Bill O’Reilly recently stated that in his lifetime, the three most charismatic men he had ever witnessed were JFK, Elvis, and Muhammad Ali.
When I heard him say this I immediately realized that all three men have IQ scores in the public record. In the book A Question of Intelligence, Daniel Seligman reported that JFK tested at 119 while in school, and I previously cited data showing that Ali’s army testing equated to an IQ of 85. Meanwhile The Guardian claims that school records show Elvis had an IQ of 70.
So here we have a list of three men, selected not by me, but by Bill O’Reilly, on the basis of nothing but charisma, and we just happen to have the IQ of all three, and their average IQ is 91 (white norms). Roughly 0.6 standard deviations below the mean of American men.
I estimate the three most charismatic American men of O’Reilly’s life would be +5.47 SD in charisma on average. Picture a scatter plot where you have charisma plotted on the X axis and IQ plotted on the Y axis, for every single American man who lived in O’Reilly’s life. If there was any positive correlation at all between IQ and charisma, we’d expect the slope of the line of best fit to rise as we moved from left to right on the X axis, but instead, as X increases to +5.47 SD, the mean Y decreases to -0.6 SD, suggesting a negative slope of -0.6 SD/5.53 SD = -0.11 SD.
But before we jump to the rash conclusion that IQ and charisma correlate -0.11 in American men, we should ask ourselves how reliable a sample size of only three men is. The standard deviation of our sample is a whopping 25 IQ points. In order to calculate the standard error, we must divide this standard deviation by the square root of the sample size. When we do this, we get a standard error of 14.45. Since the true value has a 95% chance of falling within 1.96 standard errors of the sample mean, we can say with 95% confidence that the most charismatic men have a men have a mean IQ between 63 and 119.
The below average mean IQ of 91 may just be a statistical fluke caused by small sample size, and the true correlation between IQ and charisma might even be weakly positive.
However if the correlation between IQ and charisma is indeed negative, as this very preliminary analysis suggests, that can probably be explained by scholar J.P. Rushton’s r/K hypothesis.
And if high IQ people are indeed less charismatic on average, it makes the positive correlation between IQ and worldly success even more impressive, because high IQ people have figured out how to adapt the situation to their advantage, despite being less likeable.
Pumpkin Person 
Hwy Pumpkin, an unrelated story… Have you ever heard of Brandenn Bremmer? He was a child prodigy from Nebraska, who could read before he was two and had an IQ of “178”. He shot himself when he was fourteen. His suicide was a national story.
Anyway, you should check out “Prairie Fire”, the New Yorker’s article on Brandenn. His psychologist, Silverman, used an outdated version of the S-B (I think it was called the SB LM), and because she used an outdated test, an inordinate number of her clients scored in the 180s, 190s, and 200s. Then she basked in their glory. Kind of demented stuff.
Long story short, Brandenn’s real IQ was probably lower, although he definitely was super smart.
And the article is very moving.
Sounds like a fascinating read. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
This suggest no correlation with IQ and positive with mental speed.
Use of WASI negate evaluation of processing speed. Charisma may rely more on subcortical activity or less G-correlated functions.
Anyway, Obama is described as quite charismatic, and you calculate his IQ as very high. It’s also true that his race it’s characterized by faster muscular response, which combined with other peculiarities may suffice.
Surely, the high-IQ humans tendency of self-checking measured by Stroop test performance and relative low processing speed of more educated may influence negatively charisma among the brightest.
Thanks for the link
I think people who can be charismatic despite not being good looking or talented at singing, dancing or sports are probably smart
An almost certainty.
They should count on a superb brain quality to compensate lack of specialized talents.
And, as always, succeding against the odds is the proof you don’t play by the rule, you make it.
Hitler seized Germany despite no remarkable physical qualities.
Nobody would have described Churchill as handsome. He showed an extreme facility and plenty with words and will, swords and wit.
Curiously, a similarly shaped Bismarck showed analogous skills.
.
Abraham Lincoln had a gaunty, homely appareance and a suboptimal voice. He also showed many markers of superior nervous system development, like an extremely low BMI, elevated strenght despite lesser muscle mass, general athleticism, excellent memory, autodidacticism, avid reading in younghood and after, eclecticism.
A possible correlation between superficial charm and fearless dominance, mediated at least by verbal iq, quickness of thought and action and calmness under pressure. Extraversion too. Think about Clinton.
“Deep” charisma require may high social intuition, cognitive empathy, sensibility to and heightened analysis-synthesis of verbal and non-verbal communication in various contexts, meanings and nuances.
It may also derive by sense of rhythm applied to words ad gesture, and fluidity and control favoured by enhanced neuronal signal/noise function and reduced electric loss.
Thinking on the meaning, I suspect that a vigorous appareance could require altered immunitary activity, reduced corticosteroid and adrenergic activity and increased nervous strenght.
