As a theater director and actor I spend a lot of time thinking about "charisma". What is it that makes some people interesting to look at, even when they're not doing anything?
Physical attractiveness can play into it, but there are some very charismatic actors who aren't attractive. Acting skill plays into it, but often charismatic actors are only mediocre at "acting". It's commonly associated with confidence, but some charismatic actors have a habit of playing un-confident roles. (Which is not the same as a lack of personal confidence, but what is it they're doing that conveys both "confident" and "insecure" simultaneously?")
It's often said to be about commitment, a sense that they're really "present" and really focused on you. That's certainly something we want actors to do: the more they care about their scene-partners, the more the audience will be drawn to both. (That's true even when the focus is based on a negative emotion, like hatred, but it has to be a really targeted kind of hate and not just a general anger.)
I can teach a lot about the theory of acting, but I have only a vague idea of why it works. When it does, it can be really potent, though it can be be incredibly hard to get. People will often do the same wrong thing harder. A lot of the silly acting games they teach are about getting you to at least do a different thing than what you were doing, hoping that somehow you'll accidentally discover the right track.
I'm not sure any of this is really "charisma" in the sense that this writer means it. I certainly support his overall gist: soft skills are massively underrated.
Charisma is indeed a complex trait. That's why, in the article, I say:
"...it is not a single trait but a broad spectrum of traits that share things in common."
What I'm trying to convey here is that if you try to define charisma, no matter what definition you come up with, you will always leave many things outside its definition. Instead of trying to define it, I think it's better to explore the different traits that make a person charismatic. In the article, I decided to explore three of them: making meaningful connections, empathy, and warmth.
I agree there are many more traits that could describe a charismatic person. I also agree that "presence" might be one of the most important ones that were left out of the article.
Which brings us to an interesting question: What does it mean to be present?
Just as with Charisma, Presence is just another skill that is better not to define but to explore through the behaviors it displays.
"The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao..."
I thought recently of 'indiscriminate kindness'. Basically, I consciously tried to be kind to anyone I interacted with (provided they were not openly hostile to me), without discrimination. And I was amazed how many people I dismissed before, because there was nothing they could offer me, or they were threatening to me for some vague reasons. It was very tricky and more difficult to do than I thought. I tried to make it show in my voice and in my mannerisms.
And while I'm not very far into it yet, I did feel like I began seeing others more for their full humanity, if that makes sense. One of the more profound feelings is when you see another person, and you realize, he's just like you. And that can kinda pull your heartstrings in a weird way.
I try to be kind to every single person I meet, it has said benefits, you open up their personality and understand them better. But as with all things it has a flip side. I have the tendency to be a pleaser and when there is abuse of that, or simply no acknowledgement, it can be depressing.
I guess I was thinking it as a kind of spiritual exercise, rather than something you do to make anyone happy with your smiles... The smiles mean nothing, really. What comes after that is what I find special. It's about taking proactive steps into growing that love, which is both universal and personal, instead of requiring circumstances to guide you there by the hand. Which it wont. Unless you're in a war, or something.
I see what you mean. I believe smiling often is mostly a personality treat, some of such personalities smile without deeper meaning.
A problem I seem to have is that i try to establish a deeper connection with many people and tend to get frustrated if it doesn't work out. Especially if it started with a wrongly interpreted meaningless smile.
If you could teach about those proactive steps, i'd be glad to be an apprentice.
It's the opening of the Dao part of the Dao De Jing.
Traditionally:
道可道，非常道。名可名，非常名。"The Way can be spoken, [but that] is not the constant/permanent/unchanging Way. The name can be named, [but that] is not the [you know] name."
Mawangdui:
道可道也，非恆道也。名可名也，非恆名也。[Same thing, but with more overt grammar, making it clearer that the first and third clauses say "The X is something you can Y" and not "The X that can be Yed". This doesn't make "The Dao that can be spoken" wrong, but that nuance is coming from knowing the meaning of the whole thing, not directly out of the grammar of the text.]
