The Evil of Charm

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: The Evil of Charm

Post by Tomas »

DHodges wrote:
Facade wrote: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.
Right on Dave.

Women (being women of any age) can read a phony from the first five sentences out of a guy's mouth. After all, the woman carries the burden of having to have herself injected with his seminal fluids and not ever really knowing whether she will ever see the dude again or not. Accidents do happen more often later in age and the woman understands that a man with age will be a better all-around steady companion (partner, mate) who will tend to be more trustworthy than the man in his twenties, thirties etc.

Stability is still the norm, not the one night stands that the players offer each other.

It's still somewhat flattering to be seriously hit on by a girl (women) in their twenties :-)
Don't run to your death
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: The Evil of Charm

Post by cousinbasil »

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.
We might be talking about two different things. I don't recall suggesting altering the message, i.e., distorting the truth (so that it is no longer ther truth) to make it more palatable. If you think that is what charm is, then I would agree with you.

I think charm and truth have nothing to do with each other. I don't favor going around stroking other people's egos, if that is what you mean by charm. What you say is true, that charm does not come naturally to many people. Therefore, such people should rehearse all the more before presenting the show.

When you say "speaking the truth is all that is necessary," you are missing many points at once. To begin with, it presupposes the speaker knows the truth, or even a truth. Most people confuse their own opinions with the truth, and many wouldn't know the truth if it them in the head with a hammer. All too often, people blurt out their opinions and believe what they are doing is telling the truth.

But if you mean make sure what you say is true, then I would agree.

Ryan, I think you are saying that charm is often disagreeable, but then much of life is. Usually, though, charm is just the opposite, by its very nature. Speaking the truth in a more agreeable way might cause more people to see it or accept it.
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: The Evil of Charm

Post by Nick »

Loki wrote: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.
I don't actually think you're a narcissist Loki :) ... but I don't believe you're thinking this through all the way. Using empathy in our human relations with sincerity to bring about a positive outcome has nothing to do with charm. I've used charm as well, and there's nothing sincere about it.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The Evil of Charm

Post by jupiviv »

cousinbasil wrote: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."
How does not caring about whether a person feels good about what I said mean that I also don't care whether they understand what I said or not? There is a clear distinction between feeling good about something and understanding something.

Moreover, you can't expect everyone to understand the truth - in fact, most people will either be incapable or refuse to understand it. It's human nature - they are human, all too human. The Buddha was probably the most superior teacher of truth, and virtually no one understands what he has said. So with Jesus, the Hindu philosophers, etc.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: The Evil of Charm

Post by cousinbasil »

Using empathy in our human relations with sincerity to bring about a positive outcome has nothing to do with charm. I've used charm as well, and there's nothing sincere about it.
Actually, Nick, if you are defining charm to be cloying and smarmy and false, one would find it difficult to disagree with the vehement disdain it seems to be eliciting in this thread.

I believe most people do not define it that way. I do think most people are repulsed by overt manipulation, and even that which is not so overt if becomes noticed. It is condescending and phony.

Just think of how people use the term "charming." When describing someone, it is often interchangeable with the word "delightful." Contrast charm with guile.
Facade
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:56 pm

Re: The Evil of Charm

Post by Facade »

jupiviv wrote: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.
I don't agree with this. The statement, "That in itself would be a clear diversion from simply speaking the truth and acting according to it" appears to presume that it is possible for one to convey perfectly some abstract idea. However there are two big problems with that idea.

The first is that whenever we communicate, we convey selective elements of something, and thereby selectively suppress other 'truths', therefor we are never telling the entire truth. For example, let's say my gay Marxist friend is coming over for dinner. I might tell another friend, "my gay friend is coming over for dinner tonight", or I might say "my Marxist friend is coming over tonight", depending upon what suits my designs. And there are of course a whole host of other characteristics which I could equally well attribute in describing this person, but in reality we communicate what truths best serve some function. The second problem with your statement is that it presumes that truths in conversation exit from the mind of one person and enter the mind of another perfectly. But the fact is that only in cases of very concrete entities can a linguistic reference translate to the same thing for both persons in a conversation, and even when that is possible, there are different connotations for that reference derived from personal experience. This is the basis of the philosophy of "deconstruction", which exemplifies what I'm talking about but unfortunately goes a little too far with the concept. The assertion that there is an objective transmission of ideas is absurd because everyone has different subjective perceptual modalities.

