9 hours ago
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2026...a-red-flag
EXCERPT: The dangers of charisma are nothing new, of course. History is filled with examples of people using charm to advance their interests. Dictators, cult leaders and con artists are all proof that an otherwise reasonable person can succumb to a well-executed charm offensive.
The difference now is one of scale. The 2024 US election, for example, was widely described as the “podcast election”, as both candidates (Trump more successfully) consented to numerous softball interviews on the medium. They reached millions, not with policy, but with good vibes. And you don’t have to be a public figure to leverage charm in this way – any video with the right allure can go viral, regardless of that person’s intentions or expertise.
Why are we so easily taken in by charisma? Like many aspects of our psychology, we can understand it more clearly through the lens of our evolutionary past.
Our ancestors spent most of their time (approximately 94% of human history) as hunter-gatherers, living in nomadic tribes that may have consisted of as few as 20 people. Groups that small, pitted against the forces of nature, needed strong leadership. Like many animals, humans have status hierarchies. High-status hunter-gatherers likely had many of the traits we still associate with charisma today: great eye contact, body language that signalled certainty, a persuasive voice.
The difference being that, back then, you had the opportunity to observe your peers all day, every day: their flaws, their virtues, their competence, often while facing lethal danger. If a person was merely superficially charming, you found out quickly. Charisma would only win out if accompanied by other important qualities, including sound judgment, good character and wisdom.
That’s not the case now. Technology allows us to shield the unpalatable parts of ourselves much more easily, selecting only the best bits for public consumption. Our brains did not evolve to process handpicked slices of someone else’s behaviour, detached from the rest of their lives, so we’re vulnerable to being duped. One frightening example is that of Ruby Franke, the parenting vlogger with millions of subscribers who was jailed for child abuse after two of her six children were found beaten and malnourished.
We spend a lot of time worrying about how the minds of teenagers are warped by the online world. We’re keenly aware how prone they are to manipulation by seemingly impressive figures. What we fail to realise is, we’re all teenagers when it comes to the internet. Algorithmic social media has only been around for about 15 years, and we remain largely unconscious of how routinely it bypasses our better judgment. Is there any way to grow out of this newly acquired susceptibility?
The best form of defence against the excesses of charisma is critical thinking... (MORE - missing details)
EXCERPT: The dangers of charisma are nothing new, of course. History is filled with examples of people using charm to advance their interests. Dictators, cult leaders and con artists are all proof that an otherwise reasonable person can succumb to a well-executed charm offensive.
The difference now is one of scale. The 2024 US election, for example, was widely described as the “podcast election”, as both candidates (Trump more successfully) consented to numerous softball interviews on the medium. They reached millions, not with policy, but with good vibes. And you don’t have to be a public figure to leverage charm in this way – any video with the right allure can go viral, regardless of that person’s intentions or expertise.
Why are we so easily taken in by charisma? Like many aspects of our psychology, we can understand it more clearly through the lens of our evolutionary past.
Our ancestors spent most of their time (approximately 94% of human history) as hunter-gatherers, living in nomadic tribes that may have consisted of as few as 20 people. Groups that small, pitted against the forces of nature, needed strong leadership. Like many animals, humans have status hierarchies. High-status hunter-gatherers likely had many of the traits we still associate with charisma today: great eye contact, body language that signalled certainty, a persuasive voice.
The difference being that, back then, you had the opportunity to observe your peers all day, every day: their flaws, their virtues, their competence, often while facing lethal danger. If a person was merely superficially charming, you found out quickly. Charisma would only win out if accompanied by other important qualities, including sound judgment, good character and wisdom.
That’s not the case now. Technology allows us to shield the unpalatable parts of ourselves much more easily, selecting only the best bits for public consumption. Our brains did not evolve to process handpicked slices of someone else’s behaviour, detached from the rest of their lives, so we’re vulnerable to being duped. One frightening example is that of Ruby Franke, the parenting vlogger with millions of subscribers who was jailed for child abuse after two of her six children were found beaten and malnourished.
We spend a lot of time worrying about how the minds of teenagers are warped by the online world. We’re keenly aware how prone they are to manipulation by seemingly impressive figures. What we fail to realise is, we’re all teenagers when it comes to the internet. Algorithmic social media has only been around for about 15 years, and we remain largely unconscious of how routinely it bypasses our better judgment. Is there any way to grow out of this newly acquired susceptibility?
The best form of defence against the excesses of charisma is critical thinking... (MORE - missing details)
