The Evil of Charm

[Ryan Rudolph]

MM,

The Charm I use is intended to boost ego's not degrade them,

But why do you have to boost anyone's ego at all? What is in it for you and what is in it for them? And is the reward for activity good or evil. Think about that.

[mensa-maniac]

MM,

The Charm I use is intended to boost ego's not degrade them,

But why do you have to boost anyone's ego at all? What is in it for you and what is in it for them? And is the reward for activity good or evil. Think about that.

Mensa says: Haven't you ever heard of boosting one's ego when they're down and blue, well sometimes I help people when they're suffering with the blues, just by talking with them.
Sometimes when I want something, I'll boost an ego to get it. Why do I boost their ego, because they suck it up, like I'm feeding them fuel. So essentially, they're responsible for my ego boosting, they're feeding me the ammunition.

What's in it for me?

Temporary satisfaction until the next time I feel the need to ego boost.

What's in it for them? Payback!

[Leyla Shen]

But why do you have to boost anyone's ego at all? What is in it for you and what is in it for them? And is the reward for activity good or evil. Think about that.

You do realise that the ego (neuroses/psychoses) is born from the internal conflict between Id ("drive") and Superego ("morality"), no?

To "boost" someone's ego, then, necessarily means to exploit that conflict, a wholly egoistic endeavour in itself.

[Blair]

Charming.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Leyla,

You do realise that the ego (neuroses/psychoses) is born from the internal conflict between Id ("drive") and Superego ("morality"), no?

You and I have had this debate before about Freud, and I disagree with his divisions here. You do not need three divisions. I would only make two.

There are the animal drives and ones sense of self. You do not need to divide the sense of self into the ego and superego. Each person's self has degrees of morality, and some conceptions of morality and enlightened, and some are crude. For instance: some individual's morality are purely based on the animal drives so that debunks your conflict theory.

Freud was a pioneer in the field of psychology, and he trail blazed many topics within the field, but a large chunk of his ideas have been disproven by others, so I'm amazed that you quote his ideas as accepted truth.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Psycho-analysis has all the hallmarks of a recent religion, with the same intriguing symbiotic mix of insights and errors. A privatized church of self-exploration?

[Blair]

Humans are fucked.

Even suicide is problematic (difficult to achieve)

90 percent of all people who attempt to kill themselves, fail.

aha, ahaha, ahahahaha!

I will succeed.

[Facade]

Facade,

I disagree, I believe in most cases, charm is undesirable if one is interested in living an honest life. Charm is a smoke screen for ones true intention. So why not be blunt and direct and expose ones true intentions rather than concealing it? It involves a certain deceit, a certain lack of respect for your fellow man, and a materialistic self serving attitude to value charm more than just being blunt and direct. Charm has become the master of our time, because men do not have deep relationships, if they had deep relationships, charm would be secondary, and they could communicate directly and in a blunt manner without the need to seduce, persuade and entertain.

Moreover, Charm has also become necessary because men are so weak emotionally, they cannot stomach direct blunt communication, rooted in logical reason, so they need the warm delusion of charm.

Probably about 90% of the species use of charm should be abandoned, as charm has become the survival mechanism of the species, to hide the fact that nobody really has any sort of real relationships with each other, and to hide our true motivations/intentions.

So what you're saying is, if I find a woman attractive, I should walk up to her and say I want to fuck her instead of trying to court her? No, the fact is that people simply cannot be blunt about their intentions in realistic social interactions because that is counterproductive. And while it may be argued that this is not an ideal system, it certainly is the real one.

[Leyla Shen]

Self?

Sorry, Ryan. Apparently, your reasoning in those discussions didn't leave much of an impression. I have always found your contributions to be rather--bloated, really.

You can't "disprove" an idea. You can, however, disprove a theory. I would call psychoanalysis more of an hypothesis, which is why people end up in the chair for their whole lifetime and still aren't done.... :)

Having said that, I think the terms are useful as Freud has given them. If it's useful to separate drive and morality (and we can immediately see such a use by definition alone), then the hypothesis has far from been "disproven" (or whatever you really meant).

I would like to see what you consider refutations of Freudian psychoanalysis.

[cousinbasil]

Psycho-analysis has all the hallmarks of a recent religion, with the same intriguing symbiotic mix of insights and errors. A privatized church of self-exploration?

Yes, but if you do it one person at a time, you have to ask for a lot more money in the basket.

[Beingof1]

The ego is a phantom. It is the ghost in the machine.

There is no self but there is a Self.

[cousinbasil]

You and I have had this debate before about Freud, and I disagree with his divisions here. You do not need three divisions. I would only make two.

