a book on authoritarian followers, which (at least when I'd read it pre-2016[1]) had some surprising-to-me suggestions for deradicalisation:
https://theauthoritarians.org (pp. 240-245, by numbering, not by pdf page)
[1] in its current incarnation, it, like much of the world, may have become obssessed with a particular authoritarian leader. I hope not. Pages 240-245 seem to be as I remembered. See https://theauthoritarians.org if you wish to see how it's currently positioned.
I read the bits you listed, then had to scan back to figure out what "RWA" means. Correct me if I am wrong, but this book seems to have recycled the ridiculous Theodore Adorno/Frankfurt school nonsense pathologizing Christian Western civilization. The entire idea that people who go to church on Sundays and have world-normal psychological responses, rather than the defective WEIRD[0] emotional pattern that literally only appears in some fraction of highly educated Westerners seems .... a bit questionable. I'd posit that "RWA" is a contradiction in terms in the sense it seems to be used.
I mean I get where Adorno was coming from: a bunch of seemingly normal people had just massacred a bunch of his cousins. That doesn't mean I have to take his insane response seriously; particularly when current year WEIRD non-authoritarians so casually massacre members of neurotypical civilizations[1]. The persistence with which people cling to this nonsense indicates it must scratch some psychological itch. It is, however, nonsense.
[1] I dunno, nobody seems to give a shit we've been blowing up "barbarians" in the middle east for the last 20 years in hopes of making them more .... tolerant.
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 would call the disputed territories.
Edit: the RWA score is from a survey on pp11-12.
1. The established authorities generally turn out to be right about things, while the radicals and protestors are usually just “loud mouths” showing off their ignorance.
2. Women should have to promise to obey their husbands when they get married.
3. Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us.
4. Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as anybody else.
5. It is always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in government and religion than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create doubt in people’s minds
6. Atheists and others who have rebelled against the established religions are no doubt every bit as good and virtuous as those who attend church regularly.
7. The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to get back to our traditional values, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading bad ideas.
8. There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps.
9. Our country needs free thinkers who have the courage to defy traditional ways, even if this upsets many people.
10. Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the perversions eating away at our moral fiber and traditional beliefs.
11. Everyone should have their own lifestyle, religious beliefs, and sexual preferences, even if it makes them different from everyone else.
12. The “old-fashioned ways” and the “old-fashioned values” still show the best way to live.
13. You have to admire those who challenged the law and the majority’s view by protesting for women’s abortion rights, for animal rights, or to abolish school prayer.
14. What our country really needs is a strong, determined leader who will crush evil, and take us back to our true path.
15. Some of the best people in our country are those who are challenging our government, criticizing religion, and ignoring the “normal way things are supposed to be done.”
16. God’s laws about abortion, pornography and marriage must be strictly followed before it is too late, and those who break them must be strongly punished.
17. There are many radical, immoral people in our country today, who are trying to ruin it for their own godless purposes, whom the authorities should put out of action.
18. A “woman’s place” should be wherever she wants to be. The days when women are submissive to their husbands and social conventions belong strictly in the past.
19. Our country will be great if we honor the ways of our forefathers, do what the authorities tell us to do, and get rid of the “rotten apples” who are ruining everything.
20. There is no “ONE right way” to live life; everybody has to create their own way.
21. Homosexuals and feminists should be praised for being brave enough to defy “traditional family values.
22. This country would work a lot better if certain groups of troublemakers would just shut up and accept their group’s traditional place in society.
Responses given on a -4 to 4 scale, and after scoring the possible results are 20 to 180.
Page 14 states: "Introductory
psychology students at my Canadian university average about 75. Their parents
average about 90. Both scores are below the mid-point of the scale, which is 100, so
most people in these groups are not authoritarian followers in absolute terms. Neither
a...
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 scores above 100 it says more about your test than it does about people.
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."
Yeah, see, I don't think any of this has a single, solitary thing to do with "authoritarianism." It's just testing for normal human attitudes, rather than urban WEIRD attitudes.
I'm doing "that internet guy" again, but it's necessary here; from m-w[0] the definition of "authoritarian"
1: of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority had authoritarian parents
2: of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people
There's nothing about our forefathers, homosexuals, feminists, theism, women, sexual preferences, pornography, sinfulness or any of the other bullshit in those questions that has a single, solitary thing to do with the definition of authoritarianism. Until the 1990s, most Americans, indeed most Westerners outside of (maybe) Holland and Sweden would have been considered "authoritarian" by those lights. Do you believe Westerners were "authoritarian" for all of human history until ... say, 1997 or whatever? I was alive back then: it was very obviously less authoritarian on almost every level. And mind you, I score fairly "non authoritarian" (aka not so conservative) on this test.
Anyway, I appreciate your constructive engagement, but I am extremely allergic to bullshit which dehumanizes normal people. I mean, we decided as a society that dehumanizing gay people and feminists was bad: the reality is people who are don't think the last 10 years of modernity is an amazing success are not particularly authoritarian, but dehumanizing them absolutely is.
Last 10 years of modernity - as said last night, you are obviously not high RWA. A very high RWA person might agree the last decade has not been an amazing success, but would not limit themselves to that perception, and instead might claim things took a wrong turn with the Enlightenment[1], and people who behave as they ought not deserve lashing[2].
Also, the author has been using the RWA scale since the 1970s, the main primary papers he recommends are from (p.6) the 1990s, and most of the examples he gives in what I have reread are from the younger Bush period. So I doubt he's talking about 1997 and especially not anything more recent than 2010.
(Finally, I haven't a clue if you mean something specific by mentioning this decade? Over here, not much has happened in the last ten years, the last notable event before the pandemic having been the 2008 financial crisis.)
Dehumanisation — IIRC, the author doesn't dehumanise high RWA groups (otherwise he might be advocating pushing them out of helicopters instead of simply giving them the opportunity to meet, or even engage in shared tasks with, the Other.) If you could point out a dehumanising passage in the book please do.
Other bullshit in questions - see the footnote (p.39) discussing question 16:
“God’s laws about abortion, pornography, and marriage must be strictly followed before it is too late, and those who break them must be strongly punished.”
the operative parts of this question are neither abortion, nor pornography, nor marriage, but strictly followed, too late, and strongly punished.
Definitions - I was also alive last century[3] and believe the m-w definition is fine for its purpose, but although it shares a strong correlation, it's not the RWA[2] definition the book uses (which, the author takes pains to point out, can, and has in the ex-FSU case, applied mutatis mutandi to politically left wing authoritarian followers[4]).
Another last-century example, beyond the cousin posts: high RWA 1990s beliefs led to Srebrenica.
