Charisma - What is it and have you got it?

[Deleted member 16771]

It's tough to parse where individual skill transcends and begins this process of gifting.
I think there is some sort of basic quota for charismatic skill, but it can also be gifted to a person with less skill, if they are
1. Falsely perceived as having greater skill
2. The implementation of the act of gifting outweighs whatever detriment a lack of skill entails

Agreed. It's quite mysterious, but we have examples where charisma accrues to persons based almost completely on its 'gifting', as for instance in the person of the Dalai Lama as a child, or the Japanese emperors. I think @John K was getting at this kind of reverential charisma - charisma imparted through reverence.

I think there is a perception of a lot of people that Greta does indeed hold a certain kind of charisma.
But also that her ability to be charismatic is secondary to the idea of Greta. Greta the God, not Greta the actual person.

Definitely definitely.

I think there's a lot of subjective analysis of charisma going on in this thread where people are saying that so-and-so is or isn't charismatic, but that seems to completely miss the point of the reflexive process.

We can't say if a person is charismatic to others unless we are also saturated in the same symbols and ideals - that is, unless we're part of the 'target audience'.

And then there is the strange presumption of the existence of 'people' divorced from their symbolic and cultural context in order to make points about an identifiable, measurable property of 'objective' charisma. It doesn't work like that.

 

[Wyote]

'objective' charisma

That's what I've been talkin' about this whole time, in reference to myself

 

[philostam]

We can't say if a person is charismatic to others unless we are also saturated in the same symbols and ideals - that is, unless we're part of the 'target audience'.

Hmm. I think we can.

I don't need to be a physicist/academic to find Richard Feynman charismatic. Many people also find Zizek charismatic but they don't know anything about his philosophy or beliefs.

I don't think about charisma in terms of ideology and symbolism, although I understand what you mean. I am a simpler man.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

Hmm. I think we can.

I don't need to be a physicist/academic to find Richard Feynman charismatic. Many people also find Zizek charismatic but they don't know anything about his philosophy or beliefs.

You are saturated in European culture.

There may be a universal component, but I think it's quite small and distorted by the sheer level of cultural commonality in most of the world (such that what we might think of as 'natural' or 'universal' charismatic traits, is merely cultural affinity that happens to be shared across most of the world).

I'll give you a counterexample from a very different cultural milieux: General Butt Naked.

Clearly charismatic, and yet clearly no-one who anyone in the West would listen to for longer than 5 seconds.

 

[philostam]

You are saturated in European culture.

There may be a universal component, but I think it's quite small and distorted by the sheer level of cultural commonality in most of the world (such that what we might think of as 'natural' or 'universal' charismatic traits, is merely cultural affinity that happens to be shared across most of the world).

I'll give you a counterexample from a very different cultural milieux: General Butt Naked.

Clearly charismatic, and yet clearly no-one who anyone in the West would listen to for longer than 5 seconds.

Ok, so being saturated in European culture is enough of a commonality - therefore we can find charismatic anyone who is saturated in the same cultural space, even if we don't share any more local beliefs and ideals with that person? That's pretty broad.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

Ok, so being saturated in European culture is enough of a commonality - therefore we can find charismatic anyone who is saturated in the same cultural space, even if we don't share any more local beliefs and ideals with that person? That's pretty broad.

Phil, I'm gonna esplode.

 

[philostam]

Phil, I'm gonna esplode.

Lol, ok. It doesn't matter. Go get some rest.

I simply don't understand you sometimes - we think in a different way.

 

[philostam]

I have an easier time following/understanding INFJs. It's pretty easy there.

You talk/think in a way that's completely foreign to me sometimes. Especially when it comes to something non-personal.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

Lol, ok. It doesn't matter. Go get some rest.

I simply don't understand you sometimes - we think in a different way.

I have an easier time following/understanding INFJs. It's pretty easy there.

You talk/think in a way that's completely foreign to me sometimes. Especially when it comes to something non-personal.

 

[philostam]

Yeah, I follow you better in video format.

 

[Ren]

I think there's a lot of subjective analysis of charisma going on in this thread where people are saying that so-and-so is or isn't charismatic, but that seems to completely miss the point of the reflexive process.