But then where does the idealized set of values reside? Freud was merely constructing an abstract framework from within which to analyze the human psyche. On one side, as Leyla points out, are the base drives (Id), which are not us. On the other there must be something equally not us, something for which we strive but cannot attain (Superego). The drama lies in the interplay, and the result is what is us, the Ego.

Freud was more nineteenth century than twentieth in this regard. He wanted to account for the human psyche without using terms such as spirit and soul, which he probably thought unscientific. He was trying to drum up a practice for himself as well - if he spoke about the same thing in different terminology, he would not be beholden to the Church nor would he have to entangle himself in centuries-old debates about this spiritual concept and that one. It was a ripe new field. An industrial bourgeoisie was growing, and it was out pacing the Church's influence. The Jewish science was thus born to "treat" people with disposable incomes. Every trade requires its tools; therefore, Freud published prolifically to supply himself with an air of legitimacy.

[Carmel]

Carmel,

It can arise spontaneously, such as is seen in the playful, innocent charm of children.

Ryan:
Often times the charm of children is not so innocent and spontaneous. Children are rewarded for being charming by getting the object of their desires. Children are often encouraged to perform for adults as a means to get what they want, and this behavior is reinforced over time, and it becomes incorporated into their bag of survival tricks. not to mention that the behavior itself is hardwired somewhat from the outset.

From girls doing cute things, or boys winning at competitive things, each one expects recognition for their efforts, recognition that is often translated into rewards in the real world.

Carmel:
yep, It's a given that parents reward positive social behaviours and punish negative ones, but that really doesn't address the point I was making which is that charm isn't inherently "evil" or manipulative. Sometimes children exhibit spontaneous charm when no one is looking, when there is no possibility of social reward. It arises naturally much in the same way that laughter does. While it's true that it can be used to manipulate, that can be said of "logic" as well, or more accurately "subjective reasoning". In either case, "charm" or "reasoning" aren't inherently good or bad, the underlying motive is still the more relevant factor.

[Loki]

I don't see the big deal about being likable, charming or charismatic. I enjoy people who put a bit of personality into their actions, it makes life funny. Also, a great deal of charm arises out of an awareness of another persons psychology, whereas an anti-seductive person just rambles on narcissistically with no regard for the feelings or mindstates of the people around him or her. I find I have been at my most charming when I have a good theory of the other persons mind and I accommodate or exploit where they are coming from. It makes me more likeable and empathatic (e.g., charming).

[cousinbasil]

I don't see the big deal about being likable, charming or charismatic. I enjoy people who put a bit of personality into their actions, it makes life funny. Also, a great deal of charm arises out of an awareness of another persons psychology, whereas an anti-seductive person just rambles on narcissistically with no regard for the feelings or mindstates of the people around him or her. I find I have been at my most charming when I have a good theory of the other persons mind and I accommodate or exploit where they are coming from. It makes me more likeable and empathatic (e.g., charming).

This makes total sense to me. Too many people feel there is something laudable about being blunt. Being blunt is fine - at the right time and in the right place. Too often, though, it's an excuse for not being sharp. Those who do not give a damn about others with whom they come in contact are rarely superior in any way, they are simply too lazy or stupid to be anything but annoying.

[Nick]

I don't see the big deal about being likable, charming or charismatic. I enjoy people who put a bit of personality into their actions, it makes life funny.

Personality is something all persons have by definition, but its the type of personality here that matters. Charming people tend to be rather uninteresting underneath their phony exterior. The outside shines will the inside rots.

Also, a great deal of charm arises out of an awareness of another persons psychology,

I actually don't find this to be the case. Charming people tend to indiscriminately apply their mannerisms to everyone they encounter. The only awareness they seem to have of other people's psychology is simply whether they are receptive to them or not. Once they figure that out they either keep feeding off the receptive person, or move on to the next if they're not so receptive.

whereas an anti-seductive person just rambles on narcissistically with no regard for the feelings or mindstates of the people around him or her.

Hm, that's what I thought charmers do. All charmers are narcissists, but not all narcissists are charmers.

I find I have been at my most charming when I have a good theory of the other persons mind and I accommodate or exploit where they are coming from. It makes me more likeable and empathatic (e.g., charming).

So you exploit people's vulnerabilities by rambling on with disregard for the other person's state of mind in the hope that they will find you "likeable". Sounds pretty narcissistic to me. :)

[Loki]

No. Unlike a narcissist, I have an awareness of another persons mind, I listen carefully, I find out what it is they like, and I present my views in a way that is palatable to their tastes. This is in contrast to the narcissistic way: where you pay no regard to a persons level of maturity or interest, talking over his or her head, or just boring them to tears or frightening them with your self importance. I've done it before, I know what it's like to fail at being charming/likable.