Normal human attitude - It's easy to argue that "Burn the Heretic!" has been normal for much of the last 6'000 years and probably tens of thousands, but I think in the west[5] it started going out of style after the wars of religion[6]. For some pre-1997 evidence, consult https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_...
[1] among the behaviours he found correlating with high RWA was acceptance of the notion (p.19) that the US Bill of Rights leads to immorality so it should be repealed.
Although this specific example comes from the fictional Ignatius J. Reilly, the idea is seriously presented in Evola's Cavalcare la tigre. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24785596
[2] (p.52) "Since followers do virtually all of the assaulting and killing in authoritarian systems--the leaders see to this most carefully--we are dealing with very serious matters here. Anyone who follows orders can become a murderer for an authoritarian regime. But authoritarian followers find it easier to bully, harass, punish, maim, torture, “eliminate,” “liquidate,” and “exterminate” their victims than most people do."
[3] although I am in an area that's historically been so strongly catholic (our idea of a cocktail party is centred on bread and wine) that people here are far more interested in following the Golden Rule than in making a tribe of their religion (our muslims also enjoy these same cocktail parties). YMMV.
[4] as a literary left wing example, the dogs in Animal Farm are a high RWA group, being content to be servile to the pigs as long as they get to be arrogant to all the other animals.
I agree that "burn the heretic" has been normal human behavior for a long time: you can see it at work now, mostly among left wing authoritarians. You might have noticed them: they've been hard at work forming mobs firing people for expressing opinions, and lately tearing down statues (literal iconoclasm: a la Calvinism in the 16th century, or Taliban now) and burning down American cities. They'd all be extremely low in RWA score, which is why I assert that this "measurement" is simply a republican (aka classical liberal) detector.
Classical liberals are not meaningfully authoritarian in any sense of the word; though of course there have been historical aberrations (pre-Salazar Portugal could have been considered both Authoritarian and classical liberal, as I suppose were some post-war governments).
I agree that the book doesn't use a meaningful definition of "authoritarian." That's all I'm trying to say here. The author is some kind of nut attempting to demonize the half of America that doesn't vote his way as being "authoritarians." He also wants to "cure" them. That seems .... kind of authoritarian.
On those details: Evola ... I mean, the man is about as influential as Miguel Serrano or any other fascist crank who persisted too long into the 20th century. Who cares what he says? It's burbling nonsense. Toole's character was a farce designed to make fun of Evolan types (pretty sure anyway; maybe it had an element of self mockery). And Dreher is a hipster ding dong whose hipsterness consists in having read "Confederacy of Dunces."
I know actually right wing and actually religious people who would score high on this "RWA" scale. They're not authoritarian at all! Much more accepting of divergences from their beliefs than even modern American centrists.
I agree that online virtual bullying mobs[1] are only a few steps[2] away from offline physical lynching mobs. Compare https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24798617 for my thoughts on how to filter for authoritarian followers of whatever political persuasion.
How can "would score high" and "accepting of divergences from their beliefs" not be disjoint?
As far as I can tell, the author is not advocating to "cure" people for not voting his way, he's advocating to "cure" people who are tempted to use the bullet box instead of the ballot box[3] to make him live their way. I'm pretty sure classical liberals, being live and let live, would score very low on this test.
Thanks for reassuring me about Dreher and Evola[4], I was introduced to them via HN, so I have no idea how widespread their thought may be offline. Agree that Toole was writing a parody version of the question of political or theoretic lives which was treated in a serious manner by Boethius in Consolation of Philosophy and Hesse in The Glass Bead Game. I wouldn't be surprised if Dr. Talc (a substance useful when changing diapers?) didn't also have elements of self mockery.
[1] did I forget to mention that apparently former CPSU members scored highly on RWA? Examples of questions I think left wing authoritarian followers might score highly on in the current context: 1, 5, 7, 17, 19, 22. Maybe for the current times the author, who notes in the first chapter that in the early twenty-first century the times of quoting Chairman Mao were long over, ought to ask about the appropriate use of Madame Guillotine?
[2] In the context of online cancellation mobs, moving from "harassment" through "punish", "maim", and "torture", on to "liquidate". To me it seems the easiest way to address mob cancellation is to only allow termination for cause, but even that wouldn't have saved the NYT editor (who had published Cotton's OpEd sight unseen).
[3] bullet box metaphor lifted from an FBI indictment. For my sanity, I should stop reading those things. (but they're horribly fascinating: over here people bring rifles to the range, not to demos.)
[4] I get Ubuntu from Evola because he's always rabbiting on about the atomisation of modernity. I'm not sure quite what he's for, as he seems to take it for granted his readers already do, but given the expressed love of hierarchy, I think he's big on social relations:
Left wing ubuntu: symmetric, transitive, and reflexive
Right wing ubuntu: antisymmetric, transitive, and reflexive
not to mention keeping relations up not only with those alive today but also with those of our Tradition.
>How can "would score high" and "accepting of divergences from their beliefs" not be disjoint?
Simple: the scale, as I keep saying, is total bullshit. Someone's opinion on nudism or sexual dimorphism doesn't influence their day to day behavior or tendency to throw people out of helicopters in the way the author of the scale thinks they do. Hell; the Nazis were pro-nudist and an awful lot of them were screechingly gay (and all of them accepting of their screechingly gay comrades) ... in the 1920s and 30s, when that sort of thing was a lot less popular.
(a) which question has anything to do with sexual dimorphism?
(b) someone who is always clothed in company themselves but doesn't mind if others are sky-clad in private gatherings (such as a classical liberal, an economic conservative, or a normal republican) would answer +4 to:
8. There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps.
Given that I believe private nudity is legal in the US[1], why should anyone respond otherwise, unless unaccepting of divergence from their beliefs?
Ernst Röhm was the 2nd most important nazi before the night of the long knives and was an out homosexual[0]. The gayness of the nazis was a source of jokes and criticisms from the beginning. The pro-homosexual bias of fascists are so obvious, there are even books, generally by religious people, which assert, with considerable evidence, that fascism was entirely a homosexual phenomenon. This sort of thing doesn't fit the preposterous bias of the book you quote, which again is simply a list of the prejudices of the authors; more or less, the prejudices of late 20th century shitlibbery, against traditional christian people.
As for nazi nudity: go watch the movie "Olympiad." Or ... hell, just look at photos of the era[1]. A good fraction of them were neopagans as well; they probably invented the phrase "sky-clad."
>Given that I believe private nudity is legal in the US, why should anyone respond otherwise, unless unaccepting of divergence from their beliefs?
