was a man being assertive to literally force his wife to go to a nudist colony which was clearly against her wishes.
The book might be great for academic purposes and in some limited situations but in many real life examples, this will not help at all.
Most of the examples covered people simply repeating what they wanted broken record style. I don't think this is effective in many scenarios as things need to be escalated to management, external regulators or through legal action.
There was on example of a parent with irrational fears about the safety of his daughter when she went out in evenings with her friends. The book supported the father chastising his daughter for her being out despite the man's beliefs being largely irrational.
Being assertive is generally good but asserting irrational beliefs is not good and you should be working on being more rational and then perhaps focus on assertiveness training.
There was another example about a woman increasing her assertiveness to not be led into unwanted sexual encounters. A few chapters later the example was a man being assertive to literally force his wife to go to a nudist colony which was clearly against her wishes.
The book might be great for academic purposes and in some limited situations but in many real life examples, this will not help at all.
August 11, 2009
Classic assertiveness training manual
Take a trip back to the 1970s, when leisure suits, long sideburns and “assertiveness training” were all the rage. Psychologist Manuel J. Smith was a pioneer in the life-changing assertiveness training movement. Reading his bestseller about it decades later adds a new perspective. Some of his advice still feels relevant, particularly when he urges you to beware of those who try to impose their standards of “right” and “wrong” to manipulate you. Smith lists your 10 “assertive rights,” the most important being the right to be the ultimate judge of your own behavior. He details several verbal techniques you can use to block manipulation, and encourage productive communication and negotiation. He supports each tactic with sample dialogues from real-life situations. Although some of his counsel may seem as dated as disco, getAbstract recommends his classic training manual to anyone who still feels guilty about saying “no!”
Take a trip back to the 1970s, when leisure suits, long sideburns and “assertiveness training” were all the rage. Psychologist Manuel J. Smith was a pioneer in the life-changing assertiveness training movement. Reading his bestseller about it decades later adds a new perspective. Some of his advice still feels relevant, particularly when he urges you to beware of those who try to impose their standards of “right” and “wrong” to manipulate you. Smith lists your 10 “assertive rights,” the most important being the right to be the ultimate judge of your own behavior. He details several verbal techniques you can use to block manipulation, and encourage productive communication and negotiation. He supports each tactic with sample dialogues from real-life situations. Although some of his counsel may seem as dated as disco, getAbstract recommends his classic training manual to anyone who still feels guilty about saying “no!”
April 6, 2016
This book was recommended to me. It is incredibly dated. None of the coping mechanisms which the author describes teach you how to say "no" or its variants any easier. Instead, most of the coping mechanisms are variants on how to brush somebody off while looking like an ass in the process. The only coping mechanism mentioned which has any lasting value in the real world is "self-disclosure," which is exactly what it sounds like. The other mechanisms are primarily useful in commercial and professional interactions, but definitely not more personal, friendly interactions. And it's exactly these interactions where I (and i'm sure other people) need the most help. If you were to apply the author's methods to your spouse, family and friends, you'd end up very lonely.
November 26, 2017
A surprising and highly lucid take on assertivity. The author shows how all babies are born assertive, but that many of us unlearn this vital ability through upbringing and socialisation. He shows the vast and numerous problems that this causes. If you are among the many non-assertive people out there, it is essential to re-learn this ability and no longer feel guilty when you say "no".
The book contains a lot of transcripts of assertive dialogues. I found it a bit laborious to get through at times, but in fact it was a good thing, because it helped me to drill the assertive concepts into my brain again and again.
The book contains a lot of transcripts of assertive dialogues. I found it a bit laborious to get through at times, but in fact it was a good thing, because it helped me to drill the assertive concepts into my brain again and again.
September 2, 2010
I thought I knew all about assertiveness. Then I read this book. What a world this would be if everyone had the skills that this book leaves you with. The examples make this a particularly useful and entertaining read. The principles have stayed with me and made a difference in all kinds of interactions. If you had to pick only one self-help book, this classic would be tough to beat.
September 4, 2022
It was an OK book, but seems a complicated way of saying NO. What about just saying NO? Maybe I will have more to say once I have digested the methods suggested.
September 22, 2020
This book needs a revision. It has not aged well.
January 9, 2008
This is a book the delivers on its promise. While it has a bit of the usual padding that one finds in self-help books, even the padding serves the point of introducing the concepts of assertiveness. First you get the theory of assertiveness, then you get extremely practical techniques for being assertive.
I can't hold on to copies of this book because I keep giving it away to friends. Luckily you can often find it in the free bin at Your Neighborhood Used Book Store.
Some of the sample dialouges are cheesy, many are dated, and some are just bizarre. The writing is forcibly folksy and unremittingly optimistic. It's vintage 1975 self-help style and I think that's part of the charm; others may disagree.
I'm giving this book five stars based on its practical usefulness. It's not literature. It's more like a user guide for your spine. It's not new-agey self-help of the change your deep inner nature style. All the advice is practical and straightforward stuff that you can do right away to immediately begin to assert yourself and improve your life. It's also a quick read.
So if you see it in the free bin, go ahead and grab a copy.
I can't hold on to copies of this book because I keep giving it away to friends. Luckily you can often find it in the free bin at Your Neighborhood Used Book Store.
Some of the sample dialouges are cheesy, many are dated, and some are just bizarre. The writing is forcibly folksy and unremittingly optimistic. It's vintage 1975 self-help style and I think that's part of the charm; others may disagree.
I'm giving this book five stars based on its practical usefulness. It's not literature. It's more like a user guide for your spine. It's not new-agey self-help of the change your deep inner nature style. All the advice is practical and straightforward stuff that you can do right away to immediately begin to assert yourself and improve your life. It's also a quick read.
So if you see it in the free bin, go ahead and grab a copy.
June 25, 2019
This book is about assertive therapy. The book starts out great which deals with why we feel guilty about saying no, the issue rooted itself in childhood and the reasons why we become guilty. I understand the terms fogging, negative assertion, free information and negative inquiry. The book shows through many dialogues how to stick to your guns. While the author says we use this to deal with manipulative people, I find the techniques described in the book equally manipulative. Why can't NO just be enough? Certain conversations about sexual needs seem so completely off track, like one couple where the husband wants to visit a nudist colony just to learn something new. I'm not sure why he couldn't do some alternative activity his wife was comfortable with. It seems that the how to cope method seems to be a manipulation in itself, and that's where it tanked for me.