Also your statements seem to allude that there is some great amount of conscious effort required to be charming. And I agree with you in the case of a person with little charm consciously trying to increase his facility. However I consider charm to be a "learned" skill and, like riding a bike, its performance requires little conscious attention once it has achieved a certain level of conditioning.
Last edited by Facade on Wed Nov 03, 2010 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Facade
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:56 pm

Re: The Evil of Charm

Post by Facade »

DHodges wrote:
Facade wrote: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.
I have reflected on the differences in interpersonal communication throughout more advanced years of life. They strike me as more direct, as if one has already experienced enough interpersonal 'games' has concluded that such rituals are no longer necessary. That is something I will enjoy if I live to be that age.
Last edited by Facade on Wed Nov 03, 2010 5:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Facade
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:56 pm

Re: The Evil of Charm

Post by Facade »

Ryan Rudolph wrote: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...: )
I find some irony in the rejection of our animal nature. Such a stance is usually held by those with a philosophical/scientific temperament and is solidified by a disdain for 'primitive' behaviors one recognizes within broader contexts than the instinctual. I admit that at one point I myself was included in the phenomenon I've described. Mostly as a result of unresolved angst and anger. It is apparent you hold this stance yourself, statements you make including "blind animal behaviour", and "the whole activity is irrational" obviate that. It appears you might think that anything a human ever does is rational in some objective sense.

I will point out that any activity or pursuit you engage in cannot be objectively rational because there is no rationality in the objective sense, that is, there is no preference for one thing over another when actions are viewed from the objective lens. People can only behave rationally in accordance with some subjective standard. Now people can lie and delude themselves all they want into whatever standards please them, but as pattern-recognizing cerebrally-endowed animals, let's consider what is objective about human nature. Fact is, we've all got limbic systems with genetically-programmed sensitivities, as well as cerebral cortices which play the role of satisfying our limbic desires (that is why there is more output to the cortex from the limbic system than input, and why our feelings control our behavior). Seems like not only are our animal needs pretty important, but they're actually in control of our minds. And it is well documented by the sciences that when our innate needs are neglected, certain consequences follow, such as poorer health, lowered self-confidence and happiness, and a higher disposition toward mental illness.

This is what I'm getting at: The hardware's there right? We need to fuck and fulfill social drives, right? I can try to rationalize my way out of that because maybe that's an area of my life I've neglected, and maybe I spend more time thinking about metaphysics than how to get in that one hot girl's pants. But the truth is, and the end of the day I'm still an animal just trying to reduce emotional anxiety. I think about metaphysics because I derive intellectual pleasure from that activity. I also recognize that if I don't take care of my social needs, if only in a minimal way, I'm going to suffer because that's how social animals are programmed. Tying this back in with the topic of charm, charm is an effective means to fulfill instinctual needs and I cannot see how it can be considered a bad thing. I would also like to make clear that I am not glorifying social instinct and being a slave to sexual impulses, but I am saying some balance should be maintained if only for the reason of health and being open-minded instead of judgmental.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: The Evil of Charm

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Facade,
People can only behave rationally in accordance with some subjective standard.
Yes, I agree. Our subjective values guide behaviour to some extent.
Fact is, we've all got limbic systems with genetically-programmed sensitivities, as well as cerebral cortices which play the role of satisfying our limbic desires (that is why there is more output to the cortex from the limbic system than input, and why our feelings control our behavior). Seems like not only are our animal needs pretty important, but they're actually in control of our minds. And it is well documented by the sciences that when our innate needs are neglected, certain consequences follow, such as poorer health, lowered self-confidence and happiness, and a higher disposition toward mental illness.
The hardware is there, and I don’t believe we can deny certain aspects of our biology. I believe for example that most humans should have opposite sex companions that complement their own personalities. I think a solitary life for most results in pathology. However, we do not have to fall victim of the causal consequences of playing the emotional games necessary to satisfy our biology. We can satisfy certain aspects of our biology without actually going through rituals, and preprogrammed emotional behaviours. For instance: Romanticism (based on the animal drive) tends to delude each participant, they fail to analyze the other’s imperfections, they have overly exaggerated and inflated views of the other. They are trying to see the other person through the mental filter of a cognitive drug addict.

