Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Charisma: Now You’ve Got It, Now You Don’t

lareviewofbooks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 73 posts

Re: Charisma: Now You’ve Got It, Now You Don’t

#31

Post by 082349872349872 »

jfengel wrote: post #28
082349872349872 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adorno sounds familiar, so you're probably right about the source influence. I recall RWA being distinct from "people who go to church on Sundays and have world-normal psychological responses", so I'll check that later and leave it here in an edit. Agreed on the middle east situation, but I've written elsewhere on HN about the catch-22 that I believe has produced a Baptists and Bootleggers dynamic in what Orwell woul…

It feels weird that they'd pay any attention to the 100 midpoint. These questions feel like they're written to make the authoritarians look unreasonable. Which I feel they are, too, but the way it's written the only way to give the more authoritarian answer would be to be either truly delusional or performing as if one were. That doesn't mean it's useless, but it does mean that the midpoint is arbitrary. If nobody sc…

We might both think that giving the more authoritarian answer would be performing as if one were delusional, but the "high RWA" population he writes about evidently think it's correct.

A mean score of 90 doesn't imply nobody scores above 100, just that the ones below overbalance the ones above. I'd guess (it may be time to hit primary sources?) that when he says "high RWA" he doesn't mean as low as 110, either.

There are footnotes on pp.36-46 discussing the design of the scale. They include why he believes Adorno's design was flawed (it gave high scores to people who simply agreed with every statement), as well as:

(p.43) > "What is a “high RWA”? When I am writing a scientific report of my research I call the 25% of a sample who scored highest on the RWA scale “High RWAs” with a capital-H. Similarly I call the 25% who scored lowest “Low RWAs,” and my computer runs wondrous statistical tests comparing Highs with Lows. But in this book where I’m describing results, not documenting them, I’ll use “high RWAs” more loosely to simply mean the people in a study who score relatively highly on the RWA scale, and “low RWAs” will mean those who score relatively low on the test."

Re: Charisma: Now You’ve Got It, Now You Don’t

#32

Post by b0rsuk »

ravenstine wrote: post #19
hedberg10 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dr Ramani is pretty awesome, but all her views are heavily skewed towards narcissism and it's dangers, rightfully so, since people seem to underestimate that trait. It all depends how you define charisma. If it's "larger than life" it can be and is often abused, if it's "easy to be around and suave" that comes closer to what I would think charisma is.

I liked Ramani until I realized that every other day she posts videos where she repeats the same material she's covered countless times in the past. I became convinced that you could watch her whole YouTube channel and conclude that everyone around you is a narcissist. This isn't to say that she hasn't made lots of good and valid content, but I find it ironic that she uses her own apparent charisma to exploit a topic…

Dr Grande has a very good channel and it's hard to find a flaw in it. I guess it's relatively unexciting - until you hear him talk about guns.

In my opinion there's a narcissism epidemic going on. Charisma is seen not just as a trait but as a value. Everyone wants some. It's lumped together with good leadership, extroversion etc. Charismatic selfish people are praised as CEOs, celebrities, youtubers, politicians, actors. And enthralled people keep making excuses for them! And calling YOU crazy.

For many people it's true that narcissists are all around, and it's easy to explain! Kind, selfless, charitable people are narcissist magnets(They will keep making excuses). Also people from messed up families, who didn't develop healthy boundaries(Does fish know it's under water?). They are easy to impress and exploit. Narcissists and manipulators can sense weakness. By contrast, if you're assertive, you repel them without knowing and it may seem like the problem is overblown. Both earlier kinds of people end up being marginalized.

I have another issue with Dr Ramani and why she's not a complete source on narcissim. She's great for theory and the big picture but gives few examples of things narcissists actually say and how you might counteract it.