September 3, 2008
When I Say No, I Feel Guilty is a clear, well written book about assertiveness training. My mom got this for me years ago and I carted it around with every intention of reading it. Having finally done so, I am really impressed with what Smith presents in these pages. He provides excellent descriptions of various aspects of assertiveness, explains how to adopt these methods and provides sample dialogues to show how to put these techniques into practice. Anyone facing difficulty in being assertive in personal or professional interaction will glean useful information from this book. Impressive.
July 25, 2017
Excellent Book! Loved it and it really helped me.
June 22, 2021
This is possibly the most misogynistic book I have ever read. It's almost comically sexist. All the negative figures are women. Women are housewives, secretaries and typists. One climbs as high as office supervisor!
But that's fluff compared to the real nastiness; an incident of domestic abuse is used as a funny anecdote.
The 'hero' of one example is a nasty, weak willed, passive drunk who threatens to beat his wife. The wife he threatens with domestic violence is portrayed as the bad guy for 'nagging'. The hero of another example, who leaves his clothes scattered around the house, is encouraged to assertively explain to his wife that he doesn't care that she wants a tidy home.
The author suggests that sexual dysfunction in women is a form of deliberate manipulation designed to 'cut up' their husbands. He describes dyspareunia as 'sexual malingering' - as though experiencing involuntary physical pain were the equivalent of bunking off work!
The author also portrays the idea of having gay friends as 'threatening'.
I know this was originally published in the 70s, but it was republished as recently as 2011. Come on.
But that's fluff compared to the real nastiness; an incident of domestic abuse is used as a funny anecdote.
The 'hero' of one example is a nasty, weak willed, passive drunk who threatens to beat his wife. The wife he threatens with domestic violence is portrayed as the bad guy for 'nagging'. The hero of another example, who leaves his clothes scattered around the house, is encouraged to assertively explain to his wife that he doesn't care that she wants a tidy home.
The author suggests that sexual dysfunction in women is a form of deliberate manipulation designed to 'cut up' their husbands. He describes dyspareunia as 'sexual malingering' - as though experiencing involuntary physical pain were the equivalent of bunking off work!
The author also portrays the idea of having gay friends as 'threatening'.
I know this was originally published in the 70s, but it was republished as recently as 2011. Come on.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 7, 2020
Like other reviewers have said, the author starts off strong with explaining the importance of learning assertiveness in all your relationships. He gives a large variety of examples for the different techniques used with parent-adult child relationships, workplace relationships, friendships, and romantic relationship. As you read through the book, you'll notice the biggest issue is that the author sometimes gives examples that aren't actually assertive--instead some of these examples are unfortunately manipulative.
"Fogging" is a technique that involves trying to give as neutral a response as possible. This helps in situations where the manipulative person is looking for a reaction or is pressing you to do what he/she wants. For example, if someone complains to you about a problem they have at work, and says "It's not fair!!" you can respond with a neutral response like "Hm, I see" and "That sounds tough/stressful" so that you're not getting yourself involved in that person's problem/making it your problem and you're not escalating the problem with a reactive response. The author gives some examples of neutral responses like this, as well as responses like "you may be right, it might not be fair. I don't know." He says it's okay to agree with the person even if you don't really agree and to say you don't know even if you do, which is dishonest, manipulative and doesn't work in situations where you're with close friends who know you (and thus know you're lying or playing dumb, which they can take offense to) as well as work situations where your boss/colleagues who are pressuring you might think you're incompetent since you're saying he may be right and you don't know, but you're not offering to rectify the situation beyond saying that (some of the examples he gave were pretty absurd so it wasn't like there was really a grey zone for a "you might be right")....
"Repetition" is a technique where if a manipulative person keeps trying to pressure you, you keep repeating your fogging reply. It just sounded really ridiculous hearing the author saying "you may be right, but I don't know" over and over again like a broken record. In real life, if your superior at work hears you stubbornly persisting in your answer like this they have cause for concern that you can't do your job. I think depending on the situation, a better reply would be to just say you notice that the person is really pressing the issue and that it's making you very uncomfortable. You can ask them to stop pressuring you. You can have a discussion and still reinforce your no, if it helps; however, no should be enough when you don't want to do something. Another better reply would be to negotiate what you're willing and able to do. If you're being asked to do XYZ by Friday, you can say that since ABC is the priority and due by Friday you won't be able to do both, so you can either shift the priority and do XYZ by this Friday and ABC by next Friday or let your boss decide. If you're unable to do XYZ, you can also say you can do Y but your boss will have to find someone else to cover XZ.
When the author gives examples of being assertive in relationships later on in the book, a big mistake he makes is using the toxic JADE technique, which is trying to force the person you're having a conversation with to Justify, Argue, Defend, and Explain until you get your way. If one partner wants something to happen but the other is uncomfortable, in one of the examples it sounds like one partner is really coercing the other to justify and explain and exhaustively uses their "I don't know's" against them by rationalizing their thoughts. The most important thing should be to respect someone's feelings and to not force others to do something they don't want to whether or not it seems rational to you. If someone you have been married to for years feels uncomfortable about your suggestion of trying out a nudist colony and is concerned about you checking out other nude people and partaking in group sex, your response shouldn't be "what's wrong with checking out other nude people?" and pushing other questions along this line using the JADE technique. In the example, the wife was not prepared for this conversation so she didn't know to directly say that in their traditional marriage vows that's considered a form of infidelity and not something she signed up for. I was upset that it seemed like the author didn't train the wife to be assertive in this case (despite being a therapist who works with both partners in a couple), since it's also manipulative to have a discussion like this when only one partner has the tools to assert himself and is out to prioritize his own interests over that of the relationship. When the author makes this mistake to JADE, it contradicts something he said in the beginning of the book about how you don't have to explain yourself because oftentimes when someone wants you to explain yourself they aren't looking to understand you, they are only looking to debate you and wear you down until you agree to do what they want (which is how he led into fogging and repetition).
The book "Out of the Fog" recommends that it's healthy to state your opinion on an issue, but note to state your point of view ONCE AND ONCE ONLY! This is healthy assertiveness (vs JADE).
