Charisma - What is it and have you got it?

[Deleted member 16771]

Certainly. In fact, institutional/moral authority is an example of something that can facilitate influence without charisma.

For example, not all popes are charismatic (would it be fair to say?) but to be the pope means to be highly influential on the community of Catholics.

A better example would be the asshole boss in a workplace. His power is the product of two forces: charisma + coercion.

For the people that see through this 'orrible cunt, they follow his orders typically out of fear of the consequences of not doing so - that they'd lose their jobs, or their life would be made worse, &c.

However, there are always individuals in such situations who respond to the charisma of said 'orrible cunt - they willingly follow his orders out of reverence for the office. 'He's the boss'. Sometimes they're even besotted with the boss despite his obvious lack of redeeming qualities. They experience his charisma in a way that most others around him do not.

A fictional example is Gareth's relationship to David Brent in The Office. Everybody else sees Brent as a pillock; a man who has to be endured; but Gareth experiences his charisma in a very real way.

It's never a property that can be 'possessed' by any individual, only expressed as a force between leaders and followers. It exists only in the space between them. Just because you or I don't experience this force from particular individuals, doesn't mean that it isn't there for others.

In general, this is my working definition of 'charisma': a force that inspires followership without coercion.

What we're speculating on, then, are the mechanisms of this force, except that half of you guys seem to be confusing the force for a mechanism which happens to work on you.

 

[Wyote]

I like the idea of defining charisma as a blend of personal traits and the ability to channel the zeitgeist.

I would actually weigh the zeitgeist part less than the natural charisma.

Also there is an additional problem, which is that "natural charisma" isn't binary, while "channeling the zeitgeist" kinda is. You either did or didn't.

I think this variable needs to be changed. Maybe to something like "success", although that's not perfect either. Being the best basketball player of all time has to give you some points.

I think Hos had a suggestion to this effect—'moral force' in his own terms, but which would perhaps best be described as the association of an individual with an entire field, theme or topic.

We can only know it by its causal influence, like anything.

Otherwise we simply collapse into a problem of definitions. It's like gravity - we don't know what it is, but we can see it by its effects, and the label 'gravity' is a cipher for those effects - its a theoretical postulate about a cause.

The same is true of 'charisma'. We can only know it through its effects, and this label is merely a theoretical postulate for the cause of those effects, otherwise it disappears from our grasp into the realm of subjective impressions.

Take the complex of symbols denoted by the 'holy man' archetype. A Pope is gifted these automatically by the office, whereas a 'natural' must appropriate them through performative affinity with the symbols... He must adopt a certain kind of serene bearing, a certain kind of measured speech pattern, &c. &c. Whatever it is, in both cases the generation of charisma is proceeding from their affinity with the symbols.

It's never a property that can be 'possessed' by any individual, only expressed as a force between leaders and followers. It exists only in the space between them. Just because you or I don't experience this force from particular individuals, doesn't mean that it isn't there for others.

In general, this is my working definition of 'charisma': a force that inspires followership without coercion.

What we're speculating on, then, are the mechanisms of this force, except that half of you guys seem to be confusing the force for a mechanism which happens to work on you.

Ultimately what's happeneing here is that there are two "zones" where charisma is generated.
And each side seems intent on deferring to their own zone.

Charisma is something that an individual possesses independent of social interactions
And also a force that is bestowed upon them.
You can split hairs all day long about the various definitions, but ultimately it's both.
You can make the argument that without another person to interact with, there is no comparative marker and so charisma becomes impossible, in effect.
But that doesn't negate the qualities of the individual. They are simply no longer observable.

 

[philostam]

A better example would be

Don't you think we should be the judge of that, lol? The arrogance of you.

What we're speculating on, then, are the mechanisms of this force, except that half of you guys seem to be confusing the force for a mechanism which happens to work on you.

Lol again.

 

[philostam]

Ultimately what's happeneing here is that there are two "zones" where charisma is generated.
And each side seems intent on deferring to their own zone.

Charisma is something that an individual possesses independent of social interactions
And also a force that is bestowed upon them.
You can split hairs all day long about the various definitions, but ultimately it's both.
You can make the argument that without another person to interact with, there is no comparative marker and so charisma becomes impossible, in effect.
But that doesn't negate the qualities of the individual. They are simply no longer observable.

Pretty much, yeah.

More the thing that individual possesses, though.

 

[Wyote]

More the thing that individual possesses, though.

I might have fully agreed with you before this thread, but @Deleted member 16771 has got me thinking how broad and pervasive charismatic/moral force really is.
I'm not sure if either zone carries more weight.

 

[Ren]

I think this needs to be generalised because zeitgeist is maybe too big a concept to cover all aspects - it might be someone who is a shaper in their family or community and has been carried along by the local vibes.

Yes, I like that a lot, John. A kind of localising of zeitgeist. I think it makes sense.

 

[philostam]

I might have fully agreed with you before this thread, but @Deleted member 16771 has got me thinking how broad and pervasive moral force really is.
I'm not sure if either zone carries more weight.

I think both his arguments and attitude were 'extremely poor'.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

Charisma is something that an individual possesses independent of social interactions

I disagree with this.