I think it would actually be more honest and sane to fake the entire romantic process if you really wanted a woman, then you would avoid the causal emotional consequences, but still attain the goal of biological companion. And then you could still treat her with respect, care and compassion, but divert the extreme effects of the initial romantic response/attachment.

Moreover, the real danger I see with using the old pre-programmed emotional behaviors is we often develop cognitive strategies to satisfy their biology, and those systems of thought become conditioned, and neurotically wired over time, and become part of our personality, which I think is a loss of authenticity. Then the thinker responds automatically to stimulus without any thought at all, it becomes a pre-programmed response. That is why one should have a healthy discontent with our biological conditioning, it is sobering. It keeps the individual on his toes.
charm is an effective means to fulfill instinctual needs and I cannot see how it can be considered a bad thing.
The real danger of charm is that one’s cognition can become a slave to charm, a slave to a type of behaviour that causes a pleasurable response. Some people are all charm, but when you ask them a deep question, there is nobody home, you follow? Their personality is like a shallow survival adaptation, a learned response over decades. However, I would argue that they lack any real authenticity, and any real relationship to reality. Charm is dangerous to the extent that any pleasurable activity is dangerous, it has the ability to takes up a vast amount neurological space in the mind, and if one isn't logical, then all ones charm will be used to manipulate, and control the environment in order to satisfy biology.

However, I'm not advocating totally abandoning charm, or attempting to deny our biology. I'm suggesting one needs to have an awareness of how much cognitive control these behaviors have over your mind. And to what end is charm being put to use. Moreover, I think one can accept ones own biological limitations, but still express criticism and discontent over certain aspects of the ones conditioning. I suppose I have this ideal of absolute freedom/clarity, where my motives are always transparent, and my language is always clear. And my charm never controls people to the extent that they are not aware of the effects. I suppose I idealize a reality where we are all conscious and aware of everything we think. However, to live in the world, one is going to have to compromise for ones own sanity. And so, charm is necessary to that degree. Each individual will need to decide to what end they will deploy charm, and if charm is excessive, immoral and so on. However, we should never lose touch with that part of the mind that yearns for the higher, yearns for something other than biological satisfaction. And that doesn't mean that one can't experience a certain degree of happiness through biological satisfaction, but one shouldn't lose touch with the deeper impulse. The one that keeps you curious, skeptical, hungry for wisdom and all the rest of it...
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: The Evil of Charm

Post by Leyla Shen »

Ryan:
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.
LOL!

You have the gall to brush the matter of thusly--here!--and keep a straight face??? Is there a woman who doesn't have serious emotional issues, Ryan?
Between Suicides
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: The Evil of Charm

Post by cousinbasil »

Leyla wrote:You have the gall to brush the matter of thusly--here!--and keep a straight face??? Is there a woman who doesn't have serious emotional issues, Ryan?
Certainly not here.
Carmel

Re: The Evil of Charm

Post by Carmel »

Leyla:

LOL!

You have the gall to brush the matter of thusly--here!--and keep a straight face??? Is there a woman who doesn't have serious emotional issues, Ryan?

Carmel:

wow...what a compelling argument. You forgot to follow the prototypical template for most of the posts about women here, which is as follows:

Random and arbitrary generalizations about women unsupported by any actual evidence which is then followed by the logical fallacy of an anecdotal story. There are a few variations of this general pattern, but that's really the gist of it. bleh.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: The Evil of Charm

Post by Leyla Shen »

It got what it deserved. Thanks for consolidating the point, unwittingly....

:)
Between Suicides
Carmel

Re: The Evil of Charm

Post by Carmel »

Leyla:
It got what it deserved. Thanks for consolidating the point, unwittingly....

:)

Carmel:
What a dumbass.
Yeah, that's right, I went on a shooting rampage after I read your lame post.

It's a shame because you could've run circles around Ryan's "bloated" response to you if you so chose, as you are obviously far more intelligent and educated than he is, but instead you take the lazy way out with a vacuous attack on women. pitiful
thesaintofvenus
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 4:42 am

Re: The Evil of Charm

Post by thesaintofvenus »

"Alpha male CEOs, managers, false spiritual teachers, cult leaders, military leaders, and many other types are usually skilled at the evil art of charm, which is used to control large numbers of ignorant unknowing victims."