It's tough to find resources that cover difficult communication topics well. I think the reason most books give limited examples is that a lot of issues are complex and have a lot of history. This book did a solid job with the basics, and I do appreciate the author giving a breadth of examples. Even though some other reviewers said that the book seems dated, some examples resonated with me including the pushy guilt-tripping parent-adult child dynamic, the freeloading friend dynamic, and the awkward learning how to assert yourself in a new relationship so you can get your sexual needs met example. I think a lot of people who are just learning how to be assertive can learn a lot from this book.
"Fogging" is a technique that involves trying to give as neutral a response as possible. This helps in situations where the manipulative person is looking for a reaction or is pressing you to do what he/she wants. For example, if someone complains to you about a problem they have at work, and says "It's not fair!!" you can respond with a neutral response like "Hm, I see" and "That sounds tough/stressful" so that you're not getting yourself involved in that person's problem/making it your problem and you're not escalating the problem with a reactive response. The author gives some examples of neutral responses like this, as well as responses like "you may be right, it might not be fair. I don't know." He says it's okay to agree with the person even if you don't really agree and to say you don't know even if you do, which is dishonest, manipulative and doesn't work in situations where you're with close friends who know you (and thus know you're lying or playing dumb, which they can take offense to) as well as work situations where your boss/colleagues who are pressuring you might think you're incompetent since you're saying he may be right and you don't know, but you're not offering to rectify the situation beyond saying that (some of the examples he gave were pretty absurd so it wasn't like there was really a grey zone for a "you might be right")....
"Repetition" is a technique where if a manipulative person keeps trying to pressure you, you keep repeating your fogging reply. It just sounded really ridiculous hearing the author saying "you may be right, but I don't know" over and over again like a broken record. In real life, if your superior at work hears you stubbornly persisting in your answer like this they have cause for concern that you can't do your job. I think depending on the situation, a better reply would be to just say you notice that the person is really pressing the issue and that it's making you very uncomfortable. You can ask them to stop pressuring you. You can have a discussion and still reinforce your no, if it helps; however, no should be enough when you don't want to do something. Another better reply would be to negotiate what you're willing and able to do. If you're being asked to do XYZ by Friday, you can say that since ABC is the priority and due by Friday you won't be able to do both, so you can either shift the priority and do XYZ by this Friday and ABC by next Friday or let your boss decide. If you're unable to do XYZ, you can also say you can do Y but your boss will have to find someone else to cover XZ.
When the author gives examples of being assertive in relationships later on in the book, a big mistake he makes is using the toxic JADE technique, which is trying to force the person you're having a conversation with to Justify, Argue, Defend, and Explain until you get your way. If one partner wants something to happen but the other is uncomfortable, in one of the examples it sounds like one partner is really coercing the other to justify and explain and exhaustively uses their "I don't know's" against them by rationalizing their thoughts. The most important thing should be to respect someone's feelings and to not force others to do something they don't want to whether or not it seems rational to you. If someone you have been married to for years feels uncomfortable about your suggestion of trying out a nudist colony and is concerned about you checking out other nude people and partaking in group sex, your response shouldn't be "what's wrong with checking out other nude people?" and pushing other questions along this line using the JADE technique. In the example, the wife was not prepared for this conversation so she didn't know to directly say that in their traditional marriage vows that's considered a form of infidelity and not something she signed up for. I was upset that it seemed like the author didn't train the wife to be assertive in this case (despite being a therapist who works with both partners in a couple), since it's also manipulative to have a discussion like this when only one partner has the tools to assert himself and is out to prioritize his own interests over that of the relationship. When the author makes this mistake to JADE, it contradicts something he said in the beginning of the book about how you don't have to explain yourself because oftentimes when someone wants you to explain yourself they aren't looking to understand you, they are only looking to debate you and wear you down until you agree to do what they want (which is how he led into fogging and repetition).
The book "Out of the Fog" recommends that it's healthy to state your opinion on an issue, but note to state your point of view ONCE AND ONCE ONLY! This is healthy assertiveness (vs JADE).
It's tough to find resources that cover difficult communication topics well. I think the reason most books give limited examples is that a lot of issues are complex and have a lot of history. This book did a solid job with the basics, and I do appreciate the author giving a breadth of examples. Even though some other reviewers said that the book seems dated, some examples resonated with me including the pushy guilt-tripping parent-adult child dynamic, the freeloading friend dynamic, and the awkward learning how to assert yourself in a new relationship so you can get your sexual needs met example. I think a lot of people who are just learning how to be assertive can learn a lot from this book.
January 17, 2025
The thesis here is that as children, we've been socialized, primarily by our parents, to accept a vague, abstract notion of what is "right" and what is "wrong" entirely as a means to manipulate our behavior, and that this is used arbitrarily to make us feel guilty. This often stems from our parents' guilt of assertion, by, for example, alluding to a higher authority than themselves, such as "the Police" or "God."
The author thus blames the self-reinforcement of guilt on the parent-to-child relationship, causing our inability to be assertive, and our overreliance on socialized forms of fight-or-flight response, usually in the form of passive-aggressiveness or passive-flight.
The author seems to be leaping from one assertion to another, and the theory seems to have holes in it. I couldn't follow the trail of thought here. He was rather vague about the role of arbitrary rules and laws, and the notion of good and bad that's implanted in our childhood. Does that mean that our conscience is merely a product of socialization? That it's merely a superego? It seems to me that the author was too embedded in the zeitgeist of Freud and also evolutionary psychology at the time of his writing. I, for one, certainly do not believe that you can simply reduce our conscience to merely a product of socialization—and that it's simply a product of manipulation through the guilt of our parents.
Okay leaving that aside, we learn there are three ways, generally speaking, of dealing with problems with other people: ancient fight or flight, and the brand new verbal assertiveness that came with our prefrontal cortex or something.
He takes this framework and makes a strange Rousseauian wrapping around it, discarding Ernest Haeckel's recapulation theory, and says we are inherently and naturally gifted with the ability to be verbally assertive. Actually, it's the first thing we do when we come out of the womb. He writes: "As infants, we are naturally assertive. Your first independent act at birth was to protest the treatment you were receiving! If something happened which you didn't like, you let others know immediately by verbal assertion—whining, crying or screaming at all hours of the day or night."
