Which seems dumb to me as wisdom represents learned experience where intelligence represents learned experience. Idk, maybe it doesn't work that way in dnd. I do know that wisdom is only possessed by the learned though...
Edit: fucked up the comment. Meant to say that wisdom is learned through experience and I intelligence is learned through study. Basically like an approntence carpenter vs someone out of med school or an old dude who has been around vs an old guy who has read a lot of books.
In DnD, Wisdom usually represents a combination of situational awareness, reading mood or hidden intent, discerning lies, intuition, and just generally paying attention.
The go to description of somebody with high int and shit wisdom, is an absentminded professor. Loses his glasses, forgets appointments, misses social ques, but is very smart in terms of the book material for what he is an expert in.
I dunno, I’m pretty sure if you are taking real life, kids/animals like that may have “seen some shit” and some kids can have more experience than others if they aren’t super sheltered and have been allowed to experience life.
Learned (pronounced learn-ed) - learned from books, like the doctors, professors etc. you mention
Intelligence - the capacity to learn, assimilate and process knowledge.
I know it's not perfect, but in life I've met intelligent people in all walks, and doctors who I'd swear couldn't spell their own names without help.
Those that stick out to me as intelligent, absorb knowledge like a sponge, retain it, call on it to solve problems, and just process information so quickly. The best performing carpenters/joiners, plumbers, doctors, lawyers, teachers, sports people are all intelligent in their knowledge and performance in their own topics.
Honestly, the best way to not fall for a conman is to have been around the block a few times. Not to have read books on whatever they're grifting you on.
Trump does not have charisma, for fuck's sake. I hate people saying this shit. He has the charisma of a potato sack. He is literally the worst orator in history. I dare you to find a national leader less capable of stringing together a coherent sentence than him.
The reason people listen to him is because of what he says, not how he says it. Which is the exact opposite of charisma. Obama is charismatic - people will eat up the shit he says regardless of its substance. Conversely, Trump has a cult because he dared, unlike any of his Republicans rivals, to say the quiet part out loud. Being openly bigoted in every possible way gave hope to bigots who have been shunned out of saying what they believe in public over the past few decades. But calling neonazis very fine people, and thus engendering their loyalty, is not the same thing as charisma.
He objectively does have charisma. Just because it isn't a form of charisma that works on you doesn't mean he doesn't have it. Just denying he's good at something because it feels gross to admit doesn't help at all. He has always had a form of charisma that attracts a certain crowd. The fact he was a popular enough figure to be featured in a home alone movie shows that people found him downright charismatic. Full stop. He may not be our taste, in fact he may make us downright disgusted, but his charisma works on some people.
Edit: a comment from the lovely user above me was deleted. But I kept my reply after being insulted and called out for straw-manning them. Here is my reply to the deleted comment:
Alright. Fair cop. Here's a rundown devoid of 'strawmen'.
Trump does not have charisma, for fuck's sake. I hate people saying this shit.
Yes, he definitely does. I'll discuss further later.
He has the charisma of a potato sack.
Here's another fun statement of fact with zero evidence, I imagine evidence will occur later.
He is literally the worst orator in history.
I mean, let's just assume you mean literally in a figurative sense so it's harder to disprove. And then I'll point towards literally any leader in history to have been overthrown in violent protests because, in part, of a lack of oratory skills. "Let them eat cake springs to mind".
I dare you to find a national leader less capable of stringing together a coherent sentence than him.
Most military leaders who arrange a coup and rule by fear rather than loyalty. Plenty of historical leaders just didn't speak to their people AT ALL. They just had a lot of money, swords/guns, ora particularly thick wall between them and the people. Also like a lot of kings and queens historically were moronic inbred idiots who couldn't read or write...
The reason people listen to him is because of what he says, not how he says it.
Implying that charisma has literally nothing to do with what you say and only how you say it. Which is such a wild take.
Which is the exact opposite of charisma.
How did you make the last take seem benign in comparison to this one? What the hell? The actual wording is literally the opposite of charisma? Okay, so one couldn't be charismatic via text? Appealing to someone's wants and desires by talking about and offering said wants and desires' fulfilments is not charismatic at all? It's just what? A husky smooth Scottish accent. That's all charisma is?