You can use words to describe it, but you'll fail to capture the whole thing.
In the traditional text, but not the Mawangdui text, 非常 has become a very common intensifier [literally "unusually"] in modern Mandarin. Classically it's two unrelated words.
As long as we're having fun with it, I don't understand why the fake version of the opening isn't "Dao can dao, very dao. Name can name, very name". That is surely what a modern speaker will think when they see the text.
Couldn't say -- I'm just making a reference based on second-hand understanding of what the "literal" translation reads like. I hadn't heard about that bit being used as an intensifier, interesting.
It's worth noting that 道 is a noun referring to a path, and a verb referring to speaking, and while both of those words are used in the first two clauses, they aren't the same word. The author is engaging in a pun or play on words.
Apparently the Christians adopted 道 to translate their concept of the Holy Word, which is a fun use of both senses.
> but I have only a vague idea of why it works. When it does, it can be really potent, though it can be be incredibly hard to get
The top reference in the article is the book The Charisma Myth (really highly recommend it)
In that book, Olivia Fox-Cabane (the author), explains that we are subconsciously attuned to the cues of charisma. It's essentially an instinctive trait that we are wired with. Hence, it is very easy for people to detect charisma, and it is pretty much impossible to fake charisma
So then, a good way to develop charisma, is to change the way you feel internally. Essentially develop the ability to "feel charismatic", and then your body will reflect it outwardly, which will make people notice it, which will make them treat you like a charismatic person, which will make you feel charismatic, thus creating a virtuous cycle
The book has many exercises to bootstrap the process and develop the skills to be more charismatic. They really do work, but also require plenty of practice
> It's often said to be about commitment, a sense that they're really "present" and really focused on you. That's certainly something we want actors to do: the more they care about their scene-partners, the more the audience will be drawn to both.
This is an enormously important point. The secret is that charisma is mostly a "pull" (react) process. Does it feel like I'm happy to see you? Am I surfing your energy? Am I empathetic? How do I handle your feedback? Am I really listening, or just waiting until you stop talking to say my piece?
If you mistake it for primarily a "push" (act) process, people will just think you're a wanker. As the author puts it, "Charisma is all about how you make others feel". Charisma is a full-duplex process.
That might be good advice for arrogant actors, but it's not a good definition.
Charisma is not just about relationship, or how they interact with people.
Charisma means having hidden information that lets you operate in the world more efficiently. It lets you maintain your self where others cave to external pressure. It's excellence demonstrated through poise and resilience. It means being worth watching.
Charisma in an acting context is different in that it adds another ball to juggle, but it's still a mostly-reactive exercise. Stella Adler's "acting is reacting" is an adage for a reason, and without that foundation, a person will not be perceived as charismatic even if they "act charismatic".
As a player in the 80s and as someone who was just a kid, we all assumed it meant attractiveness despite the explanation in either PHB or DMG that someone like Hitler would have had a high charisma. And then they went and added the comeliness stat that was explicitly stated to be attractiveness. It was hard for us to understand.
My guess is that it's the same thing in personal interactions - the depth of emotional genuineness.
Humans universally desire connection to other humans; it's survival, it's desire, it's necessary for emotional processing. Empathy understanding others' emotions; it's a universal skill. We need to be expert readers of emotion. We can sense when it's false or partly covered up, and long for that deeper connection that unlocks our own emotions.
An actor has the challenge of finding genuine emotions to play a fictional person.
I think charisma is just having a genuine interest in those around you. I don’t know how teachable that is but do think one can make a mental shift to hold that viewpoint
Would you describe (as a historical example) Adolf Hitler or the current US president as charismatic? If so, does that still support your hypothesis that charisma is genuine interest in the people around you?
> As a theater director and actor I spend a lot of time thinking about "charisma". What is it that makes some people interesting to look at, even when they're not doing anything?
