What stuck out the most to me in this weekend’s reading was the connection between charisma and magic/mysticism that Riggio highlighted. While I would have never thought to do so, he described Buddha and Jesus as charismatic figures in religion. That really got me thinking about what I thought charisma was. I realized that I previously used the word charisma as a synonym with tons of words like persuasive, convincing, engaging, outgoing, encouraging, etc. And, like Riggio with the 7 characteristics of charisma, I understood that charisma is a combination of many things and a big part of that combination how a charismatic person is recieved.
Riggio then includes an excerpt tsav and how the tsav on/in someone’s heart is the physical (?) (I’m still confused on that part) manifestation of their ability to overcome/sway situations, or to be good at something. Despite being innate, tsav is still something that must be trained to be of use. I found that to be a really interesting fact to include. And it fits perfectly with what Riggio was saying about one of charisma’s 7 characteristics. It isn’t enough to only be visionary, you have to have the means to achieve that vision by controlling how you and your vision are received. This makes charisma more of a skill or talent than a stand-alone personality trait. And in that light, it does seem like something that can be learned… However, not everyone can read people well, and I don’t think that is something you can teach. It’s like how Zalezink stated that transformational leaders are closer to artists than managers. Sure, you can teach someone to draw, but you can’t teach them how to know what to draw, or how to look at the world around them. I guess I’m trying to say that reading people is an art, too. Riggio mentioned that politicians get charisma training and I’m honestly really curious what those sessions are like. Either way, that furthers the idea that charisma is a skill, but just like tsav, it has to be developed.
More often than not, we tend to use vocabulary that we hear others use before ever knowing the true definition of the word(s)… It’s common to thrive off of context in this way. I found it interesting as well for Riggio to define “charisma” as the quality of attraction that people possess, which allows them to connect with others on an emotional and maybe even divine level.
With regards to the concept of “tsav”, I understand the given element of “witchcraft substance” to be comparable/connected to supernatural/divine power.
I also found the part about Tsav to be very interesting! It seemed like charisma and tsav were very intertwined. Especially, because tsav was described as having the potential to be used for either good or bad depending on the person, and the same can be said for how a person communicates and plays off the emotions of others. For example, Hitler and Ghandi were both charismatic, but one is considered to be evil vs. good.