Hacking Charisma

An anonymous reader writes: "Steve Jobs had it. George Clooney has it. So does Don Draper. Charisma is intangible but powerful: the personality trait that's used to win friends and influence people. Olivia Fox Cabane wasn't born with it. She was a high-school outcast, a socially awkward teenager baffled by the nuance of social interactions. But she was also an analytical thinker. She believes she has reverse engineered the secret of charm, and is so successful that executives now pay her to do the same for them. Cabane's self-help spiel comes with a dose of science. In this article, Teresa Chin examines the science of charisma, and asks why exactly Silicon Valley needs a charisma coach in the first place."

Comments

"hacking charisma"

[Anonymous Coward]

otherwise known as "learning sociopathic manipulation"?

Re:"hacking charisma"

[fustakrakich]

In today's world it's a very rewarding trait. The sociopaths are top dogs. Somebody needs to teach how to resist "charisma".

Re:"hacking charisma"

[VorpalRodent]

You joke, but that was my first thought when I read this gem about 2/3's of the way down:

Her executives are tutored in techniques like “responsibility transfer” [...] and “rewriting reality,” which involves undoing the anguish of a painful experience by coming up with alternative scenarios that transform the event from distressing to excusable.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody needs to teach how to resist "charisma".

Otherwise known as "critical thinking".

Re:"hacking charisma"

[khallow]

I think more it's an aspect of that peculiar ecosystem. Parasites that prey on parasites.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[Anonymous Coward]

Sociopaths? Really? Because they don't bow and scrape to you and your genius I presume. Who's the sociopath here?

Re:"hacking charisma"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's easy, very easy.
The way she teaches self-manipulation (self-hypnosis) you can train yourself to be honest to yourself and others. Then try to do that more often and don't be afraid to fail. That comes with a price - not everybody will like you, but if they do - they like you for who you are, not for who you pretend to be.

The problem with today's "leadership" is that it focuses on the personality of the leader versus team's dynamics. To my opinion it should be the other way around.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[DNS-and-BIND]

If you want to go through the rest of your life unarmed in a socially violent world, go right ahead. The smart people will be learning charisma, and you'll be wondering why they get ahead.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[MillerHighLife21]

It's not complete BS, but I think it's more learned by observation than taught. I was very socially awkward growing up but I also just sat back and observed people. When I got to college I made a point to modify some of my habits around people based on those observations and my college experience was a whole lot better than my high school experience. The short of it was that I just realized what type of things that I was doing that made people react badly and stopped them. It also didn't hurt that I lost 40 lbs, worked out every day, got contacts and got rid of my braces.

Seriously though, the #1 thing that I learned to do was just stop talking so much. I geek out with programmers on programming stuff. People run away when you do that in other settings.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[Nephandus]

Not necessarily smart, just sleazy.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[jellomizer]

Well yes, almost every action does have a negative connotation to it. Thank you for pointing that one out. You must feel proud that you can use your vocabulary to twist a story to attempt to be positive to make it seem negative.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[gl4ss]

just read con man guidebooks.

I would think silicon valley has plenty of coaches for that shit.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[jellomizer]

If you need to resist it, you have already failed, as it had already affected you.

In short, we live in a world which people have an increasing voice in the world. This post alone will probably be read in many countries. Most likely this post will last only a few seconds in your memory and go away.

Now resisting charisma will require more work, because we have so much more information static in our lives and really not to many good ways to filter out a nonsense such as an internet post while someone is taking a break from work, vs. some more valuable information.

Now charisma, is by no means perfect it does show that the person really seems to really care about the information they state vs. the normal static. Thus we naturally will give it more attention. Sure this information can be complete B.S. but they have gave it in a way to get your attention. They got your attention you listen to what they said, then you will need to make a decision to accept or reject that idea. a 50/50 shot! However if you lack charisma your views will be ignored and washed away from the static, and there is no decision to accept or reject that information because it never got your attention.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[Anonymous Coward]

Big fleas have little fleas,
Upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas,
and so, ad infinitum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Siphonaptera

Re:"hacking charisma"

[jythie]

Not really. A sociopath can have charisma, or they can not. There are just as many sociopaths with good social skills as good math skills, which means there are also quite a few who have bad social skills and EQs.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[jythie]

Some people learn by observation, some benefit from training. It is kinda like programming or math, some people will pick it up on their own and other people work best when they have a structured class to explicitly introduce elements in context of each other. Some people even need tutoring that focuses on specific areas they struggle with.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[blue9steel]

Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[serialband]

People also "grow up" a bit after high school and don't act as jerks as much as they did in High School. Some of that is training, some isn't. It may partially have something to do with officially being an adult at 18. Some kids never act like jerks, because their parents already taught them how to behave as adults even as teens. You don't just magically become an adult the day you turn 18. Maybe you learned by observation because your parents never taught you how to behave in social settings.

Kids have to be taught "common sense", otherwise they'd continue to act like the selfish brats that they were when they were babies. Parents have to teach kids to share with their siblings. Parents also need to be taught how to be parents too.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[hodet]

This is just self awareness. Everybody is way over-thinking this. I have no doubt she is giving "dorky" type nerds (as the article specifies) tools that are useful.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[Nephandus]

Thus "not necessarily", though most sleazes I've met weren't particularly intelligent. Their marks were just preprogrammed.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[idontgno]

There's a special name for a "story to attempt to be positive": "propaganda". Anyone with ciritcal thinking skills will demand to examine both the negatives and the positives.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[Jesrad]

I had a similar experience, though it went further. Because of some rare condition I considered myelf different from a very young age (~4) and that initially made me socially distant. In early childhood I would only allow myself to befriend the various misfits and otherwise rejected children of my age, while standing back and observing the 'normal' ones. But as I went to junior high school I decided being a loner wasn't very enjoyable, so I took advantage of the fact that most people didn't know me yet there, and practiced socializing. Basically, I reproduced what I was observing the others doing. When to be derisive, when to be conforming, when to side with the louder speaking kid or when to laugh at him, playing whatever games were 'in' and leaving behind the 'out' ones, etc.

By high school I had also become very good at body language. Eye contact engagement rules, leaning forward or backward during discussion, maintaining or diverting attention, mimicking the other's movements, etc. It became second nature. As a result I had many real friends, and could get new acquaintances fast and reliably. It was very gratifying, of course, so I was putting an honest effort into succeeding at it.

All along I was also observing myself and watching what it'd change in my behavior. It turns out I was becoming manipulative and two-faced as a result: pleasing a lot of very different people implies becoming very "fluid", shall I say, about who you are and who or what you like / dislike, trust / distrust. I didn't quite like what following the social game's rules and tricks and hack was making of me, so I just quit and instead started practicing vehement integrity in its place. I retained most of my true friends, surprisingly. Outside these close circles I'd be viewed more negatively though. And some funny thing happened: I noticed that people who were themselves manipulative developped a kind of allergy to me. It turns out the very worse thing you can do in their presence, is publicly and widely sharing social information with the highest honesty you can, epecially when people know you are principled about saying things straight. And I like the person it made me a lot better than the 'me' of high school years, too.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[modecx]

If you need to resist it, you have already failed, as it had already affected you.