This may come as a surprise to you Randolph, but as every other quality bestowed upon man, wether through learning or inate, "Charm" is a neutral attribute. The main point i'm making here is that, you should not look upon "Charm" as being an evil quality, rather you should look at those who are applying it and in what manner are they doing so. The way in which you look at it will be like saying performing a surgical operation is evil. The quality of a doctor, in this case aquired through learning, to operate, is not evil. if however this doctor is using this quality/skill to cause harm upon his patients, then the doctor is an evildoer, using his skill only as a means for his evildoings. But do we say that because the doctor uses this quality/skill to do evil that means that the skill in itself is evil? Absolutely not! It's absurd. Now in regards to the quote above, these people you listed are only possessors of "Charm," and if they misuse it to further some evil interest, then they are evil, not the quality they possess.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The Evil of Charm

Post by jupiviv »

Carmel wrote:You forgot to follow the prototypical template for most of the posts about women here, which is as follows:

Random and arbitrary generalizations about women unsupported by any actual evidence which is then followed by the logical fallacy of an anecdotal story. There are a few variations of this general pattern, but that's really the gist of it. bleh.

Well judging by this very statement, you are conforming to the same template, so I don't see why you repeatedly express your disagreement with it.
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: The Evil of Charm

Post by Blair »

aha. ahaha. ahahahaha!

Isn't life just full of irony...
Carmel

Re: The Evil of Charm

Post by Carmel »

jupiviv:

Well judging by this very statement, you are conforming to the same template, so I don't see why you repeatedly express your disagreement with it.

Carmel:

Yeah, we get it, kid, you're austistic...keep talking to yourself...
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: The Evil of Charm

Post by Blair »

Sound the Bells of indignance!
Carmel

Re: The Evil of Charm

Post by Carmel »

Would you have preferred it if I had just called him a "shitweasel"?
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The Evil of Charm

Post by jupiviv »

Carmel wrote:
jupiviv wrote:Yeah, we get it, kid, you're austistic...keep talking to yourself...
Judging by this statement, you must be my imaginary online "other self."

Hi!
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: The Evil of Charm

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Saint,
"Charm" is a neutral attribute.
Charm is neutral in the abstract, but human nature is far from neutral. A large percentage of humanity's use of charm is unconscious, and unconscious behavior tends to be misused and abused by nature. There seems to be only a very small percentage of the population that is aware of their use of charm at all times, so making the generalization that charm tends to be evil is a useful judgement.

Caramel,
It's a shame because you could've run circles around Ryan's "bloated" response to you if you so chose,
I wasn't aware that "bloated" was an acceptable attack of someone's arguments. I would like to believe my posts are thorough. They need to be when you discuss something so complicated that can easily be misinterpreted. But then again, most people would rather read part of a post just long enough to misinterpret it through their own inherit biases, then to actually read through it, and attempt to think about it critically.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: The Evil of Charm

Post by Leyla Shen »

Carmel:
[...] but instead you take the lazy way out with a vacuous attack on women. pitiful
Actually, it's called "sarcasm." An acquired taste, I suppose..... :)
Between Suicides
Carmel

Re: The Evil of Charm

Post by Carmel »

Ryan Rudolph:
Charm is neutral in the abstract, but human nature is far from neutral. A large percentage of humanity's use of charm is unconscious, and unconscious behavior tends to be misused and abused by nature. There seems to be only a very small percentage of the population that is aware of their use of charm at all times, so making the generalization that charm tends to be evil is a useful judgement.

Carmel:
The whole premise of this faulty notion that charm is "evil" reminds me of something Nietzsche said:

"The Christian resolve to find the world evil and ugly, has made the world evil and ugly."

You're creating your own hell...

Ryan:
But then again, most people would rather read part of a post just long enough to misinterpret it through their own inherit biases, then to actually read through it, and attempt to think about it critically.

Carmel:
most people? including you?

I do hope you ponder the meaning of that Nietzsche quote...
Last edited by Carmel on Sun Nov 14, 2010 4:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Carmel

Re: The Evil of Charm

Post by Carmel »

Leyla:
Actually, it's called "sarcasm." An acquired taste, I suppose..... :)

Carmel:
Next up at Genius Forum: "The Evil of Sarcasm".

...nah, I'm just being sarcastic, but be careful, Leyla, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, so they say and a little goes a long way... ;)
Locked