You can split hairs all day long about the various definitions, but ultimately it's both.

Again, I disagree.

Don't you think we should be the judge of that, lol? The arrogance of you.

No, unless you think that I'm not an equal participant in this thread.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

I think both his arguments and attitude were 'extremely poor'.

Attitude? What are you talking about?

All 'frustration' I exhibited was mock, I had hoped that was clear. This is just fun for me, it's not 'real'.

And I don't think you get the right to swing in and decide what my attitude was like, phil... that is, unless you think that 'charisma' is reciprocal

 

[Deleted member 16771]

I think both his arguments and attitude were 'extremely poor'.

I'm charismatic whatever you think of me. It's an inherent property.

8/10 charisma score.

That's what we're saying, right?

lol

 

[Deleted member 16771]

I do find the Te/Ti split here really interesting, though.

It's clear that individuals are defaulting to quite distinct cognitive processes to do their reasoning.

 

[Ren]

The followers/following.

We know them by the effects of charisma.

I explained before why this won't do, but I will refrain from being rude and arrogant like you have been, because I see it as a sign of weakness.

You cannot determine a cause by its effect if an effect is is attributable to any number of causes. The causal factor here is undetermined by the multiple realisability of the effect. If both A causes B and C causes B, it does not follow necessarily that if B then A. This would only follow from: (A & B) => C, or if the causal relationship between A and B is necessary.

Replace A with 'charisma' and 'B' with following, and you can do the rest.

Fucking Ti, lol. I don't think I've ever seen two people get misled by a function so much.
(Just kidding, I think this is fun)

It is far easier to dismiss a point of view and assume it is wrong than to try to understand it.

You've been pretty dumb in your latest posts, Hos, to be honest. I wonder where your philosophical spirit has disappeared to.

You should come back down to earth. You're only a PhD student, you can learn much that is useful from other perspectives here, as well as from other ways of arguing. I think you may have let yourself be swayed by people complimenting you, but again, that is just weakness of spirit, and it won't allow you to get better and better.

Don't assume other contributions are wrong and weak: always assume that they have something to teach you. This is the kind of humility that is needed to really get good at a discipline.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

Also, FUCK FE, lol.

Can't have a simple discussion without someone getting upset or weighing in on etiquette.

 

[Ren]

I'm charismatic whatever you think of me. It's an inherent property.

8/10 charisma score.

That's what we're saying, right?

lol

Man, I think you might need to take another break from this forum.

You're not realising this, but you're becoming delusional—all pretenses to "having a bit of fun" aside.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

I explained before why this won't do, but I will refrain from being rude and arrogant like you have been, because I see it as a sign of weakness.

You cannot determine a cause by its effect if an effect is is attributable to any number of causes. The causal factor here is undetermined by the multiple realisability of the effect. If both A causes B and C causes B, it does not follow necessarily that if B then A. This would only follow from: (A & B) => C, or if the causal relationship between A and B is necessary.

Replace A with 'charisma' and 'B' with following, and you can do the rest.



It is far easier to dismiss a point of view and assume it is wrong than to try to understand it.

You've been pretty dumb in your latest posts, Hos, to be honest. I wonder where your philosophical spirit has disappeared to.

You should come back down to earth. You're only a PhD student, you can learn much that is useful from other perspectives here, as well as from other ways of arguing. I think you may have let yourself be swayed by people complimenting you, but again, that is just weakness of spirit, and it won't allow you to get better and better.

Don't assume other contributions are wrong and weak: always assume that they have something to teach you. This is the kind of humility that is needed to really get good at a discipline.

Argue against my position, Ren, not my person.

All of this ad hominem stuff isn't relevant.

We're disagreeing on what charisma is. That's it.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

Man, I think you might need to take another break from this forum.

You're not realising this, but you're becoming delusional—all pretenses to "having a bit of fun" aside.

If you can't see the joke there, then you're in a difference space to the one I'm in.

Again, you have no right whatsoever to come in with ad hominems and even suggest that I ought to take a break from this forum.

Wow.

 

[Ren]

Argue against my position, Ren, not my person.

All of this ad hominem stuff isn't relevant.

We're disagreeing on what charisma is. That's it.

I don't understand your position nor what there is to refute. It is too convoluted and riddled with obscure, hyper emphatic language.

I much prefer phil and John K's viewpoints, they are clearer and I think that together we arrived at a closer grasp of what charisma is.

I'm sorry that I can't be of any more help.

 

[Ren]

If you can't see the joke there, then you're in a difference space to the one I'm in.

Again, you have no right whatsoever to come in with ad hominems and even suggest that I ought to take a break from this forum.

Wow.

I'm sorry, but you needed someone to put you in your place.

I just had to do it.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

I'm sorry, but you needed someone to put you in your place.

I just had to do it.

Put me in my place? What on earth are you talking about?

 

[Ren]

Put me in my place? What on earth are you talking about?

You need to be more polite and more humble. Also, if you could make your arguments a little easier to understand, that would be helpful as well.

Instead of dismissing this straightaway as an 'ad hominem', why don't you sit on it for a while and ask yourself whether there may be some truth to it?

Also, stop blaming Fe. It's just a cheap shot.