House of Eratosthenes

This morning, I started reading a new book, The Presentation Secrets of Steve Jobs: How to Be Insanely Great in Front of Any Audience after noticing the title. The book is written by Carmine Gallow, a columnist at Businessweek.com. I like reading anything that improves my communication skills, so I thought I would give it a try.

But rather than sifting through the book to learn how to give a better presentation, I focused on one paragraph describing “charisma” and I decided to share my thoughts (more like free associations) with you. The paragraph is as follows:

What you’ll learn is that Jobs is a magnetic pitchman who sells his ideas with a flair that turns prospects into customers and customers into evangelists. He has charisma, defined by the German sociologist, Max Weber as “a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary people and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities.” Jobs has become superhuman among his most loyal fans. But Weber got one thing wrong. Weber believed that charisma was not “accessible to the ordinary person.” Once you learn exactly how Jobs crafts and delivers one of his famous presentations, you will realize that these exceptional powers are available to you as well….

I have been thinking about the quality of “charisma” lately and I really have more questions than answers. What sets some people apart from others? What is it about some people that commands better treatment, more people listening to them and a higher level of social status? Is it charisma or some other trait or appearance?

But more importantly, why do some people attribute others with charisma with supernatural or superhuman powers when they are only….human? I believe it is dangerous to attribute human beings with exceptional powers, for none are deserving of this. It’s great that Jobs develops so many great products that help the world but that only makes him a human being who makes good products, not a god.

My husband says that perhaps this trait, to see people as superhuman and charismatic is genetic and like all things genetic, there are variations. But then how do we break those people who see political leaders and others as godlike when they are anything but? Sure, charisma can sometimes be a positive force, but it can also be a very dangerous one, getting people to go along with a con artist, a narcissist, or a psychopath. What if some people can’t tell the difference?

It’s not a very appealing personality trait to tend to be snookered by this stuff — sort of like being susceptible to gambling addictions, or any other addiction. And it seems to me that the people susceptible to being snookered by this, are painfully aware that this is something neither they nor anyone else want to be.

I’ve also noticed when people know they are susceptible to being snookered by this, they form a keen interest in pressuring others to become susceptible to being snookered by this. I find this understandable too. You get the wrong answer to something, you don’t want everyone else to get the right answer.

iDon’t know iF you’ve seen this great parody of Steve Jobs and his charisma … but iT ties right iN here with what you & Dr. Helen are saying. iMean …beautifully.
- philmon | 10/24/2009 @ 06:49
I have no dog in the Job’s jones.

Dr. Helen, on the other hand, seems to have a problem with charisma. It’s a natural phenomena, some people strongly attract and sway others; I’d suggest it’s a problem with the followers rather than the leaders.
- Daphne | 10/24/2009 @ 19:13
The nose of a mob is its imagination. By this, at any time, it can be quietly led–Poe
- xlibrl | 10/25/2009 @ 09:28
Dr. Helen, on the other hand, seems to have a problem with charisma. It’s a natural phenomena, some people strongly attract and sway others; I’d suggest it’s a problem with the followers rather than the leaders.

I think in Yin and Yang V I discussed how, as societies evolve and become more “civilised” and soft, the two ideals move away from each other. I’m talking about the ideals of influencing what happens around you through proper planning and cause-and-effect, and influencing what happens around you through charisma. In a more primitive and thuggish society these are more-or-less the same thing. Think of a general leading his army through battle a thousand years ago. He had to be among the best of his fighters; certainly among the bravest and boldest, the kind of guy who wouldn’t flinch if a javelin landed in the ground after missing his face by just an inch or two. He also had to be spectacularly charismatic…

In the Civil War, something remarkable happened when Ulysses Grant was promoted past all those other generals. They were flashy, pompous, strutting, somewhat good at the planning, but fought like gentlemen. Grant was the ultimate Yin, recognizing the world around him as objects interacting with each other through if-this-then-that. The man could vanish into his tent at midnight with a grease pencil and a bundle of cheap cigars, and emerge just before dawn with a plan that would utterly destroy the enemy. He wrote well, but did not capture the attention of his audience when he spoke.

Now that we’re oh so civilised and soft, look to the White House to see what kind of charismatic creature we adore. He’s very charismatic. Far from incorporating that other kind of leadership, He clearly has great antipathy against it. I know I don’t need to list all the ways we know that…

And He was elected on a platform that if we just make nice-nice, we can get rid of war forever. Also, that we can make the economy recover, somehow, if we get rid of private business while we’re at it. (?????) Charisma emerges from behind the clouds, and logic takes a holiday.

You’re right, Daphne. Everyone charismatic is not necessarily pushing to destroy all other kinds of aptitudes, like Obama is. Some charismatic leaders are quite constructive, and genuinely appreciate the talents and contributions of others. Like Sarah Palin.

But it’s been my experience that she’s the exception. Obama is the rule.
- mkfreeberg | 10/26/2009 @ 06:45
There are really shiny glitzy things that are good.

But when you see lots of glitzy shine and apparently nothing beneath the surface, or nothing substantial — to hold it together and give it structure and strength … we tend to get suspicious that we’re being sold chrome-plated excrement.

This is why I was actually shocked the people elected Obama. But what they did was run the perfect Alinsky campaign. They controlled the message, they ignored all criticism or dismissed it as racism, and ran a candidate with little substantial history on purpose who is both charasmatic and of a PC protected demographic, and whipped up enough excitement in the “… and what … is a CBO?” crowd.

They won’t be able to get away with it next time.

Unless we just get total crap for candidates in 2012, this guy’s a one-termer.
- philmon | 10/26/2009 @ 09:59
It is the secular that tend to adopt religious convictions in all the wrong places.

No one killed religion; “they” simply started new religions and the parishoners haven’t figured it out yet (Psst! they weren’t criticizing religion – they were auditioning to become the replacement.)

Evidence is the way BHO’s cult of personality was built on sand – there was nothing there and folks didn’t care. The cultists never do – by definition. Ditto environmentalists, feminists, statists, etc. When the facts get shouted down, you know the Inquisition isn’t very far away.

P.S. – Atheists who want to bash my comments should be heavily influenced by the “tend to” qualifier; if you’re reading Morgan, you are not one of the secular to which I refer.
- wch | 10/26/2009 @ 19:30

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

How Important is Charisma?Friday, October 23rd, 2009

How Important is Charisma?
Friday, October 23rd, 2009