Charm School

We’re told charm is a good thing. A social skill. A leadership trait. A way to move through the world.

So why does it sometimes feel… synthetic?

This episode takes a hard look at charm—not as a personality trait, but as a form of influence. The ability to read, adjust, and shape interactions in real time. The ability to change someone’s internal state without them fully realizing it.

And if you influence people whether you mean to or not… where is your ethical line?

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:01

I'm Ashley, and this is Dear Sovereign Self, my audio journal on the way I walk through life, practicing sovereignty, living from truth not wound, and choosing alignment over self-abandonment. Here's today's entry.

SPEAKER_00 0:16

I do not like charm. Full stop. I I don't trust it. And the more I experience being charmed, the more I have the desire to scream off of a rooftop. Is anyone else having this experience? Uh, because if I'm being honest, this isn't new for me. I've always felt this way. I just haven't always said it out loud. But we're told that charm, being charming, is a good thing. It's a social skill, a leadership trait, a way to move through the world. And I understand those things are not mutually exclusive. Something can be wildly rewarded and still feel off to me. So the question I keep coming back to is why does being charmed feel so synthetic? What is that feeling? Because when I experience it, it doesn't just feel like I like someone, it feels like something is happening and I'm not fully aware of it while it's happening. And I think that's why I'm doing this episode because that feeling, the gap, uh, is not something I think sovereign people can afford to ignore. So I titled this episode Charm School, and if you've ever heard that phrase before, it describes a kind of formal training like etiquette, manners, poise, how to present yourself well, basically, how to be pleasant, how to be well received. And that's actually a very specific kind of training because you're not being taught how to be, you're being taught how to be perceived. And that right there, that gap between being and presenting as, that's the synthetic feeling that I'm feeling. That's the incongruence. And I have a feeling that's exactly what we're all feeling when we say someone is charming. So that's what I want to explore today. Of course, I started by looking up the definition of charm. So charm is usually defined as a likable quality that attracts or delights. And I actually want to pause here for a second because there are two ways to read that definition. One way is that charm is something you have, a quality, and people are just naturally drawn to it. That's the noun. But there's another way to read it because those words attracts, delights, those are verbs. Those are actions. So now we have a question. Is charm something you possess, or is it something you are doing? And the answer is probably both, but I want to be really clear about something because the part that I have an aversion to is not the noun, it's the verb. When someone is charming, are you responding to who they are or what they're doing in real time? Because those are two very different things, and we usually don't stop to separate them. Because if charm were purely a quality, something natural, something unintentional, we actually have other words for that. We call that presence, we call that magnetism, we call that charisma, and we'll talk about that in a second. But when we say someone is charming, what we're often describing is not just that they are liked, it's that they are doing something that is creating that feeling. And when I think about charm, I don't think about a trait. I think about maneuvering, energetic maneuvering specifically. Like something is being adjusted, positioned, uh calibrated so that a certain outcome happens. So for the sake of this conversation, I'm less interested in charm as a quality and more interested in charm as an action, because that's the part that raises questions for me. Now, before we go any further into the verb of charm, I do want to pause and briefly talk about the noun because this is where things can get conflated. Do you trust people who feel magnetic the same way you trust people who feel charming? Because one feels like presence and the other feels like it's adjusting to you. There are people I experience as magnetic and I trust them. And there are people I experience as charming and I don't. And those are two different experiences. So let's separate them. Charisma feels like presence. It doesn't adjust, it doesn't chase, it doesn't bend, it just is. You either feel it or you don't. Charm adjusts, it reads the room, it meets the moment, it finds the entry point, it figures out what works and leans into it. Now, to be clear, that is not inherently a bad thing. The ability to read a room, to meet people where they are, to create ease in an interaction, that's a real skill. And we're going to come back to that in a bigger way later, but for now, I just want to name the distinction. Charisma feels like truth, charm feels like strategy. And strategy, again, is not inherently bad, but it is intentional. And intention is where this starts to matter. So now let's go back to the verb definitions of charm to captivate, to enchant, to