Unfortunately, through our parents' guilt and manipulative behavior that we pick up by osmosis, thus internalizing this, by way of super-ego, we lose our ability to verbally assert ourselves and fall back on fight or flight.
To me, this theory makes no sense. Simply falling on the floor and crying isn't being verbally assertive. It's taking the most manipulative elements of fight and flight, combining them in a cocktail designed for maximum manipulation of those around you.
If anyone simply does not get what they want and starts crying, this is not verbal assertiveness; this is a hardwired biological tendency you default to as an attempt to manipulate the feelings of the other person.
While you might say it's bad for an adult to do this, to simply attribute virtue to this act because the baby has no language, you're revealing an irrational bias toward the pristine quality of nature and the corrupting forces of society.
I'd also point out the problems with stating how arbitrary the rules are for our behavior. It seems to me that morality stems upward from the implicit into the explicit. Thus, we shouldn't assume by default that social conventions are arbitrary, even if we can't give a rationale for them. This is what I believe is the naive arrogance of the liberal radical social reformers.
In the beginning of the book, he said that he abides by the approach of focusing on what works, not why it works. And I wish he'd stick with his own principles, because his underlying reasoning for our behavior is simply a product of speculation and the materialistic zeitgeist of the time, because the actual core message of the book is valuable.
The core value here is that it highlights the contrast between assertiveness and manipulation. Manipulation has three main targets: making the target feel ignorant, anxious, or guilty—these are the languages of manipulation. Thus, a manipulative exchange might be about who can make the other one more guilty.
What I particularly liked about this book is the concrete examples it gives. An example of manipulation is where the mother is bothered by her child playing too loudly in the living room; she might feel too guilty about expressing her needs directly: "Get the hell out of here while I'm trying to sleep!" and thus resort to manipulation through guilt: "Why are you playing with the dog instead of your sister? Don't you know X Y Z? A B C might happen if you don't play with her."
Taking the assertive way, while the child might be feeling guilty for bothering the parent sleeping, feel anxious for the raw emotions experienced, and feel ignorant for not knowing this was a problem, the idea here is that the parent didn't use these feelings as means to get what they want; rather, it's the byproduct of self-expression, and this byproduct can and should, ideally, be minimized, if not eradicated, through continuous exposure and reassurance that it's actually okay, and there's no real need to have such feelings.
What it breaks down to, essentially, is that we feel guilty (or anxious) about asserting our own will over people, so we obfuscate our own guilt by pulling the strings of guilt on other people to get what we want. We also feel guilty, or fear consequences, of irrational things that bother us, and we tackle these problems sometimes with withdrawal (stifled flight response) or passive-aggressiveness (neutered fight response).
A lot of people make excuses and try to manipulate to get out of their own guilt of broken promises. Here's an example of how to break a promise: "I know it's dumb of me to make a promise that I can't keep, but we are going to put off going to Disneyland on Saturday. You didn't do anything wrong and it's not your fault. Let's see when we can go again, okay?"
The author tries to give some philosophical justification of a "Bill of assertive rights" which rests on the idea that you have the right to judge your own behavior, thoughts, and emotions and to take responsibility for their initiation and consequences upon yourself.
Taken for what it is, I really like this idea. When I was younger, I picked this tip up from a secondary source which probably took it from here, and it was like an "aha" experience, waking me up to the fact that I'm an adult and I carry the source of truth within me, from which I can be a real judge of what's right. I've also picked up to discard "should" from my vocabulary, and that made a lot of sense to me.
However, I'm not onboard when he says "ultimate judge" of our own behavior. He writes: "If we truly doubt that we are the ultimate judge of our own behavior, we are powerless to control our own destiny without all sorts of rules about how each of us 'should' behave."
The author says that the way we behave ourselves is based on arbitrary grounds, and that all laws and rules are invented by insecure people who try to cope with the complexity and ambiguity of their own behavior; they invent rules for themselves and impose them on others, using the beliefs from our childhood as outlines and templates for these rules.
And in order to enforce these arbitrarily invented rules and standards of right and wrong, they will try to use logic and reason to control your behavior that may be in conflict with their own personal wants, likes, and dislikes.
This seems to be applied psychology of Nietzschean post-modernism. Nietzsche said that our philosophies are just rationalizations for our will to power. Thus, the advice here is to circumvent all the rationalization, all the logic, all the moralism, and just be raw and direct about your will-to-power.
Thus we are advised, instead of complying with requests to answer as to why we want something, we should be perfectly fine to simply state "I want it, deal with it."
Which is strange considering this contradicts the core tenet of this book. The author isn't telling you "Do this." He's trying to persuade you through reason and logic and evolutionary and childhood psychology to act in a different way.
He says that a person does not need a justification for a need; the only justification is the fact that they want it. And that they are the ultimate judge for whether their wanting is right or wrong. This, to me, seems to advocate for naive narcissism.
Being your own judge of your behavior essentially means you make your own rules for living, but these rules must be derived from values. To be your own judge, you must define your own values. This was essentially Nietzsche's call to action, that we create our own values. Because, of course, if values are handed on to us, how can we truly be our own ultimate judge? Schopenhauer said famously that you cannot decide whether you want something or not. You cannot simply use willpower to make yourself like something or dislike something. I think Dostoyevsky's character Raskolnikov illustrated this well; the result of attempting to override your inherited values results in insanity... something that happened to Nietzsche himself. A generous reading of Nietzsche of "Creating your own values" could be interpreted as simply cultivating the wanted traits over time, but this does not avoid the fact that we're essentially stuck with our values, as emergent from the unconscious.
Speaking of which, I don't see a good rationale for being the ultimate judge of our own behavior. Should we assume we have the capacity for it, and when should we do that? Certainly, a toddler does not have this capacity. Usually we put the age of consent around 16 or 18, but it would still be ridiculous to say that we tend to gain the ability to be the judge of our own actions around 20. Isn't that, if I were to use the favorite word of the author, "arbitrary"?
The book included examples of teenage girls being more assertive to their fathers about how controlling he was wanting her to come home earlier. So, would it really be right to say a teenage girl is appropriately deemed the ultimate judge of her actions? And she has the right to take the responsibilities for the consequences? Obviously I'm using some distasteful rhetoric here, but it seems to me that this is incompatible with the commonsense notion that has manifested as a legalized age of sexual consent.
