from the seems-to-be-appearance-over-substance dept.
For those wanting to be more charismatic, there is evidence that it is not such a magical, or imperceptible quality as it might first seem.
Most of it stems from the way we use words and how points are conveyed. For example, in one set of studies, Antonakis trained middle managers at a German company and MBA students to be perceived as more charismatic by using what he calls charismatic leadership tactics.
These are made up of nine core verbal tactics including metaphors, stories and anecdotes, contrasts, lists and rhetorical questions. Speakers should demonstrate moral conviction, share the sentiments of the audience they are targeting, set high expectations for themselves, and communicate confidence. Managers trained to use these tactics were rated as more competent, more trusted and able to influence others. MBA students who analysed recordings of themselves giving speeches, with these tactics in mind, ultimately gave new speeches that were rated as more charismatic.
“Margaret Thatcher was unbelievably charismatic because of her rhetoric and use of these tactics,” Antonakis says. Analysis of a speech the UK Prime Minister delivered to the Conservative Party Conference in 1980, known as ‘The lady’s not for turning’, highlighted her extensive use of many of these verbal tricks. Her speech was packed with metaphors, rhetorical questions, stories, contrasts, lists, and references to ambitious goals.
But it’s not just how you use words that is important. Body language, gestures, facial expressions and tone of voice contribute to emotional signalling too and should match the message you want to convey. “What you need to convey [is] the appropriate emotion to what you’re saying. You need to look credible so people will trust you, ” says Antonakis.
Top tips: shower, and ditch the Atari T-shirt.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @02:24PM (3 children)
Let's see …
Metaphors: "This is like the memory layout of the ZX Spectrum."
Anecdotes: "You know, back then when I first got hands on an IBM PC, I really was shocked at how primitive their BASIC interpreter was."
Contrasts: "Emacs is much better than vi!"
Lists: "Well, there is ls, cp, mv, rm, cd, …"
Rhetorical questions: "You think Windows is a good idea? Do you know anything about computers?"
Moral conviction: "Proprietary software is evil!"
Share the sentiments of the targeted audience: "I wish this meeting was over already."
Set high expectations of themselves: "I know the system in and out!"
Communicate confidence: "If only I were in charge of that software, it would be done right."
Hmmm … seems nerds should be the most charismatic people on earth! ;-)
(Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday November 07 2017, @03:42PM (1 child)
Don't forget the unwritten rule: Don't be Jewish.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @01:13PM
How would the audience be able to tell?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @01:43AM
Well, nerds may find you charismatic. Muggles not.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DutchUncle on Tuesday November 07 2017, @02:25PM (15 children)
The subhead "from the seems-to-be-appearance-over-substance dept." is the typical techie attitude towards "suits". It has some validity; substance should matter more. OTOH, just like people's reaction to HMI and man pages and error messages, the interface is how the substance will be transmitted, and if the interface interferes with that transmission, then the reception of that substance could be negatively affected. If you show up looking like you don't care, then listeners will not care either.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by aclarke on Tuesday November 07 2017, @02:49PM (12 children)
Agreed. It's important to know how to communicate effectively. If you have a message you genuinely believe in, you can choose to communicate it in a way that bores your audience, or resonates with them. Which are you going to choose?
Stand straight, adopt an open physical posture, look people in the eye, be confident, project your voice, use language that your audience understands and appreciates, and talk like you believe what you're saying, and you're more likely to get your message through. Basically, all the things I'm regularly telling my kids.
It's also possible to be disingenuous and dishonest, but to do so in an utterly boring and non-charismatic manner. Lying is wrong whether you're good at it or not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @02:55PM (10 children)
The problem is that you're trying to communicate with absolute retards who will believe almost anything someone says as long as they look 'professional'. This needs to change, and conforming to that makes you part of the problem. We need a decent education system, at the very least. Otherwise, people are going to continue to be fooled by slick advertising campaigns and other such nonsense. I fail to see how being a shallow idiot will fix this.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday November 07 2017, @03:43PM
I think the effectiveness boils down to, are they real or not real?
Unfortunately that requires some intelligence and social skills to determine, as well as being part of an audience with half a brain.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by aclarke on Tuesday November 07 2017, @03:47PM (4 children)
It's not about being a "shallow idiot". I tried to make a point of the fact that honesty and genuinely believing one's message is important. This is the opposite of being shallow.
It's also not being an idiot to understand one's audience. I find it easier to understand someone when they're speaking clearly and not mumbling. That doesn't make me an "absolute retard". I've been around long enough to often (but not always) recognize when someone's trying to manipulate me, and I try to process the message more than the medium. However, if something is presented to me in a way that is difficult for me to parse in real time, more of my processing is going to translating the message vs. actually listening to it. It's similar to providing someone with a plate of lasagna vs. a pile of ingredients. Which one are most people more likely to eat?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @04:42PM (2 children)
I feel that GP isn't talking about your experience, personally, as an individual in the audience. GP is talking about how, invariably, the audience is a herd of idiots. You may be physically present there, but are you part of the herd? It's an emergent property of the audience. I'd call it emergent intelligence or collective intelligence, but I don't think "intelligence" is the correct word.
