Wednesday, October 7, 2026

How much charisma do you have?


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are at least two different ways to measure how much charisma that you have. One is described in a detailed magazine article by Konstantin O. Tshkay et al. in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology for 2018, on pages 131 to 152 (in Volume 114, number 1) titled Charisma in Everyday Life: Conceptualization and Validation of the General Charisma Inventory.

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It began with the ten items shown above, in two categories of Influence and Affability.

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the final version they were narrowed to just six, as also is shown above. The article was summarized in another by Christian Jarrett at the British Psychological Society – The Psychologist on August 15, 2017 titled Psychologists have developed the first scientific test of everyday charisma. Yet another article by Philip Perry at BIG THINK on November 8, 2017 is titled How Charismatic Are You? Just 6 Questions Can Tell You.

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Earlier there was still another article by Jay A. Conger et al. in the Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences in 1997, on pages 290 to 302, titled Measuring Charisma: Dimensionality and Validity of the Conger-Kanungo Scale of Charismatic Leadership. You can find the abstract here. As shown above, their C-K (Conger-Kanungo) Scale used a more detailed list of twenty-items in five categories.

 

The meter was modified from one at Wikimedia Commons.

 

Tuesday, October 6, 2026

A 2026 speech anthology book by Ben Rhodes is titled All We Say: The battle for American identity: A history in 15 speeches


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a useful 2026 book by Ben Rhodes titled All We Say: The battle for American identity: A history in 15 speeches. Google Books has a preview to page 43. It is discussed by Martin Pengelly in an article at The Guardian on May 26, 2026 titled Obama’s former speechwriter Ben Rhodes examines the US through its 15 most defining speeches.

 

On pages 6 and 7 Ben briefly describes his book:

 

“This book tells the story of our argument over American identity through fifteen speeches. In a democracy such as ours, a speech is the purest form of persuasion. You stand in front of a group of people and try to convince them to believe something and do something about it. Indeed, what could be more American than the lone voice in front of a crowd, bending history to its will?

 

This is not an effort to identify the fifteen greatest American speeches. Instead, the fifteen speeches here are concerned with the question of American identity and the battle to define it. Some are iconic; others have been lost to time. Some are inspiring; others sobering. They’ve been delivered in war and peace; by elites and outsiders; to persuade and to prophesy. And they have both reflected and shaped our understanding of what it means to be American and who gets to decide.

 

I believe that these speeches open a unique window through which we can better see our own history. They allow us to relive the story of America as it has been debated, described, and redirected, in the present tense, since America’s founding. While I am not a historian, I was a speechwriter for eight years in Barack Obama’s White House, and I will offer my perspective on why these speeches succeeded in saying something profound and consequential about American Identity. What sets a speech apart from the others? What forces must be harnesses for it to embed itself into a collective American subconscious?

 

To begin with, a speech must be authentic: The speaker should be the only person who is able to deliver it. Of course, what is said matters, but the most impactful speeches leave people with a sense of why an argument is being made. So, for each speech in this book, we will spend some time with the life story of the speaker -to get a sense of where their voice came from; the experiences that shaped them; the motivation that led them to deliver it; the context that enabled the authenticity of their words.”    

 

On May 20, 2026,  Ben has a longer discussion titled Why I Wrote All We Say. Stephen Llano at Pro Rhetoric on June 16, 2026 has yet another article titled Another Speech Anthology. And David Murray at Writing Boots on June 3, 2026 blogged about how he Wanted: Someone Else to Write a Review of the Latest Speech Anthology.

 

Sections and speeches in that book are:

 

PART I: AMERICAN FOUNDATIONS: REVOLUTION TO CIVIL WAR

 

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: Founding Compromise 14

 

RED JACKET: We Have Always Lived Here 30

 

MARIA STEWART: Knowledge Is Power 49

 

ALEXANDER STEPHENS: The Cornerstone 73

 

ABRAHAM LINCOLN: True and Righteous 99

 

PART II: WHAT KIND OF NATION: RADICAL REPUBLIC TO SUPERPOWER

 

FREDERICK DOUGLASS: Such Things as Human Rights 125

 

ANNA DICKINSON: Celebrity Suffragette 155

 

MARY LEASE: Wall Street Owns This Country 177

 

LOUIS BRANDEIS: Americanism 192

 

FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT: Four Freedoms 215

 

PART III: CONTESTED NATION: CIVIL RIGHTS TO MAGA

 

MARTIN LUTHER KING AND JOHN F. KENNEDY: An American Dream 245

 

DOLORES HUERTA: You Cannot Pretend That We Do Not Exist 271

 

RONALD REAGAN: God and Country 287

 

BARACK OBAMA: Breaking the Racial Stalemate 317

 

DONALD TRUMP: I Will Win for You 375

 

The FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT: Four Freedoms speech in Chapter 10 on pages 215 to 242 is also known as his State of the Union Address given on January 6, 1941. You can read a transcript at the National Archives. Ben’s description starting on page 224 says that:

 

“FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT’S 1941 State of the Union address was unlike any other in American history, as the president was buoyed by his third election but shadowed by the prospect of war. The White House speechwriting team included long-time aides like Harry Hopkins and Sam Rosenman, as well as a new addition: 44-year-old Robert Sherwood, a playwright who had recently won his second Pulitzer Prize for a show about Abraham Lincoln. At 6’ 6”, Sherwood had been rejected by the US Army during World War I; determined to serve, he fought with the Canadians. The horrors of war, and the experience of being gassed, rendered him a pacifist until he was roused to support Roosevelt’s policies in part by Charles Lindbergh. ‘Hitlerism,’ Sherwood recalled thinking, ‘was already powerfully and persuasively in our own midst.’

 

Just two nights before the speech, Roosevelt met with his speechwriting team in the upstairs study of the White House residence. The text was nearly done, but the president was still tinkering with it and had an idea for a peroration that would tie the speech together. ‘We waited as he leaned far back in his swivel chair with his gaze on the ceiling,’ Rosenman recalled. ‘The words seemed to roll off his tongue as though he had rehearsed them many times to himself.’ The idea was the four freedoms, and the president dictated the text to his scribes.

 

On January 6, 1941, exactly eighty years before an America First president would incite an insurrection, Roosevelt entered the US Capitol. The atmosphere was charged. Sam Rayburn the house speaker, shattered his gavel as he brought the House into order. The president gripped the podium to hold himself upright, the steel braces keeping his powerless legs in place, Tens of millions of Americans listened to his voice, huddled around radios, many of them destined to be drafted into the US military or put to work producing arms. Roosevelt was determined to tell them not just what they might be called to do, but why.”

 

An image of a woman reading was cropped from one at Wikimedia Commons.

 

Monday, October 5, 2026

A fraudulent allegation of perjury in a Senate hearing was based on bad research


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There was an awful moment in a Senate judiciary committee hearing where Missouri Senator Eric Schmitt slipped when he tried to push a conspiracy theory involving former special counsel Jack Smith somehow being connected with Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis. I would have expected better from the former Attorney General of Missouri (2019 to 2023).

 

It is shown in a twelve-minute YouTube video at MS NOW from Chris Hayes titled ‘COMPLETE DOOFUS’: GOP’s Jack Smith ‘smoking gun’ CRUMBLES over Caitlin Clark game.

 

That hearing was also discussed in two articles on September 29, 2026. One by Sophia Bailly at PBS News is titled WATCH: Schmitt suggests Jack Smith perjured himself about a basketball game, but mixes up 2 teams. The other by Shirin Ali at SLATE is titled This Mortifying Attempt to Trap Jack Smith in Perjury Was Like Something Out of The Office. On October 1, 2026 there is another article by Cameron Adams at The Daily Beast titled MAGA Senator’s Epic Flop Gets Humiliating New Twist.

 

The bogus allegations and facts are:

 

Allegations (completely wrong): On February 3, 2024 Jack Smith watched an NBA basketball game in Atlanta between the Atlanta Hawks and the Golden State Warriors.

 

Facts: On February 3, 2024 Jack Smith watched a women’s college basketball game in College Park, Maryland between the University of Maryland Terrapins and the University of Iowa Hawkeyes. Caitlin Clark scored 38 points for the Hawkeyes, who won 93 to 85.   

 

Eric Schmitt looks like much more of a dirtbag than Jack Smith!

 

The slipping sign came from Wikimedia Commons

 

Saturday, October 3, 2026

Spellbound is a 2025 book by Molly Worthen all about how charisma has shaped American history


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a very detailed 2025 book by Molly Worthen titled Spellbound: How charisma shaped American history from the Puritans to Donald Trump. Google Books has a preview through page 28. The book is divided into five parts with fifteen chapters starting on the pages shown:

 

PART I: PROPHETS 1

Chapter 1: Revolution 3

Chapter 2: Awakenings 22

Chapter 3: Wartime 46

 

PART II: CONQUERORS 67

Chapter 4: Mastery 69

Chapter 5: Visions 96

Chapter 6: Attraction 124

 

PART III: AGITATORS 147

Chapter 7: Enlightenment 149

Chapter 8: Pentecost 172

Chapter 9: Apocalypse 195

 

PART IV: EXPERTS 217

Chapter 10: Intellect 219

Chapter 11: Liberation 241

Chapter 12: Breakdown 263

 

PART V: GURUS 289

Chapter 13: Insight 291

Chapter 14: Profit 311

Chapter 15: Revival 332

 

