Politicians on the top are often highly skilled but even highly skilled people make mistakes and don’t act optimal. If you look for example at Bill Clinton, a lot of his success is due to a single skill that distinguishing him. He’s incredibly charismatic in 1-on-1 interactions
“I have a friend who has always despised Bill Clinton,” a person at a cocktail party told me during the time I was writing my book about eye contact. “Yet, somehow my friend found himself at a function that Bill Clinton was attending. And, within the swirl of the crowd, he was introduced to Clinton.”
“In that moment, face-to-face, all of my friend’s personal animosity towards Clinton disappeared, in one instant,” my new acquaintance at the party continued. “As they were shaking hands, Clinton made eye contact with my friend in a way so powerful and intimate, my friend felt as though the two of them were the only people in the room.”
A skill like that gives Clinton an edge that allows him to get other things wrong.
My not-a-Democrat grandmother had this exact experience when meeting him. They spoke for a few minutes, and she felt like he thought she was the most interesting person in the room. It left a permanent impression.
Someone writing a book about eye contact may possibly have reason to exaggerate the effectiveness of eye contact. I would not want to bet that the effect was as dramatic as Michael Elsberg says it was.
(I’m not denying Clinton’s one-on-one charisma, though.)
This is not the only story about Bill Clinton’s charisma that’s out. I looked into the subject deeper in the past. It’s the thing I could easily find on Google.
supposedlyfun’s comment about how his grandmother has a similar experience shows that this isn’t just one isolated episode.
I don’t find it plausible that the explanation of Bill Clinton’s charisma is just about eye contact. Many people manage to hold good eye contact but don’t reach the same results.
I completely agree that the dubiousness of this particular story doesn’t do much to cast doubt on Clinton’s (very well attested) one-on-one charisma. That’s why I said “I’m not denying Clinton’s one-on-one charisma, though”.
Yes there are other factors, policy does not explain 100% of political survival. And charisma does help one win popularity contests. You could write a post about it.
My point is not that charisma generally helps but that you have leader at the top who are good at one very specific thing.
For Obama for example it’s not 1-on-1 charisma but his ability to give speeches in a way that makes people feel things.
I don’t understand Trump to the level of being able to point at the one thing that Trump was really good at, but Trump is also an example of someone who seemed to be good at specific things that allowed him to dominate the media and that allowed him to be extremely bad at others.
Essentially, some people have “superpowers” and 3⁄5 of the last US presidents had one. If you count being the son of another president and the connections that come with that as an additional superpower it’s 4⁄5. I’m unsure about Biden, but I have relatively little information about Biden that’s goes deeper then political spin.
Many political candiates have nothing expectional going for them and when you see the people becoming president having superpowers, it might not be because they are any better at making political decisions then the average political candiates.
If making smart decisions was mainly about what gets you to be president we would see that US presidents that are as smart as FED chairmens but I don’t believe that any of the last five US presidents have an IQ of more then 140 (with the possible expectation of Bush where someone working with him made claims that Bush was that smart and Michael Moore more making a comment of how Bush being mentally quick enough to outwit him suggests that Bush is very smart).
Politicians on the top are often highly skilled but even highly skilled people make mistakes and don’t act optimal. If you look for example at Bill Clinton, a lot of his success is due to a single skill that distinguishing him. He’s incredibly charismatic in 1-on-1 interactions
One example gets described by Michael Elsberg:
A skill like that gives Clinton an edge that allows him to get other things wrong.
My not-a-Democrat grandmother had this exact experience when meeting him. They spoke for a few minutes, and she felt like he thought she was the most interesting person in the room. It left a permanent impression.
Someone writing a book about eye contact may possibly have reason to exaggerate the effectiveness of eye contact. I would not want to bet that the effect was as dramatic as Michael Elsberg says it was.
(I’m not denying Clinton’s one-on-one charisma, though.)
This is not the only story about Bill Clinton’s charisma that’s out. I looked into the subject deeper in the past. It’s the thing I could easily find on Google.
supposedlyfun’s comment about how his grandmother has a similar experience shows that this isn’t just one isolated episode.
I don’t find it plausible that the explanation of Bill Clinton’s charisma is just about eye contact. Many people manage to hold good eye contact but don’t reach the same results.
I completely agree that the dubiousness of this particular story doesn’t do much to cast doubt on Clinton’s (very well attested) one-on-one charisma. That’s why I said “I’m not denying Clinton’s one-on-one charisma, though”.
Yes there are other factors, policy does not explain 100% of political survival. And charisma does help one win popularity contests. You could write a post about it.
My point is not that charisma generally helps but that you have leader at the top who are good at one very specific thing.
For Obama for example it’s not 1-on-1 charisma but his ability to give speeches in a way that makes people feel things.
I don’t understand Trump to the level of being able to point at the one thing that Trump was really good at, but Trump is also an example of someone who seemed to be good at specific things that allowed him to dominate the media and that allowed him to be extremely bad at others.
Essentially, some people have “superpowers” and 3⁄5 of the last US presidents had one. If you count being the son of another president and the connections that come with that as an additional superpower it’s 4⁄5. I’m unsure about Biden, but I have relatively little information about Biden that’s goes deeper then political spin.
Many political candiates have nothing expectional going for them and when you see the people becoming president having superpowers, it might not be because they are any better at making political decisions then the average political candiates.
If making smart decisions was mainly about what gets you to be president we would see that US presidents that are as smart as FED chairmens but I don’t believe that any of the last five US presidents have an IQ of more then 140 (with the possible expectation of Bush where someone working with him made claims that Bush was that smart and Michael Moore more making a comment of how Bush being mentally quick enough to outwit him suggests that Bush is very smart).