MANUFACTURED CHARISMA AND THE INFLUENCER PARADOX: INTELLECT OR ILLUSION?

Why do we follow people we perceive as having "low intellectual, mental, and spiritual capacity, without principles or values"?

Throughout history, human beings have always sought out role models. Although forms of leadership and methods for demonstrating their worth have changed dramatically over time (from epic battles to viral challenges), the fundamental psychological needs of leadership have remained the same. (security, order, guidance, belonging) that drive us to continue are surprisingly consistent”

FROMPHARAOH TO INFLUENCER: WHY DO WE KEEP FOLLOWING HIM?

PEOPLE NEED SOMEONE TO FOLLOW

Welcome, friends, to the ever-changing landscape of human psychology. If there's one thing I've learned from my travels through this crazy globalized world, it's that people need someone to follow, whether we're talking about the banks of the Nile in 2,500 BC or the illuminated screens of TikTok in 2025. The fundamental need for guidance, belonging, and security in a chaotic world is as constant as humanity's heart rate. It's the secret sauce that binds everything from empires to digital tribes.

THE OLD SOCIAL NETWORK, WHEN GODS AND KINGS WERE THE ORIGINAL INFLUENCERS

Long before there were "likes" and "shares," we were already attributing extraordinary qualities to those who led us.

Divine monarchs?

Shamans who spoke to spirits?

These were the original influencers, but with one key difference: their authority came not from an algorithm, but from something much heavier, more immovable: divine right, tradition, and the perception that they were, literally, something more than human.

Imagine the ancient Greeks, worshipping their heroes, or a Japanese emperor so sacred you couldn't even look directly at him. It wasn't just power; it was a whole package of mythology, religion, and a good dose of collective psychological projection. We, the collective, gave them their status, and they, in turn, had to keep proving themselves worthy of it.

A king (or leader) consolidated his authority and the belief in his "extraordinary" qualities

A king (or leader) consolidated his authority and the belief in his "extraordinary" (often divine or heroic) qualities by performing impressive feats, such as fighting a beast. This action served to publicly validate his status and power.

In the digital age, an influencer does something similar when they participate in or create a "viral challenge." By doing so, they not only gain visibility, but they also "prove their worth" (their creativity, their ability to generate engaging content, their relatability to their audience) in a way that resonates with their community and reinforces their influence. Both acts, although very different in form, serve the same purpose: legitimizing the leader/influencer in the eyes of their audience.

AND WHAT ABOUT OBEDIENCE TO LEADERS AND INFLUENCERS?

"In ancient times, obedience was not a weakness; it was, ironically, a form of human excellence."

In ancient societies, especially those with hierarchical structures and divine or very powerful leaders, obedience was not seen as negative or submissive. Instead, it was considered a virtue. It was believed that by obeying a higher authority (perceived as wise, just, or divinely inspired), individuals achieved a form of moral or social perfection. It was part of being a good citizen or member of the community, contributing to order and stability. The irony is that, from our modern perspective, we often associate blind obedience with a lack of critical thinking, but in that context, it was seen as positive and ennobling.

In an ancient world, which was much more uncertain, dangerous, and lacking in modern conveniences and resources (such as instant information, science, or psychology to address existential problems), people sought security, certainty, and direction.

A leader perceived as divinely connected or possessing superior knowledge offered precisely that. Someone who "told you what to do" with the blessing of the gods or immemorial wisdom was a source of comfort and order in a chaotic environment. The rhetorical question emphasizes that, in these circumstances, relying on such a figure was a logical response to human psychological needs for stability and guidance.

THE REINVENTION OF POWER, WHEN BLUE BLOOD GAVE WAY TO THE ALGORITHM

And then came the internet. The network of networks, the global steamroller, the ultimate disruptor. Suddenly, the old school of authority, the one that came from the top down, with crowns and genealogies, began to tremble. The "symbolic and eternal body" of the king vanished into the digital ether. Now, his authority is not hereditary; it is temporary, negotiable, and, above all, based on performance.

Content creation, once the preserve of elites and traditional media, has become democratized. We are experiencing the "democratization of creativity."

Anyone with a phone and an idea (good or bad) can now become a walking megaphone. The barriers to entry have plummeted. Charisma, which Max Weber defined as a "divine gift," has become "another manufactured product." Yes, you read that right: manufactured charisma. You build it, you package it, you sell it. And more importantly, you have to keep producing "new things" to keep it alive, just as an influencer needs a new viral video every week.

The above has profound implications. We've moved from "assigned" authority (you were born with it, it was given to you) to "acquired" influence (you earn it through digital sweat and a lot of image curation).

You no longer need a throne; you need a good Instagram feed. But here's the thing: this new playing field, while more fluid, isn't necessarily more virtuous. It opens the door to manipulation and superficiality. Authenticity, that Holy Grail of digital influence, is often a carefully choreographed performance.

THE INFLUENCER PARADOX: INTELLECT OR ILLUSION?

And this brings us to the next question, the one that looms over much of our digital conversation:

Why do we follow people we perceive as having "low intellectual, mental and spiritual capacity, without principles or values"?

It's a valid question, and there's no simple answer, so I'd like to share the following guidelines that crowd psychology experts have found:

The category of "influencer" is vast

Yes, there are many influencers operating in the entertainment and lifestyle space, where relatability and aspirational content reign supreme. They're not looking to give you a lesson in political philosophy, but rather to show you how to live a life you might desire. For them, the value isn't in erudition, but in emotional connection, escapism, or simply feeling like you're part of something.

But the digital ecosystem is also home to a growing legion of genuine experts (psychologists, scientists, educators) who use these same platforms to share real and valuable knowledge. User criticism, then, may be painting everyone with the same brush, confusing entertainment with education.

The phenomenon of parasocial relationships

Think about it: we build an illusion of intimacy with these people on our screens. We feel like we know them, that they're our friends, that they understand us. It's a one-sided relationship, yes, but it's real to us. And that perceived intimacy, however illusory, makes their messages more impactful, more trustworthy, even if they're promoting something paid for. It's "manufactured authenticity" at its finest.

What this tells us is that the effectiveness of influence, now more than ever, is not based solely on objective competence, but on the ability to project and maintain an image that resonates with our needs.

Charisma is no longer a gift; it's a skill that can be trained.

The "new happenings" that former leaders needed to maintain their aura are now the continuous content drops, viral challenges, and trends that influencers must master to avoid being forgotten.

THE COLLECTIVE BULLDOZER, THE HIDDEN POWER

Here's the final revelation: the common denominator uniting ancient kings with digital gurus is the collective that truly holds the power. It always has. Charisma, as Weber said, is not an inherent quality; it's an "alien attribution" of the group. It is we, with our likes, our comments, our shares, who "make, maintain, or destroy" influence.

In ancient times, if the people stopped believing in your divinity, your reign would falter. Today, if followers lose trust, an influencer can be "cancelled" and disappear faster than you can say "algorithm." The power of the collective is, paradoxically, greater than that of the leader.

This is both liberating and terrifying. It has democratized the capacity to influence, allowing diverse voices to emerge. But it also means that influence can be ephemeral, dependent on constant validation, and often less accountable than traditional forms of authority.

So here we are, in 2025, still yearning for guidance and connection, but in a digital landscape that often mistakes glitter for gold. The lesson for us, as individuals in this vast global network, is clear:

The ability to think critically and media literacy are no longer luxuries; They are survival needs.

Distinguishing between genuine experience, authentic connection, and mere performance has become more crucial than ever. Because in the end, it's us, the collective, who decide who we choose to follow, and in that act of choice, we shape the future of influence in our society. Think carefully the next time you give a "like."