Typically female, (and typical of most midwits), the author focuses and defines "Charisma" in terms of conversations. However, as the common saying goes, 70% -90% of communication is non-verbal, and similarly for Charisma and other status effects. So right off the bat, we can see that the author is presenting a biased form of Charisma.
Her talk of Selfish Charisma and Selfless Charisma is also silly. Charisma is orthogonal to internal motivation. And an organization headed by selfish Charismatic individuals can still have strong social cohesion, with very satisfied members, compared to selfless charismatic-led organizations. To some extent, most people are at the mercy of the charismatic individuals in their lives. The author seems like she is bitter about that fact of life. Which is silly, and why her study is futile.
No comments:
Post a Comment