Afterword 367

Acknowledgements 375

Notes 379

 

In the Introduction, starting on page xxiv she explains in detail exactly how her book is structured [ I have added italics to all mentions of her five types]:

 

“Over the past four centuries, five types of charismatic leaders have surged to dominance, each offering a variation on the great paradox, a different way for followers to hand over control while feeling liberated. I use these categories both to classify leaders and their movements, and to chart historical change: each type reacts to the type that came before, and responds to the pressures and anxieties of its own era. Like all typologies, this one maps imperfectly onto real people. Almost no one is a ‘pure’ example of these categories, and some leaders are interesting precisely because they react against their age’s dominant type. But these categories have compelled even leaders who defied easy labels – that’s most of them – to respond to the ascendant charismatic style of their age.

 

The Prophets take us from the end of the Middle Ages into something beginning to resemble our own world. They drew on ancient patterns of contact with the divine to challenge authorities and captivate followers with the terror and ecstasy of God’s presence. They hewed close to tradition, operating in a time when Old World strictures still constrained life in the New World rather tightly. But some used these traditions to undermine reigning institutions, whether by violent rebellion or illicit gatherings – and so provoked a backlash. If the Prophets conceived of freedom in terms of divine salvation, they often harnessed mystical power for this-worldly ends. Usually this meant dismantling any structure that stood in God’s way.

 

The Prophets were, essentially, destroyers. In their wake they provoked an age of builders.

 

The Conquerors rose to prominence in the early nineteenth century – an age of mythology, mass media, and frontier enthusiasm in the European American imagination. They swung away from the age of the Prophets, who had so much to say about how powerless humans are.

 

Some of the Conquerors wielded military power, but all of them pursued what we might call metaphysical conquest. They fought to control spiritual forces. As the predestinarian Puritanism of earlier generations lost its appeal, more people placed an almost fundamentalist faith in the power of free will. It was tempting to think of spiritual forces – perhaps even the Holy Spirit – as a kind of technology, ready for manipulation. The stakes in these campaigns were high at a time when new advances in science impinged on everyday life. Waves of immigration made the country more religiously and ethnically diverse. Americans felt both freer and yet more confined than ever before.

 

The Agitators gained sway at the turn of the twentieth century, protesting modernity as a raw deal and democracy as tyranny in disguise. The Conquerors had, overall, expanded government authority over Americans’ lives and advanced a golden ideal of progress. Now the pendulum swung back towards calls for destruction. The Agitators found a market for attacking the state and denouncing so-called progress as a lie. They defined themselves aas outsiders whether they were or not, and discovered that gaining material power does not mean that one must stop telling a story of exile and affliction. This proved to be an important lesson in an age of world war and economic disaster: global crises have a way of transfiguring an outcast dissenter into a credible threat to the standing order. Meanwhile, Christians grew wilder in their displays of New Testament charisma – because, paradoxically, it was easier to grapple with what Max Weber called the ‘iron cage’ of modernity by embracing ever more outlandish signs of divine power.

 

The Experts were, on the face of things, the Agitators’ opposite in charismatic style. They were builders. In the wake of World War II, they capitalized on a backlash against the nightmare years of fascist demagogues, embraced the zenith of traditional institutions’ authority across Western culture and politics, and nurtured Americans’ faith in the power of technology and bureaucracy to solve large-scale problems. They claimed the mantle of reason and procedure and did their best to relegate the political or religious clout of charisma to the distant past or primitive cultures.

 

But in fact, the three decades after World War II witnessed an explosion of religious revival in Americans – led by Christians who spoke in tongues, looked for the end times, and claimed to heal through the power of the Spirit. Even in the domain of credentialed and supposedly secular healing, the line between medicine and spirituality grew fuzzier. These years were the Experts’ apogee of cultural prestige, but Americans’ long-standing ambivalence about intellectual elites persisted. The most successful leaders capitalized on these mixed feelings. They nursed the tension between the Cold War celebration of science and freedom and, on the other hand, the lurking sense that the technological leaps obscured eternal truths and needed the organizing power of a good story.

 

By the end of the twentieth century, as Americans lost faith in established media, churches, government, and nearly every other bulwark of modern society, the destructive strain of charismatic leadership resurfaced in the form of Gurus: preachers of self-actualization and get-enlightened-quick schemes, promoting God’s new temp job as personal assistant.  Old-fashioned Pentecostal revival persisted too, but its leaders struggled to prevent the culture wars from capturing the Holy Spirit.

 

The Gurus looked, at first glance, like the Prophets and the Agitators. But in the generations since those earlier eras, it had become harder to pay obeisance to tradition – which was just fine, since the erosion of institutions had weakened traditions anyway, and opened a path for Gurus to achieve more influence than their destructive predecessors. Religious and philosophical tradition, in the hands of the Gurus, was no longer a firm guide but a palette for painting illusions of independence. Sometimes they used it to depict a new reality impervious to fact-checkers.