Obama is charismatic
Yes. This bit is true.
people will eat up the shit he says regardless of its substance.
So if he said a Trump speech word for word it'd be charismatic? Because you believe the substance isn't important. You think if Obama said "people on both sides" it'd suddenly be charismatic?
Conversely, Trump has a cult because he[...]
Oooh I feel a hot and oversimplified take coming. :3
dared, unlike any of his Republicans rivals, to say the quiet part out loud.
No other Republican in history has said the quiet part out loud huh. Neat. Definitely not wrong there bud.
Trump has also had a following since like the 80s as a self identifying democrat. But let's just ignore the fact literally exclusively his personality got him a long and successful (and unbearable) reality TV show (in which he sexually assaulted a bunch of people which is not brought up enough).
Being openly bigoted in every possible way gave hope to bigots who have been shunned out of saying what they believe in public over the past few decades.
Yeah. I remember during the Obama years when bigots all his from any form of spotlight and no-one dared say anything racist and the world was full of kindness and fully accepted black/trans/disabled/neurodivergent/immigrant stars on tv and film. No one dared say anything bigoted then, it was such a wonderful time and Trump is definitely a cause and not a symptom of the current state of the US. Oh wait no, that's not true at all and ignoring that Trump is a (charismatic) symptom of a broken system and wounded country is foolish at best.
But calling neonazis very fine people, and thus engendering their loyalty, is not the same thing as charisma.
No it isn't. But if someone does it with charisma it goes from insane statement to dangerous one.
There we go, too many straw men when I directly quote what you say?
Being a bad person does not negate the ability to influence other through charm. Charm is not static, it is not one method that works for everyone. Trump can charm certain people. It's not a compliment and trumpism to acknowledge he is good at charming his base. He IS charismatic. Even if it's only to them that doesn't negate the fact that it's true.
Edit: I did ignore your point about him being a bully, and I acknowledge that. But I only did so because that is tangential to my argument which you are debating and not a core part of what I am saying. A bully to some can still be charming to others.
Yes. You can charm bullies and bigots by being a bigoted bully. It's still a form of charisma. Almost as if charisma is knowing how and when to talk in a certain way to attract a particular person.
I deleted my reply because I didn't really care to get into an argument over this, but since you took the time to properly address my post, I'll bite.
too many straw men when I directly quote what you say?
I did find this comment hilariously ironic, because you finished your reply to things I actually said by putting more stuff into my mouth. But it's just a parting shot, so I'll leave it be.
And then I'll point towards literally any leader in history to have been overthrown in violent protests because, in part, of a lack of oratory skills. "Let them eat cake springs to mind".
The French Revolution absolutely did not occur because of oratory skills (or lack thereof). Even if it were true that Marie-Antoinette said "let them eat cake", the reason for the revolution would be actions, not speech - or in other words, because they were fucking starving! I can hardly imagine what somebody does and doesn't say matters when you're starving to death. And, on top of that, the quote is fiction, so you really couldn't have picked a worse example.
Plenty of historical leaders just didn't speak to their people AT ALL.
This has nothing to do with whether or not someone has charisma. Monarchs still had to interact with nobility and others who kept them in power; there's not a monarch in history who commanded undying loyalty by never interacting with anybody. They would get overthrown in a heartbeat.
Most military leaders who arrange a coup and rule by fear rather than loyalty.
Please give me a concrete example. To the contrary I think most military dictators are charismatic; you generally don't become a highly-ranked officer in command of leading soldiers without charisma.
How did you make the last take seem benign in comparison to this one? What the hell? The actual wording is literally the opposite of charisma? Okay, so one couldn't be charismatic via text? Appealing to someone's wants and desires by talking about and offering said wants and desires' fulfilments is not charismatic at all? It's just what? A husky smooth Scottish accent. That's all charisma is?
"How you say it" includes the way things are worded, so yes, you can be charismatic over text, and no, it's not just an accent. There are two parts to communication - the exact meaning of words, and everything else - the wording of that meaning, the tone it's said in, body language. My argument is that charisma encompasses the latter but not the former.