Re: Charisma: Now You’ve Got It, Now You Don’t

#33

Post by b0rsuk »

hedberg10 wrote: post #30
ravenstine wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I liked Ramani until I realized that every other day she posts videos where she repeats the same material she's covered countless times in the past. I became convinced that you could watch her whole YouTube channel and conclude that everyone around you is a narcissist. This isn't to say that she hasn't made lots of good and valid content, but I find it ironic that she uses her own apparent charisma to exploit a topic…

I think she just focused on narcissism for a whole month, as well as it being somewhat of a specialty of hers. It's also a pretty big Youtube niche. If you watch the Med Circle content she is pretty succinct and well versed on other mental health issues as well.

Yup, I saw her comparing borderline to CPTSD. She talks about avoidant personality disorder, paranoia, antisocial, and obsessive-compulsive.

Re: Charisma: Now You’ve Got It, Now You Don’t

#34

Post by bgroat »

motohagiography wrote: post #18

There is a saying that, "all political careers end in failure," which references this aspect of charisma where you have it - until you don't. It is an example of what happens when you fail a test of charisma, where you never really get it back in that particular relationship to those people. I read Olivia Fox-Cabane's work on charisma (Charisma Myth) and she showed how it can be a set of attributes you can practice.…

I've been writing about this a lot lately.

Intellectuals tend to be VERY dismissive of critically looking at charisma and persuasion as tools.

They're convinced that since they're ideas are SO GOOD they should will just be accepted upon stating facts.

Besides, only manipulators and cult leaders try to be charismatic and persuasive.

But I argue that "If only bad people study charismatic persuasion, then only bad people will be charismatically persuasive"

Re: Charisma: Now You’ve Got It, Now You Don’t

#35

Post by motohagiography »

jfengel wrote: post #27
motohagiography wrote: post #18

There is a saying that, "all political careers end in failure," which references this aspect of charisma where you have it - until you don't. It is an example of what happens when you fail a test of charisma, where you never really get it back in that particular relationship to those people. I read Olivia Fox-Cabane's work on charisma (Charisma Myth) and she showed how it can be a set of attributes you can practice.…

Thank you for the pointer to Fox-Cabane. I'm going to read that. I've thought a lot about charisma in the context of actors. People are drawn to certain actors for reasons that are hard to pin down. It's most explicit in film action heroes. They're often not the most attractive men and they're rarely good actors, but people will go see a Sylvester Stallone or Arnold Schwartzenegger film even after a long string of fl…

Cabane has great insights I can't do justice to or summarize, highly recommend her books and presentations.

There aren't a lot of short answers on presence, but exceptional Presence is necessarily physical, so I've found that the ways to develop it require developing technique. In a meeting, people naturally listen to the best programmer, deal maker, explainer, or whatever else people do that is the currency of the realm. Think of a musician who has a diminutive personality, until they have an instrument in their hands and suddenly they're a huge presence. It's the effect of their physical performance and skill, which is something you can't fake, that is the effect of competence in a domain. Charisma isn't domination either, as domination is crude and simple, whereas having charisma means you're the person people want to listen to, not the one they just can't talk over.

In that sense, great actors are usually good enough at something else that they can summon the confidence from that into a role.

Re: Charisma: Now You’ve Got It, Now You Don’t

#36

Post by wallflower »

> I once shook hands with Bill Clinton, and for one tiny moment, he made me feel like the most important person in the world. That's charisma.

> It's not far off from love, is it? When someone's in love with you, they see you as the most wonderful person in the world. It's a hell of a feeling. If you can do that for people you're not in love with, you've got charisma.

(From the start of that comment)

> I think the formula for charisma is simple: convince people that you see them as better than they see themselves. If you make people feel like they're special -- smarter, funnier, braver, more beautiful -- than they think they are, they'll stick around you because they want to see themselves this way.

https://ask.metafilter.com/128697/What-is-charisma

Re: Charisma: Now You’ve Got It, Now You Don’t

#37

Post by BoiledCabbage »

motohagiography wrote: post #35
jfengel wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for the pointer to Fox-Cabane. I'm going to read that. I've thought a lot about charisma in the context of actors. People are drawn to certain actors for reasons that are hard to pin down. It's most explicit in film action heroes. They're often not the most attractive men and they're rarely good actors, but people will go see a Sylvester Stallone or Arnold Schwartzenegger film even after a long string of fl…

