Jump to content

Talk:Charisma/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Anyone have any idea why this article is filed under "Charismatic"? Paul Drye

I agree. It should be Meher Baba.--MichaelTinkler
Done - hagedis

References?

Can someone find some references to attribute this sentence? It now reads as an assertion if fact and WP:NOR. Unless this sentence is properly referenced and attributed, I will remove it in a a week or so. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The study, recognition, and development of charisma in individuals is of particular interest to sociologists/psychologists, popular politicians, public speakers, movie-stars/movie-producers, casting directors, pop-music stars, trainers/coaches targeting the upper-echelons of the business community (CEOs), and academics or others involved in leadership studies or leadership development. In some cases highly-extroverted and brutally controlling charismatic people/leaders can invoke envy and/or hatred among those that do not possess "It," and indeed many cult leaders or leaders in general (Adolf Hitler, Jim Jones) have wrongfully used their personal charisma in extremely destructive and damaging ways throughout human history.
  • WHO gets to decide if something is POV original research vs. plain common knowledge? Wikipedia becomes more and more fascist every day it seems... --64.12.116.203 03:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Personally I think the matter of sources/references must be brought into attention as soon as someone finds a certain phrase or paragraph wrong, illogical, mentions something never heard before (like that John Seigenthaler participated in Kennedy's assassination), or challenges his views and experiences. The abovementioned paragraph is perfectly logical to me, and I don't think it would fall in any of such categories or that anyone disagree with or be unaware of what it says. That makes it common sense at least as far as i understand it with my average IQ. Pictureuploader 14:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Part of the sentence was attributed and references and the second part changed slightly to accomodate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. To be rigorous in applying WP policies is not facism. It is the correct thing to do when people want to use Wikipedia for something it is not. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting...

I removed the term wrongful. While I would certainly say mass suicide, genocide, and war are wrong, a member of the people's church, a nazi, and a nationalist would likely disagree with me. For better or for worse, we live in a universe with no universal morality, so no act can be said to be 'wrong'. I made the edit before I checked the talk page. If you really, very strongly want to revert it, do so and I won't change it back. --Irongaard 15:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Your edit makes PERFECT sense; thanks for the sharp eye(s) and keep up the good editing. --64.12.116.196 05:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

If CBT can help people with Social Anxiety, then it makes sense that it could turn a normal person into a Charismatic person. I wonder what would be the effects of Prozac, Klonopin, and CBT on a person who did not have SAD. I did hear on some TV show that JFK had a doctor prescribe him some mind altering drug but I can't remember what it was.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.71.131 (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

the caption under the hitler photo is POV, it assumes the holocaust was a bad thing and that hitler was a bad guy. i heard wikipedia was podantically un-biased, i guess it aint.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.80.130.198 (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
You heard that Wikipedia was "footantically" un-biased, eh? :P (I think you meant "pedantically", right?). Runa27 22:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Images

I think the images could use a little more international flavor. Two images -- both are (dead) American figures. Let's widen the perspective a little.--WilliamThweatt 02:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

According to that, and since we already have Hitler's image (a politican), I removed Kennedy and added an image of Jesus. Now we shoiw indications for 3 types of charisma: religious and spiritual leader, media and politics. If you think inappropriate to delete Kennedy and letting Hitler stay, you can proceed accordingly. Pictureuploader 08:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think Hitler is an even better example of charisma, because he had to have had a LOT to be able to manipulate all those people at once. Plus, he's an international figure (well, was). But either works, as both were politicians famous for their charisma. Runa27 22:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The "Further reading" list, flurry of page improvement(s), etc.

As you all can see, I've been adding a TON of books to this list. I am currently researching material for a book related to this topic, particularly in regards to 'charismatic' literary figures such as Hamlet, Heathcliff, Captain Ahab, Kurtz, and so forth. I know that this list getting a bit out of hand, but I figure since the concept/term of "charisma" is so incredibly difficult to define/grasp, these references can be used by people to try and further understand the phenomenon. So, in short, I'm building this list (mostly) for my own research in the coming months and years, but also for the benefit of the whole world (because Wikipedia = FREE KNOWLEDGE!). Anyone and everyone: please feel free to add to and update this list, improve the article, and/or copyedit the list (check ISBN numbers, spelling, punctuation, author names, and so forth). Thanks! --WassermannNYC 16:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way -- I've done my best to avoid adding the (mostly junky) 'self help' (or 'how to') books that supposedly teach people "how to be more charismatic," "how to increase their personal magnetism," or how to "increase their earning potential with charisma," and other books along those (commercial) lines. If someone wishes to add them I have no objections (trust me though: they are junk), but just to let people know that most of these types of books are not scholarly in the least and were/are written more to turn a profit rather than to seriously inform (they are also full of platitude after platitude). In the interests of serious research, I've done my best to add scholarly works from reputable presses to the reference list. Also, I've added a few (academic) German books on charisma because I can read German (as long as it isn't too complicated); admins: is that a problem? Studying charisma and charismatic individuals seems to be a popular topic in German academia, as there are many more books in German on the topic that I haven't added (yet). I might get around to that later (if this is allowed -- admins: is one allowed to add foreign language books to these types of lists?). --WassermannNYC 16:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

does it help if i tell you i am a charismatics fellow?

