This is strikingly similar to how classical monotheists in the broadly Platonic tradition (Plotinus, Origen, Maimonides, etc.) describe God. God is considered as perfectly self-sufficient and blessed. And yet, out of goodness, God creates the universe (either eternally and involuntarily, per the Platonists, or temporally and voluntarily, per the biblical theologians).
God needs nothing from creation. And yet somehow this doesn't lead to a conception of God as aloof. Not only is God approachable; those who approach God through theurgy, sacrament, or covenant find themselves divinized.
I don't have any really profound conclusion to draw from this. But I think it's interesting that one popular strand of ancient philosophy conceived of the ultimate principle of reality as non-needy relationship, as enjoyment that flows from intrinsic abundance rather than remedied lack.
Five stories that crossed my mind while reading the article and your comment, Charles:
In C.S. Lewis's "Screwtape Letter", the demon counselling his nephew says that children are the hardest to tempt because they're the most present.
In relation to that, in "Finite and Eternal Being", Edith Stein writes that the present moment is the only one that truly exists and therefore, is the realest. It's the the only moment that comes closest to touching God (the truest and realest Being) and eternity, and coming back full circle to Uncle Screwtape, that's why children are considered to be closest to God and the hardest to tempt.
My friend's mother met Mother Teresa decades ago, and what struck her the most was the nun's ability to turn away from a busy crowd, grab both her hands, joyfully look her in the eyes and genuinely ask, "how are you?" without any apparent concern or worry about the thousand other things she had going on.
In "Brideshead Revisited", Evenly Waugh very astutely points out that the central mother figure in the story is "holy" but not a "saint", because people enjoy being around saints.
And finally, many squirm at the idea of joining religious organizations because they associate the concept of "God" with demands, but it's the intermediaries who are at fault for that. Jesus admonished the Pharisees for their hypocritical and unrealistic demands, while telling His own followers to come to Him after labouring and toiling because He wanted to give them rest.
Charles, this is quite a while ago you posted this, but if you might have a moment to share -- how does this mesh with the view that God is to be worshipped and praised? I'm not very knowledgable about religion and I've only begun recently to look into Christianity (which itself has so many denominations of ideologies and whatnot). But it strikes me as odd that there is a huge emphasis on praise and worship that comes off to me as seeming like God is nearly selfish/prideful (the kind of God that the communities I've experienced conceptualizes). Is this completely distinct from the way you think about it?
In this tradition, God is not some guy going around, insecurely demanding that people worship him. God is, rather, the transcendental source and actuality of all perfections. So, experiencing God compels worship in the same way that experiencing the Grand Canyon or Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata or the golden ratio compels worship.
That is, if the human being itself has a spark of divinity, which predisposes it to seek and love beauty, goodness, and truth, then worshiping the true, good, and beautiful is a natural and unforced act. On the other hand, worshiping any God-concept divorced from these would be a kind of idolatrous perversion.
Either way, though, the Neoplatonic God does not need worship or gain anything from it. Worship is for the good of the creature, bringing it to its completion. In some of these theologies, the end goal of the worshiper is theosis, becoming one with the divine.
This is such an interesting and enlightening post! I adore your use of archetypes here, I would have never thought to intertwine archetypes with this topic. My best friend and I recently had a conversation about why we're both charismatic people while having extremely different personalities. What I've boiled it down to is that inner security you mentioned, it garners respect, congruence, and transparency that people seem to really enjoy. I've noticed the times where I lose my charisma is regarding dating and romance, because I'm extremely insecure about myself in that area of my life. But in the art world and academia, I have confidence that does not exude the heaviness of desperation. It's also genuine curiousness that fuels charismatic people's attentive nature. When I'm in a regulated emotional state, I have no worries, expectations, or need for control. This freedom allows me to be curious. When I'm disregulated and anxious, I lose my capacity for curiousness because I'm searching for something to remedy my discomfort. That is when the "neediness" shines through and corrupts any remnants of my charisma. Thank you so much for this analysis, I now aspire to demand less of people and to stay curious!
I'm glad to hear it resonates. It's surprising how our charisma levels can totally vary in different aspects of our lives like you said. There's no one "charismatic personality" so as long as you're relaxed and genuine you and your friend can both be very charismatic!
