Dear Mr. Brown:
I either read or saw a video where you promoted the importance of being selfish to acheive success. How do you reconcile people being selfish and charismatic at the same time? Is this an oxymoron?
Theresa Wildenmore
Salt Lake City, Utah
Dear Ms. Wildenmore:
Thank you for your inquiry. Yes, I have talked about being selfish to achieve personal and professional goals. Unfortunately, people connote selfishness as a negative term. Researching the lives of acclaimed individuals from Alexander the Great to Barack Obama has led me to believe that raw, unadulterated ambition by men labeled charismatic is steeped in selfishness. Reportedly, basketball great Michael Jordan said you had to be selfish to achieve greatness, but become less selfish as one achieved their goals. I am not sure how that is done authentically. Microsoft’s Bill Gates was ruthlessly selfish and ambition according to various reports. However, his philanthropic initiatives are unparalleled on the world stage. Does Gates give to worthy causes because he has achieved his aspirations and can afford to do so? Or is his giving a ploy to encourage people to buy and support Microsoft products? We can only speculate.
However, I believe that you can do good and well simultaneously. Being selfish only crystallizes what your intentions are. Once you are clear about your objectives, you can align everything in your life with your ultimate goals. Historically, this is how great feats have been accomplished.
The fundamental factor that makes charismatic people so successful is the keen insight into what they are after as well as a clear understanding of human nature to get there.
Everyone has to decide for themselves what is important and what they can tolerate. To date, if I had made different decisions in life, I could not enjoy the life that I have pursued. It came with setbacks, relentlessness, and yes selfishness. I knew of no other way to effectively perform and the selfishness of other people would have destroyed me.
Edward Brown
Core Edge Image & Charisma Institute
Showing posts with label barack obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label barack obama. Show all posts
Monday, June 27, 2011
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Researching the Charismatic Mind
In this Q & A session, researcher on charisma and charismatic leadership, Edward Brown of Core Edge Image & Charisma Institute, provides insight into charisma and the charismatic mind.
Q: What makes you an expert on charisma?
A: Essentially, I’ve written several books, articles and provided numerous interviews on charisma as a result of a decade of research as well as my ongoing study in this area.
Q: Do you have to be charismatic to talk about charisma?
A: No, not necessarily. Interesting enough, people don’t mind putting me on the spot by asking me if I see myself as being charismatic. I think I was more charismatic before I started researching charisma and charismatic leadership. My intellectual pursuits have made me more analytical, which has taken away some of the magnetism I once possessed.
Q: Interesting, how did that happen?
A: By looking within the inner workings of charismatic personalities, I saw that they could be cold, calculating, focused, disciplined, but also great actors for generating support from followers. The more I engaged in the intellectual side of charisma, the less acting I opted to do.
Q: What has been the result of your not being a good actor?
A: I didn’t say I wasn’t a good actor. I merely opted to spend more time in the laboratory and less time manifesting charisma on the world stage.
Q: Is reclusiveness a part of the charismatic mindset?
A: Reclusion can be a part of the charismatic mindset. Particularly, when he is building momentum for a specific mission. As a visionary, the charismatic personality lives in the field of ideas and parlays these ideas into action once the time is right. He spends more time in isolation and thinking than people realize.
Q: Do you have examples when charismatic personalities have sparked their genius in isolation and later astounded the world with their brilliance.
A: Adolf Hitler wrote his autobiography” Mein Kampf” in prison, which is a great treatise on power. Many of Dr. Martin L. King, Jr.’s greatest speeches were written in jail. Malcolm X was resurrected during his stint in prison. Nelson Mandela’s evolution took place while in prison.
Q: So, does one have to be imprisoned to become a charismatic leader?
A: Not necessarily, but isolation forces the individual, who has the traits of a charismatic leadership, to focus inwardly to begin thinking about a far reaching mission. Such insightful thinking would have been difficult with other responsibilities taking priority.
Q: Pundits have panned charismatic leadership as being more show than substance. Is the charismatic personality more show or substance?
A: I would suggest that ostentation or “showiness” is the manifestation of the substance behind a compelling idea. The flair and finesse of charismatic personalities stem from the passion, energy, and imagination of the charismatic personality. Take away the flair and finesse and you merely have a compelling idea that may or may not be acted upon.
Q: If you had to choose between the charisma of President Barack Obama and that of former President Bill Clinton, who of the two men has the more compelling charisma?
A: Although the two men have extraordinary political skills, President Bill Clinton is a bonafide charismatic personality for a few reasons. One, Clinton had a far reaching vision and plan for politics long before running for office. Second, Clinton opponents after meeting with him marveled at his magnetism and political insights. Third, the Clinton Administration demonstrated the highs and lows indicative of charismatic leadership. Clinton brought out visceral emotions within people. Contrarily, President Obama is very likeable, but has been described by insiders as cold and detached. For many, it is difficult to separate Obama’s historical significance as the first black president of the U.S. as well as the most powerful black man in the history of civilization with that of authentic charisma.
For more information, visit: Charisma
Q: What makes you an expert on charisma?
A: Essentially, I’ve written several books, articles and provided numerous interviews on charisma as a result of a decade of research as well as my ongoing study in this area.
Q: Do you have to be charismatic to talk about charisma?
A: No, not necessarily. Interesting enough, people don’t mind putting me on the spot by asking me if I see myself as being charismatic. I think I was more charismatic before I started researching charisma and charismatic leadership. My intellectual pursuits have made me more analytical, which has taken away some of the magnetism I once possessed.
Q: Interesting, how did that happen?
A: By looking within the inner workings of charismatic personalities, I saw that they could be cold, calculating, focused, disciplined, but also great actors for generating support from followers. The more I engaged in the intellectual side of charisma, the less acting I opted to do.
Q: What has been the result of your not being a good actor?
A: I didn’t say I wasn’t a good actor. I merely opted to spend more time in the laboratory and less time manifesting charisma on the world stage.
Q: Is reclusiveness a part of the charismatic mindset?