All I have to say to you this is...prove it! "Charisma" is apparently difficult to impossible to prove because (1) there is no agreed-on definition as to what the concept actually means; and (2) there are no tests that one can undergo in order to 'prove' that they are charismatic. Apparently it is all "intuitive," whatever that is supposed to mean.
By the way -- a VERY strange "coincidence" happened earlier, one might best call it "synchronicity." I went outside to take a Wiki-break (I needed it; just look at my edit count for today!) while I was making the flurry of edits to this article and others dealing with charisma earlier; this was a few hours ago. I usually (almost always) switch on the radio when I go outside, and that is exactly what I did this time, as usual. So I switch on the radio, and the first utterance I hear (strangely enough!) is someone saying that "salamanders are charismatic predators" [paraphrasing] -- NO LIE!
It was NPR's "Talk of the Nation - Science Friday" program that this phrase was uttered on, and because I went outside at that exact moment I managed to hear it. It was so delightfully strange [even eerie to an extent]...I mean, how many times in a lifetime does one hear the phrase "salamanders are charismatic predators" on the same day (and at the same time!) that one is making a flurry of edits about charisma and the many other topics related to it? IT WAS SO BEAUTIFULLY ODD! They were talking about salamanders hunting earthworms or something of the sort (it's this program; it was toward the very end I think) -- but like I said, it was exceptionally weird because the "salamander phrase" was the first sentence I heard right when I switched the radio on, right after I had left my computer as I was editing a charisma-related article! What are the chances of that! A strange orb we're living on, for sure... --WassermannNYC 23:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
NOTE: the exact words of this scientist (he seemed rather nervous): "[Salamanders]...who are actually a very charismatic predator in [sic] the forest floor" (~13:00-13:30 : [1]). LOL! OK-OK: I'll stop taking up extra memory on Wikipedia now... --WassermannNYC 23:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

John Nash:

John Nash was a mathematician and economist who developed the ‘Nash equilibrium’ concept in his doctoral dissertation in Princeton in 1949. Nash also proposed a solution to cooperative games. He shared in 1994 Nobel Prize in Economics with two other game theorists, Reinhard Selten and John Harsany.

A ´Nash equilibrium´ in a game is a list of strategies one for each player, such that no player can get a better payoff by switching to some other strategy that is available, while all the other players adhere to the strategies specified for them in the list. This concepts is mostly used by assigning various payoffs in the quadrants of the matrices for each player. Thus the higher payoffs represent the dominant strategy option.

This economic theory caused a revolution within the game theorist. Its applicability to many other areas such as psychology, sociology and political science made his theories very well re-known.

The amazing aspect of this leading Economist is not his charisma or social skills, but rather his analytic ability while suffering from schizophrenia. He was diagnosed in 1958, and later become paranoid for which he has to be hospitalized for a month in 1959. The final diagnosis was that he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, depression and low self-esteem.

Thanks to John Nash, today we can apply his theories to different analytic levels: from simple cases of human behaviour to theories of public choice and use of multiple strategies.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.49.53 (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Roosevelt

Franklin D. Roosevelt was said to have been quite the charmer in his time. Mainly in the way he talked and ability to make people listen to him, some examples can be seen in sources of him on television and radio. It's said that though Hitler himself was a great person of charm, Roosevelt was the same, however not to the levels of the dictator. Roosevelt was the greater man and applied it with good terms, unlike Hitler. Also I heard how Adolf was the first to use a plane to travel while promoting himself politically, as with adoption of surrounding the area of where he talked with speakers. Maybe this would have contributed to the alluring of Hitler to the German people?