Charisma, like the old tree branch that scratches your window at night, and the drive to eat and fuck, primarily affects the old lizard brain. It's near the same biological level as the autonomic nervous functions. Unless your name is Spock or Jesus H. Christ, of course you've already failed. That doesn't mean you're done for though.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[BobSutan]

Otherwise known as "reframing". This isn't a new concept, but it is interesting that it's being taught to executives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

http://changingminds.org/techn...

http://stress.about.com/od/pos...

http://www.psychologytoday.com...

Re:"hacking charisma"

[ShanghaiBill]

Otherwise known as "critical thinking".

"Critical Thinking" is a meaningless phrase. The Wikipedia page contains nine different definitions, some directly contradictory. So whatever "critical thinking" means, those that use the phrase without saying what they actually mean, are not doing it.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[Will.Woodhull]

There's a special name for a "story to attempt to be positive": "propaganda".

True enough. But how does that apply to TFA? Did you actually RTFA?

Anyone with ciritcal thinking skills will demand to examine both the negatives and the positives.

So are you offering this as a definition? Or merely as a tautology? In either case, it is so self-evident that the sentence is a waste of slashdot resources.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[davester666]

Yes, you aren't firing tens of thousands of people to live in a life of poverty for years, vainly searching for a job that will support them enough if they also get food stamps.

You are freeing them from the oppression of a rigid corporate structure, so they are free to explore and discover themselves, to spend time with their families and to be entrepreneurs and create the next big thing.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[xclr8r]

You can be self aware and still be uncharismatic. I am so self aware that I am uncharismatic by bringing up every fault or error that someone might perceive. I know I'm doing it - I can perceive that it's tiresome for some but in my mind I don't want to be the "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" guy.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Critical Thinking" is a meaningless phrase. The Wikipedia page contains nine different definitions, some directly contradictory.

The word you're looking for is ambiguous, not "meaningless". And none of those definitions are directly contradictory.

So whatever "critical thinking" means, those that use the phrase without saying what they actually mean, are not doing it.

There are multitudes of ambiguous words and phrases. Usage of any of them without "saying what they actually mean" does not in any way suggest lack of critical thinking.

In fact, your inappropriate attribution of that error does suggest lack of critical thinking (by most definitions on the linked page) on your part.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[ShanghaiBill]

none of those definitions are directly contradictory.

Baloney. "Inward-directed, self-reflective thinking", and "evidence based reasoning" are complete opposites. Any definition that encompasses both, will be so broad as to be meaningless. Can you explain what differentiates "critical" thinking from "normal" thinking?

Re:"hacking charisma"

[Sentrion]

Thank you for your excellent example of rhetorical technique. You've built an impressive straw man from an ad hominem buried into a loaded question, with implied phony refutation, slanter, and appeal to ignorance tossed in just for fun. All in less than 20 words. Posting as Anonymous Coward just adds to the touch. Brilliant! You're catching on to how this social manipulation thing works. I see great things in your future.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[Sentrion]

Let's see if this works:

"HOYOHOYO"

If your shorts haven't changed color then I guess it works.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[TangoMargarine]

Ah, but what you're missing is that the page is *designed* to induce critical thinking--you have to figure out which one is the correct definition! :)

Reminds me of Discordian stuff that devolves into:

[lengthy explanation of semi-nonsensical philosophy* which eventually concludes that order and chaos are both a lie]
Grasshopper: "...so all this is true?"
Master: "What, are you serious? Haven't you been listening to anything I've been saying?! Don't trust me! Think for yourself!"

* Or maybe I'm just not smart enough to untangle it.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[Aighearach]

In many contexts they are quite complementary. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about concepts like self-reflection. Have you considered that evidence-based self reflection might be possible?

Not only are they compatible, but they're not even measuring the same thing, so how can they be opposite at all? Even if they contradicted each other, which they generally do not, they would still not be opposite.

The mishmash that you're doing that is full of unstated and inaccurate assumptions? That is "normal" thinking. The things the wikipedia page describes? That is "critical" thinking. If there is any hope for you at all, keep re-reading the wiki until you manage to understand the words in a way that makes sense. Then you'll have removed the conflicting assumptions from your mind, and understanding will be achieved.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[Sentrion]

Likewise, not all sociopaths have good aim or enough skill in Chemistry to build a WMD, but I'm more concerned about those that do.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[Aighearach]

If those are the supposed options, manipulation or bowing and scraping, I gotta say, you're beyond simple sociopathy.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[Aighearach]

Jesus claimed to be human, too. He didn't call himself Son of God, he called himself "Son of Man."

Re:"hacking charisma"

[TangoMargarine]

You can be cynical and angry, or naive and screwed.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[Aighearach]

The claim I think is that it is sociopathic to want to manipulate people with falsehoods so that they will like you more. The claim is not that being sociopathic makes you better at it; it simply means you're more apt to try.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[Aighearach]

It is normal to grow up to be opposite to the way you were as a child in various ways. Or not to. And every person has a subjective reason for the change. Those reasons generally do not stand up to scientific scrutiny; we know how we feel about the changes in our lives a lot better than we understand why those changes actually happen.

The whole premise that a person who was a shy child had to "learn" something to become a charismatic adult requires a lot of citation, in my opinion. It is equally likely that they simply had a bunch of charismatic genes that activated at the appropriate times in their development for them to take the right queues from their environment. But you don't feel genes activating. You do feel the changes in your life that result. And you do rationalize any change in yourself that you perceive, based on the details of your life at the time.

It may very well be that, like most things, it is an equal measure of nature and nurture, when the nurture happens automatically following the nature, and can't be replicated without it, but will vary depending on environment.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[Aighearach]

I agree. I care a lot more about making sure that what I say and do is consistent with my principles than I care if people find it "tiresome." Perhaps they are "tired" because I caused them to think about subjects which contain cognitive dissonance. Trying to make them happy might actually be acting as an enabler of harmful and incorrect beliefs. Especially if people who are more _______ find the same statements more "real" and express appreciation. And if they're wrong, at least I'd be helping people to self-select out of my way unless they're crazy in a compatible way. ;)

Re:"hacking charisma"

[Sentrion]

There has to be more "science" to this that can be quantified and taught to students, at least to allow them to choose to be yes-men or to be leaders. It's a scary jump from crowd pleaser to taking a stand. Which should not be confused with "just be yourself", as that advice has proved to be an absolute disaster to many who accepted that challenge.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[ShanghaiBill]

In many contexts they are quite complementary.

In order to drive north, I need to drive south out of my cul-de-sac. So "north" and "south" are complementary. They are also complete opposites.

keep re-reading the wiki until you manage to understand the words

Sorry, but I am stuck on the part where it says that critical thinking is a "commitment to the social and political practice of participatory democracy." Really? What the hell is that supposed to mean? It seems to be saying that critical thinking means "go with the crowd".

So I ask again, what differentiates "critical" thinking from "normal" thinking? You seem to believe that "critical" thinking is done by anyone that agrees with you, and "normal" thinking is done by anyone else. Can you go beyond that?