A: Reclusion can be a part of the charismatic mindset. Particularly, when he is building momentum for a specific mission. As a visionary, the charismatic personality lives in the field of ideas and parlays these ideas into action once the time is right. He spends more time in isolation and thinking than people realize.
Q: Do you have examples when charismatic personalities have sparked their genius in isolation and later astounded the world with their brilliance.
A: Adolf Hitler wrote his autobiography” Mein Kampf” in prison, which is a great treatise on power. Many of Dr. Martin L. King, Jr.’s greatest speeches were written in jail. Malcolm X was resurrected during his stint in prison. Nelson Mandela’s evolution took place while in prison.
Q: So, does one have to be imprisoned to become a charismatic leader?
A: Not necessarily, but isolation forces the individual, who has the traits of a charismatic leadership, to focus inwardly to begin thinking about a far reaching mission. Such insightful thinking would have been difficult with other responsibilities taking priority.
Q: Pundits have panned charismatic leadership as being more show than substance. Is the charismatic personality more show or substance?
A: I would suggest that ostentation or “showiness” is the manifestation of the substance behind a compelling idea. The flair and finesse of charismatic personalities stem from the passion, energy, and imagination of the charismatic personality. Take away the flair and finesse and you merely have a compelling idea that may or may not be acted upon.
Q: If you had to choose between the charisma of President Barack Obama and that of former President Bill Clinton, who of the two men has the more compelling charisma?
A: Although the two men have extraordinary political skills, President Bill Clinton is a bonafide charismatic personality for a few reasons. One, Clinton had a far reaching vision and plan for politics long before running for office. Second, Clinton opponents after meeting with him marveled at his magnetism and political insights. Third, the Clinton Administration demonstrated the highs and lows indicative of charismatic leadership. Clinton brought out visceral emotions within people. Contrarily, President Obama is very likeable, but has been described by insiders as cold and detached. For many, it is difficult to separate Obama’s historical significance as the first black president of the U.S. as well as the most powerful black man in the history of civilization with that of authentic charisma.
For more information, visit: Charisma
Monday, May 30, 2011
Charisma: Men, Women, & the Will to Power
Dear Mr. Brown:
Recently, I read an article you wrote suggesting that charisma and charismatic leadership were concepts more male-oriented than female- centered. I was livid over your comments! However, after my husband read the article, he gave me a different perspective on charisma, men, and power. I can’t say that I am totally comfortable with this difference, but I can appreciate your candor. For some reason, I still feel a bit of sexism in the distinction of men being more prone to charisma than women. Is there a middle ground?
Wendy Henderson
San Francisco, CA
Dear Mrs. Henderson:
Thank you for your passionate comments. For some time I wrestled with my analysis on how charisma played out between men and women. Initially, I tried to be politically correct by making it equal to both genders, but felt that I was not being totally honest about the research surrounding charisma. Nietzsche spoke of the “Amoral Superman” replacing the concept of a God figure. My interpretation of Nietzsche’s concept suggested that unflinching, ambitious men would capture the imagination of the masses and become the idol that society worshipped. Ultimately, this has happened. In a sense, powerful and ambitious men have become deified replacing God as a figurehead. This will- to- power is evident in a patriarchal world where naked aggression is acceptable among men, but denounced among women. When I ask groups of men and women to name charismatic individuals, names such as: Former President Bill Clinton, President Barack Obama, Denzel Washington, and Oprah Winfrey top the list. As I delve deeper into what makes these individuals charismatic to the audience, terms like: Great communicator, empathy and magnetism are suggested. However, as I inquire further about Oprah’s purported charisma compared to the men on the list, viewpoints begin to change from charisma to engaging, empathetic and inspirational. Although Oprah’s success hinges on media power, her brand is inspirational, not power. She emphasizes strength and empowerment, but not power and control per se. At the core of charismatic men is the acquisition and maintenance of power using communication, engagement and inspiration as a means of achieving it. Rarely would charismatic men appear as accessible and vulnerable as Oprah Winfrey. As a matter of fact, appearing vulnerable to that degree is oppositional to the concept of power in a patriarchal society. Although it may be changing, studies suggest that even women envision men in charismatic leadership roles over other women.
Power, control, mission, aggression, tenacity, crusade, etc… are often terms relegated to the motives of men, which serve as the basis for charismatic men having a deeper interest and proclivity to these terms. Women exercise a different type of power that would not fit within the charismatic leadership model. However, pundits have not stopped placing women like Oprah in the charismatic leadership category. At this point, I respectfully disagree with the experts that opt to do so.
Edward Brown
Core Edge Image & Charisma Institute
For more information, visit: Charisma
Recently, I read an article you wrote suggesting that charisma and charismatic leadership were concepts more male-oriented than female- centered. I was livid over your comments! However, after my husband read the article, he gave me a different perspective on charisma, men, and power. I can’t say that I am totally comfortable with this difference, but I can appreciate your candor. For some reason, I still feel a bit of sexism in the distinction of men being more prone to charisma than women. Is there a middle ground?
Wendy Henderson
San Francisco, CA
Dear Mrs. Henderson:
Thank you for your passionate comments. For some time I wrestled with my analysis on how charisma played out between men and women. Initially, I tried to be politically correct by making it equal to both genders, but felt that I was not being totally honest about the research surrounding charisma. Nietzsche spoke of the “Amoral Superman” replacing the concept of a God figure. My interpretation of Nietzsche’s concept suggested that unflinching, ambitious men would capture the imagination of the masses and become the idol that society worshipped. Ultimately, this has happened. In a sense, powerful and ambitious men have become deified replacing God as a figurehead. This will- to- power is evident in a patriarchal world where naked aggression is acceptable among men, but denounced among women. When I ask groups of men and women to name charismatic individuals, names such as: Former President Bill Clinton, President Barack Obama, Denzel Washington, and Oprah Winfrey top the list. As I delve deeper into what makes these individuals charismatic to the audience, terms like: Great communicator, empathy and magnetism are suggested. However, as I inquire further about Oprah’s purported charisma compared to the men on the list, viewpoints begin to change from charisma to engaging, empathetic and inspirational. Although Oprah’s success hinges on media power, her brand is inspirational, not power. She emphasizes strength and empowerment, but not power and control per se. At the core of charismatic men is the acquisition and maintenance of power using communication, engagement and inspiration as a means of achieving it. Rarely would charismatic men appear as accessible and vulnerable as Oprah Winfrey. As a matter of fact, appearing vulnerable to that degree is oppositional to the concept of power in a patriarchal society. Although it may be changing, studies suggest that even women envision men in charismatic leadership roles over other women.
