3 ms·
A lot of sibling comments expressing distaste for this. I find it interesting that when people intuit how to manipulate others and do it successfully, without
by alphazard 3y ago
A lot of sibling comments expressing distaste for this.
I find it interesting that when people intuit how to manipulate others and do it successfully, without self-awareness, it's called charisma, or social intelligence. But when someone has to consciously learn how to do these things, and as a result of the self-awareness can articulate the mechanics to others, it's called sociopathy.
- neontomo 3y agoThere is a big difference in influencing people and manipulating them. If you can get a group of people to do things that benefit the group, it's a positive trait and we call it leadership. I guess this is what you mean by charisma in this case?
- itishappy 3y agoI feel the dual of sociopathy isn't charisma, it's leadership. Manipulating others to benefit oneself (Paul's examples) is sociopathy, while manipulating others to benefit all is leadership. I do not believe these concepts to be mutually exclusive. Charisma, meanwhile, is a tool for sociopaths and leaders alike, and it can absolutely be learned and practiced. It's not the only tool to manipulate; power is a common one, but raw technical ability is my personal favorite.
- pacificmaelstrm 3y agoHow would you know the difference between someone who has to learn and someone who learns without trying? Maybe that they talk about it. Saying "I learned charisma" isn't a charismatic thing to say.