Spot on: What I've boiled it down to is that inner security you mentioned, it garners respect, congruence, and transparency that people seem to really enjoy
> inner security you mentioned, it garners respect, congruence, and transparency that people seem to really enjoy.
Yes! I've been using "projecting a feeling of control" when referring to charisma in threads arguing about dating dynamics. I can't stand redpill incels who refuse to believe that male and female gaze are different, and that men need to be charismatic as per your quote here regardless of context (professional, social, platonic, romantic, serviceperson...)
Man this cuts deep. I used to be so charismatic when I was younger because I was innocent, I loved people and everyone fascinated me. Even boring fascinated me by how boring they were!
But I’ve been cut down by grief, I think I’ve been scared to really listen to anybody these days, god forbid I meet someone I actually like and lose them. I’ve been feeling needy and alone even when I’m with company. This is a great blueprint for finding my groove again.
“Cut down by grief” yes I relate to this very much. The charismatic people that come to mind in my life are those that haven’t been killed yet by a million paper cuts, that have been shielded from life’s worst moments by socioeconomic class.
Charisma can pull someone in, lead to a relationship perhaps, but a relationship cannot live on charisma. There inevitably come hard times where someone needs someone else and cannot authentically maintain the image that they don’t. We assign a lot of value to charisma nowadays, “rizz” and such and it can help in lots of endeavors (say, being likeable at work), but when it comes to rock bottom, it won’t save us.
I was going to say something very similar. What the author is calling “stickiness” can also be called “neediness” and is it really our ideal to never be needed? True close relationships are almost always messy and imperfect and full on needs
Yeah. I think you boiled it down perfectly, to two points: a genuine desire to interact with people, and a stable core. The later is way more important imo (because everyone, to an extent, wants the former, human as social animals bla blah blah). There is also an element of novelty I think, that underlies the personality of the charismatic person, that gives the extra glow to their auras compared to the masses that blend seamlessly into the background. As if it stands in sharper contrast amidst a mostly blurry background. And actually, I think also, point 3, the abundance mindset, energy flows outwards rather than into these charisma batteries ...
Altho personally, I think it is a little more subtle. I think the charismatic does pull in your energy, aka. your attention, but they reward you for it, above and beyond what you put in.
And the opposite type is what me and my friends call the blackhole: someone that fulfills criteria 1 and 2 but is an bottomless void when it comes to demanding energy from others.
And to add a little more nuance, I think the same person often straddles the line between the two. In physics terms, energy balance needs to be maintained, and the more you capacity you have, the more you demand. So the charismatic and the blackhole are the two opposite ends of this strategy wrt to the social demands they extract along with your attention
I think about it like jigsaw pieces. So many people spend their entire life looking for their "soul mate" - that perfect jigsaw piece that "fits them" and somehow makes them whole or completes their picture.
Not enough people do the work on themselves to make more spaces in their edges to become more compatible with a wider range of pieces (people).
Note that I don't mean this in a self-negating way, trying to "please everyone" and losing yourself in the process, but in a positive, self-affirming way by knowing who you are, where your needs arise from, and which are healthy and which are not, which are essential and which are "nice to have". Some of the most charismatic people I've met radiate a sense of calm self-possession. They know who they are and their own sense of self-worth, so when they turn their attention to you their attention feels authentic and unforced by a hidden agenda.
(note that this doesn't apply to all charismatic people... Robin Williams was wildly charismatic but calm certainly wouldn't be the phrase in anyone's mind when they remember him!)
Love what you wrote. I feel so far away from all that, though, because how does one actually, literally do the work of "learning/knowing who you are, where your needs arise from, and which are healthy and which are not, which are essential and which are 'nice to have'"? I don't know where or how to begin.
I have a history of dating people with false charisma, unfortunately. They tend to appear very cheerful and talkative and profess to be in love with everyone and then I find out how cynical, resentful, and shut down they are. I resonated with the description of rigid... they are surprisingly rigid and demanding in such a way that doesn't put any demand on themselves to mature, grow, embrace agency. I resonate strongly with feeling like they are hungry ghosts. They don't let anyone or anything in.
I've been hurt a lot and am scared all the time, but I'm present with my fear, and I still let people in slowly and with intention.