Power, control, mission, aggression, tenacity, crusade, etc… are often terms relegated to the motives of men, which serve as the basis for charismatic men having a deeper interest and proclivity to these terms. Women exercise a different type of power that would not fit within the charismatic leadership model. However, pundits have not stopped placing women like Oprah in the charismatic leadership category. At this point, I respectfully disagree with the experts that opt to do so.
Edward Brown
Core Edge Image & Charisma Institute
For more information, visit: Charisma
Monday, May 2, 2011
Charisma, Barack Obama & the Death of Osama bin Laden
By Edward Brown
This Q & A session discusses the impact of strategy for enhancing political charisma on the world stage.
Q: How has the death of Osama bin Laden enhanced President Obama’s charisma?
A: Recent polls suggest that President Obama’s approval rating by Americans is around 47%. At the urging of real estate developer Donald Trump, the White House recently released the long version of President Obama’s birth certificate thwarting the ongoing speculation of Obama’s citizenship, but demonstrating a degree of weakness by divulging this information under pressure. Escalating gas prices and the continued high employment rate necessitated some action that would change the conversation as well as create a sense of achievement for the Obama Administration. Neutralizing Osama bin Laden did that. This one act strengthens Obama’s reelection bid as well as increase his fundraising efforts.
Q: Is the killing of bin Laden merely a political move to curry favor with the American people?
A: If most things are predicated upon a political agenda, killing bin Laden is a political act. Contemporary politics is not only about the distribution of resources, but the marketing of political candidates. Symbolically and inspirationally, neutralizing bin Laden at this time, pays off politically and creates the perception that Americans are safer and that President Obama is a strong, decisive leader. In street vernacular, Obama gets “Cool Points.”
Q: Is charisma about using lives to facilitate an objective?
A: Charismatic leaders are consistently Machiavellian in their actions. Yes, they implement strategies to affect a specific outcome even if lives are expended in the interim. One would be naïve to believe a message of hope does not come with the price of death on occasion.
Q: Why is a Machiavellian notion surrounding charisma difficult for people to accept?
A: People have a hard time accepting the reality that everything in life comes with a price and that there is an upside and downside to everything. Although people understand intellectually that everything has a price, it is problematic for them to accept emotionally.
Q: So, is President Obama’s charisma enhanced when the right person is killed for the right reason?
A: That’s a challenging question. It really depends on the situation. There is talk in journalistic circles that Middle Eastern countries who are allies of the United States are looking towards Russia and China for future alliances, because of the loss of confidence by Middle Eastern allies in American foreign policy. Although Libya is in Africa, cultural and geographic similarities with the Middle East put the neutralization of Libya’s Muammar Gadhafi on the same trajectory. President Obama’s election promise to “reset” global relations was interpreted by some regimes as an act of weakness. Charismatic leadership is weakened without fear and the threat of reprisals for acts against American interests. This goes to show that militarily, there is no difference between a Republican president versus a Democratic president. The rules apply across the board.
Q: So, does charisma exceed merely creating good feelings among people?
A: Charismatic leaders realize that people act on emotions and justify their actions through mental reasoning. Even when charismatic leaders have to exercise the most diabolical and heinous acts for a specific outcome, they have to insulate their message with emotional considerations for the audience they serve. To do otherwise, even when the cause is correct, goes against fulfilling the emotional needs of charisma leaders’ constituency.
For more information, visit: Charisma
This Q & A session discusses the impact of strategy for enhancing political charisma on the world stage.
Q: How has the death of Osama bin Laden enhanced President Obama’s charisma?
A: Recent polls suggest that President Obama’s approval rating by Americans is around 47%. At the urging of real estate developer Donald Trump, the White House recently released the long version of President Obama’s birth certificate thwarting the ongoing speculation of Obama’s citizenship, but demonstrating a degree of weakness by divulging this information under pressure. Escalating gas prices and the continued high employment rate necessitated some action that would change the conversation as well as create a sense of achievement for the Obama Administration. Neutralizing Osama bin Laden did that. This one act strengthens Obama’s reelection bid as well as increase his fundraising efforts.
Q: Is the killing of bin Laden merely a political move to curry favor with the American people?
A: If most things are predicated upon a political agenda, killing bin Laden is a political act. Contemporary politics is not only about the distribution of resources, but the marketing of political candidates. Symbolically and inspirationally, neutralizing bin Laden at this time, pays off politically and creates the perception that Americans are safer and that President Obama is a strong, decisive leader. In street vernacular, Obama gets “Cool Points.”
Q: Is charisma about using lives to facilitate an objective?
A: Charismatic leaders are consistently Machiavellian in their actions. Yes, they implement strategies to affect a specific outcome even if lives are expended in the interim. One would be naïve to believe a message of hope does not come with the price of death on occasion.
Q: Why is a Machiavellian notion surrounding charisma difficult for people to accept?
A: People have a hard time accepting the reality that everything in life comes with a price and that there is an upside and downside to everything. Although people understand intellectually that everything has a price, it is problematic for them to accept emotionally.
Q: So, is President Obama’s charisma enhanced when the right person is killed for the right reason?
A: That’s a challenging question. It really depends on the situation. There is talk in journalistic circles that Middle Eastern countries who are allies of the United States are looking towards Russia and China for future alliances, because of the loss of confidence by Middle Eastern allies in American foreign policy. Although Libya is in Africa, cultural and geographic similarities with the Middle East put the neutralization of Libya’s Muammar Gadhafi on the same trajectory. President Obama’s election promise to “reset” global relations was interpreted by some regimes as an act of weakness. Charismatic leadership is weakened without fear and the threat of reprisals for acts against American interests. This goes to show that militarily, there is no difference between a Republican president versus a Democratic president. The rules apply across the board.