All this information is from the top of my head, and I'd have no idea where to retrieve the sources in relation to it. Thankss Aeryck89 18:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Mystique

Mystique is merged with this article. Doesn't mystique warrant it's own entry? --Endlessdan 18:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Rare?

being charismatic is not rare, plenty of people are charismatic, can someone please rewrite that. and oh yes saying someone is or isnt charismatic is an opinion, i myself consider myself quite charismatic while others may not, wikipedia does not host opinions so please a rewrite is definetly in order. (207.172.55.227 (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC))

Weber Nietzsche

According to Allan Bloom (and others) Webers charisma 'comes' from Nietzsche http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVUCxyFn2V4&feature=quicklist&playnext=2&playnext_from=QL (for those who can speak german http://books.google.de/books?id=LIqDPBI1qiMC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=charisma+nietzsche+weber&source=bl&ots=aFnNxg8VvJ&sig=eRobiG7Q4cOb-rPjJrgbqCOhFqc&hl=de&ei=UzckSt6-Kcfdsgau0NGzBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA48,M1)

79.216.229.98 (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Charisma overrated?

This article seems to describe charisma as very rare and almost 'god-like' in that it is such a wonderful and unattainable trait that one would be blessed to encounter. On the contrary I feel that Charisma is much more common than what the article would imply and adding the fact that the article is not really referenced much adds to the feeling of some slant to this article.--Shaliron (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is a mess -- also, some removed content that should be added back

This article is a terrible mess. Much good info has clearly been removed and/or truncated by various subpar editors. Also, the entire 'See also' section of interlinked articles was removed for some reason even though that section contained many closely related articles of high relevance to this particular topic; this information should definitely be added back in to the article since it is so closely related, either in 'See also' list form as before or via direct incorporation in to the actual article - I include it all below in order to save the info for posterity:

See also

As "divine favor"

As "personal appeal"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.63.241 (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is full of crap

The charismatic traits section contains good traits only. I didnt know that Aristotle was a Psychologist. there is far too little about the dark side of charisma. I think that in general someone who is charismatic is a dodgy person, maybe a psychopath. --Penbat (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

More examples on the dark side of charisma

Hitler is not a case to illustrate the dark side of charisma. I think serial killers do it best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Officer Boscorelli (talk • contribs) 12:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Serial killers just kill, Hitler uses other people to kill. You got it backwards, although, I do suppose Hitler is not charismatic, since he relies on exploiting people's fear of defeat rather than his charisma. Jim Jones isn't a notable example, since he killed <1000 people while George Bush Sr. killed many times more. 173.183.69.134 (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

list of charismatic famous people?

Shall we? 

  Hitler, John Nash, Zhou Enlai, Jesus etc

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.226.162.157 (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

This is already done: see List of charismatic leaders and Category:Charismatic religious leaders. --WassermannNYC 03:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I donno, some of them didn't actually use charisma. 173.183.69.134 (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to contribute to the charisma, charismatic authority, and charismatic movement articles. I suggest that the charisma article focus on its meaning as a term and concept. It would thereby be an encyclopedic article and provide basic and supplemental information to the the other articles.

The indented text below shows proposed changes to the introductory and history setions.

Modern dictionaries of the English language define charisma as a noun in two senses:
  1. compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others: she enchanted guests with her charisma.
  2. a divinely conferred power or talent.
The plural is charismata. For theological usages the term is rendered charism and is defined as in sense 2. The adjective charismatic has two meanings relative to the senses above for charisma:
  1. exercising a compelling charm that inspires devotion in others: a charismatic leader.
  2. of or relating to the charismatic movement in the Christian Church. (of a power or talent) divinely conferred: charismatic prophecy.[1]
Theologians and social scientists have applied the concept to phenomena in their field, at times expanding and modifying the meanings as appropriate as appropriate to describe and explain the phenomena. As described below, the dictionaries and encyclopedias specific to these fields provide definitions that reflect the particularized meanings. Because certain elements of the term's etymology contribute to understanding these special meanings, a history section precedes sections on the social sciences, religious charismatic movements, and recently increased popular usage.
==History==
Theological, social science, and conventional dictionaries and encyclopedias consistently state that charisma is from the Greek χαρισμα and that it means "grace or favor." It derives from χαιρ&sigmaf, which means "attractive or charming," and related terms from this root means "filled with attractiveness or charm," "thank –offering," "to bestow a favor or service," and "to be favored or blessed."[2]
Greek was the basis for other languages prevalent in the Middle East for several centuries BCE. Therefore, it is not surprising that the term charism appears in the Christian Bible. Indeed, charism appears 17 times in the New Testament, principally in Romans and 1 Corinthians. The usage varies between a general meaning equivalent to "grace" and a technical meaning as "a spiritual gift or talent granted by God."[3]

I'm working on the psychology/sociology, theological, and popular usage sections. Please provide comments below or via email to me. I would like to post the above changes in early March. Scorpio1939 (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://oxforddictionaries.com/?attempted=true. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |access date= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Beekes, Robert. Etymological Dictionary of Greek Leiden:Brill, 2010, p. 1607
  3. ^ New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 3, Thomson/Gale, 2003, p. 389

Scorpio1939 Revisions

Just posted revised introductory and history sections of the article. Will fill in the other sections as soon as I can. Of course, anyone can edit the revised sections and input to the others. I hope we can discuss anything major, including your comments of the changes today. Think I have my preferences set so you can email me, and I'll be monitoring this talk page.