I think the author went too far with the "arbitrary"-ness of right and wrong ultimately. I think he should have stopped at some point. I would prefer to have said that our inherent conscience, which is aimed at an objective right and wrong, can be weaponized, abused in the form of manipulating us to do according to their own guilt or will-to-power. The line of legal codes, ethics, morality, God, the State, dad, is often blurred and confused to our own detriment. I agree with him that it's a common problem to confuse systems of right and wrong with legal codes. They haven't made a clear distinction in their brain between the right and wrong of the deepest sense of their conscience and following some rule to the letter; thus, in Nietzsche's words, they have adopted a herd-mentality and are easily exploited.
What I especially dislike about this post-modern ethic is that by removing objective morality (what's right or wrong, what ought to be), the fallback is extreme subjectivism, which leads to moral relativism. Charles Taylor criticized this in his Ethics of Authenticity, where there was a growing notion, especially in the United States at the time this book was written, where college students were taught to feel justified for their choices or desires by the circular reasoning that they were chosen by them. In other words, we can define our own metric for what's right and wrong; thus, objective justice or truth didn't exist, instead, everyone had their own subjective truth (which leads to people believing they are cats, and ultimately violence).
When everyone has their own subjective truth, then taken to the logical conclusion, we are reverting back to a society made out of two-year-olds, because words will be of no value to deal with conflict through rational discourse.
Further, the framework of this book is flawed. The author gives many examples of assertiveness in action, where they accuse the opponent of trying to manipulate and induce guilt, where the protagonist isn't.
There was a very annoying insistence that everyone the author or one of his clients was dealing with was "manipulating them," especially through guilt. It could be always interpreted both ways.
The irony of all this is that the book is teaching us that there is right and wrong: it's wrong to manipulate and make others feel guilty. And the book criticizes that people use structures of right and wrong to arbitrarily apply them to what serves them best. And this is exactly what this book does too. My opponent's motivations are due to a desire to induce guilt and manipulate, whereas I am simply expressing my desires to get what I want.
Don't get me wrong, there is genuine value in the book. Again, bringing to awareness the hijacking of conscience for strings of manipulation is very worthwhile. And this narcissistic, hyper-subjective, post-modernistic relativistic framework might be a good useful thing to adopt if you're in serious need of some assertiveness. But my enthusiasm for books is limited that offer an overcompensation instead of a truthful target.
A big chunk of the book is dedicated to ways of handling criticism and conflict. I really enjoyed these. The methods used were "fogging," "negative assertion," "negative inquiry" and "broken record". They remind me a lot about frame-control (NLP term, I think). There were a lot of dialogue examples of how you can just assert your way through to get what you want, and I started having dreams where I was fogging and broken recording evil car mechanics as if I was installing new firmware on my mind. I believe the practical utility of having a system like this to follow is very useful.
The cool thing about assertion is that it massively improves your relationships with people. They begin to respect you. There is less residue of stifled guilt, anxiety, and anger, less passive-aggressiveness or withdrawal. The more you assert yourself, the more you like the person you've asserted yourself to. It raises the vibrational frequency for lack of better terms, and for romantic relationships, it unblocks energetic blockages which stifle the sexual energy between you: "Assertion leads to insertion."
Reading material like this is healthy once in a while. It brought to my forefront the manipulativeness that is so mundane and everyday, we virtually swim in it. I've become a bit hyper-conscious of it, maybe to a fault. Manipulation is the opposite of humor. In seduction, men are throwing flattering seductive ploys such as clichés like "I love you," "I think of you all the time," "you are so sexy, etc." Since reading this book, a woman said "Peter, you've been so funny lately," which resulted from me basically doing the opposite of seduction—kind of like Charles Bukowski.
>*me boring conversation*
>her: i was busy (manipulative, making me guilty for interfering with her productive life)
>her: how are you? (manipulative, i have the assertion to not reply)
>me: im busy (self-disclosure)
>she laughs
>her: are you mad? (manipulative)
>me: like always (fogging? i don't know)
>her: why? (manipulative - playing on my guilt that i leave her wondering)
>me: i got two parking tickets today (self-disclosure)
>me: and you let me hanging as always (self-disclosure)
>me: i don't have a family and instead i'm using my saturday reading a book that contradicts itself while checking my phone once in a while to remind myself that you are too busy to attend my meaningless boring messages (negative assertion, fogging, negative self inquiry, compromise? i don't know, i'm getting the hang of these. and no the thing in the parentheses i did not actually say, it would be ridiculous unless she had read the book. anyway it's been a long day, i give it 3/5 stars. wait, am i still in the parentheses?)
The author thus blames the self-reinforcement of guilt on the parent-to-child relationship, causing our inability to be assertive, and our overreliance on socialized forms of fight-or-flight response, usually in the form of passive-aggressiveness or passive-flight.
The author seems to be leaping from one assertion to another, and the theory seems to have holes in it. I couldn't follow the trail of thought here. He was rather vague about the role of arbitrary rules and laws, and the notion of good and bad that's implanted in our childhood. Does that mean that our conscience is merely a product of socialization? That it's merely a superego? It seems to me that the author was too embedded in the zeitgeist of Freud and also evolutionary psychology at the time of his writing. I, for one, certainly do not believe that you can simply reduce our conscience to merely a product of socialization—and that it's simply a product of manipulation through the guilt of our parents.
Okay leaving that aside, we learn there are three ways, generally speaking, of dealing with problems with other people: ancient fight or flight, and the brand new verbal assertiveness that came with our prefrontal cortex or something.
He takes this framework and makes a strange Rousseauian wrapping around it, discarding Ernest Haeckel's recapulation theory, and says we are inherently and naturally gifted with the ability to be verbally assertive. Actually, it's the first thing we do when we come out of the womb. He writes: "As infants, we are naturally assertive. Your first independent act at birth was to protest the treatment you were receiving! If something happened which you didn't like, you let others know immediately by verbal assertion—whining, crying or screaming at all hours of the day or night."
Unfortunately, through our parents' guilt and manipulative behavior that we pick up by osmosis, thus internalizing this, by way of super-ego, we lose our ability to verbally assert ourselves and fall back on fight or flight.