Are you joking? There are lots of things which are legal but which people might not be all together comfortable with. For example: gambling, smoking, eating live shellfish, having unprotected sex with 100s of people, going to Church on Sundays (I guarantee you there are people who see something wrong with this), remaining a virgin until you're married (ditto), getting falling down drunk, eating only vegetables: the list is endless. Nudism certainly falls into the category of something all kinds of people might not be all together comfortable with; both authoritarian and non-authoritarian; and in this case both American right wing and left wing people. Do you think Susan Fowler would have been happy if Uber had done its corporate retreats and a nudist camp? Don't tell me it's "inappropriate" -because if "there is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps" -how can it possibly be inappropriate to hang out with your colleagues with your junk hanging out?
I'm not joking. For instance, gambling[1] is something I don't do, but I would +4 the hypothetical question:
8': There is absolutely nothing wrong with casinos.
Indeed, my wife and I used to eat at the casino, because their kitchen was open late. If I had more reservations, say related to addiction potential[2], maybe I'd only +1 it, but I wouldn't give it a high negative score, which would be necessary to score an overall high RWA.
I don't smoke[3] either but (enclosed public smoking being illegal here) I would also agree with the hypothetical:
8'': There is absolutely nothing wrong with smoking clubs.
I also won't join them, but don't mind if traditional christian people meet and do traditional christian things together[4], so I would also agree with the hypothetical:
8''': There is absolutely nothing wrong with cathedrals[5].
All these things diverge from my beliefs, but I accept others have their own beliefs[6]. Why should I not?
"What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor."
Na du deting to du xeta, fo mang kapawu to. (...to your shipmate)
[1] beyond the undiversifiable risks any capitalist runs
[2] ID is required in our casinos, so I wouldn't be surprised if problem gamblers were 86ed.
[3] except on those rare occasions when either my pyromania gets out of hand or my campfire skills are weak
You're engaging in solipsism here; the point isn't whether or not you think pre-marital chastity is acceptable or not (I bet there's a question in this goofball RWA book asserting that it's not OK) -the point is the nazis were nudists[0] and homophiles, making absolute nonsense of those questions as any kind of meaningful measurement of "RWA." Again, as I said in the first place; this seems to be a simple list of late 20th century center left bigotries about what American religious people are like rather than anything to do with "authoritarianism."
Despite people who tell me about the TEETH CHATTERING ATROCITIES of the nazi pork butchers ... saying things on twitter ... every sign of authoritarianism I see; from corporate fascism, to the idiots burning the cities down and toppling statues: every last one of them would have scored more like you on that scale as very open minded and accepting people, and less like some random Pentacostal who thinks foamy buttsex is kind of gross, but who doesn't bother anyone and who this scale would denounce as "authoritarian." If words like "authoritarian" are to retain their ordinary meanings, your scale goes into the dumpster, and you must refrain from ever referring to it again. It is a simple measure of WEIRD[1] psychological tendencies. Not "authoritarianism."
Do you think normalizing anti-white terms like "Karen," to the point that "respectable" outlets like the WaPo and NYT use them, or selectively capitalizing Black but not white when referring to race, as the AP (a supposedly unbiased outlet) recently committed to doing, or making white children like the Covington Kids targets of public hate campaigns for smiling while being harassed by minorities, or pushing to ban "hate speech" (which in practice just means white speech) help with deradicalization?
I think (not being familiar with any of the above except for Karen[1]) you're mentioning US-specific culture war items which are orthogonal to the subject of the book, which are the sort of beliefs that lead "high RWA" followers to violently punish those their leaders have branded as Other.
The book has to do more with the sort of 1940's beliefs that built and staffed Treblinka, or the sort of 1950's beliefs that lynched Emmett Till, or the sort of 1970's beliefs that led to people being pushed out of helicopters, than to the sorts of beliefs to which I believe you refer.
[1] which I know of as a meme where melanin is incidental. Compare Scumbag Steve.
As far as I'm concerned charisma is like heavy perfume or cologne that someone wears when they don't take a shower. It's probably covering something else.
This. I've seen the same in my personal life. It intuitively makes sense. If someone is just outright toxic without any redeemable quality, you will not socialize with them. It's only when they have superficial charm to cover up their toxicity, you'll be interested or manipulated to have them in their life.
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.
The difference between charisma and narcissism may be in the eye of the beholder. However, I can think of a few people in my life that are personable and incredibly genuine; the kind of person that seems to draw the best out in others. I wouldn't be happy to hear them described as narcissistic.
The thing is narcissism in and of itself is not necessarily negative. We're all the stars of our own shows/lives.
Some people want attention and do all the right things to get it: pursue the right goals, get people together to do stuff that's good for humanity. You'd better believe that many people whom we view very positively might have been narcissists: Ghandi, Mother Teresa, etc. But the difference is they did GOOD things to get the attention and power they thought they deserved.
I think it has to do with the values you absorb as a very young person. We all have a drive for attention, for power, for comfort, for security. For some the drive, and the talent or "charisma" to achieve those goals is higher.
The decisions made along the way, the considerations of the side effects, and what you DO with that power are what distinguish people like Donald Trump and Hitler from people like Barack Obama and Nelson Mandela. And let's not get it wrong; even the latter two have a few spots on their records. No one is perfect.
"It's almost like saying 'This is a safe drunk driver'"
Ramani's video on 'healthy narcissism', 10:28 https://youtu.be/QiQCsrWtUNo?t=46
She also has a video on "communal narcissists" - a breed of narcissists on a mission to help people that are very careful about documenting every single thing they do. Upon closer inspection, it turns out many people do good things only to be in spotlight and are mean to people close to them, including assistants who work for their success. She says whether it's worth it for the society in the end is a philosophical question.
I used to think that a narcissist was just a person who enjoyed being in the spotlight until I encountered one at my last job. Being terrorized by a narcissist for six months because you inadvertently made them look bad is a terrifying thing to go through.
I feel like we would have heard stories about Barack Obama tormenting his subordinates by now if he was truly narcissistic.
Narcissism as mental health thing is not positive. If you read the list of traits. It is not merely large ego or confidence. It is not just about decisions of what you build. It is also about outsized emotional reactions which makes narcissist and inability to see others as different individuals.
- lack of empathy
- entitlement to special treatment
- superficial
- constantly seeking validation and admiration
- manipulative, exploitative, lying
Note that covert/vulnerable narcissists are mostly like that but they trade charm for a ton of passive-aggressive behaviors and snide remarks. Charisma is the favorite tool of classic, grandiose narcissists.