Q: So, does charisma exceed merely creating good feelings among people?
A: Charismatic leaders realize that people act on emotions and justify their actions through mental reasoning. Even when charismatic leaders have to exercise the most diabolical and heinous acts for a specific outcome, they have to insulate their message with emotional considerations for the audience they serve. To do otherwise, even when the cause is correct, goes against fulfilling the emotional needs of charisma leaders’ constituency.
For more information, visit: Charisma
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Wanted: Charismatic Leaders and Ideas
Since the election of President Barack Obama, the conversation surrounding charismatic leadership has quieted. This is a dramatic shift from candidate Obama who regaled the world reminiscent of John F. Kennedy’s “Camelot.” Obama’s youthful vigor, enthusiasm and good looks were a breath of fresh air in an attempt to “reset” the agenda for geopolitics and commerce in a global economy. The world had waited for a change in business and politics and Obama seemed to answer the clarion call. What happened? How could a candidate who came out of virtually nowhere have a meteoric rise and then the connectivity and charisma ascribed to him become muted? The obvious question would be, “Was candidate Obama a bona fide charismatic or merely more interesting compared to the field of his non-charismatic competitors?” More importantly, is society so desirous of leadership with passion and a compelling vision that it will support anyone who comes close to this ideal? Suffice to say that when leaders, generally, and charismatic leaders, specifically, are not in abundance, any uptick towards a semblance of leadership is not only embraced, but revered. The fact is that charismatic leadership is scarce because there are too few people steeped in the field of ideas. Sexy marketing is in and the hard fought battle of reconciling disparate ideas and concepts is out. Contemporary society is witnessing the “dummying down” of intelligence in an information, digital age. Such a thought appears oxymoronic. How could the democratization of information produce so few great men and women of ideas? How could the great universities of the world not produce a sea of Einsteins or a phalanx of Alexander Hamiltons? Only in a time where one does not have to dig for information could ideas that produce compelling and magnetic leaders be quashed.
What is the connection between charismatic leaders and ideas?
When the mind is disciplined to read and absorb a great deal of information, it sees patterns and voids in ways the less intellectual cannot. If the mind is a computer within itself, it arranges ideas that seem disconnected into a tapestry of form. It fills empty spaces within the human experience with substance hoped for, but not realized until now. It is like someone having a taste for something sweet, but does not know what dessert would actually fulfill the desire. If one was posed options to select from, the person would decide the appropriate treat based on taste and satisfaction. Thought leaders who turn ideas into compelling visions do not create to lead, they create and the audience embraces the viability of the idea and follows. The thought leader revels in the field of ideas. Ideas revitalize, capture and spark new realities converse to mere existence. The individual devoid of ideas is a lifeless lump of clay. Better yet, a living, breathing, “Lifeless,” lump of clay.
Thought leaders with compelling ideas delivered with passion reflect charismatic leadership. They breathe life into individuals that either encourages similar initiatives or a renewed purpose on the part of individuals. The field of ideas creates these leaders, but one must be intellectually curious to wallow in the possibilities. Because the Information Age has not produced individuals with great intellectual curiosity, it has not produced an abundance of thought leaders who inspire hope and the manifestation of ideas. It has created people who regurgitate information as a means of satisfying limited needs (Term papers, answers to immediate questions, trivial pursuit, etc…), but not the next Alexander the Great, Emerson or Machiavelli.
Within any presidency or position of leadership, it is important to inspire hope and optimism, but at the end of the day, the continuous creation, processing and implementation of ideas are essential. The world can become saturated with entertainment, sports and even technology, but the field of compelling ideas with never be overrun. The charismatic leader chooses the road less travelled. To choose the road less travelled makes all the difference in the world.
For more information, visit: Charisma
What is the connection between charismatic leaders and ideas?
When the mind is disciplined to read and absorb a great deal of information, it sees patterns and voids in ways the less intellectual cannot. If the mind is a computer within itself, it arranges ideas that seem disconnected into a tapestry of form. It fills empty spaces within the human experience with substance hoped for, but not realized until now. It is like someone having a taste for something sweet, but does not know what dessert would actually fulfill the desire. If one was posed options to select from, the person would decide the appropriate treat based on taste and satisfaction. Thought leaders who turn ideas into compelling visions do not create to lead, they create and the audience embraces the viability of the idea and follows. The thought leader revels in the field of ideas. Ideas revitalize, capture and spark new realities converse to mere existence. The individual devoid of ideas is a lifeless lump of clay. Better yet, a living, breathing, “Lifeless,” lump of clay.
Thought leaders with compelling ideas delivered with passion reflect charismatic leadership. They breathe life into individuals that either encourages similar initiatives or a renewed purpose on the part of individuals. The field of ideas creates these leaders, but one must be intellectually curious to wallow in the possibilities. Because the Information Age has not produced individuals with great intellectual curiosity, it has not produced an abundance of thought leaders who inspire hope and the manifestation of ideas. It has created people who regurgitate information as a means of satisfying limited needs (Term papers, answers to immediate questions, trivial pursuit, etc…), but not the next Alexander the Great, Emerson or Machiavelli.
Within any presidency or position of leadership, it is important to inspire hope and optimism, but at the end of the day, the continuous creation, processing and implementation of ideas are essential. The world can become saturated with entertainment, sports and even technology, but the field of compelling ideas with never be overrun. The charismatic leader chooses the road less travelled. To choose the road less travelled makes all the difference in the world.
For more information, visit: Charisma
Thursday, September 30, 2010
The Charismatic Sociopath!
This review is from: The Sociopath Next Door (Paperback)
Dr. Martha Stout's "The Sociopath Next Door" starts out as a riveting analysis of the part of humanity (4%) that permeates our existence right under our noses. Dr. Stout's case studies of sociopaths as a clinical psychologist gave the book the scientific heft needed for credibility. In describing the traits of sociopaths as charismatic, it helped further my own body of work on Charismatology ("One of the more frequently observed of these traits is a glib and superficial charm that allows the true sociopath to seduce other people., figuratively and literally--a kind of charisma that, initially, can make the sociopath seem more charming or more interesting than most people around him, p. 7)
In part, there could even be a case made that she is describing President Obama as a sociopath on page 93 when she says, "Insidiously, when such a `savior' abducts the normal population to his purposes, he usually begins with an appeal to them as good people who would like to improve the condition of humanity, and then insists that they can achieve this by following his own aggressive plan."