> Physical attractiveness can play into it [etc...]
You might be interested to know (at least, I was) that the original concept was developed out of the study of rhetoric, and referred to the phenomenon that two different people giving identical speeches (that is, identically worded speeches) might receive very different reactions from an audience. This is, as you note, a very broad phenomenon, with many different causes. But all of them would be called "charisma" because the concern was with the effect on the audience.
Because of this, I find "Underrated soft skills: Charisma" to be something of a weird title - in my understanding "charisma" refers to all soft skills.
-----
My favorite demonstration of the idea comes from a comedy sketch I found on youtube titled "MDE: Trex helps out Robby". Trex seems to be a pickup artist who has been called in to help someone who has trouble getting dates:
> [Trex:] (whispering to Robby) I just spent an enormous amount of time and money training you to be my protegé. I want you to go in there, I want you to talk to that fly-ass bitch on the right side, I want you to say some wild shit to her. Say "I'm dat gorilla dick nigga. I make dyke pussy wet."
> [Robby:] (whispering to Trex) I'm not saying the N-word. Sorry.
> [Trex:] "I'm the gorilla dick pussy god. I make dyke pussy wet."
> [Robby:] All right. Sorry. (Robby rolls his wheelchair over to the fly-ass bitch on the right side.)
> [Robby:] (out loud, kind of) I'm like gr -- ah -- gerilla -- GOrilla. I'm like gorilla dick baby. (pauses, thinks, readjusts his glasses) I'm that gorilla dick (pause) god. I make di- dyke pussy...ies wet. Okay. (exhales loudly, readjusts his glasses) I'm like gr - god damn it I can't - (scene cuts to Trex whispering in Robby's ear)
This has always struck me as a great example of being able to provide advice to someone else that would work for you, but won't work for them.
Charism, according to catholicism, is something like a divine gift that radiates like sun, and although the people around can't see it, they feel it in some unexplaiable way.
Everyone is charismatic in their hearts, but the clouds of selfish thoughts and emotions block its light.
The evil twin of charism is hypnotism - the power to make people do what you want.
Amusingly, I'm getting a chance to put that into practice right now. I'm playing an extremely tiny supporting role in my current play. I was actually up for the lead, but didn't get it. (I think they made the right choice.)
Before I had played a lead, this would be very frustrating. Having played leads, I now know what it is the lead needs from me, and I can be very important in my place. It's a useful demonstration of what a good actor can do without the script giving them a lot.
(I know that was a joke, but I thought it was worth noting.)
I don't know about this. Everyday charisma, sure. But powerful leaders shouldn't smile too freely. It's concerning. Which is why I thought Kamala lost, she just smiled too much. At least I think that tanked her charisma. I know it sounds weird. Also Elon became very unlikeable because he smiled way too much for how powerful he was. Amongst other things, of course.
Physical attractiveness can play into it, but there are some very charismatic actors who aren't attractive. Acting skill plays into it, but often charismatic actors are only mediocre at "acting". It's commonly associated with confidence, but some charismatic actors have a habit of playing un-confident roles. (Which is not the same as a lack of personal confidence, but what is it they're doing that conveys both "confident" and "insecure" simultaneously?")
It's often said to be about commitment, a sense that they're really "present" and really focused on you. That's certainly something we want actors to do: the more they care about their scene-partners, the more the audience will be drawn to both. (That's true even when the focus is based on a negative emotion, like hatred, but it has to be a really targeted kind of hate and not just a general anger.)
I can teach a lot about the theory of acting, but I have only a vague idea of why it works. When it does, it can be really potent, though it can be be incredibly hard to get. People will often do the same wrong thing harder. A lot of the silly acting games they teach are about getting you to at least do a different thing than what you were doing, hoping that somehow you'll accidentally discover the right track.
I'm not sure any of this is really "charisma" in the sense that this writer means it. I certainly support his overall gist: soft skills are massively underrated.