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 and turn it into a catch-all for describing any cancerous individual. I wouldn't have much objection to this in isolation, except I presume her channel is monetized, which inherently changes my perception of her intention.
By contrast, Dr. Grande's channel has more varied psychological content and comes off as more neutral than Ramani. Although recently he's been doing a lot more analyses of individuals than of broader subjects.
Someone who wants to understand narcissistic personality disorder should probably look up its commonly accepted definition, then watch Dr. Ramani's videos and decide which ones matter and which ones really don't. That's just my opinion.
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.
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.
> 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.
Without going into detail, I can very much relate to this. The grandiose narcissists are much easier to identify, most of the time, but vulnerable narcissism(which I think most narcissists are) is more socially acceptable and reliant on empathetic energy, making it harder to point out. On social media in particular, they can easily form cults of victims whom end up enabling the narcissist. I'm normally not that bothered by narcissists, but there have been a few times where I pointed out that a public figure is a narcissist, along with concrete details on their lies and misdirection, and got mostly backlash for it. What's funny is my predictions have always turned out to be right because narcissists really aren't that difficult to understand. Most of them aren't even good at keeping their stories straight.
Don't look too closely at daily content creators... Most of them end up rehashing the same advice in slightly different ways. The information is fresh to new viewers and repeat viewers are not likely to watch their content every single day.
You do occasionally find people who are all of very charismatic, honest, and substantive, but it's rare. Usually charisma is used to sell bullshit of one form or another. In my experience extreme charisma is a strong contrarian indicator.
Charisma, and physical beauty, give people power over you. And we know power corrupts. Few can resist the temptation! Few are conscious enough to know they're getting preferential treatment. It doesn't have to be on purpose, it can start as a snowballing habit.
> Weber claimed that a charismatic leader remains charismatic only so long as he is perceived to be charismatic. There is, he held, a reciprocity or “recognition” that ties charismatic leaders to their followers
I haven't really thought of it in this way, but it gave me an epiphany that my struggle with being charismatic, which is that I can be very, but it takes effort and is exhausting sometimes, is at least partly due to the context switching required to "know your audience". If your audience changes often, it becomes more difficult to maintain.
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. Initially, I concluded charisma is a specific relationship between you and a group of others, but with time, it has become clear that charisma is an instinct or decision to relate to the external world in a particular way.
It is absolutely something that can be taught, practised, and developed. The article expressed a certain backbiting suspicion that I think characterizes the intellectual view of charismatic people, and it focused on the charisma of authoritarian leaders, but oddly doesn't mention super-charismatics like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey, and other progressive persuaders. Ultimately, I think this type of critical view of charisma demoralizes people away from believing anything strongly enough to follow a leader in pursuit of their interests, which seems like an altogether more insidious effect than the posturing of a leader could be.
Let’s not forget charismatic (but ultimately unsympathetic) leaders like Castro and the Che. They were by any measure charismatic. They leveraged that to further their visions to an end.
But, not all charismatic people use their charisma for the bad. Some use it to form friendships and to climb social ladders, some to be productive in their role (salespeople), etc.
For some people it comes naturally. For some it’s forced (practiced). Not sure which ones do better, though intuitively I’d say the naturals would come across better.
I think your opinion on Castro or Che depends on perspective. Cuba was relatively successful until the decline of the Soviet Union by most measures — but when the neighboring superpower embargoes you because your political system is seen as an existential threat to the ruling class, it’s hard to close the gap. To classify them as objectively “bad” would mean doing the same to most US presidents. From the outside, all of our modern presidents have done some horrific things.
A big part of why the Cuban revolution is viewed negatively in the US is that the Cubans were sick of their island being totally owned as a playground for the rich in another country — things were objectively better for most Cubans in the years after the revolution. So Americans and wealthy Cubans were largely the early losers in the revolution, and wanted to punish the country for having the nerve to seize back the land. The embargo really killed their ability to build an economy, which led to a lot of poverty and was largely outside the control of the Cuban government.
I traveled to Cuba and changed my badly shaped opinion of Castro. If you have the chance give it a shot. I think Castro was really sympathetic to the Cuban's plight and did more for the country than many others for their own countries. Cubans are calm, educated and friendly, but poor by our own standards. But guess what? They're not unhappy at all, depression there is almost nonexistent and contrasting that to how widespread it is in the western world it clearly shows an unsettling trend. And FYI Castro lived a modest live, he didn't seek to own a lot of material goods like a lot of other leaders.
I don't know much about Castro, but the books by Che gives me the impression he works with the hacker ethic and actually a nice guy who sees humans beyond nationality or things as such.
The book on "Guerrilla Warfare" gives insights on his hacker like thinking. In the first page he describes the preconditions required to uproot the revolution and treats it like forming a startup. He summarizes 30 people is the ideal for the initial group to create revolution and describes about different personality types required among them. There is no big words like sacrifice, noble cause and stuff which you usually see used by the authoritarians, just pure information. He also goes on to say even without Castro the revolution would have happened.
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 flops. They are certainly full of the "presence" and "power" part of Fox-Cabane's thesis, even if not the "warmth".
I most want to know more about the "presence" aspect. I'm certain it can be taught, but I don't entirely know how. I do think it ties in with another thing I've observed, that many of the most charismatic film actors have experience on stage, especially the UK stage. I believe it has to do with the way stage forces an actor to draw your eyes, where a film actor has a camera telling an audience where to look. I still don't entirely know what it is they're doing. Fox-Cabane may have ides.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But this comes full circle - the more privileged are more likely to be more charismatic. In the UK, the art of rhetoric doesn't appear in the standard curriculum. I am confident in my ability to predict whether a UK politician has been to private/grammar schools and Oxbridge or not - to distinguish those who have been taught elocution and rubbed shoulders with the rich and powerful from an early age.
Not only that, but confidence and certainty are very charismatic, or at least, draw attention. That works fine as a mechanism for liberating people from concerning themselves with the minutiae of every part of life in society. But we all know some variation of that quote about the certain fools and uncertain wise. I'm thinking of those especially confident scientists who have used their platform to trash reflective subjects like Philosophy (not naming any names).
I suppose a good summary of my point is that charisma can transform interest into idolatry.
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.
I'm close to some very-charismatic people, in music and business... and if they falter in life, the charisma habit can definitely be a trap. They keep charisma-ing hard, but the reality of their circumstances are hard to square with their immediate effect on people. But real outcomes are often the result of longer term efforts and circumstances. And later in life, the "luck" factor seems harder to capitalize on..
I was once denied an opportunity by a Hollywood finance guy because, as he said, "You're not that smooth.." He was smooth, but not exactly charismatic. Possibly another side of a related coin.