Re:"hacking charisma"

[Sentrion]

Do they have those? I've just been going on stuff I've seen on TV shows, which usually doesn't work out for me the way it does for the story characters.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[Aighearach]

An example of things that are complimentary and opposite does nothing to alter THIS example. ;) aka "derrrrrrr"

Re:"hacking charisma"

[Dread_ed]

The real trick to charisma is to manipulate yourself with falsehoods, to the benefit of others. Well, maybe not falsehoods, but untested and unproven assertions.

Anyways, just try this for a while and see if it doesn't work. Every time you meet someone new, before you have a chance to say something and hopefully before you even make eye contact, try to find at least one thing about them that you like, admire, or want to be more like yourself. Make something up if you have to, but be consistent about it. You might be amazed at the results.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[Jesrad]

Indeed, "be yourself" is just nonsense, as interaction takes at least two people and we cannot define ourselves from nothing and in a vacuum. It's a static statement so it' useless for deciding changes. If you're intereted in the science of behavior I suggest looking at the metaethics sequence from LessWrong, it's a rational approach to rethinking the how and why of choosing and following moral principles.

It's a scary jump from crowd pleaser to taking a stand.

Not so much, actually, as in most people there is at least some latent want for refining trust and reasserting relationships. So there's a kind of continuum from one to the other.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[TangoMargarine]

Or you can be naive

FTFY

Re:"hacking charisma"

[Aighearach]

No, I would not at all be amazed. You wildly presume that being against the motivations of the action must be based on ignorance of the results. But there is a failure of logic in there.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[Anonymous Coward]

Sociopaths use their ability to read people as a tool. Charisma, in and of itself, is not manipulative. Every time you're polite to someone you don't like, or do something nice because that's what's expected of you versus what you would rather be doing, you're lying about it. This, in essence, is charisma. The ability to be someone people like because it's just nice to be that way. You don't have to have an ulterior motive, or even an end goal, you could simply be nice to enjoy being nice. Sociopathic manipulation requires the active goal of seeking an outcome that is both self-serving and often detrimental to the person or persons the sociopath is targeting.

As someone who is rather intimate with the sociopathic mind, don't confuse the two. Not all sociopaths are manipulative for the sake of manipulation, some do, in fact, do it because it's just a better route than the alternative. Sociopaths are blenders, chameleons, and they are extremely rationally oriented. Presented with life or death, they'll choose life, presented with helping someone because it will help them maintain their cover or hurting someone for their own gain but it will blow their cover, they'll choose maintaining cover over getting something 90% of the time. That other 10% is when the gain is too good to pass up. That's the only difference between 'regular' people and sociopaths: they don't see the harm in getting what they want, even if it hurts someone.

Charisma is the tool to do that with, not the actual act of doing that. See the difference?

Re:"hacking charisma"

[arglebargle_xiv]

Somebody needs to teach how to resist "charisma".

Otherwise known as "critical thinking".

I'm assuming from your comment that you've probably never dealt with any sociopaths/psychopaths (technically, people with ASPD, antisocial personality disorder) or similar disorders like NPD before, because if you had you'd realise that critical thinking isn't going to help you. Firstly, in order to apply critical thinking you need to know that you're being manipulated, which you'll generally only realise that once it's too late. Secondly, until you've actually experienced what an ASPD person is capable of, you'll have no idea of the near-superhuman capabilities of these people to deceive and manipulate. The literature is full of stories of trained psychologists interviewing psychopaths who they know have killed a dozen children and eaten their livers, and coming away thinking what a charming person they've just dealt with. One somewhat nasty (but highly educational) trick that gets played on psych students is sending them into prisons to assess psychopaths. They invariably report them to be charming, friendly, and the sort of person they'd want to have around for dinner. In some cases even after they've read the reports of them keeping the various body parts in bags in the basement.

If you're targeted by someone with NPD/ASPD, you won't realise it until it's too late.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[Hognoxious]

Baloney. "Inward-directed, self-reflective thinking", and "evidence based reasoning" are complete opposites.

Only in the sense that a violin is the complete opposite of a clarinet.

The phrase you want is "different things".

Re:"hacking charisma"

[Hognoxious]

Any sociopath worth his salt doesn't need to know how to do it. He just needs to be able to "persuade" someone who does.

Re:"hacking charisma"

[Hognoxious]

Hire Marcy Darcy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Weight the dice rolls

[Anonymous Coward]

We'd always let players roll four six-sided dice and throw away the lowest. It'd give them a slightly higher charisma - or strength, or wisdom, or intelligence for that matter. OK, not really fair - but it made them feel a bit special... and they kinda needed that.

cool

[Anonymous Coward]

If you need to read a book to tell you how to be cool, you're not.

Re:cool

[Charliemopps]

I'm cool. The problem is, the general public is just too God damned stupid to notice. Reading a book that tells me how to dumb down my interactions with the majority of the idiots that surround me so they can understand what I'm talking about doesn't make me any less cool. Did learning English make Antonio Banderas less cool? No. It just made stupid Americans capable of understanding just how cool he is.

Re:cool

[Anonymous Coward]

If you need to read a book to tell you how to do X, you don't know how to do X.
Thank you Captain Obvious.

Re:cool

[jythie]

Meh, not everyone is satisfied to simply accept their lot in life and thus *gasp* actually want to improve.

Re:cool

[xclr8r]

We should ask Neil D. Tyson how he does it.

Re:cool

[Roachie]

Its called Hollywood.

Re:cool

[Sentrion]

Response:

Step 1: Went outside. Talked to people. Did stuff. Failed miserably.

Step 2: Read book about doing stuff.

Step 3: Actually did better after reading about doing stuff.

Here's the key phrase

[korbulon]

"[Olivia Fox Cabane] is so successful that executives now pay her to do the same for them."

Ever been to an offsite while working for a large company? And did they have an invited speaker who basically talked a lot of entertaining bullshit, which was nonethelss bullshit? Ever wondered how that speaker managed to con a bunch of supposedly savvy and high-powered executives to get the gig? Me neither. Then again, management consultancy still continues to thrive as an industry and I still don't know what they really do.

It's almost as if most executives have no fucking idea what they're doing...

Re:Here's the key phrase

[Anonymous Coward]

The moment I realised that most people in this world are winging it, and don't know what the hell they're doing, that's the moment I knew I had grown up.

Re:Here's the key phrase

[arth1]

It's almost as if most executives have no fucking idea what they're doing...

Oh, they have a good idea. They know they're smiling figureheads. They've shown teeth all their life, but before landing the top position, the teeth were used on those safe to bite. Now the blood has been brushed off, and they smile warmly while watching their backs.

Re:Here's the key phrase

[L4t3r4lu5]

From what I can fathom, they sell the ideas of CxO's for whom they have consulted to the CxO's of other companies. The more companies you consult for, the bigger your war chest of good CxO ideas.

Re:Here's the key phrase

[daem0n1x]

Ever wondered how that speaker managed to con a bunch of supposedly savvy and high-powered executives to get the gig?

Maybe she gives head like a porn star.

Re:Here's the key phrase

[NotDrWho]

Ever wondered how that speaker managed to con a bunch of supposedly savvy and high-powered executives to get the gig?