I usually pick up the false charisma/"i need you to make me feel better" energy but have work to do around trusting my intuition/trusting what I'm noticing, and so I have let these people stay longer in my life than they ought to have.
what type of relationship is possible with a charismatic person who is confident and doesn’t demand anything from you? is it one where you idolize the security they have but you are no different than every other person they know? maybe too cynical but i question if there might be a power dynamic
I can answer this because I realized that is me, the untouchable charismatic person that the needier more awkward friend thinks is at perfect ease. It’s dehumanizing. And when finally you need something from your “friend” who you have been dragging and buoying through harsh choppy social waters, when finally you have a weak spot and need care. You face a blank refusal to help you. An utter refusal to listen, to consider, to help because now you’ve failed them by being human. This is the dumbest take ever.
Beautiful read! I can rethink of an interaction I had this past year which started off well but ended up sour and It mainly happened through me losing the relationship I had with my core which in turn made me repulsive to be around. Humbling but it really exposed certain aspects I still have to work on within myself.
Another insight I got is that when there's no relationship - or a bad one at that-, you'll try to hold onto something that is outside of you - material possessions, relationships, positions etc - to feel a sense of wholeness but in reality it is your core crying out for your attention and further cultivation.
I have a bone to pick with Clinton being the beacon of charisma to which we all aspire. Do we all hoping to use and dispose of women by exploiting said “charisma” and power our whole lives? In fact, I hope to never meet a man like Clinton.
And I wonder if there’s some confusion here with charisma and leadership or power. Charisma is a glimmer, shine, glow certain people have or that certain people can have during periods of their life. It is an undefinable quality which is what makes it so alluring and sparkly. And my bet is it is purely physiological: those people we seem “charismatic” are emitting some kind of magnetic energy many, if not all of us can feel.
I think the important part here is reminding people that NOT everyone has to be charismatic. And, in terms of my life, most of the charismatic people I have met have been dangerous in terms of actually not caring about other people, but rather floating through life on a kind of dream cloud, soaking up the best of it. This article seems indicate that the benevolent charismatic is morally or downright humanly superior to others. I do not agree. And I don’t think someone can even work on increasing their charisma. It’s natural and uncontrollable.
this essay is so gorgeous, i hardly have any words to describe or add to it! thank you for writing this. it makes me want to write more, better, and has mirrored back to me some reflections on presence & charisma i am excited to notice and embody more of in my life. wow!
Wow thanks so much Isabel! I’m glad it matched your own impressions and I look forward to seeing any writing you do around this topic. I think you’re super charismatic already but I guess we’re about to see a new level unleash 🤭
<3 wow, thank you so much. i have sent this to a few of my most charismatic friends today and it sparked such lovely conversations and reflections. sending you lots of gratitude and warm holiday love!!!
To start of, I would like to mention that your post is extremely well written and articulated. I could see why you would think people who have the traits that you mentioned more charismatic than others, but I would like to humbly disagree with your opinion. Simply, because it oversimplifies what would make someone charismatic and more enjoyable to be around, reducing it to the single quality that you’ve mentioned: needing nothing from others, or as you’ve described it, demanding nothing from others.
First, the idea that charismatic people demand “nothing” ignores the concept that people bond over reciprocity. People feel close to each other when they share their experiences, their thoughts, and their whole being. In my point of view, a person who truly asks for nothing would be considered distant, rather than magnetic. What makes someone compelling isn’t their absence of need, but their ability to navigate it.
Second, the emphasis on how people “leave you feeling” is useful but also subjective and context dependent. Someone who heavily encourages autonomy and abundance can still be harmful in their detachment, for they might come off as dismissive or emotionally unavailable. Conversely, people who struggle with personal difficulties and have trouble expressing themselves openly aren’t less charismatic or enjoyable- sometimes, their openness and compelling makes them more compelling and real.
Lastly, the assertion that charismatic people are “empty vessels” who respond fluidly rather than resist seems like a romanticized ideal rather than the universal truth. Many charismatic figures have a strong, defined and even firm expectations of others. Charisma is about presence, passion and conviction as it is about fluidity and ease. In fact, some people draw in others precisely because they stand for something rather than effortlessly fitting in everywhere they go.
Sometimes human bonds is not about convenience, rather, it’s about authenticity and connection.