> 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 think I do both! I'm extremely charismatic but imo not that bright so coast on personality but sometimes fall back on working lots of hours.
My charisma story is that I was very naturally attractive but then had an accident and gained a large % of bodyweight while bedridden for over six months. When I came back into the real world I sort of got forced to improve my personality because I could no longer coast on looks!
Going bald pretty much did the same for me haha. It's very interesting, and disturbing, how differently people treat traditionally attractive people and unattractive/less people.
> It's very interesting, and disturbing, how differently people treat traditionally attractive people and unattractive/less people.
Yes! I had a group at work of a core team. One guy who, in retrospect held me by the hand and led me along stupidvising as I learned a new system. He gave me endless attention and tutoring, celebrated wins and helped redirect when I messed up without ever getting upset. When I came back to work after having gained, he was weird and cold and blunt, and was way more demanding and curt in his feedback.
What really opened my eyes was when I lost again, suddenly I had my patient and thoughtful "mentor" back. It was disheartening, to be honest... just a feeling of sadness for humanity on how many opportunities the unattractive don't have offered to them on silver platters.
As I get older, my theory of charisma is that it's a product, more than it is an innate trait, and that anyone can "become charismatic", although 99.9 percent of people never will, and the worst thing you can do for yourself is try. People seem superhuman-- energetic, brilliant, capable-- when surrounded by people who invest themselves entirely in making them seem so. Steve Jobs had no special social acumen, above-average but not genius-level intelligence, and no more hours in his day than the 24 we all have, but he managed to surround himself with the right people and, for a period of about 20 years, managed to convince the world that he had superhuman powers and a "reality distortion field" when in reality he was just a capitalist who dropped acid once.
Plenty of charismatic people are socially inept, charmless, and unpleasant in close interpersonal relationships, but this doesn't make them any less charismatic on a stage. They often have no genuine friends, but tens or hundreds or thousands of people who will put aside their own concerns to do things for the charismatic individual.
Charisma is a pattern by which other people, for reasons that are hard to parse, and through mechanisms that are invisible, do things for the charismatic person. A charismatic person is threatening because others will kill for him, and he's a desirable benefactor because others will commit resources to his causes, but it seems to be a self-perpetuating phenomenon that snowballs and can carry on for most of a lifetime. It does seem to collapse in old age. This is why charismatic but hideous people like Harvey Weinstein, Donald Trump, and Bill Cosby meet such ignominious ends. They're invincible, until they're not.
There are skills that enhance a person's charisma. You can learn rhetoric, public speaking, and the norms of social interaction. But that's all they are: skills. Nothing can guarantee charisma. Nothing can guarantee that you'll get that core set of people to follow you that will produce a snowball effect. On that, it seems to be pretty random who wins and who doesn't.
Charisma exists because people want to be the charismatic person. They want to be someone who can wave a hand and bring ruin to their enemies. What they don't realize is that by following the charismatic, they're defeating their own purpose. It is not traits of the charismatic that generate this feedback loop. It is mostly just luck. That said, the way to improve one's odds to find people who are looking for a charismatic to follow, which means finding new territory, rather than hanging around an existing charismatic in a space where such people are already spoken-for.
> Charisma is a pattern by which other people, for reasons that are hard to parse, and through mechanisms that are invisible, do things for the charismatic person.
Sounds like a great evolutionary advantage if your group is out to kill a mammoth.
> 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.
I shook hands with Clinton in 1990. Did not know at that moment who he was, but knew he was important. Not physically the guy other guys would think had movie star looks or charisma (say, like JFK), but very confident and looked you straight in the eye.
Everyone at that event can tell you what conversation they had with him and every conversation was on a different topic. He was curious, approachable, a sponge of knowledge and never forgot a face and name (particularly if you were attractive).
So you can get along with decent looks, a bit of charisma, but a lot farther if you know how to be engaging in conversations and make people feel special/important.
Today are the US Presidential town halls - held separately on 2 different TV networks. The Trump version was announced 2 days ago while the Biden one was planned a bit before that.
Whatever you think of Trump, he's playing a game of chess.
Who's going to get the better ratings? I would wager that even people voting for Biden would probably be more interested in tuning into Trump - just purely from an entertainment point of view. I can see Trump touting his outsized ratings post town-hall.
I may be wrong. Maybe even a bit cynical at this stage....
72 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 133 ms ] threadBonus fable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Frogs_Who_Desired_a_King
[1] in its current incarnation, it, like much of the world, may have become obssessed with a particular authoritarian leader. I hope not. Pages 240-245 seem to be as I remembered. See https://theauthoritarians.org if you wish to see how it's currently positioned.
I mean I get where Adorno was coming from: a bunch of seemingly normal people had just massacred a bunch of his cousins. That doesn't mean I have to take his insane response seriously; particularly when current year WEIRD non-authoritarians so casually massacre members of neurotypical civilizations[1]. The persistence with which people cling to this nonsense indicates it must scratch some psychological itch. It is, however, nonsense.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WEIRD#WEIRD_bias
[1] I dunno, nobody seems to give a shit we've been blowing up "barbarians" in the middle east for the last 20 years in hopes of making them more .... tolerant.
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 would call the disputed territories.
Edit: the RWA score is from a survey on pp11-12.
Responses given on a -4 to 4 scale, and after scoring the possible results are 20 to 180.Page 14 states: "Introductory psychology students at my Canadian university average about 75. Their parents average about 90. Both scores are below the mid-point of the scale, which is 100, so most people in these groups are not authoritarian followers in absolute terms. Neither a...
That doesn't mean it's useless, but it does mean that the midpoint is arbitrary. If nobody scores above 100 it says more about your test than it does about people.
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."
I'm doing "that internet guy" again, but it's necessary here; from m-w[0] the definition of "authoritarian"
1: of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority had authoritarian parents
2: of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people
There's nothing about our forefathers, homosexuals, feminists, theism, women, sexual preferences, pornography, sinfulness or any of the other bullshit in those questions that has a single, solitary thing to do with the definition of authoritarianism. Until the 1990s, most Americans, indeed most Westerners outside of (maybe) Holland and Sweden would have been considered "authoritarian" by those lights. Do you believe Westerners were "authoritarian" for all of human history until ... say, 1997 or whatever? I was alive back then: it was very obviously less authoritarian on almost every level. And mind you, I score fairly "non authoritarian" (aka not so conservative) on this test.
Anyway, I appreciate your constructive engagement, but I am extremely allergic to bullshit which dehumanizes normal people. I mean, we decided as a society that dehumanizing gay people and feminists was bad: the reality is people who are don't think the last 10 years of modernity is an amazing success are not particularly authoritarian, but dehumanizing them absolutely is.
