This is an archive of past discussions about Superficial charm. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Technical discussion

Charm is a worthy topic for a Wikipedia article but this neither defines charm nor does it explain what is meant by "superficial" charm and how it differs from charm. Though, neither did Cleckley. This is what he had to say about superficial charm:

More often than not, the typical psychopath will seem particularly agreeable and

make a distinctly positive impression when he is first encountered. Alert and friendly in

his attitude, he is easy to talk with and seems to have a good many genuine interests.

There is nothing at all odd or queer about him, and in every respect he tends to embody

the concept of a well-adjusted, happy person. Nor does he, on the other hand, seem to

be artificially exerting himself like one who is covering up or who wants to sell you a bill

of goods. He would seldom be confused with the professional backslapper or someone

who is trying to ingratiate himself for a concealed purpose. Signs of affectation or

excessive affability are not characteristic. He looks like the real thing. (P. 339)

Anthony (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

"Superficial charm" is a widely used expression in relation to psychopaths although i have found it difficult to yet find a good definition of what it is in that context although the expression itself is fairly self explanatory.--Penbat (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Penbat. Yeah. I guess my problem is with Cleckley rather that you. If he had just said charm, no problem: pleasing, delighting, stimulating, attractive, Maybe he meant ephemeral charm "charm that fades pretty quickly once they've emptied your bank account." But, reading the accounts in the first part of Cleckley, it seems like pretty convincing, robust and enduring charm to me. Sorry if I sounded harsh. Anthony (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi this is a tough one to pin down. Sometimes "superficial charm" in the context of psychopaths is referred to as just "charm" (in Hare's Snakes in Suits for example) or something else but in the Charm page it is associated with Charisma which isnt the same although Charisma could cover the darker side of charisma better. Thanks for being so civil and i found your User:Anthonyhcole#Pain_and_cognition interesting. --Penbat (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Just spotted that "superficially charming" is listed in Cleckleys psychopathy checklist. --Penbat (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Superficial charm occurs 7 times in Mask - twice in subheadings, 3 times in lists, and twice in the body, I think. Superficial occurs about 90 times attached to other nouns. I suspect he was throwing the adjective about rather casually. Or, if he had a meaning for superficial charm, it's not clear from the book what he meant by it. Can I share some ideas with you about charm? Anthony (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do.--Penbat (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit unwell just now, but will raise you again when I'm better. Take care Anthony (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Scope of Article

Am I the only person who thinks that this article ends up describing the negative personality traits of everyone in the entire world? Everyone is manipulative to some degree. This article doesn't seem to set the boundaries Pigeonshouse (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you clarify a bit ? There are bad people such as psychopaths who particularly use superficial charm but the technique is also widely used more subtly in things like advertising and selling. Either way it is a common and widely used manipulative technique. We all manipulate others to some degree. I am a bit constrained by the source material at my disposal. --Penbat (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)