As I've gotten older, charisma has rather become a red flag. We all have needs and agendas, any relationship of depth and merit has not just 'outcome preferences' but duty bound obligations. The dull have to speak plainly, express their reality in as forthright a manner as possible, in short they have to be vulnerable. The charismatic, have a third option, they can lie. Looking back on decades of running my own business, it is the charismatic ones that are trouble, that try to coax, cajole and manipulate. The dull may haggle or complain, but they don't try to charm a new reality into being. The long time signature of a construction job has made me appreciate the plodding 'sticky' diligence of kantian honesty.
all of thisssss esp that ending “You have to actually like people, be present, and set down whatever stands between you and vibrant, pulsing reality.” ❤️🔥
The ease you feel around charismatic people, who you've characterised as having transcended the need for reciprocal connection, or more generously, as having mastered detachment, may reveal something about your boundaries rather than their virtue. I say this as someone who once organised my entire social world around this exact principle.
Think about it this way: if you feel stressed by others' emotional demands, the discomfort likely stems not from the demands themselves but from difficulty with self-advocacy. Feeling at ease around people who need things from you requires feeling at ease enforcing your own limits. It requires robust self-esteem. Without this foundation, ordinary human neediness will repel you and you'll reflexively gravitate toward people who don't threaten your equilibrium. Your locus of control is external in this instance, meaning it's inherently vulnerable because it depends entirely on another person's state to preserve itself. I'd call that dislocated. If your locus of control is external, being around people who are struggling will destabilise you.
Healthy self-esteem manifests as boundaries that contract, expand and adapt to context. This flexibility allows you to feel comfortable around most people, most of the time, regardless of where they are emotionally. When someone who can't contain themselves (your 'stickiness' metaphor implies emotional or spiritual contagion) leaves you feeling stressed, it can feel like they're colonising your inner state. But why? Do you think this dynamic is happening 'at' you, obscuring your own hand in co-creating it; and where in that co-creation lies your agency, your complicity?
What feels like preference can be avoidance in disguise, a form of self-protection. Experiencing others as 'sticky,' as leaving residue on you, grants them immense power. What if they're not so noxious as to be capable of leaving a big dirty boot print on your soul, but rather that your capacity to sit with discomfort (intense, demanding, troubling, frightening or otherwise negative states) is limited because you haven't quite got a handle on true self-possession?
You may be outsourcing the care you're responsible for giving yourself, to these so-called 'charismatic' individuals, perceiving them as closer to divinity than humanity, which denies them their personhood.
Robust boundaries, self-possession, and fluency with discomfort (the essential talents of genuine self-esteem) will inevitably transform your experience of charisma.
I realise I should present my own understanding of charisma:
My view is that it's a way of being with others that is permission-giving. A charismatic person is an anomalous one; their magnetism comes from their displacement as uncommon people. They extend an invitation for you to be more of yourself in real-time. They don't hold you to rigid expectations, freeing you from the scripts that bind us all a bit too tight sometimes. Their presence and engagement allow a profound relief from performance, with an intensity that pins you to the present, creating a pleasure that's hard to name.
To me this comes from curiosity and just the right kind of friction. You're seen and heard; you feel safe enough to offer more of yourself than you expected, which is always delightful. A charismatic person has a way of orienting you toward things you might've judged as too ridiculous or too 'something' to express in a meaningful way.
Should you accept their invitation to co-design a dynamic (a conversation or whatever it may be), your self-consciousness will recede and you'll feel connected and alive, thrilled and at ease.
A charismatic person offers themselves as a flint stone, and you can see here how much of this is contingent upon the other person striking themselves against it, how little passivity there is in all of it, from both parties.
How you respond to this kind of presence reflects your relationship to need, to reciprocity, and to your own curiosity.
This is strikingly similar to how classical monotheists in the broadly Platonic tradition (Plotinus, Origen, Maimonides, etc.) describe God. God is considered as perfectly self-sufficient and blessed. And yet, out of goodness, God creates the universe (either eternally and involuntarily, per the Platonists, or temporally and voluntarily, per the biblical theologians).
God needs nothing from creation. And yet somehow this doesn't lead to a conception of God as aloof. Not only is God approachable; those who approach God through theurgy, sacrament, or covenant find themselves divinized.