The groundbreaking news comes on page 107, when Dr. Stout reveals the core motivation and warning signs in sociopaths being the need for pity and for people to feel sorry for them. It is pity not fear that sociopaths are after.
However, the scientific pattern established up to this point changed around page 171. "At least 96 percent of us are fundamentally thus (Filled with Conscience). What we will end up doing with the species survival problems created by the other 4 percent (sociopaths) is, at present, unknowable. From this point to the end of the book, it sounded like another person wrote it. Dr. Stout goes to great lengths to vindicate her sense of humanity as well as attempt to convince the 96 percent of the population that having a conscience is better than not having one at all. Her careful analysis seeps into a cacophony of internal dialogue, waxed poetry and girlish innocence. If sociopathy is a combination of biological predilections and environment influences, she makes a better case for sociopaths being born not created through their own choices. Once more, she describes the tragic end to all sociopaths as part of their fate, but feels compelled to warn moral bound individuals of impending doom if these sociopaths are not stopped.
Through Dr. Stout's sermonizing, she loses her sense of objectivity, which turns "The Sociopath Next Door" into an emotional rant by a doctor who claims "End of Times" at the hands of sociopaths. She admits that all humans have the ability and propensity towards sociopathy when humans are perceptually turned into "Its." She uses Osama Bin Laden as an example. Most conscience bound individuals would separate the likes of Osama Bin Laden from the rest of humanity labeling him an "It" and as such rendering any heinous destruction upon him without compunction.
Could a child be born with a heart of gold and the cruelty of the world make his heart grow cold? If so, would the catalyst for becoming a sociopath be marked by the 4 percent of the population who are already sociopathic or the other 96 percent filled with conscience? The numbers alone favor the latter.
The few nuggets revealed in "The Sociopath Next Door" are valuable enough to read the entire book. In this instance, you have to sift through a lot of chaff to get to the wheat.
Edward Brown
Core Edge Image & Charisma Institute
For more information, visit: http://plr.coreedgeprivatelabelrights.com m/
Dr. Martha Stout's "The Sociopath Next Door" starts out as a riveting analysis of the part of humanity (4%) that permeates our existence right under our noses. Dr. Stout's case studies of sociopaths as a clinical psychologist gave the book the scientific heft needed for credibility. In describing the traits of sociopaths as charismatic, it helped further my own body of work on Charismatology ("One of the more frequently observed of these traits is a glib and superficial charm that allows the true sociopath to seduce other people., figuratively and literally--a kind of charisma that, initially, can make the sociopath seem more charming or more interesting than most people around him, p. 7)
In part, there could even be a case made that she is describing President Obama as a sociopath on page 93 when she says, "Insidiously, when such a `savior' abducts the normal population to his purposes, he usually begins with an appeal to them as good people who would like to improve the condition of humanity, and then insists that they can achieve this by following his own aggressive plan."
The groundbreaking news comes on page 107, when Dr. Stout reveals the core motivation and warning signs in sociopaths being the need for pity and for people to feel sorry for them. It is pity not fear that sociopaths are after.
However, the scientific pattern established up to this point changed around page 171. "At least 96 percent of us are fundamentally thus (Filled with Conscience). What we will end up doing with the species survival problems created by the other 4 percent (sociopaths) is, at present, unknowable. From this point to the end of the book, it sounded like another person wrote it. Dr. Stout goes to great lengths to vindicate her sense of humanity as well as attempt to convince the 96 percent of the population that having a conscience is better than not having one at all. Her careful analysis seeps into a cacophony of internal dialogue, waxed poetry and girlish innocence. If sociopathy is a combination of biological predilections and environment influences, she makes a better case for sociopaths being born not created through their own choices. Once more, she describes the tragic end to all sociopaths as part of their fate, but feels compelled to warn moral bound individuals of impending doom if these sociopaths are not stopped.
Through Dr. Stout's sermonizing, she loses her sense of objectivity, which turns "The Sociopath Next Door" into an emotional rant by a doctor who claims "End of Times" at the hands of sociopaths. She admits that all humans have the ability and propensity towards sociopathy when humans are perceptually turned into "Its." She uses Osama Bin Laden as an example. Most conscience bound individuals would separate the likes of Osama Bin Laden from the rest of humanity labeling him an "It" and as such rendering any heinous destruction upon him without compunction.
Could a child be born with a heart of gold and the cruelty of the world make his heart grow cold? If so, would the catalyst for becoming a sociopath be marked by the 4 percent of the population who are already sociopathic or the other 96 percent filled with conscience? The numbers alone favor the latter.
The few nuggets revealed in "The Sociopath Next Door" are valuable enough to read the entire book. In this instance, you have to sift through a lot of chaff to get to the wheat.
Edward Brown
Core Edge Image & Charisma Institute
For more information, visit: http://plr.coreedgeprivatelabelrights.com m/
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Charisma & Presidential Characteristics Unseen
This review is from: Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance (Paperback)
I searched Barack Obama's, "Dreams from My Father," in hopes of finding signs forecasting his ascension to the U.S. Presidency as well as evidence pointing to his inclusion into the School of Charismatic Leadership. Interesting, I saw all evidence wanting. There were no signs as exemplified in David Maraniss', "First in His Class," a biography on President Bill Clinton's evolution to power.