Cabane has great insights I can't do justice to or summarize, highly recommend her books and presentations. There aren't a lot of short answers on presence, but exceptional Presence is necessarily physical, so I've found that the ways to develop it require developing technique. In a meeting, people naturally listen to the best programmer, deal maker, explainer, or whatever else people do that is the currency of the r…

As interesting as the book sounded, this description is a bit disappointing. Being the best at what you do, in my mind has little to nothing to do with charisma. It does help achieve the same results as being charismatic (people listen to you, want to be in your presence, respect your opinions more, more willing to go along with what you say), but not due to charisma. It's due to the social capital of being the best at something people care about.

Charisma is more about people feeling that same way from someone the just met, from someone who just walked into the room, from someone they know nothing about.

Re: Charisma: Now You’ve Got It, Now You Don’t

#38

Post by borroka »

bgroat wrote: post #34
motohagiography wrote: post #18

There is a saying that, "all political careers end in failure," which references this aspect of charisma where you have it - until you don't. It is an example of what happens when you fail a test of charisma, where you never really get it back in that particular relationship to those people. I read Olivia Fox-Cabane's work on charisma (Charisma Myth) and she showed how it can be a set of attributes you can practice.…

I've been writing about this a lot lately. Intellectuals tend to be VERY dismissive of critically looking at charisma and persuasion as tools. They're convinced that since they're ideas are SO GOOD they should will just be accepted upon stating facts. Besides, only manipulators and cult leaders try to be charismatic and persuasive. But I argue that "If only bad people study charismatic persuasion, then only bad peopl…

The harsh reality of life, for the many who tend to be too deep in their thoughts, is that if intellectuals spent more time on their looks (which, when they are good, are per se charismatic and persuasive), their "so good" ideas will have many more chances to appear "so good" to also those hearing and reading those ideas.

Along the same lines, those who are leading the effort in making Science more popular and attract, for example, underrepresented minorities, should focus on making more visible scientists who are good looking, charismatic, and therefore persuasive. It sounds manipulative, especially to the eyes of intellectuals, but it'd work.

Re: Charisma: Now You’ve Got It, Now You Don’t

#39

Post by AlwaysRock »

bgroat wrote: post #34
motohagiography wrote: post #18

There is a saying that, "all political careers end in failure," which references this aspect of charisma where you have it - until you don't. It is an example of what happens when you fail a test of charisma, where you never really get it back in that particular relationship to those people. I read Olivia Fox-Cabane's work on charisma (Charisma Myth) and she showed how it can be a set of attributes you can practice.…

I've been writing about this a lot lately. Intellectuals tend to be VERY dismissive of critically looking at charisma and persuasion as tools. They're convinced that since they're ideas are SO GOOD they should will just be accepted upon stating facts. Besides, only manipulators and cult leaders try to be charismatic and persuasive. But I argue that "If only bad people study charismatic persuasion, then only bad peopl…

Most of the mediocrely talented but very successful people I know get by with high charisma. Or putting in many more hours than others. I don't know which one is easier to maintain over the course of a career.

Re: Charisma: Now You’ve Got It, Now You Don’t

#40

Post by motohagiography »

BoiledCabbage wrote: post #37
motohagiography wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cabane has great insights I can't do justice to or summarize, highly recommend her books and presentations. There aren't a lot of short answers on presence, but exceptional Presence is necessarily physical, so I've found that the ways to develop it require developing technique. In a meeting, people naturally listen to the best programmer, deal maker, explainer, or whatever else people do that is the currency of the r…

As interesting as the book sounded, this description is a bit disappointing. Being the best at what you do, in my mind has little to nothing to do with charisma. It does help achieve the same results as being charismatic (people listen to you, want to be in your presence, respect your opinions more, more willing to go along with what you say), but not due to charisma. It's due to the social capital of being the best…

I'm saying that one secret to developing the presence aspect of charisma is that competence is upstream of all the effects you have described, to clarify.
Post reply on HN