A few specifics. The Pierre Bordieu reference and the dark side comment belong in the charismatic authority article. If you insert either back into this article, please provide a source. Again, I hope we can discuss them. Scorpio1939 (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Tonight I revised the sections through History and replaced the info in Popular Usage; the revisions made them redundant. Will continue to work on the other sections. My approach will be to show how the social science disciplines and religions define charisma. Of course, input is invited. Would especially apprecite some dialogue: what do think about what I've added? What do you think is needed? Scorpio1939 (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia as Source for Examples

Dr. Poulter. Thank you for the improvements to this article. The substitution of "Etymology" for the first section, especially with relocation of material from the end, is very good. Unsure whether etymology implies inclusion of what is in history, but don't have a better term. In fact, I considered calling the history section etymology, but chose the simpler term.

With regard to using Wikipedia articles as examples of charisma usage, I appreciate the policy to base articles on "reliable, third-party, published sources." I suppose one could view the list of examples as a basis in aggregate, but it also seems a narrow interpretation of the policy. I could cite the sources from each article, but that seems an unnecessary cluttering of the article. Your user page indicates you assist newbies like myself, so would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks again and look forward to your reply. Scorpio1939 (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your improvements, Scorpio. This article is supposed to be primarily about charisma (in its two meanings), not the word "charisma". So the fact that "Charisma" is a woman's name is irrelevant and doesn't belong in the article. There is a disambiguation page (Charisma_(disambiguation)) for linking other uses of the term, and a separate project, Wiktionary, to write about meanings of words. There is no point to summarising the disambiguation page in prose in the current article. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Please note a name often relates to a its meaning in the wider a society. The Names article says a name is only an identifier, but linguists agree people frequently assign names to children, or select their own, to convey a particular meaning. (Another article for me to clarify in WP.) That is, a name is often the "symbolic representation of a thing, event, property, relation, or concept" (dictionary.com). Here it's a concept. People name their children charisma, like people naming their horses and wrestlers using it as a ring name, to represent the meaning of personality charisma in their child. It also illustrates how much the meaning has become diffused from its original theological and even later personality charisma meanings. I had made that point at the end of the Popular Use section. You moved it to the beginning, which, as stated above, was a good idea. Many scholars have written about meaning diffusion so will make the point again. In the paragraph you deleted, I did say "shows the wide range of personality charisma uses." I should have said meanings, and will correct it. What this leads to is obvious: I think the article should include people's names to clarify meanings in popular usage.
I remain unclear about my query above regarding the use of WP articles for examples. Even though I still think use of individual references makes the section unnecessarily busy, will proceed by your guidance. Thanks again for your input.Scorpio1939 (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Just stating that there is a famous person whose name is Charisma does not help the reader understand what charisma is. If there's a source saying that parents name their children this specifically because of the way the term has evolved and its connotations (as opposed to liking the sound of the name, or being influenced by a celebrity with that name), then let's add it. You can't use other WP articles as a source for this article. See WP:CIRCULAR and WP:SYNTH. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Pseudo science and original research

This article needs to be severely cleaned up. There is little objectivity or NPOV in this writing, and the "sources" cited (especially, among others, BBC News and Thesaurus.com) are completely insufficient. It nearly qualifies as original research, and certainly qualifies as pseudo science. 69.149.104.152 04:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What this article lacks is a macro perspective. Rather than focusing on individual examples of Charisma or trying to define what it is in an individual's personality the article should endeavor to explain the "why" behind Charisma's existance within humanity as a whole, as explained by and referenced to the current wisdom being produced through social anthropological study to clarify its function within any group of human beings. Charisma only exists because it had a positive purpose in society throughout human history; aiding, expediting, furthering, strengthening group and societal actions. The human survival senario is that of survival of the fittest or most adaptable society, which differs from almost every other animals on the earth in that their senario is one of survival of the fittest or most adaptable individual. It wouldn't be too difficult to put together a short, objective and well referenced addition to this article presenting Charisma as simply another necessary element in the function of human groups, something that evolved in humanity along with and because of our need for society. This would serve as a good jumping off point (after the etymology) for the rest of the article as it already exits. It would be easy to make a case for Charisma as a sort of group or social lubricant, automatically creating the trust necessary for group cohesion and timely action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Dan Streetmentioner (talk • contribs) 00:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charisma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charisma/Archive_1&oldid=1126387139"