To me, this theory makes no sense. Simply falling on the floor and crying isn't being verbally assertive. It's taking the most manipulative elements of fight and flight, combining them in a cocktail designed for maximum manipulation of those around you.
If anyone simply does not get what they want and starts crying, this is not verbal assertiveness; this is a hardwired biological tendency you default to as an attempt to manipulate the feelings of the other person.
While you might say it's bad for an adult to do this, to simply attribute virtue to this act because the baby has no language, you're revealing an irrational bias toward the pristine quality of nature and the corrupting forces of society.
I'd also point out the problems with stating how arbitrary the rules are for our behavior. It seems to me that morality stems upward from the implicit into the explicit. Thus, we shouldn't assume by default that social conventions are arbitrary, even if we can't give a rationale for them. This is what I believe is the naive arrogance of the liberal radical social reformers.
In the beginning of the book, he said that he abides by the approach of focusing on what works, not why it works. And I wish he'd stick with his own principles, because his underlying reasoning for our behavior is simply a product of speculation and the materialistic zeitgeist of the time, because the actual core message of the book is valuable.
The core value here is that it highlights the contrast between assertiveness and manipulation. Manipulation has three main targets: making the target feel ignorant, anxious, or guilty—these are the languages of manipulation. Thus, a manipulative exchange might be about who can make the other one more guilty.
What I particularly liked about this book is the concrete examples it gives. An example of manipulation is where the mother is bothered by her child playing too loudly in the living room; she might feel too guilty about expressing her needs directly: "Get the hell out of here while I'm trying to sleep!" and thus resort to manipulation through guilt: "Why are you playing with the dog instead of your sister? Don't you know X Y Z? A B C might happen if you don't play with her."
Taking the assertive way, while the child might be feeling guilty for bothering the parent sleeping, feel anxious for the raw emotions experienced, and feel ignorant for not knowing this was a problem, the idea here is that the parent didn't use these feelings as means to get what they want; rather, it's the byproduct of self-expression, and this byproduct can and should, ideally, be minimized, if not eradicated, through continuous exposure and reassurance that it's actually okay, and there's no real need to have such feelings.
What it breaks down to, essentially, is that we feel guilty (or anxious) about asserting our own will over people, so we obfuscate our own guilt by pulling the strings of guilt on other people to get what we want. We also feel guilty, or fear consequences, of irrational things that bother us, and we tackle these problems sometimes with withdrawal (stifled flight response) or passive-aggressiveness (neutered fight response).
A lot of people make excuses and try to manipulate to get out of their own guilt of broken promises. Here's an example of how to break a promise: "I know it's dumb of me to make a promise that I can't keep, but we are going to put off going to Disneyland on Saturday. You didn't do anything wrong and it's not your fault. Let's see when we can go again, okay?"
The author tries to give some philosophical justification of a "Bill of assertive rights" which rests on the idea that you have the right to judge your own behavior, thoughts, and emotions and to take responsibility for their initiation and consequences upon yourself.
Taken for what it is, I really like this idea. When I was younger, I picked this tip up from a secondary source which probably took it from here, and it was like an "aha" experience, waking me up to the fact that I'm an adult and I carry the source of truth within me, from which I can be a real judge of what's right. I've also picked up to discard "should" from my vocabulary, and that made a lot of sense to me.
However, I'm not onboard when he says "ultimate judge" of our own behavior. He writes: "If we truly doubt that we are the ultimate judge of our own behavior, we are powerless to control our own destiny without all sorts of rules about how each of us 'should' behave."
The author says that the way we behave ourselves is based on arbitrary grounds, and that all laws and rules are invented by insecure people who try to cope with the complexity and ambiguity of their own behavior; they invent rules for themselves and impose them on others, using the beliefs from our childhood as outlines and templates for these rules.
And in order to enforce these arbitrarily invented rules and standards of right and wrong, they will try to use logic and reason to control your behavior that may be in conflict with their own personal wants, likes, and dislikes.
This seems to be applied psychology of Nietzschean post-modernism. Nietzsche said that our philosophies are just rationalizations for our will to power. Thus, the advice here is to circumvent all the rationalization, all the logic, all the moralism, and just be raw and direct about your will-to-power.
Thus we are advised, instead of complying with requests to answer as to why we want something, we should be perfectly fine to simply state "I want it, deal with it."
Which is strange considering this contradicts the core tenet of this book. The author isn't telling you "Do this." He's trying to persuade you through reason and logic and evolutionary and childhood psychology to act in a different way.
He says that a person does not need a justification for a need; the only justification is the fact that they want it. And that they are the ultimate judge for whether their wanting is right or wrong. This, to me, seems to advocate for naive narcissism.
Being your own judge of your behavior essentially means you make your own rules for living, but these rules must be derived from values. To be your own judge, you must define your own values. This was essentially Nietzsche's call to action, that we create our own values. Because, of course, if values are handed on to us, how can we truly be our own ultimate judge? Schopenhauer said famously that you cannot decide whether you want something or not. You cannot simply use willpower to make yourself like something or dislike something. I think Dostoyevsky's character Raskolnikov illustrated this well; the result of attempting to override your inherited values results in insanity... something that happened to Nietzsche himself. A generous reading of Nietzsche of "Creating your own values" could be interpreted as simply cultivating the wanted traits over time, but this does not avoid the fact that we're essentially stuck with our values, as emergent from the unconscious.
Speaking of which, I don't see a good rationale for being the ultimate judge of our own behavior. Should we assume we have the capacity for it, and when should we do that? Certainly, a toddler does not have this capacity. Usually we put the age of consent around 16 or 18, but it would still be ridiculous to say that we tend to gain the ability to be the judge of our own actions around 20. Isn't that, if I were to use the favorite word of the author, "arbitrary"?
The book included examples of teenage girls being more assertive to their fathers about how controlling he was wanting her to come home earlier. So, would it really be right to say a teenage girl is appropriately deemed the ultimate judge of her actions? And she has the right to take the responsibilities for the consequences? Obviously I'm using some distasteful rhetoric here, but it seems to me that this is incompatible with the commonsense notion that has manifested as a legalized age of sexual consent.
