Aura and Charisma. How do you, the JU wise men, define them?

part of it luck of Birth.  A 5'4" man is not going to have it (usually).  But a 6'2" man will.  But most of it is self assurance.  Plain and simple.  Self Assurance is not arrogance, it is acceptance and faith in oneself.

I read once, a long time ago, that people are responsive to air movement. Meaning you can be sleeping in bed and someone walk silently to your bedroom door and stand on the thresh hold and it can wake you up. So a 6'2" man will move more air and be visually more spacial.

However, I was in theatre during college. I am 5'4" tall. You can command the attention of an audience simply by knowing your business. Being so sure of what you know that it makes the people around you want to know it too.

If I walk in to a crowded party, head up, chin high, smiling, and moving constantly on the go.....making eye contact with as many people as possible, I have just commanded the room.

If I walk in the opposite way no one will even notice I am there.

People are drawn to confidence....I know I am even when I try NOT to be....

That's my 2 cents.

double post

'part of it luck of Birth. A 5'4" man is not going to have it (usually). But a 6'2" man will.'
That's neither aura nor charisma, Dr. Guy - it's height! But seriously, there are far too many short people with these qualities and far too many tall people without them for this to be true.

Hmmm, I see some have decided that it's about size. Well, let me tell you about Janice Harrop. Janice Harrop was the director and senior instructor of the Paramedic Program at Brigham Young University- Idaho Campus. She was 5 ft nothing. She was as intimidating as a drill sergeant, yet one of the most caring and compassionate people I've ever known. Her physical features described a frail pushover of a woman, yet at 60, she was still getting down in the cold Snake River for Search & Rescue, or reading the riot act to a student who so richly deserved it (often even me. ;~D ).

Charisma and "aura" is not that complicated. We are chemicoelectric beings. Every other electric thing puts out an energy signature, so why on earth does science have such a problem accepting that we would have one to. Since we all sense the energy put off by others, it makes sense that we interpret that sense just like we interpret every other sense, we assign feelings and emotions to them.

Many in leadership positions learn to control the area affected by this energy. When I was an NCO, anytime I entered a room, people knew it (and not because of a bad smell. ;~D). Janice Harrop was the same way. On the other hand, if I didn't want to be noticed, I usually wasn't.



My mother can see people's auras, that is her brain interpret the energy in the visual. I have never been able to visualize the energy, but I have sure felt it in others.

I believe it is a combination of things, but primarily self-confidence. While at barely 6ft tall, I have never lacked in confidence and I am one of those people who tends to command attention and has a "presence". Its part of the reason I have always done well and been promoted quickly into supervision/management roles at places I have worked.

So I supposed what I am saying is that I would define it as a discernable air of confidence and authority.

That's neither aura nor charisma, Dr. Guy - it's height! But seriously, there are far too many short people with these qualities and far too many tall people without them for this to be true.

That is why I said Generally.  Height is part of it, but not the sole source of it.

'so why on earth does science have such a problem accepting that we would have one to.'
Because there is no trustworthy scientific evidence to date to suggest that we have such 'energy signatures', let alone that others can detect them. Science doesn't have a "problem" with this, it just requires evidence. That's how science works, ParaTed2k.

Actually, if you think about it, science does indeed recognize that the body puts off electrical energy. Many medical devices such as EEG and EEC detect these energy signals, specifically from the heart and brain.

'Actually, if you think about it, science does indeed recognize that the body puts off electrical energy.'

Well, yes. Every living organism generates electrical energy. This is a long, long way from anything remotely ressembling a 'signature', and - at risk of repeating myself - even if such signatures did exist, there is no reputable evidence WHATSOEVER that others could even detect them, let alone differentiate one from another. (Actually, there is a substantial body of evidence to suggest that they cannot do either.)

'so why on earth does science have such a problem accepting that we would have one to.' Because there is no trustworthy scientific evidence to date to suggest that we have such 'energy signatures', let alone that others can detect them. Science doesn't have a "problem" with this, it just requires evidence. That's how science works, ParaTed2k.

Science is blind to anything it can't quantify. I have nothing against science, but it can't even tell me what triggers cellular mytosis, yet it is triggered by something. Science tells me that all matter is made of elements, and sub atomic particles are matter... but it can't tell me what elements sub atomic particles are made of.

Science then tells me that all electrical things put out energy, our organs run on electricity, so why wouldn't they put out energy? Our bodies respond to other energy output, so what would make science believe that our bodies wouldn't respond to energy output from each other?

'Our bodies respond to other energy output, so what would make science believe that our bodies wouldn't respond to energy output from each other?'

Simple. Science 'believes' (if you must use such an intrinsically unscientific word) that we cannot detect the 'energy' within others because no-one has ever conducted a scientifically rigorous experiment that suggests otherwise. Again, that's ... how ... science ... works.

And there are plenty of good reasons to suggest that this is no more than we should expect. For example, if we were sensitive enough to respond to the truly minute electrical levels generated within a human body, every time we were in the vicinity of a power point or an AA battery we would flip our wigs! .

and until science learned to quantify it, we couldn't "detect" solar energy, nuclear energy, or even energy emanating from the brain.