[DHodges]

So what you're saying is, if I find a woman attractive, I should walk up to her and say I want to fuck her instead of trying to court her? No, the fact is that people simply cannot be blunt about their intentions in realistic social interactions because that is counterproductive. And while it may be argued that this is not an ideal system, it certainly is the real one.

Ha, the advantage of being near 50 years old. Women become more honest about these things, less coy, and you can be more honest as well.

[jupiviv]

I think it's pretty clear that appearing charming or charismatic requires an extra effort by a person to make what he is saying or doing more pleasing and/or important than it is. That in itself would be a clear diversion from simply speaking the truth and acting according to it, which should be the aim of anyone who wants to be rational. So you can't be both charming and fully rational at the same time.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Façade,

So what you're saying is, if I find a woman attractive, I should walk up to her and say I want to fuck her instead of trying to court her? No, the fact is that people simply cannot be blunt about their intentions in realistic social interactions because that is counterproductive. And while it may be argued that this is not an ideal system, it certainly is the real one.

It is the real world, I agree. However, the real world is a world of blind animal behaviour. Courtship is based on playing an unconscious romantic game, namely a man must put on an act for women, pretend that he isn’t motivated to court here because of his biological drives. Pretend that romanticism matters to him, as it really doesn’t. However, women need it, and if they don’t get it, their “love” trigger doesn’t turn on. But the whole activity is irrational. The logic goes something like this “ok, potential suitor, play all these games to prove to me that you want me for reasons other than just biology, and then when you finish the whole game, you can then behave as you would have “

It was written previously by Dhodges, and he is correct. Older women have less romantic idealism, basically, their experience has eroded their ideals of romanticism, plus a woman's brain chemistry changes as they get older, and they think more like men. Not to mention, they look more like men as they age too...: )

Leyla,

I would like to see what you consider refutations of Freudian psychoanalysis.

Based on evidence, most of the treatment procedure doesn’t work very well, and there is very little evidence that the core symptoms he was trying to treat actually generalize across the entire population. Basically, the entire analysis is based on incorrect assumptions about human nature. Namely, we all supposed to have repressed memories from childhood that are driving us mad, and we need to dig deep within ourselves to bring them to the surface. Or that we secretly have sexual feelings towards our opposite sex parent, and so on and so on.. Freud was fully of bizarre theories. Freudian psychoanalysis hinges on a views of the mind where it seen as a hydraulic apparatus that pushes memory and experiences deep into the unconscious, and the psychologist must probe deep into the mind uncovering what it all means. However, a person’s neurosis is almost always very transparent and quite accessible merely through the Socratic method. Freud also put an absurd about of importance on dream interpretation, which pretty much made him snake oil salesman.

Moreover, the division between the ego and superego is problematic because man’s moral center is present in the very fabric of his self, there is no division, the question is whether a person’s morality, which is part of the self is enlightened or not. And I would also suggest that the animal drives are part of the self, as they influence and control cognitive activity.

Honestly, most of what Freud stated isn’t all that useful today. I will give him E for effort. One of Freud’s major problems is that the majority of his sample came from examining schizophrenics, himself and upper class women who had serious emotional issues. A very biased sample size. Basically, Freud wasn’t a decent philosopher because he had a difficult time pinning down core psychological truths about the nature of the self.

Loki,

it makes life funny.

Its funny because its false. People do not know why they laugh, but if you examine the reasons why you laugh it is because you are laughing at what you believe is falsehood. Charming Comedians are walking talking falsehood, and that is why they are funny. I am merely saying that an honest person is blunt and direct more than charming because they understand why charm is funny.
Our species has become spoiled by and addicted to humor. Recent research suggests that more and more people need to get their news from shows like the Colbert Report or the Jon Stewart Show. This suggests that people are less interested in serious news because it isn’t stimulating or entertaining enough for them. Seriousness is becoming increasingly boring by the general populous, which is quite a burden for humanity, and the intellectual community as a whole.

People need their truth, with a side of candy. However, the candy has become the important part, while they miss or fail to fully comprehend the truth part, mainly because they are so focused on receiving the punch line of the candy.

[cousinbasil]

I think it's pretty clear that appearing charming or charismatic requires an extra effort by a person to make what he is saying or doing more pleasing and/or important than it is. That in itself would be a clear diversion from simply speaking the truth and acting according to it, which should be the aim of anyone who wants to be rational. So you can't be both charming and fully rational at the same time.