Speakers like that prey on clueless managers that have nothing tangible to contribute to what the company is actually doing, but want to LOOK like they're providing valuable leadership in exchange for their overinflated salaries. It's a symbiotic relationship of bullshit. The speaker pretends they're offering valuable advice, and the manager(s) pretend that their brilliant idea of bringing the speaker in is going to somehow help the company. Meanwhile the real brains behind the company lose a day of productivity listening to a bunch of useless, vacuous crap.

Re:Here's the key phrase

[Mikkeles]

You mean: she stares at the camera?

Re:Here's the key phrase

[NotDrWho]

The old Socratic rift: "Intelligence is realizing that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Wisdom is realizing that neither does anyone else."

Re:Here's the key phrase

[daem0n1x]

You've been watching pretty cheap movies lately, haven't you?

Re:Here's the key phrase

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a random group of 20 engineers. Convince them that they should devote their existence for the next 18 months to project X. Not just 9-5 work, really get them fired up and excited and working together for a common cause. You want to get people to give that extra effort that only comes when people are truly committed to a cause. A cause that perhaps none of them had even heard of or care one whit about prior to getting started. Keep the team organized, keep track of individual and group progress, make sure milestones are met, and that the resources everyone requires to operate effectively are available on time. Absorb feedback and continuously refine the process, and perhaps even your overall objective if need be. Keep your own superiors engaged and interested in the work your group is doing, and solicit their support and whatever other backing is required to make the whole project possible. There are enough experts involved here that there is no way you will possibly be able to really understand the details of what everyone is actually doing.

"It's almost as if most executives have no fucking idea what they're doing..."

That's tells me right there that you wouldn't be up to the job. You clearly presume that it is possible to be the person who "knows what they are doing". That the important bit is to be the biggest baddest expert about project X. No. You are not the expert. The people on your team are the experts. You are not the big bad dictator, you are the director of the orchestra. You just wave a little wand around. It might /look/ like nothing, but you are keeping all the people who are actually playing music synchronized.

Re:Here's the key phrase

[Anonymous Coward]

That code already exists.

Re:Here's the key phrase

[csnydermvpsoft]

I'd turn that around: "Intelligence is realizing that nobody knows what the fuck they're talking about. Wisdom is realizing that you don't, either."

Re:Here's the key phrase

[ThatsDrDangerToYou]

Also, bring donuts.

Re:Here's the key phrase

[rioki]

It might /look/ like nothing, but you are keeping all the people who are actually playing music synchronized.

Except I have never seen a manager that can keep the timing required for the orchestra to not get out of sync. When GP said:

It's almost as if most executives have no fucking idea what they're doing...

I know exactly what he meant. There way to many companies, especially big ones, where individual contribution/vision/whatever of managers is scant to none.

Re:Here's the key phrase

[swb]

I think part of it may be the sports metaphor, where they believe that the coaching enabled one team (perhaps even quantitatively less talented) to beat another team. The speaker represents the inspirational coach.

Part of it may be the "big idea". Management has latched onto a "big idea" that they believe is transformative, the speaker is uniquely capable of quickly delivering this idea to the workforce.

Part of it may just be that's what you do at offsites, have some speaker come out and provide business-oriented entertainment.

Re:Here's the key phrase

[Pope]

Hence "know thyself" :)

Re:Here's the key phrase

[nsre]

Neither of you know what the fuck you're talking about.

Re:Here's the key phrase

[UnknownSoldier]

That's an incorrect fallacy for 2 reason:

1. Just because others are clueless doesn't imply you are.
2. Just because most people are idiots outside their field doesn't imply that everyone is -- you simply have find the people who are good in their field AND can communicate it. Isn't that the very definition of a good teacher?? Someone who is able to explain complicated topics simply?

Subjective Experience (hence Wisdom) is more valuable then some quasi-Objective "truth" that pseudo-experts claim.

--
Microsoft Windows 8:A 64-bit compilation of 32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor written by a 2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition with 0 bit of understanding good UI.

Re:Here's the key phrase

[UnknownSoldier]

Indeed! It the beginning and end of ALL knowledge -- like a hologram / circle / etc.

Re:Here's the key phrase

[Aighearach]

A good teacher might not need to be good at their field.

The best computer teacher I ever had was the math teacher who knew which library (school, other school, public, university) would have the various books with answers to the questions I asked.

The best math teachers I had made plenty of mistakes, they were not very good at "math," but they were good at finding the logic errors hidden in the questions students asked, and were able to lead them to discovery.

Re:Here's the key phrase

[Aighearach]

I've seen good managers. The best I saw lost her job the first time a serious moral "situation" came up and she did what was best for the company (the "right" thing) instead of what was best for the politics of her boss.

I believe in the existence of companies where the good managers rise. I haven't seen it, but I have seen good managers. Each company I worked for had different pros and cons, surely there is one out there that gets that right.

Re:Here's the key phrase

[Aviation Pete]

It's almost as if most executives have no fucking idea what they're doing...

Very astute observation on your part. They really don't know, but they have a knack for making everyone believe they knew. A total disregard for honesty is very helpful to be effective in doing this, as is ignorance in their audience.

... and that is not so different to what the speaker is doing. Making everyone believe he knew all the secrets. And the executives are dumb enough so it works. It really is this simple.

Re:Here's the key phrase

[Sentrion]

When I realized I had grown up, I suddenly realized that it was not the glorious achievement I had expected it to be. Now I'm trying to pretend that I'm still growing up. You learn more that way, and it's more fun.

Re:Here's the key phrase

[Sentrion]

Don't forget that a consultant is just an executive in between management gigs. Executives hire consultants knowing their services are not needed nor valuable, but it is a form of nepotism within the management caste, and reciprocity is the grease that oils the path of wealth to an ever decreasing number of top players. The same is also true for board governance. The list of directors for Fortune 500 companies is public, and if you examine that list you will discover that the majority of board members of company x also happen to be the CEO of company y, or they used to be the CEO of company z, or they will soon become the CEO of company w. And they currently sit on the boards of two or three other Fortune 500 companies. So what you have is an oligarchy of CEOs voting on how high to pay each other. Thus it should come to no surprise that when times are hard CEOs need bonuses and salary increases to retain talent during turbulent times, and when times are good CEOs need even bigger payouts. If a company is going out of business it is paramount to give the CEO an exorbitant severance package (golden parachute) regardless of how incompetent or just plain greedy he may have been. And when CEO pay is 400 times worker pay, a very effective PR campaign spreads the message that such compensation is just a mysterious product of a blind and ignorant "free market" force that apparently values CEO talent over any other resource.

Worse still is that this top-level nepotism is not unique to profitable businesses. Executives from the business world sit on boards of non-profits and vote for higher non-profit CEO pay. The non-profit CEOs are also sitting on the boards of the very same Fortune 500 companies voting reciprocally for higher executive perks and compensation.

Re:Here's the key phrase

[Roachie]

My vote is for your version.

Re:Here's the key phrase

[Hognoxious]

Ever wondered how that speaker managed to con a bunch of supposedly savvy and high-powered executives to get the gig?

Because she's got big jugs?