Well, Greta is very much a member of our European community, so if there are many members here (including me) who don't find her charismatic, it has to be taken into account. Sassafras, philostam and myself I think would agree that she isn't charismatic.

We can't say if a person is charismatic to others unless we are also saturated in the same symbols and ideals - that is, unless we're part of the 'target audience'.

Let's assume this is true. Then how can you tell that this General Butt Naked is charismatic?

The fact you can tell seems to presuppose a universal commonality that transcends the cultural differences. Otherwise you should have said: "Clearly we Europeans have no idea why this guy is considered charismatic."

Your point doesn't illustrate that he isn't charismatic to us, rather than he is in a visceral sense that we can't quite put into words; i.e. it's not the charisma itself that is culturally specific, it's the expression of it. Which is not very different from philostam's understanding of charisma, it seems to me.

I just think the full implications of your argument must be laid bare: when it comes to someone from an entirely different culture, it ought to be impossible to 'us' to tell whether they are charismatic.

But both Greta (within our culture) and this Butt Naked guy (outside our culture) seem to be counter-examples rather than corroborating evidence, unless we say that we can simply derive their charisma from their following and influence. But that doesn't work because their following could be due to any number of factors other than charisma.

 

[philostam]

Well, Greta is very much a member of our European community, so if there are many members here (including me) who don't find her charismatic, it has to be taken into account. Sassafras, philostam and myself I think would agree that she isn't charismatic.

Let's assume this is true. Then how can you tell that this General Butt Naked is charismatic?

The fact you can tell seems to presuppose a universal commonality that transcends the cultural differences. Otherwise you should have said: "Clearly we Europeans have no idea why this guy is considered charismatic."

Your point doesn't illustrate that he isn't charismatic to us, rather than he is in a visceral sense that we can't quite put into words; i.e. it's not the charisma itself that is culturally specific, it's the expression of it. Which is not very different from philostam's understanding of charisma, it seems to me.

I just think the full implications of your argument must be laid bare: when it comes to someone from an entirely different culture, it ought to be impossible to 'us' to tell whether they are charismatic.

But both Greta (within our culture) and this Butt Naked guy (outside our culture) seem to be counter-examples rather than corroborating evidence, unless we say that we can simply derive their charisma from their following and influence. But that doesn't work because their following could be due to any number of factors other than charisma.

Hehe, nice. Now that is something I can completely understand and also agree with it!

 

[Ren]

Hehe, nice. Now that is something I can completely understand and also agree with it!

We are both simple men: we look at the situation and we use Ti

 

[John K]

By those standards, I would also have to agree with @sassafras that Greta Thunberg is not charismatic at all. Like it or not, I think charisma is a lot about your delivery and appearance.

I think that this is a significant issue in the discussion - you and @sassafras seem to be only accepting as charismatic what you yourselves experience as such. That's a perfectly acceptable position, but it can lead you to make significant misjudgements in the behaviour of large numbers of people. That's because charisma is in the eye of the beholder and there are millions of people who find ghastly Greta very charismatic indeed - the same is true of many a politician. I have approached charisma really as an objective phenomena and tried to express what it is regardless of whether I myself find someone charismatic. It's perfectly rational to define it only in subjective terms instead, but the trouble with that is it can then lead to an inability to understand what motivates a very large number of people who take an alternative view about someone with great influence. America has polarised politically because of this and the fracture cannot heal until each side can see the world from the other side's shoes as well as their own - that doesn't mean agreeing with it but it does mean having some empathy with it.

 

[Ren]

There are millions of people who find ghastly Greta very charismatic indeed

I'm not saying this isn't true, but do you have evidence?

I agree that there is a danger to approaching charisma subjectively, but there is also a danger to approaching it objectively, i.e. assuming that because a given person has influence they must be charismatic. Sure influence can be objectively assessed, I suppose, but there is no necessary causal relation between charisma and influence.

In other words, just because a person is influential doesn't mean they're charismatic.

 

[philostam]

I'm not saying this isn't true, but do you have evidence?

I agree that there is a danger to approaching charisma subjectively, but there is also a danger to approaching it objectively, i.e. assuming that because a given person has influence they must be charismatic. Sure influence can be objectively assessed, I suppose, but there is no necessary causal relation between charisma and influence.