[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authoritarian
I'll write more tomorrow, it being wee hours here. In the meantime, please consider that:
> I score fairly "non authoritarian" (aka not so conservative) on this test.
means you (or for that matter any normal conservative) neither have a high RWA score nor are the subject matter of the book.
Edit: compare https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24795611
Last 10 years of modernity - as said last night, you are obviously not high RWA. A very high RWA person might agree the last decade has not been an amazing success, but would not limit themselves to that perception, and instead might claim things took a wrong turn with the Enlightenment[1], and people who behave as they ought not deserve lashing[2].
Also, the author has been using the RWA scale since the 1970s, the main primary papers he recommends are from (p.6) the 1990s, and most of the examples he gives in what I have reread are from the younger Bush period. So I doubt he's talking about 1997 and especially not anything more recent than 2010.
(Finally, I haven't a clue if you mean something specific by mentioning this decade? Over here, not much has happened in the last ten years, the last notable event before the pandemic having been the 2008 financial crisis.)
Dehumanisation — IIRC, the author doesn't dehumanise high RWA groups (otherwise he might be advocating pushing them out of helicopters instead of simply giving them the opportunity to meet, or even engage in shared tasks with, the Other.) If you could point out a dehumanising passage in the book please do.
Other bullshit in questions - see the footnote (p.39) discussing question 16:
the operative parts of this question are neither abortion, nor pornography, nor marriage, but strictly followed, too late, and strongly punished.Definitions - I was also alive last century[3] and believe the m-w definition is fine for its purpose, but although it shares a strong correlation, it's not the RWA[2] definition the book uses (which, the author takes pains to point out, can, and has in the ex-FSU case, applied mutatis mutandi to politically left wing authoritarian followers[4]).
Another last-century example, beyond the cousin posts: high RWA 1990s beliefs led to Srebrenica.
Normal human attitude - It's easy to argue that "Burn the Heretic!" has been normal for much of the last 6'000 years and probably tens of thousands, but I think in the west[5] it started going out of style after the wars of religion[6]. For some pre-1997 evidence, consult https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_...
[1] among the behaviours he found correlating with high RWA was acceptance of the notion (p.19) that the US Bill of Rights leads to immorality so it should be repealed.
Although this specific example comes from the fictional Ignatius J. Reilly, the idea is seriously presented in Evola's Cavalcare la tigre. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24785596
[2] (p.52) "Since followers do virtually all of the assaulting and killing in authoritarian systems--the leaders see to this most carefully--we are dealing with very serious matters here. Anyone who follows orders can become a murderer for an authoritarian regime. But authoritarian followers find it easier to bully, harass, punish, maim, torture, “eliminate,” “liquidate,” and “exterminate” their victims than most people do."
[3] although I am in an area that's historically been so strongly catholic (our idea of a cocktail party is centred on bread and wine) that people here are far more interested in following the Golden Rule than in making a tribe of their religion (our muslims also enjoy these same cocktail parties). YMMV.
[4] as a literary left wing example, the dogs in Animal Farm are a high RWA group, being content to be servile to the pigs as long as they get to be arrogant to all the other animals.
[5] pace twentieth century lit...
Classical liberals are not meaningfully authoritarian in any sense of the word; though of course there have been historical aberrations (pre-Salazar Portugal could have been considered both Authoritarian and classical liberal, as I suppose were some post-war governments).
I agree that the book doesn't use a meaningful definition of "authoritarian." That's all I'm trying to say here. The author is some kind of nut attempting to demonize the half of America that doesn't vote his way as being "authoritarians." He also wants to "cure" them. That seems .... kind of authoritarian.
On those details: Evola ... I mean, the man is about as influential as Miguel Serrano or any other fascist crank who persisted too long into the 20th century. Who cares what he says? It's burbling nonsense. Toole's character was a farce designed to make fun of Evolan types (pretty sure anyway; maybe it had an element of self mockery). And Dreher is a hipster ding dong whose hipsterness consists in having read "Confederacy of Dunces."
I know actually right wing and actually religious people who would score high on this "RWA" scale. They're not authoritarian at all! Much more accepting of divergences from their beliefs than even modern American centrists.
How can "would score high" and "accepting of divergences from their beliefs" not be disjoint?
As far as I can tell, the author is not advocating to "cure" people for not voting his way, he's advocating to "cure" people who are tempted to use the bullet box instead of the ballot box[3] to make him live their way. I'm pretty sure classical liberals, being live and let live, would score very low on this test.
Thanks for reassuring me about Dreher and Evola[4], I was introduced to them via HN, so I have no idea how widespread their thought may be offline. Agree that Toole was writing a parody version of the question of political or theoretic lives which was treated in a serious manner by Boethius in Consolation of Philosophy and Hesse in The Glass Bead Game. I wouldn't be surprised if Dr. Talc (a substance useful when changing diapers?) didn't also have elements of self mockery.
[1] did I forget to mention that apparently former CPSU members scored highly on RWA? Examples of questions I think left wing authoritarian followers might score highly on in the current context: 1, 5, 7, 17, 19, 22. Maybe for the current times the author, who notes in the first chapter that in the early twenty-first century the times of quoting Chairman Mao were long over, ought to ask about the appropriate use of Madame Guillotine?
[2] In the context of online cancellation mobs, moving from "harassment" through "punish", "maim", and "torture", on to "liquidate". To me it seems the easiest way to address mob cancellation is to only allow termination for cause, but even that wouldn't have saved the NYT editor (who had published Cotton's OpEd sight unseen).
[3] bullet box metaphor lifted from an FBI indictment. For my sanity, I should stop reading those things. (but they're horribly fascinating: over here people bring rifles to the range, not to demos.)
[4] I get Ubuntu from Evola because he's always rabbiting on about the atomisation of modernity. I'm not sure quite what he's for, as he seems to take it for granted his readers already do, but given the expressed love of hierarchy, I think he's big on social relations:
not to mention keeping relations up not only with those alive today but also with those of our Tradition.Simple: the scale, as I keep saying, is total bullshit. Someone's opinion on nudism or sexual dimorphism doesn't influence their day to day behavior or tendency to throw people out of helicopters in the way the author of the scale thinks they do. Hell; the Nazis were pro-nudist and an awful lot of them were screechingly gay (and all of them accepting of their screechingly gay comrades) ... in the 1920s and 30s, when that sort of thing was a lot less popular.