The collective consciousness of the audience herd is that of a herd of dumb animal. Human intelligence only works at the individual level; herd instincts remain unchanged from various predators who hunt in packs or various prey animals who graze in herds for protection. The speaker becomes a shepherd or the predator pack's alpha in that metaphor. (This is why betas cannot be effective speakers when rallying authoritarian followers as a predatory pack. They may make decent shepherds, however. I'm skirting the "beta cuck" idea in the dark enlightenment, but in a wolf pack, there are alphas, betas, and omegas. Humans aren't all that different, sociologically speaking, not even any more complex other than their versatility to switch between predatory pack and grazing herd.)
Unfortunately, most people look to the herd consciousness to formulate their opinion on the speaker's efficacy, and through that filter they interpret the message the speaker was trying to convey.
I feel there are some humans who are evolved beyond that, but they're (we're?) in the vast minority. Give it maybe 500,000 years, and we'll see whether humans evolve away from this trait of individual critical thinking and become nothing more than talking animals, or whether individual critical thinking is something that will be successful enough to carve out a biological niche. Don't be surprised if humans experience an event at some point in the next 200,000 years where these two evolutionary paths split apart.
(Well, I'll be somewhat surprised.... I'm not that optimistic.)
My personal feeling is that individual critical thinking is not a trait that will find a successful niche. Humans are very likely nothing more than talking animals, and individual critical thinking is an experimental trait that will be selected against. Note: my feeling here does not create some exemption for übermensch. There will be no super-men or morlocks. Just talking animals who construct dwellings, simple tools, and clothing, same as they were prior to whatever happened 12,000 years ago or so that created this experimental (and stingily distributed) trait of individual critical thinking.
Of course, I'll be long decayed by then, and I am incapable of reproduction (thus have no stake in the matter), so ultimately there are only so many fucks I can give about it.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 07 2017, @05:42PM (1 child)
Nailed it. A mob is a gestalt entity whose IQ is 110 minus the square root of the number of shoes in it, and whose capability for wise, rational thought decreases as the square of its size.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by infodragon on Tuesday November 07 2017, @06:12PM
In any sufficiently large crowd most are idiots.
Don't settle for shampoo, demand real poo!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @11:38PM
How about being a "khallow idiot"? Surely he's not shallow even though he doesn't understand the audience.
(Score: 3, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 07 2017, @05:40PM (3 children)
That is never going to change. We techies need to be skinwalkers, as it were; we need to emulate the subconscious signals these idiots pick up on, get in our places, and THEN do the actual work. It sucks, but the world is run by fucking morons. Always has been, always will be. This is double-hard for a woman, and triple-hard for one who's taller than the men she's interviewing with, so I don't expect to get much further than "technician and builder at a local mom'n'pop place" and always keep 2 jobs...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 11 2017, @05:33PM (2 children)
When I was a young man I was extremely fond of a very tall and very lovely goth woman. I kissed her on the cheek once (I had to stand on my toes) and she said that it was nice. But because I am not very tall, and other reasons, I didn't make my true feelings known. I felt very inferior to her. Men are weak. Everything you see is misplaced bravado.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 11 2017, @05:46PM (1 child)
"Men are weak."
Speak for yourself, you little pussywhipped bitch.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 11 2017, @08:16PM
I'm also a madochist which is why I post these comments online because I love the trolls I get in return.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 07 2017, @11:31PM
If it's about how to make lots of money, they'll listen either way. If it's not about money, it's useless anyway, so keep it boring and short; you'll save time for both yourself and your audience.
(large grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @02:50PM
Then those listeners should attempt to be more rational, if they're even capable of it. Computer analogies are just irrelevant here.
(Score: 2) by martyb on Tuesday November 07 2017, @05:43PM
First off, thanks for noticing the dept line... I often wonder how many people even know it's there or bother to read it.
I agree that, having mastery of one's material, there are steps one can take that can help one convey that information to others in a more palatable and engaging way — having charisma, however you define that, certainly helps.
Sadly, I've too often seen the reverse happen where, lacking deep knowledge of a subject, the presenter attempts to overcome that lack through charisma. Hence an adage I don't recall seeing anywhere, but I sum it up as:
PS: I have found much wisdom in the Wizard's Rules [wikia.com] presented in "The Sword of Truth" series of books by Terry Goodkind. The Wizard's First Rule seems apropos to this discussion:
Charisma and confidence — combined with some knowledge of human nature — can go a long ways to persuading people that a lie is true.