At best, it is a reclamation of a man who idealized an element of black sub-culture, based on skin color, only to find his own truth in a world fraught with contradictions. The climax of the book came while in Africa, as Obama and his sister Auma are speaking with an old history teacher of Auma's. Dr. Rukia Odero says," ...You know, young black Americans tend to romanticize Africa so. When your father and I were young, it was the opposite -we expected to find all the answers in America. Harlem. Chicago. Langston Hughes and James Baldwin. That's where we drew our inspiration. And the Kennedys---they were very popular" (p. 433). Throughout "Dreams from My Father," Obama is expressing the disconnection of his personal experiences with those who share the same skin color. As usual the case when one feels he's not "Black enough (complexion and psychologically)," he over compensates believing that the sub-culturally described definition of being black is the objective definition. Dr. Odero's insights closes the gap of the proverbially, "Grass being greener on the other side." By closing the psychological gap, Obama is allowed to embrace the truism that his global experiences have allowed: Born In Hawaii to a white Kansan mother and black Kenyan father, reared in Indonesia by an Asian step-father, educated in the highest pedigreed universities in the world, and finally, being able to point directly to a country (Kenya) that engenders his future aspirations being manifested in America.
"Dreams from My Father" is an immigrant story in the vein of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rupert Murdoch with sociological underpinning of the Black Experience as a construct. The beauty of Obama's writing is the social experiment he engages himself in to find a panacea for the psychological malaise (part self-induced, part uncontrolled social forces) he experienced growing up. Obama is reminiscent of a scientist who uses himself as a guinea pig to find a special elixir. As such, he has produced a psychological blue print, steeped in hybridized cultural influences of power for the ages. A call to action would be, "Find an authentic socio/psychological philosophy to base your understanding of the world and consolidate power from that perspective."
A must read by a man who would become the most powerful person in the world and the process that got him there.
For more information, visit: Charisma
I searched Barack Obama's, "Dreams from My Father," in hopes of finding signs forecasting his ascension to the U.S. Presidency as well as evidence pointing to his inclusion into the School of Charismatic Leadership. Interesting, I saw all evidence wanting. There were no signs as exemplified in David Maraniss', "First in His Class," a biography on President Bill Clinton's evolution to power.
At best, it is a reclamation of a man who idealized an element of black sub-culture, based on skin color, only to find his own truth in a world fraught with contradictions. The climax of the book came while in Africa, as Obama and his sister Auma are speaking with an old history teacher of Auma's. Dr. Rukia Odero says," ...You know, young black Americans tend to romanticize Africa so. When your father and I were young, it was the opposite -we expected to find all the answers in America. Harlem. Chicago. Langston Hughes and James Baldwin. That's where we drew our inspiration. And the Kennedys---they were very popular" (p. 433). Throughout "Dreams from My Father," Obama is expressing the disconnection of his personal experiences with those who share the same skin color. As usual the case when one feels he's not "Black enough (complexion and psychologically)," he over compensates believing that the sub-culturally described definition of being black is the objective definition. Dr. Odero's insights closes the gap of the proverbially, "Grass being greener on the other side." By closing the psychological gap, Obama is allowed to embrace the truism that his global experiences have allowed: Born In Hawaii to a white Kansan mother and black Kenyan father, reared in Indonesia by an Asian step-father, educated in the highest pedigreed universities in the world, and finally, being able to point directly to a country (Kenya) that engenders his future aspirations being manifested in America.
"Dreams from My Father" is an immigrant story in the vein of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rupert Murdoch with sociological underpinning of the Black Experience as a construct. The beauty of Obama's writing is the social experiment he engages himself in to find a panacea for the psychological malaise (part self-induced, part uncontrolled social forces) he experienced growing up. Obama is reminiscent of a scientist who uses himself as a guinea pig to find a special elixir. As such, he has produced a psychological blue print, steeped in hybridized cultural influences of power for the ages. A call to action would be, "Find an authentic socio/psychological philosophy to base your understanding of the world and consolidate power from that perspective."
A must read by a man who would become the most powerful person in the world and the process that got him there.
For more information, visit: Charisma
Friday, July 23, 2010
Charisma Through Ideas
Often charisma is experiential based on the connection between the charismatic leader and followers. But, could charismatic leaders be detached from adherents and connect purely through ideas? Weisberg (2010) asserts that there is a difference between the charismatic traits of Presidents Clinton, G.W. Bush, Reagan and Obama. Clinton, Bush and Reagan were described as “relaters” in that they made visceral or deep connections with the people they came in contact with through shared experiences and common interests. A great deal of their political savvy was attached to this ability to “feel the other person’s pain.” However, Obama is described as cool, aloof, detached, not warm, and highly analytical. Supporters are more enamored with his ideas than his connectivity. If this description of Obama is correct, how does this bode with the idea of his being charismatic?
Such a notion actually upends the traditional concept of charisma as a driving force based on sheer magnetism. If ideas can be described as charismatic, what is more important, the message or the messenger? Ideally, the pure charismatic is a combination of both. He can arouse audiences with a compelling idea through sheer passion and steel determination as well as conceptualize the larger vision. To the point, either President Obama fits squarely into the Charismatic leadership model albeit less of a connector than Clinton, Bush and Reagan, has some traits of charismatic leaders, but is not a full- fledged charismatic or charismatic ideas stand on their own devoid of the charismatic personality. If research suggests that the prototypical charismatic leader has a compelling vision as well as passionate oratory, than the message is only part of the total picture. In reading Obama’s autobiography, “Dreams from My Father,” there is no evidence that Obama has a mesmerizing personality nor had a far reaching vision such as that demonstrated by Adolph Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”. In fact, there is no evidence provided in “Dreams from My Father” that Obama had political ambitions, let alone aspirations for the presidency. This is in stark contrast to Bill Clinton’s political aspirations in David Marinnass’ book, “First in His Class.”
The compelling passion of an overarching vision is so intertwined that one would be hard pressed to determine where the idea begins and where the passion articulated by the charismatic leader ends. All told, President Obama would probably best fit into the category of possessing some charismatic traits of charismatic leaders, but not a full-fledge charismatic. As articulated in the movie, “V for Vendetta,” ideas are perspectives. Without the will, passion and fortitude of the charismatic leader, ideas mean nothing in the long run. Action is the active ingredient for moving a mere idea to its ultimate manifestation.
Can ideas be charismatic? Only when the will of a leader is committed to an overarching vision tailored to the need of the people who believe the time has come and waiting would engender a missed opportunity.