UGh

[period3]

I'm halfway through the article but so far all I've read is "blah blah blah". Atrocious website that requires a cut-and-paste into a word processor to make the narrow article even readable, and as utterly devoid of content as the reader's digest article I read at the dentist.

Honestly do editors even try to read these submissions?

Re:UGh

[fustakrakich]

Honestly do editors even try to read these submissions?

No, they pick popular headlines and post them. This is an advertising site now. If you don't believe me, look at what has happened to the journal section. Spam ratio is over 500 to 1.

Re:UGh

[jones_supa]

What is also interesting is that the Slashdot Q&A section skips answers occasionally. For example, do you still remember the Richard Stallman and Theo de Raadt question sessions from some weeks ago? Where are the answers?

If you keep an eye on the Q&A section, it's not that unusual for the answers to disappear.

Re:UGh

[NoImNotNineVolt]

I'm gonna have to go and guess that the questions we asked focused on eating something from one's foot and other inane shit of that variety. Nothing to see here...

Re:UGh

[NeutronCowboy]

Continue reading. The good stuff comes after the first half of fluff. It actually has some interesting content in it.

Re:UGh

[unimacs]

For what it's worth I managed to read most of the unreadable article. As much as I could justify setting time aside for anyway. For some people it will strike a chord, others not. The topic is timely for me. I might go to a party, but host one? And while I'm content to join a group of people for lunch or happy hour, I'm almost never the one who suggests it or the one who will make the arrangements. I'm far from a complete social klutz, but I find many social situations tiring and I'm more likely to avoid social interaction than go out of my way to create it.

At various times in my life it becomes apparent how much of a liability that habit is.

While nothing in the article itself nor what she likely teaches is rocket science, many people in technical careers (and others) can benefit from really working on their social skills. We often downplay the importance of it and we do so at our own risk. For me it's kind of like running. We all know how to do it, but some of us can only do it short bursts while others can seem to run forever. The vast majority of us can run longer, farther, and faster with training, - and especially with coaching.

Case in point for the IT people. I fought for quite awhile to get IT a spot at the table when major decisions are being made in this organization about what sorts of projects to pursue. What I failed to adequately recognize is that being at the table isn't enough. I need to be actively engaged. I need to make my presence felt and not just be an observer who only speaks when spoken to.

Re:UGh

[Aighearach]

If that was the problem, it wouldn't have been one, because the editors could have simply tossed out rude questions. We all know that RMS would only have seen whatever list of questions were emailed to him. He doesn't "surf the web" to become independently shocked by whatever we're saying.

Re:UGh

[Aighearach]

I skimmed a disgusting amount of fluff to get to the meat, and it turned out to be the same nonsense the other self-help idiots spew.

Yes, if you're willing to "trust" somebody to make a bunch of changes in your life and routine, you'll feel different afterwards. Yes, if you're unsatisfied with life, feeling different is likely to be welcomed.

In the end there was no "hacking," no understanding, no information. Just hand-waving, personal stories, puppies as props and crutches, embracing a "higher power." Throw in making excuses to explain away whatever "happened" to you that you're clinging to, and you've got the latest flavor of pop psy.

Charlatan

[rumpledoll]

Much like the psychic who never seems to be able to hit the lottery numbers and become wealthy, Olivia appears to have none of the qualities of which she purports to teach, besides being a charlatan that appeals to the pointy haired bosses of the world looking for that silver bullet.

Re:Charlatan

[JaredOfEuropa]

a charlatan that appeals to the pointy haired bosses of the world looking for that silver bullet.

Spot on. Managers need (or are expected to have) a wide range of ever changing skills and traits, and if you claim that you can fill a gap or two, you'll have an easy sale. They are suckers for magic bullets. Just look at the staggering amount of management books available, not the "hard" ones on project management or business administration, but the soft ones. 7 Habits, The Art of War For Business, all with tiny nuggets of wisdom fluffed up and packaged in a bunch of crap. (I've read my share...). Hey, and everyone would like to be charismatic, so I can well believe this lady has plenty of clients.

Pro tip: since this lady has charisma covered, focus on other buzzwords to give seminars on. "Authentic leadership" seems to be popular lately... leaders are trying so hard to be authentic that almost by definition they achieve the exact opposite. But my 2 day seminar will help you to let your inner authentic self blossom forth, and I've a book on that as well. Order your copy today!

Re:Charlatan

[onkelonkel]

"Authentic" is my new trigger word. I see it everywhere now and it sends the bullshit meter clanging into the red end of the scale. Almost by definition anything advertised as authentic is not authentic. Your $200 blue jeans are authentic? Great, except, aren't they made in the same Bangladesh sweatshop factory where Walmart's $25 jeans are made?

Re:Charlatan

[Aighearach]

I don't think they want a "silver bullet." I think they want they bullet that has a bunch of metrics attached to it that guarantees it will be silver, and that silver is ____ percent effective at _____, so that they can "prove" things were ____ percent better than they would have been otherwise.

I was once negotiating with a very honest manager. She explained she didn't care what my product (a computer kiosk) did, as long as it was minimally appropriate for the task. She also didn't care how much it cost, because she was going to earmark x dollars for the project, and as long as the price was the same as what I used for other customers,(to keep her from looking like she over-paid) she didn't care how many units she bought. What she cared about was what metrics it would provide. The more lines the reporting interface could provide in the form of "___ hours of ___ provided to ____," the more she wanted to buy it from me. Those metrics, regardless of the actual specific numbers in them, were what would let her prove value from buying the systems.

That was when I shifted my focus to (very) small businesses. They just want to make money, and reporting is a chore. :)

Re:Charlatan

[Aighearach]

Very little sold by wally world is made in the same factories as the regular product with the same product number. The reason is that suppliers get paid 5% less, and at the volumes they deal in, they would often lose money selling to wally unless they lowered production costs. So textiles sold there are actually thinner. A plastic rake has less plastic. Pickles have less or cheaper spices. Etc., etc.

It is a giant scam, they sell products with 5% less production value for a 3% lower price.

More power to her, but...

[rmdingler]

Charisma is merely the equivalent of a Doctorate in social interaction.

Everyone isn't ideally suited for it, just like other specialty degrees.

And sociopaths generally excel in this vocation.

Only one person in your company needs charisma

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

The charisma person can negotiate deals and contracts. The rest of the company can be min maxed for their primary statistic for optimal productivity.

Re:Only one person in your company needs charisma

[AtariEric]

Except you'll never work in that company if you can't sell yourself. If you are not a charismatic god, you are homeless.

As I will be, because I can't be perfect enough for hiring managers...

Re:Only one person in your company needs charisma

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

Ah, I was just making a dumb D&D joke bud. It sucks that so many people are coming out of college and not getting jobs anymore. It's this generation's plight.

Ob.

[grub]

Hitler had charisma in spades. He loved dogs and even had a girlfriend.
People always forget about the good things he did.

Re:Ob.

[TangoMargarine]

He loved dogs and even had a girlfriend.

You might recall that he ended up killing/assisting-in-suicide them both, however.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

orwasthatthejoke.jpg

Re:Ob.

[david_thornley]

He had another girlfriend before the war, IIRC uncomfortably closely related to him (niece?). She died under odd circumstances that were never properly investigated. At least he was consistent.