I don't have any really profound conclusion to draw from this. But I think it's interesting that one popular strand of ancient philosophy conceived of the ultimate principle of reality as non-needy relationship, as enjoyment that flows from intrinsic abundance rather than remedied lack.
Five stories that crossed my mind while reading the article and your comment, Charles:
In C.S. Lewis's "Screwtape Letter", the demon counselling his nephew says that children are the hardest to tempt because they're the most present.
In relation to that, in "Finite and Eternal Being", Edith Stein writes that the present moment is the only one that truly exists and therefore, is the realest. It's the the only moment that comes closest to touching God (the truest and realest Being) and eternity, and coming back full circle to Uncle Screwtape, that's why children are considered to be closest to God and the hardest to tempt.
My friend's mother met Mother Teresa decades ago, and what struck her the most was the nun's ability to turn away from a busy crowd, grab both her hands, joyfully look her in the eyes and genuinely ask, "how are you?" without any apparent concern or worry about the thousand other things she had going on.
In "Brideshead Revisited", Evenly Waugh very astutely points out that the central mother figure in the story is "holy" but not a "saint", because people enjoy being around saints.
And finally, many squirm at the idea of joining religious organizations because they associate the concept of "God" with demands, but it's the intermediaries who are at fault for that. Jesus admonished the Pharisees for their hypocritical and unrealistic demands, while telling His own followers to come to Him after labouring and toiling because He wanted to give them rest.
yes, i love any conception of Divine Reality that is non-possessive, but is still deeply delighted, affected, generous. <3
Charles, this is quite a while ago you posted this, but if you might have a moment to share -- how does this mesh with the view that God is to be worshipped and praised? I'm not very knowledgable about religion and I've only begun recently to look into Christianity (which itself has so many denominations of ideologies and whatnot). But it strikes me as odd that there is a huge emphasis on praise and worship that comes off to me as seeming like God is nearly selfish/prideful (the kind of God that the communities I've experienced conceptualizes). Is this completely distinct from the way you think about it?
In this tradition, God is not some guy going around, insecurely demanding that people worship him. God is, rather, the transcendental source and actuality of all perfections. So, experiencing God compels worship in the same way that experiencing the Grand Canyon or Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata or the golden ratio compels worship.
That is, if the human being itself has a spark of divinity, which predisposes it to seek and love beauty, goodness, and truth, then worshiping the true, good, and beautiful is a natural and unforced act. On the other hand, worshiping any God-concept divorced from these would be a kind of idolatrous perversion.
Either way, though, the Neoplatonic God does not need worship or gain anything from it. Worship is for the good of the creature, bringing it to its completion. In some of these theologies, the end goal of the worshiper is theosis, becoming one with the divine.
I think this Substack comment healed my brain from years of obligatory church performance
And Jesus christ is also kind of described like this!! someone who is always tapped into the source, abundant
This is a great comparison I'd have never connected both of this things!
brilliant observation. thankyou.
This is such an interesting and enlightening post! I adore your use of archetypes here, I would have never thought to intertwine archetypes with this topic. My best friend and I recently had a conversation about why we're both charismatic people while having extremely different personalities. What I've boiled it down to is that inner security you mentioned, it garners respect, congruence, and transparency that people seem to really enjoy. I've noticed the times where I lose my charisma is regarding dating and romance, because I'm extremely insecure about myself in that area of my life. But in the art world and academia, I have confidence that does not exude the heaviness of desperation. It's also genuine curiousness that fuels charismatic people's attentive nature. When I'm in a regulated emotional state, I have no worries, expectations, or need for control. This freedom allows me to be curious. When I'm disregulated and anxious, I lose my capacity for curiousness because I'm searching for something to remedy my discomfort. That is when the "neediness" shines through and corrupts any remnants of my charisma. Thank you so much for this analysis, I now aspire to demand less of people and to stay curious!
I'm glad to hear it resonates. It's surprising how our charisma levels can totally vary in different aspects of our lives like you said. There's no one "charismatic personality" so as long as you're relaxed and genuine you and your friend can both be very charismatic!
Spot on: What I've boiled it down to is that inner security you mentioned, it garners respect, congruence, and transparency that people seem to really enjoy
“ When I'm disregulated and anxious, I lose my capacity for curiousness because I'm searching for something to remedy my discomfort.”