Related: Charisma
References
Weisberg, J. (2010 Feb. 1). Alone in a crowd. Newsweek, Vol. 155, Issue 5, p. 14-14, 1p.
Such a notion actually upends the traditional concept of charisma as a driving force based on sheer magnetism. If ideas can be described as charismatic, what is more important, the message or the messenger? Ideally, the pure charismatic is a combination of both. He can arouse audiences with a compelling idea through sheer passion and steel determination as well as conceptualize the larger vision. To the point, either President Obama fits squarely into the Charismatic leadership model albeit less of a connector than Clinton, Bush and Reagan, has some traits of charismatic leaders, but is not a full- fledged charismatic or charismatic ideas stand on their own devoid of the charismatic personality. If research suggests that the prototypical charismatic leader has a compelling vision as well as passionate oratory, than the message is only part of the total picture. In reading Obama’s autobiography, “Dreams from My Father,” there is no evidence that Obama has a mesmerizing personality nor had a far reaching vision such as that demonstrated by Adolph Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”. In fact, there is no evidence provided in “Dreams from My Father” that Obama had political ambitions, let alone aspirations for the presidency. This is in stark contrast to Bill Clinton’s political aspirations in David Marinnass’ book, “First in His Class.”
The compelling passion of an overarching vision is so intertwined that one would be hard pressed to determine where the idea begins and where the passion articulated by the charismatic leader ends. All told, President Obama would probably best fit into the category of possessing some charismatic traits of charismatic leaders, but not a full-fledge charismatic. As articulated in the movie, “V for Vendetta,” ideas are perspectives. Without the will, passion and fortitude of the charismatic leader, ideas mean nothing in the long run. Action is the active ingredient for moving a mere idea to its ultimate manifestation.
Can ideas be charismatic? Only when the will of a leader is committed to an overarching vision tailored to the need of the people who believe the time has come and waiting would engender a missed opportunity.
Related: Charisma
References
Weisberg, J. (2010 Feb. 1). Alone in a crowd. Newsweek, Vol. 155, Issue 5, p. 14-14, 1p.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Charisma & Obama's Peace Rhetoric
The awarding of President Barack Obama of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize is an excellent example of a national phenomenon having international implications. The Nobel committee cited "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples"(Gibbs 2009 para 4). Charismatic politicians are masters at crafting messages and changing the mood and optimism of an environment. But, they don't have the ability to create facts from compelling rhetoric. To say that President Obama has transformed international diplomacy is a stretch at minimum and mythological at worst. "His (Obama) critics fault some of those efforts: those who favor a missile shield for Poland or a troop surge in Afghanistan or a harder line on Iran. But even his fans know that none of the dreams have yet come true, and a prize for even dreaming them can feed the illusion that they have" (Gibbs 2009, para 4). The impact of irrational exultation of charismatic politicians can be treasonous to the national interest of a country.
In a Machiavellian sense, it is ineffective to apply solutions inappropriately to a problem that affect the long term domestic and foreign policy of a sovereign nation. Given the contemporary challenges of geopolitics, the Latin dictum is most apt, " Si vis pacem, para bellum" (If you wish peace, prepare for war). In all fairness to President Obama, the media categorized him under the Charismatic leadership Model, although his overall attributes do not warrant inclusion. While President Obama fits Conger's (Bodow, 2002) notion that a charismatic personality has the ability to communicate a compelling vision for the future, that's where the buck stops for him. Charismatic communication is merely a manifestation of the missionary zeal characterized by charismatic personalities. To hone one's communication skills while lacking a deep philosophical infrastructure does not a charismatic personality make.
The upside to President Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize is that it sets a global political agenda for pro-Western allies. By labeling President Obama, "The Peaceful President," it’s difficult for rogue states like Iran and North Korea to have strong political standing on the world stage. When the U.S. has to take preemptive measures in the name of peace, it's an easier sell with a "redeemer" as president. When politics, media and constituencies intersect, ancillary institutions enter the fray to be on the "right side of history." Without creating another "Conspiracy Theory," geopolitics is always in play and charismatic politicians serve as instruments for strategic maneuvering. In President Obama's case, the Nobel Peace Prize is an additional act in the perpetual marketing production that has characterized the Obama Administration. It turns preparing for war, if you wish for peace on its head. Now the mantra is, "If you must war, appear peaceful."
References
Bodow, S. (2002 December 12). Charmed I'm sure. USA Today. para 6. Retrieved on September 19, 2009: http://www.usatoday.com/money/jobcenter/workplace/successstrategies/2002-11-15-charismatic-leaders_x.htm
Gibbs, N. (2009 October 9). Obama's Nobel, the last thing he needs. Time magazine online. Retrieved from: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091009/us_time/08599192939500
In a Machiavellian sense, it is ineffective to apply solutions inappropriately to a problem that affect the long term domestic and foreign policy of a sovereign nation. Given the contemporary challenges of geopolitics, the Latin dictum is most apt, " Si vis pacem, para bellum" (If you wish peace, prepare for war). In all fairness to President Obama, the media categorized him under the Charismatic leadership Model, although his overall attributes do not warrant inclusion. While President Obama fits Conger's (Bodow, 2002) notion that a charismatic personality has the ability to communicate a compelling vision for the future, that's where the buck stops for him. Charismatic communication is merely a manifestation of the missionary zeal characterized by charismatic personalities. To hone one's communication skills while lacking a deep philosophical infrastructure does not a charismatic personality make.
The upside to President Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize is that it sets a global political agenda for pro-Western allies. By labeling President Obama, "The Peaceful President," it’s difficult for rogue states like Iran and North Korea to have strong political standing on the world stage. When the U.S. has to take preemptive measures in the name of peace, it's an easier sell with a "redeemer" as president. When politics, media and constituencies intersect, ancillary institutions enter the fray to be on the "right side of history." Without creating another "Conspiracy Theory," geopolitics is always in play and charismatic politicians serve as instruments for strategic maneuvering. In President Obama's case, the Nobel Peace Prize is an additional act in the perpetual marketing production that has characterized the Obama Administration. It turns preparing for war, if you wish for peace on its head. Now the mantra is, "If you must war, appear peaceful."