(b) someone who is always clothed in company themselves but doesn't mind if others are sky-clad in private gatherings (such as a classical liberal, an economic conservative, or a normal republican) would answer +4 to:
Given that I believe private nudity is legal in the US[1], why should anyone respond otherwise, unless unaccepting of divergence from their beliefs?(As for Nazis, what references do you have? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camp_badge#... shows the stereotypical pink triangles. For nudity, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freikörperkultur is a general german thing, not particularly Nazi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives#SA_le... was 1934.)
[1] based on my twentieth century experiences in US hot tubs and springs.
Q. how many californians does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A. (rot13) Abar, pnyvsbeavnaf fperj va ubg ghof.
As for nazi nudity: go watch the movie "Olympiad." Or ... hell, just look at photos of the era[1]. A good fraction of them were neopagans as well; they probably invented the phrase "sky-clad."
>Given that I believe private nudity is legal in the US, why should anyone respond otherwise, unless unaccepting of divergence from their beliefs?
Are you joking? There are lots of things which are legal but which people might not be all together comfortable with. For example: gambling, smoking, eating live shellfish, having unprotected sex with 100s of people, going to Church on Sundays (I guarantee you there are people who see something wrong with this), remaining a virgin until you're married (ditto), getting falling down drunk, eating only vegetables: the list is endless. Nudism certainly falls into the category of something all kinds of people might not be all together comfortable with; both authoritarian and non-authoritarian; and in this case both American right wing and left wing people. Do you think Susan Fowler would have been happy if Uber had done its corporate retreats and a nudist camp? Don't tell me it's "inappropriate" -because if "there is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps" -how can it possibly be inappropriate to hang out with your colleagues with your junk hanging out?
[0]https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/holocaust-remembrance-day/.pr...
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturism_in_Germany
I don't smoke[3] either but (enclosed public smoking being illegal here) I would also agree with the hypothetical:
I also won't join them, but don't mind if traditional christian people meet and do traditional christian things together[4], so I would also agree with the hypothetical: All these things diverge from my beliefs, but I accept others have their own beliefs[6]. Why should I not?"What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor."
Na du deting to du xeta, fo mang kapawu to. (...to your shipmate)
[1] beyond the undiversifiable risks any capitalist runs
[2] ID is required in our casinos, so I wouldn't be surprised if problem gamblers were 86ed.
[3] except on those rare occasions when either my pyromania gets out of hand or my campfire skills are weak
[4] although St Benedict makes it sounds like traditional christian people are a bunch of super-commies who gave up personal as well as private property. Consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ananias_and_Sapphira#Story_sum...
[5] My local one, from the seventh century, has chapels for both St Barbara and St George, two of my favourite christian saints.
[6] "il faut de tout pour faire un monde" (the world is diverse) Desh fosho kowlting fo du da belek.
Bonus clip (casino): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swvzItnFtCw
Despite people who tell me about the TEETH CHATTERING ATROCITIES of the nazi pork butchers ... saying things on twitter ... every sign of authoritarianism I see; from corporate fascism, to the idiots burning the cities down and toppling statues: every last one of them would have scored more like you on that scale as very open minded and accepting people, and less like some random Pentacostal who thinks foamy buttsex is kind of gross, but who doesn't bother anyone and who this scale would denounce as "authoritarian." If words like "authoritarian" are to retain their ordinary meanings, your scale goes into the dumpster, and you must refrain from ever referring to it again. It is a simple measure of WEIRD[1] psychological tendencies. Not "authoritarianism."
[0] better reference: referring to Nazi nudist societies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freik%C3%B6rperkultur#Naturism...
[1] again: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/10/joseph-...
> ... your scale goes into the dumpster, and you must refrain from ever referring to it again
Since you put it that baldly, how about a solomonic reference instead?
"Envy thou not the oppressor, and choose none of his ways." (Prov.3:31)
Na wanya kom sif inya, unte go dawe im natim.
Bonus clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MPtXUeUznY
> "The Digambara literature can be traced only to the first millennium CE..."
Irya is pretty hardcore straight edge.
I think (not being familiar with any of the above except for Karen[1]) you're mentioning US-specific culture war items which are orthogonal to the subject of the book, which are the sort of beliefs that lead "high RWA" followers to violently punish those their leaders have branded as Other.
The book has to do more with the sort of 1940's beliefs that built and staffed Treblinka, or the sort of 1950's beliefs that lynched Emmett Till, or the sort of 1970's beliefs that led to people being pushed out of helicopters, than to the sorts of beliefs to which I believe you refer.
[1] which I know of as a meme where melanin is incidental. Compare Scumbag Steve.
-- dr Ramani Durvasula, licensed clinical psychologist https://youtu.be/8EqSlSPHjR0?t=195
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.
Some people want attention and do all the right things to get it: pursue the right goals, get people together to do stuff that's good for humanity. You'd better believe that many people whom we view very positively might have been narcissists: Ghandi, Mother Teresa, etc. But the difference is they did GOOD things to get the attention and power they thought they deserved.
I think it has to do with the values you absorb as a very young person. We all have a drive for attention, for power, for comfort, for security. For some the drive, and the talent or "charisma" to achieve those goals is higher.
The decisions made along the way, the considerations of the side effects, and what you DO with that power are what distinguish people like Donald Trump and Hitler from people like Barack Obama and Nelson Mandela. And let's not get it wrong; even the latter two have a few spots on their records. No one is perfect.
She also has a video on "communal narcissists" - a breed of narcissists on a mission to help people that are very careful about documenting every single thing they do. Upon closer inspection, it turns out many people do good things only to be in spotlight and are mean to people close to them, including assistants who work for their success. She says whether it's worth it for the society in the end is a philosophical question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aF8fiHTbGtY
I feel like we would have heard stories about Barack Obama tormenting his subordinates by now if he was truly narcissistic.
- lack of empathy - entitlement to special treatment - superficial - constantly seeking validation and admiration - manipulative, exploitative, lying
Note that covert/vulnerable narcissists are mostly like that but they trade charm for a ton of passive-aggressive behaviors and snide remarks. Charisma is the favorite tool of classic, grandiose narcissists.
https://youtu.be/4qbam9R6BOo?t=87
By contrast, Dr. Grande's channel has more varied psychological content and comes off as more neutral than Ramani. Although recently he's been doing a lot more analyses of individuals than of broader subjects.
Someone who wants to understand narcissistic personality disorder should probably look up its commonly accepted definition, then watch Dr. Ramani's videos and decide which ones matter and which ones really don't. That's just my opinion.
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.