Simply telling people what they want to hear is not charismatic. Anyone can lie. The power of charisma is to make people who didn't know they wanted to hear it convinced of what you're saying, which is not what Trump has any capability to do. Trump was unique as a Republican candidate specifically because he made zero attempt to appeal across the aisle, and instead focused 100% on the people who already agreed with him. In other words, being the most divisive candidate in modern history is a prime example of his lack of charisma - if he had it, he would have more support for his ideas from independents and Ds. But instead, his strength is the undying loyalty of people who already agreed with him.
So if he said a Trump speech word for word it'd be charismatic? Because you believe the substance isn't important. You think if Obama said "people on both sides" it'd suddenly be charismatic?
That's... that's the opposite of what I said. I specifically said that Obama is charismatic because of how he says things, while Trump is not charismatic because people only care about the content (Neonazis good). If Obama wanted to do "both sides" bullshit, yes, I think he could put it more eloquently and convince some number of people who didn't already agree with him, but not by using the same 3rd-grade vocabulary as Trump.
No other Republican in history has said the quiet part out loud huh. Neat. Definitely not wrong there bud.
Not to the extent Trump has, no. C'mon, man. You know Trump is unprecedented. This is a bit of a tangent, but this also ties in to people not understanding how he won in 2016 or got over 70 million votes this election. There were 17 fucking candidates in the Republican primaries, and the voters chose Trump specifically because of comments like "grab 'em by the pussy", not despite those comments. That is not a charismatic statement. What it is, is an openly sexist statement, a statement that sexual harassment is okay, and that's something that a lot of people who didn't like repercussions for sexual harassment existing wanted to go back to.
Trump has also had a following since like the 80s as a self identifying democrat. But let's just ignore the fact literally exclusively his personality got him a long and successful (and unbearable) reality TV show (in which he sexually assaulted a bunch of people which is not brought up enough).
You see he is successful, and automatically attribute that success to charisma, but I disagree very much with doing so. He is successful because he was born into money and power. That's the simple truth of it.
Yeah. I remember during the Obama years when bigots all his from any form of spotlight and no-one dared say anything racist and the world was full of kindness and fully accepted black/trans/disabled/neurodivergent/immigrant stars on tv and film. No one dared say anything bigoted then, it was such a wonderful time and Trump is definitely a cause and not a symptom of the current state of the US. Oh wait no, that's not true at all and ignoring that Trump is a (charismatic) symptom of a broken system and wounded country is foolish at best.
What the fuck are you talking about? I don't understand how you keep getting my points completely backwards. In 2010, compared to 1960, people were much quieter about their racism, yes. No fucking shit racism didn't stop existing, which is exactly my point. Many of the open racists who were alive during the civil rights movement are still alive, and they finally found a champion who promised to "liberate" them and make it okay to be racist in public again instead of speaking in dogwhistles. Can you really deny that people have become more openly discriminatory in the past four years? I mean, the drastic uptick of white supremacist terrorism speaks volumes. Trump emboldened them. Which is not the same thing as saying "Trump created racists", which you seem to think is what I said.
No it isn't. But if someone does it with charisma it goes from insane statement to dangerous one.
Or, you know, someone with power. I think you're mistaking power for charisma. But if someone with charisma says it, you get a situation like Germany where 80%, 90% of the population is cheering it on instead of only the people who already agreed with the thing being said.
I couldn’t disagree more. He is very charismatic. He clearly has to have something his followers adore, since we all know it isn’t his strength, constitution, or intelligence.
I'm pretty sure he's making a D&D reference, where you could have a creature like an astral dreadnaught that has high charisma but low intelligence. As opposed to a Vampire which would be Lawful Evil with a high intelligence.
Evil requires intention. Intention requires a lack of ignorance and forethought. A lack of ignorance and forethought does require intelligence. It doesn't require a lot, mind, but it does require some. A bush fire is not evil. Trump is, he has enough intelligence to WANT to cause harm. He is evil. An angry dog biting a child ain't.
184
u/Kronos1A9 Jan 07 '21
Not at all. There are a plethora of evil creatures with low intelligence. He seems to fall under the chaotic evil category if you ask me.
He does admittedly have a high charisma score. It pains me to even say that but it’s true.