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday November 07 2017, @02:29PM (11 children)
Aristotle and later Cicero were writing about this over 2000 years ago. These are among the techniques of rhetoric. Everybody in the business of public speaking or marketing knows all about them. Although a big one left out is appearance: People tend to listen to those that look the appropriate part (whether or not they're remotely actually that person), or people they're sexually attracted to.
Of course, the people featured in this article are in some ways demonstrating perfectly this art, since they're simply dressing up what was old as new and getting journalists to buy into it!
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @03:34PM (10 children)
In the MBA world, it is the superficial bullshit that matters, not the content. As you pointed out, it always has, and it always will.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday November 07 2017, @04:44PM (9 children)
In the MBA world, it is the superficial bullshit that matters, not the content. As you pointed out, it always has, and it always will.
Not necessarily, for the "always will" part. There's a couple of things that could change that: 1) the human race dies out or destroys itself (probably due to listening to charismatic people who lead us to ruin), or we achieve better-than-human AIs and they take over. I'm hoping for #2. Things will be better with AIs in charge.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday November 07 2017, @06:02PM (7 children)
Better for who? Possibly not for humans...
I hope for a Buck Rodgers future, and not a Matrix or Terminator future.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday November 07 2017, @06:46PM (4 children)
The Buck Rogers and ST:TNG futures are optimistic and rosy and nice to look at, but they aren't realistic in any way, unless you somehow re-engineer humans.
The Matrix future isn't too bad really. The Terminator future is more likely though, but I think the most likely future will look like "The Walking Dead" or "28 Days Later".
That's why I say things will be better with AIs in charge. It's better than the more-likely alternative.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday November 07 2017, @07:15PM (3 children)
Agreed, if one can find a way to engineer humans with a stronger sense of community and altruism. Without turning them into zombies, of course.
Meh on the Matrix future... if you're in the Matrix your experience is no different than what we have now, or you are flushed. Except for the huge dance party with hot people, that wouldn't be so bad.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Tuesday November 07 2017, @07:30PM (2 children)
Agreed, if one can find a way to engineer humans with a stronger sense of community and altruism. Without turning them into zombies, of course.
I really wonder what would happen if we simply came up with a test to identify sociopaths (5-10% of the population), and either cull them, somehow make them non-sociopathic, or at the very least make them second-class citizens unable to hold office or any kind of leadership position.
Meh on the Matrix future... if you're in the Matrix your experience is no different than what we have now, or you are flushed. Except for the huge dance party with hot people, that wouldn't be so bad.
For all we know, we're already living in the Matrix. The dance party looks good, but we already have that now in our current Matrix. Though the one in that fake Matrix sequel did look cooler than the ones we have today usually.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Prune on Wednesday November 08 2017, @02:50AM (1 child)
How about we cull those who mislead by pulling statistics out of their asses that are off by an order of magnitude? Estimates by experts (such as Hare, whose test is the accepted standard for psychopathy) of the prevalence of psychopathy in the general population are around 1%.
There's no official difference, and even those recognizing some distinction are not going to argue that these two disorders have a massive overlap.
Another problem with your post is that you're basically promoting tyranny of the majority as well as total ignorance of human rights based on eugenic considerations. I saw that coming, given your post history.
(Score: 1) by Prune on Wednesday November 08 2017, @02:52AM
have a massive -> don't have a massive
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday November 07 2017, @08:02PM (1 child)
Let's just hope this is first [xkcd.com].
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday November 07 2017, @08:52PM
If you link to the actual page, [xkcd.com] people can also read the image's title text without having to do a web search first.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 07 2017, @11:46PM
I still hope for the ark fleet Ship B.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @04:53PM
It's called "acting". It's not magic, just non-trivial to do well (for most).
(Score: 2) by looorg on Tuesday November 07 2017, @06:03PM
My Atari T-shirt brings all the girls to the yard, And there like, Its better than yours, Damn right its better than yours, I can teach you ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AwXKJoKJz4 [youtube.com]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Revek on Tuesday November 07 2017, @09:56PM (3 children)
That is what I take from most of those suggestions. Don't be yourself, pretend to be just like you're audience.
This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Post-Nihilist on Tuesday November 07 2017, @11:40PM (2 children)
If you have a message to convey, forget about yourself and focus on how much you are believing it and others confidence inspiring toughs while you practice your discours. The when you do give your speech peoples are thinking that you have a good charisma and the are more receptive to your messages. You are the one who saw the need to lie.
Be like us, be different, be a nihilist!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @12:45AM
If a message needs deception to spread it isn't worth telling. It is a cheap tool of the shysters aka the politicians. Their goal is to increase their power. I see it as a lie since its what I see it most used for.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @01:18PM
Just like Tony Blair: Someone who believes his own lies.