The hardship in current study is to separate direct effect of physical appareance and skills on sociality from nervous system qualities, cognitive and non-cognitive, since both may depend on similar genetic substrate.
An eventual confirmation of a negative correlation with iq and charisma could imply a relatedness with antisocial impulses and crimes, pointing it’s origin in general disinibition and more primitive cerebral areas, giving concrete sense to the colloquial *animal magnetism*.
I conclude supporting the idea that some human subgroups may have been selected more for athletic and entertaining skills then cognition and self-control, and some alleles may favour charisma over abstract intelligence, in accordance of r/K theory.
Charisma is actually a form of crystallized intelligence.
Its a skill that I believe can be developed. If you are -2/3 SDs from the mean you can get better through exposure to people, travelling, having sales jobs and so on.
Toastmasters have known this for years.
The reason good looking people/musicians/athletes have more charisma is because they are exposed to many different social situations, they’re invited out more and they have more opportunities to experiment with their patter. I wouldn’t be surprised if a 14 year old Elvis/Ali/JFK weren’t the most charismatic even in their school.
Having High T also helps as you take more risks socially and are more relaxed about what you say. When you are dominant in a group, you can let loose.
In this sense, my theory may help explain why low IQ blacks have verbal dexterity.
It comes completely from exposure.
When you ain’t got no cable or internettin or damn’ video games you gotta play ball with the brothers nigga.
The philosopher, “Charisma is actually a form of crystallized intelligence.”
False. charisma is not a skill but how others perceive you ( in either a negative or positive light)
For example hitler was viewed as charismatic. In reality he wasn’t good at social interactions at all. he couldn’t even engage in small talk but when people noticed this they said” he must be too intellectual for small talk” instead of the logical conclusion that: he was simply an introvert. If he had not survived child hood or had died before his rise to power someone else would have taken his place and done the exact same thing. germany was ripe for WW2.
Raw intelligence has nothing to do with charisma. Nor does intelligence equal talent in all spheres. Being charismatic means reflecting genuineness and raw vigour. The stereotype of nerd and the jock springs to mind.
In the Republican primary the ultra-intelligent Ted Cruz was defeated by the obviously doltish Donald Trump – a man who exclusively speaks in blockhead staccato interjections.
The capacity for reaching your goals through deception increases with intelligence – this is probably why so many ultra-intelligent people aren’t that personable or approachable.
”Higher iq” people tend to have a ‘normal’ distribution of personality types (what Sisyphean already said). Seems hard to say that ”most them are not charismatic”.
There are types and types
. On avg, i think, many ”higher iq” people and ”very higher iq” tend to become megalomaniac/arrogant that tend to be the otherwise of ”’charisma”’.
This type still can be more charismatic or have higher potential than the average to become charismatic but the depressive reality that they are perceiving and interacting push them to the ”real world” and make them arrogant.
Seems easy to socialise, just repeat and agree with almost thing people to do and to believe/to talk. But when you have knowledge that those ‘beliefs’ are wrong your ”logic sense” make you avoid even accept this idiocy and subsequently make you less agreable.
Charismatic people are the skilled extraverted people, i mean, we have those who are naturally extraverted but they are subconscious about it, aren’t ambitious enough to develop this skill, aren’t self-aware enough to give relevance to their own ”qualities’ and we have those who are invariably aware about its qualities and use them as ”evolutionary approach”, specially when were their psycho-cognitive epicenter, i mean, when were a very dominant behavioral (psycho-cognitive) ”trait” or ”phenotype”.
Charisma is the otherwise of introspection, seems.
Charismatic ones tend to be very constant in their try to conquer the hearts of most people.
Charisma is the interpersonal/social emotional cognition while introspection is the intrapersonal emotional cognition.
Other possible common or reasonably prevalent trait among ”gifted” people is the dominance-proneness, they want the world to be as they idealise and when they perceive that the world is worst than their expectations many them tend to become neurotic.
This is just the natural or logical reaction that many-to-most logical (potentially rational) people are suscetible to live if the world were a very difficult place to live.
Adapt, based on all contexts, human and non-human, is reduce yourself, your dreams, your self to fit within these ”environment”. To adapt in the conformity you must need to conform.
Yes, charisma tend to correlates more with lower populations, specially ”short term/opportunistic/clever/psychopath-like type”, for example, among gypsies, many blacks and jews, as well among whites, of course.
Charisma is a abstract world and there is the good, average and the bad side.
Dark charismatic people use their talent to take advantages of the others while Good charismatic people are very similar with agreeable people but probably with some differences. You can be agreeable and not so charismatic.
Charisma can be used to many situations and also there is the natural charisma and people who have facility to express superficially the charisma but in their inner-persona or real-self they are different or just use ”sympathy” cynically.
”Charisma is a abstract world”
woRd.
Giftedness seems to be strongly related to the autistic personality traits. Functioning autism spectrum itself look like a low functioning giftedness specially because their usual opressive sensorial system.