Re:Ob.

[TangoMargarine]

Geli_Raubal

Unfortunately, she (probably?) shot herself as well. (Noticing a pattern here?)

Re:Ob.

[HnT]

He was also vegan, made it on Times' cover and was indeed considered charismatic back then.

Re:Steve Jobs?

[jones_supa]

In what way creepy?

Olympic

[rossdee]

Mark Todd had a horse called Charisma, he won gold at the Olympics equestrian

Re:Olympic

[mdielmann]

Do a little research. Watch 6 hours of the Kardashian family, and you will have it made. If the DM disagrees with your actions, say, "But I'm so pretty! Don't you want to be my friend?" If that doesn't work, say, "I have a Charisma of 23. I'm so pretty! Don't you want to be my friend?" At this point, he will either give in, or you will have a chance to sell your obviously useless equipment and buy a castle somewhere.

I get that you're joking, but this is pretty much how the world works sometimes. It seems that a pile of cash, some marketing, and the resultant celebrity status can take someone with a Cha of 15 (or less!) and give them a modified Cha of 20.

Re:Olympic

[TangoMargarine]

Charisma Carpenter

Finding real charisma.

[geekmux]

"Steve Jobs had it. George Clooney has it. So does Don Draper...

Don Draper? OK, if we're going to demonstrate real charisma, perhaps we should step the hell away from fictional characters from the 1960s.

Then again, Hollywood or Corporate America hasn't been known for its genuine honesty either. Steve Jobs I also hear was a fantastic asshole, although I suppose that garners its own type of "friends" too.

Bah!

[jones_supa]

I want more honest, nerdy and deeply technical guys. Types like Tim Sweeney. We have enough superficial bullshit-speakers already.

Re:Bah!

[AtariEric]

Are you hiring? I'm rigorously honest and technically skilled...

Re:Bah!

[AtariEric]

All of it's under NDA.

Re:Bah!

[HeckRuler]

Fuck yeah, ZZT!

But really, this guy is in the limelight, standing on stage, talking to people because he's famous.
He's famous because he was REALLY early on the scene that literally didn't exist before that and he leveraged that new technology, founded a successful company that succeeded on merit and had some really good ideas. The primary one being that giving the users access to the tools you used to make the game content will mean you have an unlimited amount of free content being made for your game.
New industries are great for the free market where you don't have to grease palms and the nerdy types have a shot at simply doing a better job than the next guy, and actually having that matter.

There are honest, nerdy, and deeply technical guys in the... say... accounting, or trains, or bottling plants. It's simply a personality trait that a percentage of the populace have. Perhaps that changes over time. Perhaps humanity can be trained into certain roles. Perhaps we can make more of these kind of guys. But I guarantee you that they won't normally be famous and up on stage giving presentations.

Also, his speech lacks a certain something since the Rift was announced.

Re:Bah!

[HeckRuler]

That's really no excuse. You just missed the 7DRL challenge, but there's no reason you can't have a late entry. Or find an itch and scratch it. Or find someone with a problem and help them out.

GO CODE SOME MORE.

It doesn't matter if it's small, or a demo, or outside your current employment's domain. Make it. Release it. Hell, release it under the GPL. Slap it up on sourceforge, Github, wherever.

This sort of bullshit where you can't prove your worth because of proprietary licenses, and NDAs, and non-competes is practically class warfare chaining you down like a serf. And if you really want to be like Tim Sweeney, you'll have to start your own company and go be EPIC.

Charisma is scary in politicians

[Anonymous Coward]

Look what it can get us: utter failure at the level of the President because to get to be President, you have to:

1. Pander to your base
2. Have good enough charisma to peel off just a bit of the other guy's base.

Bah

[cmdr_klarg]

Charisma is a dump stat...

Re:Bah

[pushing-robot]

I'll just leave this here.
(lyrics)

Re:Bah

[swillden]

Charisma is a dump stat...

... in games designed by people with low Charisma.

She discovered nothing....

[Lumpy]

It has been known for decades and the single book that is the bible in such things has been out forever now..

http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-...

How to win friends and influence people by Dale Carnegie

She may have came up with a better presentation, but it's the exact same thing.

Re:She discovered nothing....

[AtariEric]

To me, it is a list of what to do, but not how to do it. Maybe she figured out the how...

Re:She discovered nothing....

[Lumpy]

It does tell you how to do it, there are several examples in the book of how to do every single thing he talks about.
This is one of the books I read every 2 years, well actually I listen to the audiobook every 2 years as a refresher.

From reading what material she has online, it is no different at all to what is in the book, except with a lot of added corporate speak and some things changed to make it look "fresh".

Re:She discovered nothing....

[tommeke100]

She actually speaks about this book in the article as one of the milestones in her quest.

Re:She discovered nothing....

[recharged95]

Better?

She just came up with a Web 2.0 presentation... mind that using motivational images.

Funny thing

[DNS-and-BIND]

Isn't it odd when "learned charisma" like this is presented as fact as long as it is used for business purposes, but when the exact same techniques are used by dorky men to get girls, this "learned charisma" is decried as false and a total lie. The things that make you go hmm...

Why is everyone being so negative in here?

[HnT]

Let's not focus on the website layout, the unnecessarily long article, her looks or what you might think you know about "sociopaths" and all managers clearly being manipulative swindlers.
She is not teaching people to "mind fuck" others, she is not some "NLP" pushing sociopath. Essentially she is offering a pragmatic approach to overcoming your own anxieties or to calm down a competitive temper. She helps to make certain situations more pleasant for the client and is not pushing tools how to "one-up" conversation partners.
So she suggests meditation and a mental exercise of focusing on a relaxing situation (the puppy, or kayaking) and she successfully sells that to some people? Well, good for her! You might think there is little information or "skill" there and you might be right, the point is it can still be damn hard to make a transformation of habits and ways you might have had for a long time and what a good coach does is help you along the way.

I really do not understand the negative responses in here. Yes her message might be pretty simple and "duh!" but at least she has some interesting connections to scientific theories and like I said above, transformations like that are not only about identifying and then "simply" fixing what's wrong.

I would much rather be coached by someone like her instead of some bullshit NLP training where you are taught how to mind-fuck your victim into scratching his left ear with his right hand, literally.

Re:Why is everyone being so negative in here?

[Zatchmort]

Exactly. Wow, Slashdot unimpressed by an article about management and social skills? In other news, sources close to the Pope say he may be Catholic...

It looks like most of what she's teaching is pretty straightforward stuff - stand up straight, look people in the eye, and think about something calming before a big meeting or presentation so you're less nervous. Also, most people don't appreciate being interrupted unless they've specifically signed up for it (and maybe not even then). It's not "mind control", it's just how to be polite and assertive at the same time. A few years ago, I realized that the reason they're called "social SKILLS" is because they can be learned, and my personal and professional lives have both skyrocketed.

The fact of the matter is, if more tech folks looked at dealing with people as a (solvable!) challenge, we'd have more technical ideas being listened to. Instead, they say "it doesn't come naturally to me, so it must not be worth learning at all" and management is dominated by clueless BS artists, reinforcing the stereotype of the socially clueless engineer and the technically clueless boss. Doesn't the alternative (engineers who've put in the work to learn how to deal with people) sound better?