In other words, just because a person is influential doesn't mean they're charismatic.

Yep, that's also true. I guess I am 100% convinced that you're INFJ.

I don't know, finding objective charisma is even harder than finding objective beauty. Although it can be done - I have no problem with trying to find the objective properties of beauty, charisma etc.

Even objectively speaking, I would say Greta is more influential than charismatic, yes. But maybe I just cannot detach myself from the subjective.

 

[philostam]

By the way, I do think there is a correlation between influence and charisma, statistically speaking. But certainly not perfect correlation.

 

[Sandie33]

America has polarised politically because of this and the fracture cannot heal until each side can see the world from the other side's shoes as well as their own - that doesn't mean agreeing with it but it does mean having some empathy with it.

This is spot on John, yet, from the view as a citizen it will never happen.

As an example, the public pissing match between FP Obama and Pres Trump regarding mishandling of the pandemic response. I agree with the consensus response that there is no sure Captain at the ship's helm right now. The continual competitive egos in the country will increase the divde across it. Since the countries bones are made of the American Dream that if one works hard they can have it all is indeed the ideology that will eventually break the eagles back. Unless it is examined closely.

It is a false notion for the average citizen to want to be top dog. It is just not doable until some of the old dogs retire their station to new blood. People forget that there is not room for every one at the top. Instead, it makes sense to do their part of the puzzle and take pride in their efforts and strength from the knowledge that regardless how small, each piece is needed to knit a strong nation.

Americans rely on competition and manipulation to gain the advantage. That's competition not charismatic collaberation...but, in hindsight, what did we get by mixing the genetics of a bunch of pirates and convicts with an aboriginal war-minded savage? Yep, an American
I'm being cynical of course, lol, I agree, however, if more Americans would agree to disagree and get moving jointly we'd all be much further ahead.

 

[Ren]

By the way, I do think there is a correlation between influence and charisma, statistically speaking. But certainly not perfect correlation.

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.

 

[John K]

I'm not saying this isn't true, but do you have evidence?

I agree that there is a danger to approaching charisma subjectively, but there is also a danger to approaching it objectively, i.e. assuming that because a given person has influence they must be charismatic. Sure influence can be objectively assessed, I suppose, but there is no necessary causal relation between charisma and influence.

In other words, just because a person is influential doesn't mean they're charismatic.

I think my views have got lost in the ensuing discussions. I don't see charisma as a binary attribute but along a spectrum, and I think it's made up of a combination of personal attributes and possession by zeitgeist. I should add that I judge whether someone has it in terms of how far they crystalise out as a symbol something that is welling up already in some significant part of their community locally, or in various societies at large.

She's not my cup of tea at all, but then I react the same way to collectives as I do to grass pollen. With Greta, that scolding Parent thing is so very irritating and makes me sneeze even more. But that's beside the point in my view because there are very many others who see differently, particularly idealistic teenagers who are worried their lives will be ruined by climate change:
https://medium.com/@eresida/is-greta-thunberg-a-charismatic-leader-edf145bc0d80
We must have had hundreds of thousands of children in the UK who went on strike from school inspired by her preaching and example, and supported by their teachers.

She illustrates why I think the idea of Charisma

• needs to be teased out into the two aspects of personal attributes and possession by unfolding forces within society and culture,
  
• and why I think is best to think along a spectrum of charisma rather than saying someone has it or hasn't. It seems to me that from the impact she's having, Greta is showing aspects of charisma but more as a phenomenon than as an agent with control. She's somewhere between CQ45-65 on my scale, I'd say, and probably around the 55-60 mark.

She'll probably put off at least as many people as she inspires, but that's the same with lots of controversial influencers. Trump is the same, although a rather different flavour of fish.

Spoiler

Just a sanity check to make sure I'm not talking complete rot (has been known all too often)
The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines charisma as

1. Compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion
2. A divinely conferred power or talent

As you can see, I'm not putting Greta on the same footing as Churchill, but somewhere in the middle of the charisma spectrum, and mainly because she has been possessed by an upwelling of social forces amongst the under 20s concerning climate change - she is more than inspiring them but has come to crystallise and symbolise the cause - the generational fight against climate catastrophe.