Initial observations of transcripts of charismatic people talking

Inspired by observing Trump, making a transcript of my brother talking about his career progression (for a business class), and reading the transcript of one of the compsci professors who’s charismatic but an awful teacher.

Observations:

  • They never actually finish a sentence, they just keep starting new ones with new tangents.
  • The semantic content could be summarized as all adjectives and meme/tech jargon buzzwords.
  • They always leave an impression with the buzzwords and stuff that makes you trust their judgment re: their opinions. E.g. “Cloud computing is ridiculous but useful but limited.”
  • The opposite of monotone.
  • It resists summary. That’s a big reason why they’re bad at teaching, if someone were to ask you what you learned afterward, you wouldn’t be able to say. There’s no logical progression in it. [Ed: in the sense of unpacking a thesis, top-down, or constructing an abstraction from components, bottom-up.]
  • The nuggets of real insight are dropped randomly to reinforce the good impression you have of their competence, but you could never become competent by listening to them.

It’s dynamic rambling, basically.
Theatrical opinionating would be a better description.
That’s pretty much all I got.
I’ve heard Trumptalk described as “chiastic” but I don’t understand what it means.

An interesting contrast to this would be highly-rated professors with a reputation for actually teaching students
is chiastic supposed to mean “stochastic?”

No, it was a very high-IQ person saying it.
160ish.

perhaps also popular youtube channels meant to be educational
i.e. kurzgezart or however you spell it

I’m thinking of Jordan Peterson’s personality/IQ class as another good example. You learn a lot but you wouldn’t be able to pass a test on the subject of any of the lectures.

chiasmus (noun) In rhetoric, the arrangement of repeated, parallel, or contrasted words or phrases in two pairs, the second of which reverses the order of the first: as, do not live to eat, but eat to live
great minds…was also about to mention JP
looks like “chiastic” is intended to mean something along the lines of “straightforward, without any complicated rhetorical tricks”
no funny wordplay where people might get confused about the order of words and come away with the wrong message

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np0lWfmBPaQ
In fact, I’d compare all of these charismatic people to Poor Richard’s Almanac or similar.
If you just read through a book of proverbs, you learn a lot, but not about anything in particular.
It’s more about putting the proper emphasis on things.
I.e. What’s communicated is values and comparative valuations of those values.

right, you drink of a worldview instead of consuming a list of facts

Bah!
I don’t like it.
And it takes practice to drop into Trump mode at the drop of a hat.
I have to credit the Daily Shoah for teaching me social skills.
It worked because they made it ideological first, which short-circuits the Asperger’s brain into acceptance, and then they demonstrate ad nauseum.
Basically Game is this plus canned material if you ever run into a brick wall.
Learn some jokes!

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Initial observations of transcripts of charismatic people talking

  1. ShadoHand says:

    `They never actually finish a sentence, they just keep starting new ones with new tangents.`

    And according to The High Priests of The Atheist, Openly Heretical, and Blasphemous Uconstitutional State Sponsored Religion of Logical Fallacies that my friends is a symptom of Schizophrenia.

    Its called thought blocking. And tangential speech is a key component delusional disorder.

    And thats the final nail the coffin for anyone that still beleives in that bullshit.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      Trump-style talking isn’t the same thing as thought blocking.

      • ShadoHand says:

        According to the definitions of the words, the behavior is the same.

        And the bet is $500USD.

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          You don’t get to raise the stakes of a friendly, honor system wager unilaterally.

          • LOADED says:

            Aeoli how would you describe my charisma. it doesnt fit into these categories and you told me i had potential for 99th percentile ability in this field. i want answers!

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              > Aeoli how would you describe my charisma

              In Cabane’s model, I’d describe your style of charisma as primarily presence-based, secondarily warmth-based, and lacking the impression of competence. The primary way people signal competence is by referring to technical knowledge in an area they’ve specialized in, which in your case would be academic concepts about business. There are other ways, but I’d encourage you to focus on this one to make the most ground. For example, “This situation reminds me of a case study I read once, where blah blah blah happened, and I think something similar could happen in this situation because technical jargon terms x, y, and z.”

            • LOADED says:

              would you categorize me as a polymath? i think you said i was very bright practically speaking but abstractly i struggled and that was more of my passion in life!

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              I would not categorize you as a polymath, no. (I wouldn’t categorize myself as a polymath either.)

            • LOADED says:

              we both know pretty much a little about everything thus qualifying us to be very weak polymaths wouldnt you agree to this arrangement?

            • LOADED says:

              what are some phenotypical assessments you have for me? i think im very competent in self-knowledge and understanding of humans.

            • LOADED says:

              phenotypical meaning phrenology aesthetics etc. also i commend you on answering one of the questions i had asked in imperativeness but there is the other of the literality of the Book of Revelations that comes to mind and makes me wonder about your thought process on the matter.

              if you could get back to me about that i would love to have a basic introduction to the topic!

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              I already answered that.

            • LOADED says:

              by implying that you take everything in the Bible literally? sorry my understanding of your position is still unclear can you clarify in a much simpler way?

              again pardon my incompetency here.

      • LOADED says:

        so youre not even going to give any reply into the situation when your whole model is wrong and sucks?

        wow you are a self-aggrandizing meathead who only cares about his grandiosities then!

  2. LOADED says:

    Aeoli you said i was very charismatic and i behave in none of these ways nor do i employ these tactics as a way of carrying out the charisma’s end missions as outlined by you.

    whats the deal?

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      > They never actually finish a sentence, they just keep starting new ones with new tangents.

      You finish sentences but the bit about tangents certainly applies.

      > The semantic content could be summarized as all adjectives and meme/tech jargon buzzwords.
      > They always leave an impression with the buzzwords and stuff that makes you trust their judgment re: their opinions. E.g. “Cloud computing is ridiculous but useful but limited.”

      These are more competence signaling, which is an area of weakness for you in charisma terms.

      > The opposite of monotone.

      Your vibe is very warm and phlegmatic, but I’d still describe it as dynamic. You don’t speak in a monotone.

      > It resists summary. That’s a big reason why they’re bad at teaching, if someone were to ask you what you learned afterward, you wouldn’t be able to say. There’s no logical progression in it. [Ed: in the sense of unpacking a thesis, top-down, or constructing an abstraction from components, bottom-up.]

      This definitely applies to you.

      > The nuggets of real insight are dropped randomly to reinforce the good impression you have of their competence, but you could never become competent by listening to them.

      Again, this is part of competence signaling. The sample I was looking at was very heavy on this aspect, so I probably overweighted it.

      • LOADED says:

        i would say i do better at systematizing and masculinizing than empathizing even though i lean towards the latter out of guilt.

        when i systematize i am thousands of times more competent otherwise.

        i also follow a logical path it just requires focus on my previous actions. when i am not warm i am very competent and my competence is hindered by my warmth.

        so there it is the reason my competence is lacking the billion dollar thirteen billion dollar question of whether God exists has been solved!

  3. LOADED says:

    i have a lot of competency in blackpilled things. that is unfortunate because the world could learn a lot of truths from me!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s