References
Bodow, S. (2002 December 12). Charmed I'm sure. USA Today. para 6. Retrieved on September 19, 2009: http://www.usatoday.com/money/jobcenter/workplace/successstrategies/2002-11-15-charismatic-leaders_x.htm
Gibbs, N. (2009 October 9). Obama's Nobel, the last thing he needs. Time magazine online. Retrieved from: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091009/us_time/08599192939500
Monday, July 27, 2009
Obama's Charisma: Loved or Feared?
Niccolo Machiavelli believed it was better to be feared than to be loved. It takes a combination of fear and love to ultimately gain respect. President Obama's quest to be loved has bumped up against the realpolitik of the world. While he's enjoyed a "Rock Star" reception in the US and abroad, at the end of the day, American citizens specifically and the world generally look for concrete results based on the current challenges across a wide swath of issues ranging from the US economy to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The need to be loved will eventually falter Obama's efforts to be effective. It has been argued that President Obama's leadership style falls under the Charismatic Leadership Model. Charismatic leaders have been divisive by their mere nature due to their "single-mindedness" of purpose. To date, President Obama really hasn't stood for much outside of bromides and platitudes. As such, he has yet to create the enemies typical of charismatic leaders who operate through sheer force of focus and personality. This doesn't suggest that his political instincts aren't keen. Some would say that he's doing exactly what Machiavelli advised, respond to each challenge according to one's best interest. For all the disparaging comments made against President George W. Bush, one always knew where he stood on an issue. Time will tell whether the Bush Administration will be vindicated based on the decisions of the past.
As Senator Obama, President Obama had the luxury of throwing stones from the sidelines as a mere spectator on national issues. At this point, his politics hasn't been that different from President Bush's. He's merely re-branded the packaging to make it go down easier for the palates of the world. Invariably, effectiveness lies in staking out the lay of the land, making an assessment and moving forward based on the interests of a country. The old saying in politics, "There are no permanent friends nor enemies, only permanent interests" is prescient to the core of human nature. By trying to be all things to everyone, you work against yourself and eventually lose the respect of initial supporters based on the choice to be popular over being effective. People often don't care where the line is as long as you draw one.
The need to be loved will eventually falter Obama's efforts to be effective. It has been argued that President Obama's leadership style falls under the Charismatic Leadership Model. Charismatic leaders have been divisive by their mere nature due to their "single-mindedness" of purpose. To date, President Obama really hasn't stood for much outside of bromides and platitudes. As such, he has yet to create the enemies typical of charismatic leaders who operate through sheer force of focus and personality. This doesn't suggest that his political instincts aren't keen. Some would say that he's doing exactly what Machiavelli advised, respond to each challenge according to one's best interest. For all the disparaging comments made against President George W. Bush, one always knew where he stood on an issue. Time will tell whether the Bush Administration will be vindicated based on the decisions of the past.
As Senator Obama, President Obama had the luxury of throwing stones from the sidelines as a mere spectator on national issues. At this point, his politics hasn't been that different from President Bush's. He's merely re-branded the packaging to make it go down easier for the palates of the world. Invariably, effectiveness lies in staking out the lay of the land, making an assessment and moving forward based on the interests of a country. The old saying in politics, "There are no permanent friends nor enemies, only permanent interests" is prescient to the core of human nature. By trying to be all things to everyone, you work against yourself and eventually lose the respect of initial supporters based on the choice to be popular over being effective. People often don't care where the line is as long as you draw one.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Can President Obama Lead a "Re-Birth" of the U.S.?
At the end of the day, human nature prevails over lofty ideas, vainglorious notions and religious fervor. Do people intend to go back on their word and show themselves hypocritical? They wouldn't see it that way, because they feel angelic about their sense of human nature or dare I say "delusion" about who they really are. President Obama's call for rolling up our sleeves and taking personal responsibility for the "rebirth" of the United States is ideal, but I wonder if he even believes the feasibility of what he proposes. After all, as a community activist in Chicago, there had to be frustration on his part as to the effectiveness of people who have less "skin in the game" transforming and permanently encouraging the "Have-Nots." I suspect that he opted to become a beacon of hope as an easier means of contributing rather than subject himself and his family to the long, arduous, sacrificial requirements activism often calls for. In the cold dawn of reality, President Obama discovered that he couldn't redeem the people he wanted to serve; they had to redeem themselves. What's different about his role as activist versus his role as president is that he occupies a "win-win" position. If the American people don't do the heavy lifting for their own good, the Obamas won't face the plight of many activists who grow old and delusional from fighting the good fight. With one masterstroke, President Obama has sealed the future fate of generations of Obamas. President Obama opted to do "good and well"--simultaneously. This is the subtext the American people should follow.
Related: Charisma
Related: Charisma
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Barack Obama: When is Charisma Necessary?
There are various factors that may occur that set forth the conditions best suited for charismatic leadership. First, people have to be fearful and hopeless about current conditions. Secondly, the solutions to the social ills have to correlate with the populous' experience and optimistic feelings about itself. The solution should tap more into the emotional rather than logical region of the psyche. It is at this point where details don't matter. The leader must tap into the emotional heartstrings of adherents and create the logic as they go along. Philosopher Thomas Carlyle noted that people seemed to be hard-wired for "Hero Worshipping." In this instance, Obama's ascension is a bit different than the normal development of cults. Normally, cults transform paradigms by: Isolating the individual, disorienting him through confusion or fear, retraining through reframing thoughts and experiences to correlate with a new paradigm and reenforcement by gathering old adherents with the new charge. The zeal within Obama adherents is more of what was already there as opposed to what was put there. The Obama craze is a reflection of economic upheaval, America's lackluster position in the world, two major concurrent wars and a pessimism about civilization as it currently exists. If anything, the Obama Camp has done as excellent job of identifying the visceral feelings of Americans and created a campaign to cure what hurts them emotionally and psychically.
For more information, visit: Charisma
For more information, visit: Charisma
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