The fully rational person realizes it is a waste of time saying anything if you alienate the listener before you even begin to make your thought known.

So far, Loki is clearly analyzing the situation the most rationally. Everyone else has an attitude, which in itself is not rational in the least. For instance, jup, you have declared that all social situations must be devoid of charm if they are to meet some standard of yours regarding what is rational or not. Someone like Loki is not on a high horse, insisting people behave in a certain way, his way, or else they are in some way inferior.

It is amazing that anyone would think Loki's approach is narcissistic in any way. He is not judging anyone. He is simply seeking to assess the social situation in which he finds himself prior to investing the time and energy in interacting. It is devoid of personal judgment and is purely pragmatic.

Here Loki makes the most compelling point:

I've done it before, I know what it's like to fail at being charming/likable.

So far no one else mentions having tried things both ways and honestly presenting the results. Which always speak for themselves.

[cousinbasil]

So what you're saying is, if I find a woman attractive, I should walk up to her and say I want to fuck her instead of trying to court her? No, the fact is that people simply cannot be blunt about their intentions in realistic social interactions because that is counterproductive. And while it may be argued that this is not an ideal system, it certainly is the real one.

Ha, the advantage of being near 50 years old. Women become more honest about these things, less coy, and you can be more honest as well.

Yeah, women near 50. The disadvantage for the man is that the women who are not around 50 as well are far less likely to be interested no matter how you present yourself, unless it is accompanied by more bling. They are more likely to think you are a dirty old man (who should shave off his gray beard...)

[jupiviv]

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that different people have different levels of potential, so the truth must be communicated to them in different ways. But that doesn't mean you can tell them lies, which is what "charm" essentially is. You can't conquer irrationality with irrationality, which is essentially what you'd be doing if you wanted to tell the truth in a "palatable" manner. The best bet is to speak the truth without bothering about whether the person will feel good about it or not.

[cousinbasil]

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that different people have different levels of potential, so the truth must be communicated to them in different ways. But that doesn't mean you can tell them lies, which is what "charm" essentially is. You can't conquer irrationality with irrationality, which is essentially what you'd be doing if you wanted to tell the truth in a "palatable" manner. The best bet is to speak the truth without bothering about whether the person will feel good about it or not.

No, it doesn't mean you should tell someone lies, obviously - that is by definition no way to communicate the truth. But you are equating charm with telling lies. This is a convenient belief for the lazy and or small mind. It is simply not true.

What you go on to say tells me you actually understand this - you say "without bothering about whether the person will feel good about it." Exactly. You are not bothering. That means not taking the trouble. The trouble, in other words, to be clear on whether your message is being delivered and understood. You are washing your hands of your responsibility. You are in effect saying "There, I did my part. I don't care how or even if the message is received."

Again, Loki's way seems to be taking the extra step of making sure the message is actually transferred. In IT terms, you are delivering a "connectionless" message, and Loki is transmitting in a "connectionful" way. Your way is faster with less overhead, because the message sender does not "care" if his message is received in part, in full, or at all. All he cares about is "I sent it - my task is finished."

Another obvious benefit of taking the receiver into consideration is that when you do, you are much more likely to be listened to in the future. In addition, if that person must communicate to you in the future, he is more likely to consider whether or not you received his message. You will be treated with the same level of respect you display to others. Again, Loki's approach is superior. It takes more effort, but it seems in most cases, it would be effort well spent, certainly more often than not.

[Ryan Rudolph]

CB,

Again, Loki's approach is superior. It takes more effort, but it seems in most cases, it would be effort well spent, certainly more often than not.

Loki's approach is only superior if one is trying to stay amicable with inferior people. The truth is never charming, it is often times perceived as harsh, arrogant, and confrontational, but it is only perceived that way to ego-centric people, people who have a lot to lose. Basically, charm replaces deep conversation, it is an entertaining scapegoat, but communication based on charm must always be inferior to communication based on direct and serious honesty.

There is good reasons why people who speak the truth often have threats against their lives, or hostility directed towards them. It is because the truth slices through the ego like a sword, whereas charm titillates the ego from all angles.

Speaking the truth is all that is necessary, it speaks for itself, there is no reason to distort it, water it down, and blur its serious meaning by conveying the message through a charming personality. On the contrary, charming people often make others feel insecure, inadequate, and as if they are missing something in themselves. This is because for many people, charm does not come natural, it is contrived, preplanned, rehearsed, like a show, and for that reason, in most cases it is dishonest to its core.