I think the author went too far with the "arbitrary"-ness of right and wrong ultimately. I think he should have stopped at some point. I would prefer to have said that our inherent conscience, which is aimed at an objective right and wrong, can be weaponized, abused in the form of manipulating us to do according to their own guilt or will-to-power. The line of legal codes, ethics, morality, God, the State, dad, is often blurred and confused to our own detriment. I agree with him that it's a common problem to confuse systems of right and wrong with legal codes. They haven't made a clear distinction in their brain between the right and wrong of the deepest sense of their conscience and following some rule to the letter; thus, in Nietzsche's words, they have adopted a herd-mentality and are easily exploited.
What I especially dislike about this post-modern ethic is that by removing objective morality (what's right or wrong, what ought to be), the fallback is extreme subjectivism, which leads to moral relativism. Charles Taylor criticized this in his Ethics of Authenticity, where there was a growing notion, especially in the United States at the time this book was written, where college students were taught to feel justified for their choices or desires by the circular reasoning that they were chosen by them. In other words, we can define our own metric for what's right and wrong; thus, objective justice or truth didn't exist, instead, everyone had their own subjective truth (which leads to people believing they are cats, and ultimately violence).
When everyone has their own subjective truth, then taken to the logical conclusion, we are reverting back to a society made out of two-year-olds, because words will be of no value to deal with conflict through rational discourse.
Further, the framework of this book is flawed. The author gives many examples of assertiveness in action, where they accuse the opponent of trying to manipulate and induce guilt, where the protagonist isn't.
There was a very annoying insistence that everyone the author or one of his clients was dealing with was "manipulating them," especially through guilt. It could be always interpreted both ways.
The irony of all this is that the book is teaching us that there is right and wrong: it's wrong to manipulate and make others feel guilty. And the book criticizes that people use structures of right and wrong to arbitrarily apply them to what serves them best. And this is exactly what this book does too. My opponent's motivations are due to a desire to induce guilt and manipulate, whereas I am simply expressing my desires to get what I want.
Don't get me wrong, there is genuine value in the book. Again, bringing to awareness the hijacking of conscience for strings of manipulation is very worthwhile. And this narcissistic, hyper-subjective, post-modernistic relativistic framework might be a good useful thing to adopt if you're in serious need of some assertiveness. But my enthusiasm for books is limited that offer an overcompensation instead of a truthful target.
A big chunk of the book is dedicated to ways of handling criticism and conflict. I really enjoyed these. The methods used were "fogging," "negative assertion," "negative inquiry" and "broken record". They remind me a lot about frame-control (NLP term, I think). There were a lot of dialogue examples of how you can just assert your way through to get what you want, and I started having dreams where I was fogging and broken recording evil car mechanics as if I was installing new firmware on my mind. I believe the practical utility of having a system like this to follow is very useful.
The cool thing about assertion is that it massively improves your relationships with people. They begin to respect you. There is less residue of stifled guilt, anxiety, and anger, less passive-aggressiveness or withdrawal. The more you assert yourself, the more you like the person you've asserted yourself to. It raises the vibrational frequency for lack of better terms, and for romantic relationships, it unblocks energetic blockages which stifle the sexual energy between you: "Assertion leads to insertion."
Reading material like this is healthy once in a while. It brought to my forefront the manipulativeness that is so mundane and everyday, we virtually swim in it. I've become a bit hyper-conscious of it, maybe to a fault. Manipulation is the opposite of humor. In seduction, men are throwing flattering seductive ploys such as clichés like "I love you," "I think of you all the time," "you are so sexy, etc." Since reading this book, a woman said "Peter, you've been so funny lately," which resulted from me basically doing the opposite of seduction—kind of like Charles Bukowski.
>*me boring conversation*
>her: i was busy (manipulative, making me guilty for interfering with her productive life)
>her: how are you? (manipulative, i have the assertion to not reply)
>me: im busy (self-disclosure)
>she laughs
>her: are you mad? (manipulative)
>me: like always (fogging? i don't know)
>her: why? (manipulative - playing on my guilt that i leave her wondering)
>me: i got two parking tickets today (self-disclosure)
>me: and you let me hanging as always (self-disclosure)
>me: i don't have a family and instead i'm using my saturday reading a book that contradicts itself while checking my phone once in a while to remind myself that you are too busy to attend my meaningless boring messages (negative assertion, fogging, negative self inquiry, compromise? i don't know, i'm getting the hang of these. and no the thing in the parentheses i did not actually say, it would be ridiculous unless she had read the book. anyway it's been a long day, i give it 3/5 stars. wait, am i still in the parentheses?)
September 24, 2022
Este me lo recomendaron en un taller de Prácticas Neurolingüísticas, es un libro de autoayuda presentado por un psiquiatra que nos explica algunas normas y técnicas aplicadas con ejemplos muy claros y específicos que son de fácil comprensión.
Lo primero es destacar que el ser asertivo va mucho más allá de “la habilidad de expresar nuestros deseos de una manera amable, franca, abierta, directa y adecuada, logrando decir lo que queremos sin atentar contra los demás”, pues lo primero es poder hacer eso con nosotros mismos. Es decir que seamos sinceros con lo que queremos o no, con aceptar que el arte de la manipulación lo aprendimos de nuestros padres y otros adultos cuidadores que nos enseñaron que siempre hay una autoridad a la que se debe complacer y que eso va sobre nuestros propios sentimientos. Es triste, pero una realidad con la que debemos combatir al tomar conciencia.
En resumen “ser asertivo significa confiar en uno mismo y en sus capacidades”. Las técnicas expuestas son sencillas, pero requieren de práctica, vale la pena el intento.
Para quienes gustan de estos temas o de las PNL, recomendado.
Lo primero es destacar que el ser asertivo va mucho más allá de “la habilidad de expresar nuestros deseos de una manera amable, franca, abierta, directa y adecuada, logrando decir lo que queremos sin atentar contra los demás”, pues lo primero es poder hacer eso con nosotros mismos. Es decir que seamos sinceros con lo que queremos o no, con aceptar que el arte de la manipulación lo aprendimos de nuestros padres y otros adultos cuidadores que nos enseñaron que siempre hay una autoridad a la que se debe complacer y que eso va sobre nuestros propios sentimientos. Es triste, pero una realidad con la que debemos combatir al tomar conciencia.