This is sooo good.
> inner security you mentioned, it garners respect, congruence, and transparency that people seem to really enjoy.
Yes! I've been using "projecting a feeling of control" when referring to charisma in threads arguing about dating dynamics. I can't stand redpill incels who refuse to believe that male and female gaze are different, and that men need to be charismatic as per your quote here regardless of context (professional, social, platonic, romantic, serviceperson...)
Man this cuts deep. I used to be so charismatic when I was younger because I was innocent, I loved people and everyone fascinated me. Even boring fascinated me by how boring they were!
But I’ve been cut down by grief, I think I’ve been scared to really listen to anybody these days, god forbid I meet someone I actually like and lose them. I’ve been feeling needy and alone even when I’m with company. This is a great blueprint for finding my groove again.
“Cut down by grief” yes I relate to this very much. The charismatic people that come to mind in my life are those that haven’t been killed yet by a million paper cuts, that have been shielded from life’s worst moments by socioeconomic class.
Yeah, the last time I generally, GENUINELY liked people (besides my home church and a few close friends), was decades ago, when I was a preteen
Happy new year! Time healed some wounds and I don’t need shit from anyone now, time to charm the pants off someone
Charisma can pull someone in, lead to a relationship perhaps, but a relationship cannot live on charisma. There inevitably come hard times where someone needs someone else and cannot authentically maintain the image that they don’t. We assign a lot of value to charisma nowadays, “rizz” and such and it can help in lots of endeavors (say, being likeable at work), but when it comes to rock bottom, it won’t save us.
I was going to say something very similar. What the author is calling “stickiness” can also be called “neediness” and is it really our ideal to never be needed? True close relationships are almost always messy and imperfect and full on needs
I was thinking the same as you. Something feels unnatural when someone close to you never needs you.
I appreciate this perspective
“The most likable, charismatic, enjoyable people to be around are people who demand nothing of you.”
Outcome independence.
Yeah. I think you boiled it down perfectly, to two points: a genuine desire to interact with people, and a stable core. The later is way more important imo (because everyone, to an extent, wants the former, human as social animals bla blah blah). There is also an element of novelty I think, that underlies the personality of the charismatic person, that gives the extra glow to their auras compared to the masses that blend seamlessly into the background. As if it stands in sharper contrast amidst a mostly blurry background. And actually, I think also, point 3, the abundance mindset, energy flows outwards rather than into these charisma batteries ...
Altho personally, I think it is a little more subtle. I think the charismatic does pull in your energy, aka. your attention, but they reward you for it, above and beyond what you put in.
And the opposite type is what me and my friends call the blackhole: someone that fulfills criteria 1 and 2 but is an bottomless void when it comes to demanding energy from others.
And to add a little more nuance, I think the same person often straddles the line between the two. In physics terms, energy balance needs to be maintained, and the more you capacity you have, the more you demand. So the charismatic and the blackhole are the two opposite ends of this strategy wrt to the social demands they extract along with your attention
It is incredibly frustrating to be stuck at that threshold.
I think about it like jigsaw pieces. So many people spend their entire life looking for their "soul mate" - that perfect jigsaw piece that "fits them" and somehow makes them whole or completes their picture.
Not enough people do the work on themselves to make more spaces in their edges to become more compatible with a wider range of pieces (people).
Note that I don't mean this in a self-negating way, trying to "please everyone" and losing yourself in the process, but in a positive, self-affirming way by knowing who you are, where your needs arise from, and which are healthy and which are not, which are essential and which are "nice to have". Some of the most charismatic people I've met radiate a sense of calm self-possession. They know who they are and their own sense of self-worth, so when they turn their attention to you their attention feels authentic and unforced by a hidden agenda.
(note that this doesn't apply to all charismatic people... Robin Williams was wildly charismatic but calm certainly wouldn't be the phrase in anyone's mind when they remember him!)
Love what you wrote. I feel so far away from all that, though, because how does one actually, literally do the work of "learning/knowing who you are, where your needs arise from, and which are healthy and which are not, which are essential and which are 'nice to have'"? I don't know where or how to begin.