I have nothing against science, it is a great method to gain a better understanding of the physical universe we live in. However, no one should claim that science can explain everything. "we don't know" is an important line that any inteligent person should be willing to admit.

We feel the effects of the energy, yet (simply because science can't quantify it) you and others are willing to ignore what you feel. Kind of sad.

' and until science learned to quantify it, we couldn't "detect" solar energy, nuclear energy, or even energy emanating from the brain.'
Ah, the obfuscation of language. Do you mean 'detect' within our own bodies, or using scientific instruments? If the former, then this is facile - e.g. regardless of the extent of our scientific understanding, we have always been able to perceive 'solar energy' (as the sun's heat and light). If the latter, then this is an argument FOR the value of science, not against it.

'We feel the effects of the energy, yet (simply because science can't quantify it) you and others are willing to ignore what you feel. Kind of sad.'
Classic cyclic argument: Unsubstantiated statement of 'fact', from which a conclusion may be derived, which in turn is used to reinforce the initial statement. There is no evidence that we 'feel the effects of the energy', ergo there is no evidence that anyone is ignoring anything. It's not that science can't 'quantify' our perception of it, it's that there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that any such perception occurs. To put it another way, this argument is no stronger than saying that those who claim to perceive such energy (and I am not one of them, despite your suggestion to the contrary) are deluding themselves / others. So, not sad at all actually, just balderdash.

'However, no one should claim that science can explain everything.'
I quite agree. Who has done that? Certainly not me. But hey, as all successful politicians know, if you have no good response to a statement, just respond indignantly to a completely different one of your own choosing!

if you have no good response to a statement, just respond indignantly to a completely different one of your own choosing!

Apparently we're both good at that. ;~D

'Apparently we're both good at that. ;~D'
Bollocks. I've done nothing but respond to your claims.

No, you are merely throwing out crap like "cyclist argument" in lieu of an argument. Face it, your erudite arrogance dismisses anything I say, since you feel that I am simply beneath you.

The fact is, since science can't quantify the energy we may or may not radiate, it is entirely illogical to use it to back a statement for or against the concept.

Now, you can go back to your ivory tower and choke on your unwarranted self-importance.

'The fact is, since science can't quantify the energy we may or may not radiate, it is entirely illogical to use it to back a statement for or against the concept.'

Let me get this straight. You say that we may OR MAY NOT radiate 'energy'. Science cannot detect it. (N.B. Not 'quantify', but DETECT. Different thing.) Therefore this radiated energy must exist? You strike me as very confused, PT2K, and you obviously don't understand the fundamentals of science or scientific method.

I guess this must be why you resort to name calling, avoiding the question, devising phony claims and falsely attributing them to me. And you accuse me of being 'illogical'? How deliciously ironic.

P.S. I didn't say 'cyclist argument' - my point had nothing to to with cycling! I said 'CYCLIC argument'. Suggest you look it up.

Wow, and you're keen mind and sharp wit caught me in a typo! Wow, can you also roll over and play dead?

What I am saying is, it is logical to think that, since ALL electrical things radiate energy, there is no reason to think that we (as chemicoelectric things) do also. In fact, we know we do because that can be quantified.

I am also saying that since science has not yet learned to quantify any effects that energy may or may not have on others, science is not qualified to come to a conclusion either way.

Therefore scientific method cannot be used to back either side of the argument.

You follow scientific method as if it were a religious dogma. However, what your arrogance apparently can't accept is, scientific method is blind to that which cannot be quantified by the technology and knowledge of the day. So you are left denying the existance of anything you can't quantify. Which is a pretty piss poor way to look at life.

Dare to think about things yet to be learned, it really adds to the flavor of life!!

btw I was not insulting you, I was merely throwing your arrogance in your face.

Back to the original question...
Aura - This is how you carry yourself, how you appear. It is your outward appearance without having to utter a single word. This is what commands attention when you walk into a room. You don't have to DO anything to conjure up this aura. Most people either do or don't have it, it's largely due to their personality.

Charisma - How you interact with others. This is how the skill that makes business leaders successful as they can use their charm and personality to sell people on their ideas.

Charisma is the active piece, while aura is passive.

'Wow, and you're keen mind and sharp wit caught me in a typo!'
A 'typo' is when one accidentally hits the wrong key. You typed 'cyclist' rather than 'cyclic'. That's not a typo, it's simply using the wrong word. (Just like typing "you're" when you mean "your", in fact!)

'scientific method is blind to that which cannot be quantified by the technology and knowledge of the day.'
I almost agree with this - if by your persistent yet inappropriate use of 'quantify' you mean 'detect', and if by science 'being blind' to anything you mean that it finds no evidence for its existence.

'So you are left denying the existance of anything you can't quantify. Which is a pretty piss poor way to look at life.'
This is where we disagree. There are many things that lie outside the bounds of scientific investigation - art, beauty, love, faith etc. But if you claim a PHYSICAL and therefore scientifically measurable phenomenon - such as, in this case, the detection by humans of 'energy' radiated by other humans - you should be able to provide at least some scientific evidence to support it. Without any such evidence whatsoever, such claims are merely mumbo-jumbo; pseudo-scientific, new age quackery - an infinitely more 'piss poor way to look at life', to my mind.