Re:Why is everyone being so negative in here?

[PPalmgren]

Its a social coping mechanism. The first thing someone whose insecure about anything does is seek confirmation from others through voicing their opinion. The second thing they do is try to rationalize it away or dehumanize it. The behavior shows up everywhere.

STEM fields are inherently introverted, fields of the mind that require a person to be comfortable with working on hard problems for long periods of time. We cooperate to combine and organize results and requirements, not cooperate as a definition of the job. A person working on endeavors of the mind doesn't get practice with social interaction like someone in sales or politics would. If you don't work on it, you don't get better at it. Then we see those successful socialites without being able to quantify why they earned any of it because their skills don't have hard measurements for results, and try to devalue their work as 'mundane' or 'easy' simply so we feel better about our lack of those qualities.

Its a perpetual state of denial rooted in insecurity and a lack of humility to admit one's own deficiencies or faults.

Re:Why is everyone being so negative in here?

[mdielmann]

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. So are the people you're commenting about. Those who don't value interpersonal interaction (or haven't had it significantly hurt their career) see someone promoting something that holds little value for them. "It's all just marketing and bullshit actions to make the other person have better feelings about working with you. There's nothing of practical value here!" Then you come along and say, "What do you mean? Why all the hate?! She has a bunch of tools to help you get along better with other, diverse people." And the nerdy types respond with, "Exactly!"

I certainly see value in what she's presenting. But on a website made for people who count non-technical stuff as not "stuff that matters", she will get a cool reception. This can't be surprising. Certainly, once some of these people have been negatively impacted due to their behaviour (and they recognize it), or moved to a position where they have to deal with diverse types of people (management or hell, which are often thought of as the same thing), their perspective may change. Until then, this will be the typical response.

Re:Why is everyone being so negative in here?

[TangoMargarine]

Let's not focus on the website layout, the unnecessarily long article, her looks or what you might think you know about "sociopaths" and all managers clearly being manipulative swindlers.

But that's already 4 strikes... ;)

Re:Why is everyone being so negative in here?

[TangoMargarine]

I've never understood this whole "look people in the eye" thing. Sure, occasional eye contact is good, but it skeeves me out when everybody seems to want to stare at me the entire time we're talking.

Re:Why is everyone being so negative in here?

[Zatchmort]

Well, balance is key, and that's where the skill comes in. Making eye contact enough to convey confidence/interest without staring and making people uncomfortable is a perfect example of something that some people pick up just by being around other humans and some people have to really think about, at least until they develop the habit.

Re:Steve Jobs?

[Nephandus]

Could not speak intelligibly, just sloganese. Was emotionally blank when not stewing in his own bloated ego. Was creepy how people didn't notice and responded positively to it. Reminded me of a shrink I got sent to once, which was ironic as fuck all. Worse since he was the group therapy guy... Outright called him on it when he described intimacy "skills" clearly as mere posturing, and he asks me whether I don't lie too as if that didn't utterly preclude intimacy. Jobs did much the same. Acted as an expert in what he knew nothing about without any sense of inaccuracy. Full psycho mode juxtaposed with his actually competent partner(s). Imagining people immanently deferring to him over them is Stepford level creepy.

Why do you need to be a "good guy"?

[HockeyPuck]

who cares, if you've got an idea and a way of making people rich, who the F cares.

Silicon Valley is full of assh*les...

Jobs.
Ellison.
McNeely.
Jayshree Ullal (CEO of Arista)
Zuckerberg
Sergey Brinn (cheated on wife)

These people lead companies and make people filthy rich. Why do they need a lesson from Miss Manners?

Silicon Valley is based on the premise of making investors huge sums of money, plain and simple. I don't mean the people investing on the NASDAQ, but those that work on Sand Hill Blvd. That is the Real Silicon Valley. Take a look at what Marc Andreesen has done since he sold Netscape. IPO and sold company after company for billions of dollars.

The people on the outside complain. Well you know, not having charisma like George Clooney works perfectly fine here. There's plenty of 80hr/wk engineers in the world that would have jumped at the chance to work at FB, Google, Oracle and their 'lack of charisma' CEOs pre-IPO.

Re:Why do you need to be a "good guy"?

[unimacs]

Being charismatic is not the same as being a good guy. In fact, lots of history's most notorious villains were seen as quite charismatic. They relied on that for much of their success. It has nothing to do with cheating on one's spouse other than the fact that a charismatic person will find themselves with more opportunities to cheat.

Someone like Steve Jobs was selectively charismatic.

And just like technical skills, charisma can be used for good or bad purposes. As the article states, it's a tool. A skill.

Unique technical skills and luck can get you places. So can charisma and luck. Having both charisma and technical skills will allow you to achieve more than having just one or the other. The nice thing about charisma is that it can help you with so many aspects of your life beyond just your career.

Re:Why do you need to be a "good guy"?

[david_thornley]

I went through a phase of reading bios of WWII top commanders. Most of them were assholes of some form. I think we can generalize your conclusions.

Big Bang Theory

[KatchooNJ]

Didn't this not work for Sheldon?

Re:Steve Jobs?

[jythie]

That is actually pretty common. People tend to forget that charisma and body language are social skills calibrated to certain cultures and subcultures. For any given charismatic person you will find people that are drawn to them and people who find them creepy, depending on how well their particular dialects match up. Unlike spoken language where you can quickly identify there is an accent, with body language and such you are just left with an unsettling 'something feels off' sensation.

A Light Saber In Another Person's Hands?

[assertation]

Many of the top critical comments are similar to criticism I've heard about the classic "How To Win Friends And Influence People".

A light saber is the same tool in Darth Vader's hands or Luke Skywalker's hands.

It is all about intent and the state of mind you use it in.

Yes, a lying piece of shit narcissitic sociopath could use technique X to get what he wants, regarless of the consequences to everyone else.

Someone with a good heart can use technqiue X to remind himself to review a situation, find something positive, using to get something positive, something win-win done and make people feel better, out of a sincere desire for them, in the process.

In the elven forest...

[Dareth]

In the elven forest... the half-elven warrior mage princess plays you!

Social Interaction Guide for the Geek/Engineer

[Dareth]

Tuck your most recent pay stub in your front pocket with the company logo showing.
Go to any bar in your area with a large number of people.
Buy alcohol.

That is all you have to do.

Re:Social Interaction Guide for the Geek/Engineer

[Aighearach]

Just be careful when your new "friends" invite you out to the parking lot, "for a good time."

Software Emulation

[owlman17]

Taking the analogy a bit further, it's not so much as "reverse-engineering" as it is emulating it in software. Some people just have the hardware for it. Those who don't need to learn the algorithms involved before "rendering" charisma. For sure, it won't be as fast or fluid, but it'll mostly work for some tasks. Some of my socially-awkward, geeky friends took great pains in doing this, devouring self-help and socialization books, seminars, etc. The end result doesn't quite look natural, almost like running Crysis at 12 FPS with the lowest details, but passable enough.

And the definition of charisma is...

[spads]

...what a douchebag needs to become successful.

what the hell?