I have a history of dating people with false charisma, unfortunately. They tend to appear very cheerful and talkative and profess to be in love with everyone and then I find out how cynical, resentful, and shut down they are. I resonated with the description of rigid... they are surprisingly rigid and demanding in such a way that doesn't put any demand on themselves to mature, grow, embrace agency. I resonate strongly with feeling like they are hungry ghosts. They don't let anyone or anything in.
I've been hurt a lot and am scared all the time, but I'm present with my fear, and I still let people in slowly and with intention.
I usually pick up the false charisma/"i need you to make me feel better" energy but have work to do around trusting my intuition/trusting what I'm noticing, and so I have let these people stay longer in my life than they ought to have.
what type of relationship is possible with a charismatic person who is confident and doesn’t demand anything from you? is it one where you idolize the security they have but you are no different than every other person they know? maybe too cynical but i question if there might be a power dynamic
I can answer this because I realized that is me, the untouchable charismatic person that the needier more awkward friend thinks is at perfect ease. It’s dehumanizing. And when finally you need something from your “friend” who you have been dragging and buoying through harsh choppy social waters, when finally you have a weak spot and need care. You face a blank refusal to help you. An utter refusal to listen, to consider, to help because now you’ve failed them by being human. This is the dumbest take ever.
Beautiful read! I can rethink of an interaction I had this past year which started off well but ended up sour and It mainly happened through me losing the relationship I had with my core which in turn made me repulsive to be around. Humbling but it really exposed certain aspects I still have to work on within myself.
Another insight I got is that when there's no relationship - or a bad one at that-, you'll try to hold onto something that is outside of you - material possessions, relationships, positions etc - to feel a sense of wholeness but in reality it is your core crying out for your attention and further cultivation.
I have a bone to pick with Clinton being the beacon of charisma to which we all aspire. Do we all hoping to use and dispose of women by exploiting said “charisma” and power our whole lives? In fact, I hope to never meet a man like Clinton.
And I wonder if there’s some confusion here with charisma and leadership or power. Charisma is a glimmer, shine, glow certain people have or that certain people can have during periods of their life. It is an undefinable quality which is what makes it so alluring and sparkly. And my bet is it is purely physiological: those people we seem “charismatic” are emitting some kind of magnetic energy many, if not all of us can feel.
I think the important part here is reminding people that NOT everyone has to be charismatic. And, in terms of my life, most of the charismatic people I have met have been dangerous in terms of actually not caring about other people, but rather floating through life on a kind of dream cloud, soaking up the best of it. This article seems indicate that the benevolent charismatic is morally or downright humanly superior to others. I do not agree. And I don’t think someone can even work on increasing their charisma. It’s natural and uncontrollable.
this essay is so gorgeous, i hardly have any words to describe or add to it! thank you for writing this. it makes me want to write more, better, and has mirrored back to me some reflections on presence & charisma i am excited to notice and embody more of in my life. wow!
Wow thanks so much Isabel! I’m glad it matched your own impressions and I look forward to seeing any writing you do around this topic. I think you’re super charismatic already but I guess we’re about to see a new level unleash 🤭
<3 wow, thank you so much. i have sent this to a few of my most charismatic friends today and it sparked such lovely conversations and reflections. sending you lots of gratitude and warm holiday love!!!
To start of, I would like to mention that your post is extremely well written and articulated. I could see why you would think people who have the traits that you mentioned more charismatic than others, but I would like to humbly disagree with your opinion. Simply, because it oversimplifies what would make someone charismatic and more enjoyable to be around, reducing it to the single quality that you’ve mentioned: needing nothing from others, or as you’ve described it, demanding nothing from others.
First, the idea that charismatic people demand “nothing” ignores the concept that people bond over reciprocity. People feel close to each other when they share their experiences, their thoughts, and their whole being. In my point of view, a person who truly asks for nothing would be considered distant, rather than magnetic. What makes someone compelling isn’t their absence of need, but their ability to navigate it.
Second, the emphasis on how people “leave you feeling” is useful but also subjective and context dependent. Someone who heavily encourages autonomy and abundance can still be harmful in their detachment, for they might come off as dismissive or emotionally unavailable. Conversely, people who struggle with personal difficulties and have trouble expressing themselves openly aren’t less charismatic or enjoyable- sometimes, their openness and compelling makes them more compelling and real.