People think that autistics have intrinsic (and this mean ”uncontextual”) social deficits but in the reality is the society that, also, is composed by irrational social usual operationality. Autistics just interpret people as we interpret systems, and indeed, we are also as systems. Their fundamental fault is that they tend to think or many them tend to think that most neurotypical people are predominantly logical-to-rational systems, but not because most of the neurotypical are morally/behaviorally selectives, socially subjective and histerically emotional AND for irrational things or which was misinterpreted. In other words, most autistics, who tend to be un-hierarchical species, interpret social without this reality = we are subjugated by usually illogical hierarchical systems and people ”just” conform with it.
Charisma also correlates with chrystalized cognition but look like firstly as a non-verbal approach, perception of body-face signs, ”social-subjective-attention detail”.
In the same way many ”gifted” people become progressively atomized because they can’t accept fully the problematic/irrational human world and they just ”to adapt” peripherically, the same happen with autistics.
People, seems, tend to think that most of the mental disorders are the same, while for example, autism and schizophrenia spectrum tend to be the mutual otherwise, autism is hypo-personality, cold-masculine-logical personality, and schizophrenia is likely to be hyper-personality (paranoid approach, over-interpretation or over-attention to the social issues), but generally, autism ”affect” cognition, OR their epicenter is the cognition, while schizophrenia affect more personality, OR their epicenter is the ”personality”.
Autism mean self-imersion.
Quintessential success is about being smart and likable with money. I look at a guy like Steve Jobs being the best representative.
” The USA essentially forced Russians into so called shock therapy using Harvard academic mafia (plan was authored by Jeffrey Sachs who was lecturer at Harvard and implemented by Larry Summers protégé, Russian émigré Shleifer and several other Harvard academic brats with a couple of British poodles to make the gang international) and internal compradors in Yelstin government as fifth column. As a result poverty level jumped from 2% to 40%. Everything that can be stolen, was stolen by implementation of rapid privatization policy. During the heydays of corrupt Yeltsin regime implementation of shock therapy GDP dropped 50%. Suicide rate doubled, life expectancy for males dropped below 60 years (12,8% death rate increase), homeless children which were unknown in the USSR became mass feature of new social order.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/business/economy/threatened-by-machines-a-once-stupid-concern-gains-respect.html?_r=0
http://jeffsachs.org/2016/06/the-best-of-times-the-worst-of-times-macroeconomics-of-robots/?version=meter+at+null&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click
charismatic ones
http://jewcy.com/featured/brilliant_resistant_to_hiv_and_more
PP, have Jesse Watters sent a copy of his WAIS? he promised to try to do so
What happened to you reader, who wanted a cheaper test for his daughter?
No Jesse Watters has not appeared (to my knowledge) since I did that post on his scores. It can be very overwhelming to have so many people questioning your psychometric scores and I feel a bit guilty for raising doubts, but as a responsible amateur journalist, that’s my job.
I don’t know what happened with the father and his daughter. I hope he saw your advice to have her tested on the abbreviated Wechsler. That was a good suggestion.
Although I suppose it could have been real, it just seemed to damn high (around 170, right?) I mean he seemed like a nice guy, but I saw no evidence from his postings of such a mind numbing intellect- unless he really didn’t care about impressing us 🙂
)) since I dont see my post on the page it means that my new nickname needs moderation. I think
With that small sample size the work appears correct, but I’d except with more research that there would be a non-Linear relationship.
Yes, their is the r/k hypothesis, but it’s not really dumb Blacks being charismatic, Ali is average for Blacks and he is an *athlete*, what about people who had more brain oriented careers- like Kanye, he’s smarter, but not really really smart.
IQ negatively correlated with charisma? It makes sense because if you think about it. Higher IQ people dont need the help of others to make it in life. Why rely on someone else when you can do it yourself much easyer?. I agree with Pumpkin on this one.
It might be an evolutionary trade-off.
I dont believe thats the case. I firmly believe higher IQ people are less likeable because they dont need other peoples help. if anything there less likeable because they are exploiting others while at the same time providing more for themselves. If Intelligence is really the ultimate survival trait, than hi IQ people would be expected to be more lonely,selfish, and exploitative towards others. Essentialy IQ should be negatively correlated with charisma AND morality. Which Pumpkin you proved awhile back with your studies on the homeless. Simply waving the correlation off as an evolutuonary trade-off is being ignorant. The most charismatic people who have ever lived should have extremely low IQ-s
I doubt Elvis’s IQ was only 70, and I doubt there’s any correlation between IQ and charisma within race.
The Guardian provided no information about where they learned of these school records, so it could be wrong.
But I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s true. He came from very humble beginnings and was brutally exploited. His daughter was also exploited as a PR prop by Michael Jackson.
I would bet my life that his IQ is around 70. Just because its a rare anomoly doesnt mean it cant be true. Remember Mugsy Boges made it to the NBA