En resumen “ser asertivo significa confiar en uno mismo y en sus capacidades”. Las técnicas expuestas son sencillas, pero requieren de práctica, vale la pena el intento.
Para quienes gustan de estos temas o de las PNL, recomendado.
Read
January 7, 2009اغلب اوقات، بعضيها با اين باور غير واقع بينانه که آدم سالم کسي است که مسالهاي ندارد، به اين نتيجه میرسند که ادامه ندادن اين طور زندگي، بهتر است. اغلب بيماراني که هنگام معالجه با روحيهشان آشنا میشوم، اين باور منفي را در خود پرورش دادهاند اما گناه مسئلهها و دشواريها نيست. گناه احساس خودمان است که خيال میکنيم نمیتوانيم از پس مسايل و مردمیکه مسئله ساز هستند برآييم.
ارتباط کلامی و توانايي حل دشواريها تفاوت اصلي ميان بشريت و موجوداتي است که يا از بين رفتهاند يا نسل آنها در شرف انقراض و يا در نهايت تحت انسانها درآمدهاند. در حالي که حيوانات در تنها سلاحشان براي تنازع بقا، جنگ يا گريز با انسان شريک هستند. ما به لطف نياکان موفقترمان براي ادامه حيات علاوه بر توانايي جنگ، گريز از نيروی تکلم بهرهمند هستيم. که از آن برای مشکلات خود به جای جنگ و گرز استفاده میکنيم و با گفت و گو يکديگر به تفاهم میرسيم.
ارتباط کلامی و توانايي حل دشواريها تفاوت اصلي ميان بشريت و موجوداتي است که يا از بين رفتهاند يا نسل آنها در شرف انقراض و يا در نهايت تحت انسانها درآمدهاند. در حالي که حيوانات در تنها سلاحشان براي تنازع بقا، جنگ يا گريز با انسان شريک هستند. ما به لطف نياکان موفقترمان براي ادامه حيات علاوه بر توانايي جنگ، گريز از نيروی تکلم بهرهمند هستيم. که از آن برای مشکلات خود به جای جنگ و گرز استفاده میکنيم و با گفت و گو يکديگر به تفاهم میرسيم.
September 13, 2021
While this book is slightly outdated and has some odd examples, I took a lot from it that has already helped my confidence and conversations with others. It's a book that teaches you to be assertive without always having to be mean and allows you to compromise with others. A big part of being assertive is confidence, so it helps with that as well. It's a self help book with actual actionable steps.
August 25, 2023
Cons: Archaic scenarios, misogyny, homophobia, most examples only apply to men, a bit monotonous, men’s bathroom rules are absolutely absurd.
Pros: simple steps to practice, teaches you to not take responsibility for others needs/reactions, advocated for self esteem, teaches you to recognize manipulation.
Pros: simple steps to practice, teaches you to not take responsibility for others needs/reactions, advocated for self esteem, teaches you to recognize manipulation.
June 13, 2022
The first 100 pages or so of this book were great, inspirational and empowering the less assertive that they have the right to judge your own actions, to not have to explain yourself, to be able to change your mind, and not have to solve other people's problems for them. Simply repeating these "rights" (and there are others) is a huge step in maintaining an assertive mindset and removing the guilt that many of us feel when we aren't so accommodating.
The rest of the book is a long string of examples of people using tactics that the author lays out for interacting with people. The problem with all of these examples (and there are way too many IMO) is that I don't think the person comes out being more assertive in a positive way, they just end up seeming like an ass. Granted, this book was written in the 1970's, so there is a lot that might be different if the book was written in modern times.
Ultimately I'm glad I read the book, and have already changed some of my responses due to taking into consideration the "rights" explained at the beginning of the book. I may even begin practicing some of the ideas like "fogging" and "broken record", but perhaps not to the extreme that the author uses in his examples.
The rest of the book is a long string of examples of people using tactics that the author lays out for interacting with people. The problem with all of these examples (and there are way too many IMO) is that I don't think the person comes out being more assertive in a positive way, they just end up seeming like an ass. Granted, this book was written in the 1970's, so there is a lot that might be different if the book was written in modern times.
Ultimately I'm glad I read the book, and have already changed some of my responses due to taking into consideration the "rights" explained at the beginning of the book. I may even begin practicing some of the ideas like "fogging" and "broken record", but perhaps not to the extreme that the author uses in his examples.
February 14, 2008
I'm only about halfway through this book, but it's already evoking some pretty strong feelings. It's a good book, and important for someone like me who has a real problem with being easily manipulated, but some of the communication techniques outlined in here -- fogging (parrotting criticism back at the critic), broken record ("asserting" the same request over and over to the point of sounding autistic), etc. -- are better suited for therapeutic role-playing sessions than everyday life. Dr. Smith does give some good, practical advice about recognizing manipulation as it's happening, and also about assertive body language, verbiage, and eye contact. But it's frustrating to have to weed through the unrealistic dialogues to find the helpful gems of truth.
June 29, 2018
Helpful explanations of negative assertion, negative inquiry, and broken record techniques to use when you are being manipulated. A lot of the example dialogues are repetitive and tiresome after reading a few. Some of the tactics feel like they're the basis of 'pickup artist' techniques in the sense that the person using the techniques should not take no for an answer to what they want... which, confusingly, also feels manipulative?
January 29, 2017
It's classic book but now it's very outdated. The principles are still solid but examples just reinforce some ways of nonproductive and manipulative communication.
I won't recommend reading it if you don't have at least basic understanding of principles of assertiveness, listening, and emotional intelligence. Only if you do, you would be able to sift through the valuable information.
I won't recommend reading it if you don't have at least basic understanding of principles of assertiveness, listening, and emotional intelligence. Only if you do, you would be able to sift through the valuable information.
March 13, 2018
Into it! Reading it I felt more equipment to deal with situations where I want something but don't feel confident standing up for it. I'm still unsure of where the line comes between applying these techniques to be assertive and being an asshole though.
October 14, 2019
Extremely helpful book. My therapist recommended it. It was by far the best recommendation she gave. I loved how practical and helpful it was. I'm actively looking to work on the skills that this book discussed.
I hope I find more like it!
I hope I find more like it!
January 16, 2014
I couldn't finish it
Displaying 1 - 30 of 252 reviews