 

‘Guru,’ which means ‘remover of darkness’ in Sanskrit, was originally a religious term. But in the third decade of the twenty-first century, the most prominent guru in the country was a businessman named Donald Trump. Trump was not, personally, a paragon of conventional religious devotion. Yet his political career depended on a hunger among his most dedicated supporters that can only be called spiritual. Like so many relationships between charismatic leaders and their followers, it stumped and angered those on the outside. Against the backdrop of the American charismatic tradition, however, his success makes perfect sense.

 

How, then, did early modern mystics and Puritan heretics who heard the voice of the Holy Spirit give way to devotees at a modern presidential rally, jostling toward the candidate iPhone-first, praying for a selfie? By the early twenty-first century, most religious institutions in the West had declined into husks of their former authority – at least by the usual measures. Today commentators turn more than ever to materialist explanations for political dysfunction, polarization, and the culture’s general crisis of confidence. They cite growing social inequality , impassable disagreements on policy, persistent racism and xenophobia, evil automated forces lurking on the internet. All true – yet all insufficient accounts. If we define the religious impulse as a hunger for transcendent meaning and a reflex to worship, then it is a human instinct only slightly less basic than the need for food and shelter, and Americans are no less religious than they have ever been. They will always find a way to satisfy these desires, even if charisma carries them down strange and costly paths.”

 

 The arrow spiral was adapted from OpenClipArt.

 

Friday, October 2, 2026

What statistics can and can’t tell us about fear of public speaking


  

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

There is a superficial article at The King’s Speakers (a Toastmasters Club in suburban St. Paul, Minnesota) on September 28, 2026 titled Fear of Public Speaking Statistics: What the Numbers Can and Cannot Tell Us.

 

They begin by correctly stating that:

 

“Public speaking fear statistics are only useful when you know what was measured. Feeling nervous before a presentation, naming speaking as a fear, and meeting diagnostic criteria for social anxiety disorder are not interchangeable outcomes.”

 

The best part is that they eventually ask:

 

What was the exact question?

Who answered?

What time period was measured?

When were the data collected?

Can you reach the original source?  

 

The worst part is that earlier they quote percentages for social anxiety disorder from the National Comorbidity Survey-Replication (NCS-R) rather than any for fear of public speaking or (more broadly) stage fright. Back on August 12, 2015 I blogged about how There’s really no mystery about how common stage fright is and referred to numbers for adults from the National Comorbidity Survey-Replication. I had earlier blogged about that topic in another post on June 23, 2009 titled You are not alone: fear of public speaking affects one in five Americans. And I had discussed other results for adolescents (from the NCS-A) in a post on June 11, 2012 titled What social situations scare American adolescents, and what are their top 20 fears?

 

I blogged about more recent results for adults in a post on October 23, 2025 titled In the eleventh Chapman Survey of American Fears for 2025, public speaking was only ranked #46 of 67 fears at 33.7%. In that post I also discussed Fear Scores, which answer how much people feared (just Slightly Afraid) rather than how many in percent.

 

And on March 3, 2026 I blogged about Botched statistics on fear of public speaking from an article in the March 2026 Toastmaster magazine. In that post I described results in percent from all eleven Chapman Surveys from 2014 to 2025.

 

Thursday, October 1, 2026

A steamroller, lying, and a fear of public speaking


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a humorous LinkedIn post by Sue Keogh about British public speaking coach (and former stand-up comic) Jon Torrens where he claims:

 

“78% of people would rather be run over by a steamroller than be forced to do public speaking, and the other 22% are lying. Or so it says here, in a survey I’ve just made up.”

Where did he get that combination of three items? The 1988 comedy film A Fish Called Wanda has a Steamroller Showdown Scene between stutterer Ken Pile (Michael Palin) and Otto West (Kevin Kline).

 

And Mark Abrahams has repeatedly talked about how 85% of people fear public speaking and the other 15% are lying. See my September 29, 2020 blog post titled A quantified version of a discredited Mark Twain quotation about fear of public speaking.

 

The steamroller image came from here at Wikimedia Commons.

   

 

Tuesday, September 29, 2026

Speak Up! is a 2020 book by Adora Svitak with a collection of forty-five speeches by young people to empower and inspire


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a 176-page book from 2020 by Adora Svitak titled Speak Up!: Speeches by young people to empower & inspire. It contains a collection of forty-five brief ones, including one each by Joan of Arc and Greta Thunberg. They are listed in the Table of Contents, which can be found in a Google Books preview.

 

An image of a girl speaking was adapted from Wikimedia Commons.