Lastly, the assertion that charismatic people are “empty vessels” who respond fluidly rather than resist seems like a romanticized ideal rather than the universal truth. Many charismatic figures have a strong, defined and even firm expectations of others. Charisma is about presence, passion and conviction as it is about fluidity and ease. In fact, some people draw in others precisely because they stand for something rather than effortlessly fitting in everywhere they go.
Sometimes human bonds is not about convenience, rather, it’s about authenticity and connection.
As I've gotten older, charisma has rather become a red flag. We all have needs and agendas, any relationship of depth and merit has not just 'outcome preferences' but duty bound obligations. The dull have to speak plainly, express their reality in as forthright a manner as possible, in short they have to be vulnerable. The charismatic, have a third option, they can lie. Looking back on decades of running my own business, it is the charismatic ones that are trouble, that try to coax, cajole and manipulate. The dull may haggle or complain, but they don't try to charm a new reality into being. The long time signature of a construction job has made me appreciate the plodding 'sticky' diligence of kantian honesty.
all of thisssss esp that ending “You have to actually like people, be present, and set down whatever stands between you and vibrant, pulsing reality.” ❤️🔥
The ease you feel around charismatic people, who you've characterised as having transcended the need for reciprocal connection, or more generously, as having mastered detachment, may reveal something about your boundaries rather than their virtue. I say this as someone who once organised my entire social world around this exact principle.
Think about it this way: if you feel stressed by others' emotional demands, the discomfort likely stems not from the demands themselves but from difficulty with self-advocacy. Feeling at ease around people who need things from you requires feeling at ease enforcing your own limits. It requires robust self-esteem. Without this foundation, ordinary human neediness will repel you and you'll reflexively gravitate toward people who don't threaten your equilibrium. Your locus of control is external in this instance, meaning it's inherently vulnerable because it depends entirely on another person's state to preserve itself. I'd call that dislocated. If your locus of control is external, being around people who are struggling will destabilise you.
Healthy self-esteem manifests as boundaries that contract, expand and adapt to context. This flexibility allows you to feel comfortable around most people, most of the time, regardless of where they are emotionally. When someone who can't contain themselves (your 'stickiness' metaphor implies emotional or spiritual contagion) leaves you feeling stressed, it can feel like they're colonising your inner state. But why? Do you think this dynamic is happening 'at' you, obscuring your own hand in co-creating it; and where in that co-creation lies your agency, your complicity?
What feels like preference can be avoidance in disguise, a form of self-protection. Experiencing others as 'sticky,' as leaving residue on you, grants them immense power. What if they're not so noxious as to be capable of leaving a big dirty boot print on your soul, but rather that your capacity to sit with discomfort (intense, demanding, troubling, frightening or otherwise negative states) is limited because you haven't quite got a handle on true self-possession?
You may be outsourcing the care you're responsible for giving yourself, to these so-called 'charismatic' individuals, perceiving them as closer to divinity than humanity, which denies them their personhood.
Robust boundaries, self-possession, and fluency with discomfort (the essential talents of genuine self-esteem) will inevitably transform your experience of charisma.
I realise I should present my own understanding of charisma:
My view is that it's a way of being with others that is permission-giving. A charismatic person is an anomalous one; their magnetism comes from their displacement as uncommon people. They extend an invitation for you to be more of yourself in real-time. They don't hold you to rigid expectations, freeing you from the scripts that bind us all a bit too tight sometimes. Their presence and engagement allow a profound relief from performance, with an intensity that pins you to the present, creating a pleasure that's hard to name.
To me this comes from curiosity and just the right kind of friction. You're seen and heard; you feel safe enough to offer more of yourself than you expected, which is always delightful. A charismatic person has a way of orienting you toward things you might've judged as too ridiculous or too 'something' to express in a meaningful way.
Should you accept their invitation to co-design a dynamic (a conversation or whatever it may be), your self-consciousness will recede and you'll feel connected and alive, thrilled and at ease.
A charismatic person offers themselves as a flint stone, and you can see here how much of this is contingent upon the other person striking themselves against it, how little passivity there is in all of it, from both parties.
How you respond to this kind of presence reflects your relationship to need, to reciprocity, and to your own curiosity.