The connection between visibility and charisma

[Marcus]

Continuing somewhat on my earlier theme in another thread, I made one interesting connection. Charisma and (the virtue) visibility often spring from and re-inforce one another.

Referencing wikipedia it seems like it does'nt have much to offer in the way of formal, valid definition of charisma other than a mystical one (or a vague secular one offered by a long dead sociologist). The implication is that people are not exactly sure and can't pinpoint exactly what charisma actually is.

A fuller discussion and description of visibility specifically, is available here.

After thinking about it, I've come up with a "provisional" definition that fits my observations reasonably: "The ability to confer a feeling of happiness upon others by their presence or speech".

By this definition, when we think about the most charming individuals in our society, immediately the some of the most socially visible individuals come to the front of our minds, i.e. politicians, actors, fortune 500 ceo's, famous writers etc. But the (interesting) question is, did their visibility come first or their charm? Do they "become" more charming as a result of being more visible (i.e. by "perception")?

I may bring up more/ongoing questions as they come.

Thoughts?

[anthony]

I think visibility is a virtue inasmuch as it speaks to the truth about oneself, that you want only to be seen for what you truthfully are. Therefore, it relates to self-confidence, self-esteem, pride and integrity. Visibility is exposing yourself to 'justice in reality', so to speak. Charm and charisma- seems to me- appear in a range: between a certain personality-type - to the most extreme practised variety. When it is too apparently "practised", the person's visibilty becomes dubious, I believe, and it suggests faked style and faked substance. To which comes first, I'd guess they are both self-reciprocating for some people. (Excepting your average duplicitous politico.)

[Robert Baratheon]

Dale Carnegie would say that charisma is the ability to Win Friends and Influence People. His book of the same name is the best work on the subject I've ever read.

I think your definition is in the ballpark but a bit overly broad. A person may be able to confer a feeling of happiness in others through their presence or speech for reasons totally unrelated to charisma. For example, a security guard on duty may make someone feel happy knowing that they are protected, or someone's parent being nearby might make them feel happy even if the parent isn't charismatic.

[anthony]

Yes, great book. Ages since I read it, but I think Carnegie's premise was a benevolent one of assumed virtue in his readers, and that they shouldn't hide their light under a bushel.

[Robert Baratheon]

Yes, great book. Ages since I read it, but I think Carnegie's premise was a benevolent one of assumed virtue in his readers, and that they shouldn't hide their light under a bushel.

One criticism I've heard is that Carnegie's book encourages "manipulating" people. Maybe in the most literal sense, but if "manipulation" means influencing others in a mutually positive way, then why is that a bad thing? I always point out that Carnegie recommends taking a genuine interest in people, not a disingenuous interest.

[anthony]

Yes, great book. Ages since I read it, but I think Carnegie's premise was a benevolent one of assumed virtue in his readers, and that they shouldn't hide their light under a bushel.

One criticism I've heard is that Carnegie's book encourages "manipulating" people. Maybe in the most literal sense, but if "manipulation" means influencing others in a mutually positive way, then why is that a bad thing? I always point out that Carnegie recommends taking a genuine interest in people, not a disingenuous interest.

No bad thing. Its testament to our nature as hierarchical beings, that we operate on, and can enjoy so many levels. Would one rather do business with, befriend, etc someone who has both charm and honesty? Certainly, who wouldn't. Often, though, it is a choice of one or other - with many of the most charming people being dishonestly manipulative. Manipulation "in a mutually positive way" is open and candid, and in fact could be a good definition of the Trader Principle.

I think charisma is the cherry on top, when it accompanies good personal standards - otherwise I find it vacuous and cheap.

(You confirm my dim memory of AC's writing, regarding his own honesty, and also his advocating honesty.)

[Robert Baratheon]

Manipulation "in a mutually positive way" is open and candid, and in fact could be a good definition of the Trader Principle.

Well, not necessarily, and I think when people criticize Carnegie they are usually referring to an unspoken element in some of his suggestions. But as long as both parties are made better off, I don't think the "manipulation" is necessarily unethical. For example, if a boss tells an employee that he is a good and valued worker so that the worker will feel appreciated and work harder, I don't think there's anything unethical about that, even though the boss is not sharing the full extent of his motivations. Just like I don't think it's unethical for a man to fib a bit and tell his wife she looks skinny in a dress when all telling her she looks fat would accomplish is hurting her feelings. I'd go so far as to say, deep down, the wife wants him to fib to her. 100% honesty in all social dealings is unrealistic to expect and would be very destructive. Human beings haven't evolved to interact that way.

[anthony]

Yes: though I'm elevating 'honesty' somewhat - as aspiring to live in accord with reality, the truth. Not so much - never, ever lying to anyone, or always presenting full disclosure. Look at it this way, if the reality is a guy's love of his wife, his fib is non-contradictory to that basic truth. Or if two businessmen openly 'manipulate' (schmooze, ha) each other in financial negotiation, each still knows full well that the reality is basic self-interest for the best outcome, on the part of the other.

We want to feel good, and often for others to feel good, while conducting ourselves - but it is a secondary component to truth.

[anthony]

It is an interesting, nuanced subject, and at bottom all about 'personal power', I think.
'Power' has two completely distinct natures.
1. the power to get things done, honestly, in congruence with your creativity and conviction.
2. the power over other people - for the sake of power, alone.
It must be rational and self interested to utilize (at least, to not repress) one's aptitudes for charm or charisma. Just as it is to use whatever other 'powerful' faculties one can bring to bear on life. Convincing critical people of what can be achieved from your personal vision is always important in reaching your goals - but it presupposes that one has truthful character and worthy convictions, in the first place.
Conversely, the need of power for its own sake indicates (to me) a self-less individual, one who derives his pseudo self-esteem from others' dependence on him and his control over them: so existing through others, implicitly.