Without going into detail, I can very much relate to this. The grandiose narcissists are much easier to identify, most of the time, but vulnerable narcissism(which I think most narcissists are) is more socially acceptable and reliant on empathetic energy, making it harder to point out. On social media in particular, they can easily form cults of victims whom end up enabling the narcissist. I'm normally not that bothered by narcissists, but there have been a few times where I pointed out that a public figure is a narcissist, along with concrete details on their lies and misdirection, and got mostly backlash for it. What's funny is my predictions have always turned out to be right because narcissists really aren't that difficult to understand. Most of them aren't even good at keeping their stories straight.
You do occasionally find people who are all of very charismatic, honest, and substantive, but it's rare. Usually charisma is used to sell bullshit of one form or another. In my experience extreme charisma is a strong contrarian indicator.
I haven't really thought of it in this way, but it gave me an epiphany that my struggle with being charismatic, which is that I can be very, but it takes effort and is exhausting sometimes, is at least partly due to the context switching required to "know your audience". If your audience changes often, it becomes more difficult to maintain.
It is absolutely something that can be taught, practised, and developed. The article expressed a certain backbiting suspicion that I think characterizes the intellectual view of charismatic people, and it focused on the charisma of authoritarian leaders, but oddly doesn't mention super-charismatics like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey, and other progressive persuaders. Ultimately, I think this type of critical view of charisma demoralizes people away from believing anything strongly enough to follow a leader in pursuit of their interests, which seems like an altogether more insidious effect than the posturing of a leader could be.
But, not all charismatic people use their charisma for the bad. Some use it to form friendships and to climb social ladders, some to be productive in their role (salespeople), etc.
For some people it comes naturally. For some it’s forced (practiced). Not sure which ones do better, though intuitively I’d say the naturals would come across better.
A big part of why the Cuban revolution is viewed negatively in the US is that the Cubans were sick of their island being totally owned as a playground for the rich in another country — things were objectively better for most Cubans in the years after the revolution. So Americans and wealthy Cubans were largely the early losers in the revolution, and wanted to punish the country for having the nerve to seize back the land. The embargo really killed their ability to build an economy, which led to a lot of poverty and was largely outside the control of the Cuban government.
The book on "Guerrilla Warfare" gives insights on his hacker like thinking. In the first page he describes the preconditions required to uproot the revolution and treats it like forming a startup. He summarizes 30 people is the ideal for the initial group to create revolution and describes about different personality types required among them. There is no big words like sacrifice, noble cause and stuff which you usually see used by the authoritarians, just pure information. He also goes on to say even without Castro the revolution would have happened.
By the way I like Che not communism.
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 flops. They are certainly full of the "presence" and "power" part of Fox-Cabane's thesis, even if not the "warmth".
I most want to know more about the "presence" aspect. I'm certain it can be taught, but I don't entirely know how. I do think it ties in with another thing I've observed, that many of the most charismatic film actors have experience on stage, especially the UK stage. I believe it has to do with the way stage forces an actor to draw your eyes, where a film actor has a camera telling an audience where to look. I still don't entirely know what it is they're doing. Fox-Cabane may have ides.
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.
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.
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"
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.
Not only that, but confidence and certainty are very charismatic, or at least, draw attention. That works fine as a mechanism for liberating people from concerning themselves with the minutiae of every part of life in society. But we all know some variation of that quote about the certain fools and uncertain wise. I'm thinking of those especially confident scientists who have used their platform to trash reflective subjects like Philosophy (not naming any names).
I suppose a good summary of my point is that charisma can transform interest into idolatry.
I was once denied an opportunity by a Hollywood finance guy because, as he said, "You're not that smooth.." He was smooth, but not exactly charismatic. Possibly another side of a related coin.
I think I do both! I'm extremely charismatic but imo not that bright so coast on personality but sometimes fall back on working lots of hours.
My charisma story is that I was very naturally attractive but then had an accident and gained a large % of bodyweight while bedridden for over six months. When I came back into the real world I sort of got forced to improve my personality because I could no longer coast on looks!
Yes! I had a group at work of a core team. One guy who, in retrospect held me by the hand and led me along stupidvising as I learned a new system. He gave me endless attention and tutoring, celebrated wins and helped redirect when I messed up without ever getting upset. When I came back to work after having gained, he was weird and cold and blunt, and was way more demanding and curt in his feedback.
What really opened my eyes was when I lost again, suddenly I had my patient and thoughtful "mentor" back. It was disheartening, to be honest... just a feeling of sadness for humanity on how many opportunities the unattractive don't have offered to them on silver platters.
Plenty of charismatic people are socially inept, charmless, and unpleasant in close interpersonal relationships, but this doesn't make them any less charismatic on a stage. They often have no genuine friends, but tens or hundreds or thousands of people who will put aside their own concerns to do things for the charismatic individual.
Charisma is a pattern by which other people, for reasons that are hard to parse, and through mechanisms that are invisible, do things for the charismatic person. A charismatic person is threatening because others will kill for him, and he's a desirable benefactor because others will commit resources to his causes, but it seems to be a self-perpetuating phenomenon that snowballs and can carry on for most of a lifetime. It does seem to collapse in old age. This is why charismatic but hideous people like Harvey Weinstein, Donald Trump, and Bill Cosby meet such ignominious ends. They're invincible, until they're not.
There are skills that enhance a person's charisma. You can learn rhetoric, public speaking, and the norms of social interaction. But that's all they are: skills. Nothing can guarantee charisma. Nothing can guarantee that you'll get that core set of people to follow you that will produce a snowball effect. On that, it seems to be pretty random who wins and who doesn't.
Charisma exists because people want to be the charismatic person. They want to be someone who can wave a hand and bring ruin to their enemies. What they don't realize is that by following the charismatic, they're defeating their own purpose. It is not traits of the charismatic that generate this feedback loop. It is mostly just luck. That said, the way to improve one's odds to find people who are looking for a charismatic to follow, which means finding new territory, rather than hanging around an existing charismatic in a space where such people are already spoken-for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Dictator premiered 80 years ago today.
Sounds like a great evolutionary advantage if your group is out to kill a mammoth.
> 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
Everyone at that event can tell you what conversation they had with him and every conversation was on a different topic. He was curious, approachable, a sponge of knowledge and never forgot a face and name (particularly if you were attractive).
So you can get along with decent looks, a bit of charisma, but a lot farther if you know how to be engaging in conversations and make people feel special/important.
Whatever you think of Trump, he's playing a game of chess.
Who's going to get the better ratings? I would wager that even people voting for Biden would probably be more interested in tuning into Trump - just purely from an entertainment point of view. I can see Trump touting his outsized ratings post town-hall.
I may be wrong. Maybe even a bit cynical at this stage....