[slashmydots]

Everyone who worked with Steve Jobs said he was impossible to work with, obsessive, and not remotely charismatic. Who wrote this nonsense?

Re:what the hell?

[unimacs]

I think one his "gifts" is that he could switch between being charismatic and an asshole in the blink of an eye. And I think a key to his success is that over time he mostly figured out when he could get benefit from being an asshole (or at least get away with it) vs when he needed to be more charismatic.

Re:what the hell?

[slashmydots]

That's not a gift, that's called being bipolar.

Re:what the hell?

[unimacs]

Gift or curse he was able to use it to his advantage, - at least in the business world. Whether he was a happy person or not is another question. I suspect not. In either case I don't think the Olivia Fox Cabane would necessarily see Jobs as someone to emulate even though most people would agree that he did have some charisma.

I've got your charisma right here!

[MugenEJ8]

Now where the hell did I put my beer?

She still doesn't understand it

[Jmc23]

She doesn't even have it. She has 'discovered' a framework and techniques to disguise the fact she is awkward and stressed. These type of techniques only really work on people who know less. A real socialite can always tell the difference, they just don't mention it ;)

Oh hell no!

[smooth wombat]

We don't need idiots lying to our faces, telling us how wonderful their piece of bug-riddled software is and how it will revolutionize our time to entry for our core business into the cloud.

We need good, solid software that doesn't require administrative rights to use, isn't part of a package that we have to purchase to get the one item we need and won't die when the moron behind the keyboard drops their cookie crumbs into their keyboard.

Ahh fantasy, you be a heartless bitch who offers so much but gives so little.

Black Magic.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

otherwise known as "learning sociopathic manipulation"?

An occultist I knew (now on the "other side", unfortunately) considered charisma to be a form of Black Magic: mind control of others to get them to do things for the charismatic that would not be their reasoned choice and might be enormously harymful to their own interests.

Having said that, it's clear that a lot of nerds are so far at the other end of this arms race that they need substantial help to be able to hold their ground against the Pointy Haired among the boss class. It's refreshing to find that it is learnable, and that nerd/tech techniques can be applied to understanding and controlling it.

Look out world: After a few years of application of the psychological equivalent Moore's Law, you might see an explosion of technocrats from the tech incubator enclaves like Silicon Valley.

And look out techies: If the above meme starts circulating among the current powers that be, you might see a burst of government interventioin in and suppression of the tech enclaves.

gimme a break

[excelsior_gr]

Jobs did not have it. Woz had it.

Fixed that for you.

Re:gimme a break

[spads]

No, though Woz might've had his share of (somewhat close relative) charm, what he mainly had was the "touch". I think charisma would be to slander him as a "bullshipper".

Re:gimme a break

[Aighearach]

Woz is more charismatic now than he used to be. There was an audio interview linked from slashdot, probably before your time, but I think it was 2001. Whenever the interviewer would start to speak, he would compulsively interrupt. It was painful to listen to. But he said a bunch of interesting stuff, so we all cringed our way through multiple listenings.

Step One

[ThatsNotPudding]

If male: be an asshole.

If female: be attractive.

Thus endeth the lesson. I take Visa or MasterCard.

on closer look, she's sorta okay

[epine]

I just watched [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMu_md_5PQ4 Olivia Fox Cabane: Build Your Personal Charisma] after reading TFA.

TFA drive me nuts with the smooth smooth smooth smooth smooth "I'm going to say something eventually" writing style. About 25% of the way in, I was going "just fucking spit it out, if you've got something to say".

Olivia's video presentation is stiff for the first half, but warms up when she gets to warmth, and she does a reasonable job of the question session afterward. This is less a cult than simple consciousness raising. We so rarely think about how charisma is manufactured. We treat it like juicy sausage. Either you've got it or you don't.

What it really boils down to is that as emotional beings, many of us live life hanging our dirty laundry in the front yard, and letting the paper cups from our recycling bin catch in the wind and blow up and down the street. No, the charismatic house is the one with the nicely tended garden—even if there's a giant compost bin in the back yard behind the fence.

She also mentions the power of the placebo effect. I think by this she means that powerful people have to pay powerful fees in order to feel powerful medicine.

The rest of us can buy generics and do just fine.

Re:on closer look, she's sorta okay

[Aighearach]

So charisma is a bunch of meaningless fluff for looks, like a planned garden, and it requires keeping the important stuff, like a compost pile, out of sight.

No thanks. When I see a good compost pile, I'm thinking about growing vegetables, the fruit of the Earth, life itself, the Beauty of it all. When I see a planned garden, I think about how silly and useless all this fake BS is. If they pulled out some of those flowers and planted fruit trees, they'd look better to me.

self-reply

[epine]

Ooops: Mouse slip on my Make Link add-on. I'm sure it clicks anyway, but here it is again: Olivia Fox Cabane: Build Your Personal Charisma

article sounds more like...

[recharged95]

hacking MBA buzzwords and littering a bunch of sound bites specifically in SV speak.

Has she interviewed any of these CEOs for her analysis or reading someone else's bios? Doesn't look like and 1/2 the article is about her.

You know who's been teaching people

[RyuSoma]

..to 'hack' charisma for almost a hundred years? Dale Carnegie. The only difference is 'journalists' today think she's something new or original, because they're too lazy to do even basic research.

Emulation vs Native

[Prien715]

Anyone who learns from one of these so-called "gurus" is merely emulating techniques other people with charisma mastery has "natively". Steve Jobs didn't take classes on how to be charismatic. He took acid -- and said it was one of the best experiences of his life...just like the Beatles, Manson (charisma and alignment aren't the same stat), etc.

So, if you're trying to be a better "people person", you can take the same thing Steve did in a "safe setting" -- whatever the means for you...or you can learn some techniques and be lost whenever a situation arrives you haven't learn about.

Re:Yes, be very careful with that

[Sentrion]

This is exactly why I cringe anytime I hear people raise the issue of "social skills", learning how to use body language to achieve your objectives, or other techniques of mastering human interaction. It all comes across as very conniving and manipulative, and not in a good way. Reminds me somewhat as how coaches teach intimidation tactics to young athletes - I don't think that fits the bill for what good sportsmanship should be all about. I've even seen car salespeople try to use some bizarre technique of staring at me silently for a good 4-5 seconds before responding to my offer or counter-offer. When I catch someone using some "social" technique on me I really don't want to continue trying to do business with that person.

BTW, referring to valued employees as "human resources" also rubs me the wrong way. "Personnel Dept" might be cold and off-putting, but HR makes me think of organ donors.

Re:Steve Jobs?

[Aighearach]

Everybody knows Steve Jobs was charismatic, because they were always told he was, and they've only ever seen him pictures and tailored media presentations.

Creepy, creepy, creepy. To me, even in the canned media spots.

But they always tell you how charismatic he is, so you're primed to like him.

Re:Oxymoronically

[Aighearach]

I read much of the story, so allow me to clarify. Puppies are up, and she must be enlightened or have super-powers because she uses a treadmill as an office chair. Also, puppies.

Like the assholes from Stanford in the story. Just hand them a puppy. See how much more likable they are holding the puppy than opening their mouths? $100K, please.