beguile, to be witch. Those are not neutral words. Those are words we use to describe, well, it's right there, enchantment. And when someone is enchanted, they are under the influence of something, even if it's a Disney princess. Okay. And when you are under the influence, you are not acting entirely of your own volition. Something is shifted. Your perception, your feelings, your decisions. Charm isn't just about being liked, it's someone changing your internal state while you're talking to them. And that's the part that gets stuck in my craw because now we're not just talking about being likable. We're talking about the ability to change someone's internal state in real time. At what point does making someone feel good become moving them away from themselves? And that's the real question, not whether charm works, but what it's doing while it's working. Because manipulation is influence that hides its presence. And I know I just used the big M-word manipulation, so let's back up. So if manipulation is influence that hides its presence, then we have to get clear on what that actually means because not all influence is manipulation. Influence at its core is just the ability to affect how someone feels, thinks, or responds, right? That happens all the time. It happens naturally in conversation, it happens through presence, through clarity, through emotional attunement. You don't have to be trying to influence someone for you to be influencing them. You can influence someone by making them feel at ease. You can influence someone by being grounded, by being direct, by being fully yourself. None of that is inherently a problem. So the line isn't influence itself. The line is whether or not that influence interferes with someone's ability to choose clearly. Not because they're incapable, not because they're unaware, but because something about the interaction bypassed their ability to see what was happening while it was happening. And that's the distinction. Not whether someone feels good, not whether there is ease, not whether there's connection, but whether the clarity of their choice remains intact inside of that experience. Because the moment clarity is compromised, even slightly, the dynamic changes. It's no longer just influence. Now it's directional. Now it's persuasive in a way that isn't fully visible. Now it's something else. Not to spoil the ending, but this isn't just about people who are quote unquote charming. This is about you. Because whether you think of yourself that way or not, you influence people. You influence people with your presence, your tone, your attention, and what you choose to say and what you choose to hold back. Even in the absence of strategy, your natural state has an effect on the people around you. It can steady them, it can open them, it can shift them. And sometimes, without you intending to, it can move them. So now the question isn't just what other people are doing, the question is what you are doing and how aware you are of it while you're doing it. So this is why we're we're having this conversation at all, because this isn't just about charm, shocker. It's about influence. And whether or not you are conscious of it while it's happening. Because a sovereign person has to be able to experience influence without losing their center inside of it. You have to be able to sit in a moment where something feels good, where someone is engaging you, reading you, meeting you, and still remain anchored enough to ask, what is happening here? Why does this feel the way it does? And do I actually agree with where this is going? Right? But we've talked about having to sit in discomfort as a sovereign. But this is actually kind of the opposite side of that coin. It's sitting in something that feels good and still maintaining discernment. And that's one side of it. The other side is just as important because sovereignty is not just about not being moved, it's also about how you move others. You can't opt out of influencing people. So what's your ethical line when you do? Because whether you like it or not, you influence people with your presence, with your words, with your energy, with your choices. So the question becomes: what is your relationship to that power? When you create ease, when you create connection, when you create likability, are you doing that in a way that respects the other person's autonomy? Or are you guiding them somewhere they didn't consciously choose to go? And this is the part I don't think we talk about enough because we're very comfortable talking about being influenced. We're much less comfortable talking about being the one doing the influencing. So I'm not going to answer this for you, but I do think the question is worth sitting with. Where is your ethical line when it comes to influence? Not in theory, but in practice, in real conversations and real interactions, in the moments where you could shape an outcome and no one would even realize you did. Because influence isn't going anywhere. Right? Charm as a tool isn't going anywhere. Charm schools went away, but charm did not. Right? So the question is, what are you going to do with your influence? So I'll leave you with this. Where is your line between creating connection and influencing the outcome? Let me know.

SPEAKER_01 11:40

We'll close the page here for now. Until next time.