>Higher-ups, then, have the responsibility of appropriating their tallent in ways that are effective. Good people aren't good when they aren't given meaningful work.

Sure, but that's in the "make the right decisions" category. Logistics, really. We're talking Marshal Berthier here, not Napoleon. Part of that is assigning the right people to the right tasks. That doesn't take personal charisma or being tall or anything, that's just being technically right.

I mean, it's obvious that the people making technical decisions need to do so competently. It's not always easy to do correctly, but I can understand the process... I understand what needs to be done.

I'm talking about, you know, leadership. When a teacher says someone has "leadership skills" they don't mean that the kid understands how to manage logistics; they mean the kid has a bunch of personal/emotional qualities that allow him or her to emotionally manipulate others to get what he or she wants. (Or, if you want to phrase it in positive terms, "they mean the kid has a bunch of personal/emotional qualities that inspire others to do what they want." )

That's the part I wonder if I need to spend time on. (I mean, logistics is huge, and I /know/ I need to spend more time on it, but that's just a matter of execution, really. I know what I want.)

I mean, do I take time out from the logistics (which I know I need) to learn how to become slick? Certainly, on a personal level, nearly everyone prefers the up-beat, happy person who phrases everything positively, and acts as if they know what they are doing; someone who shows they are marching to certain victory, over to someone who says and does the same things, but who phrases it negatively and states up front that realistically, failure is the likely outcome, that if they do succeed, the reward will be middling, and acknowledges that they are just figuring it out/making it up as they go along.

My problem is that I tend to phrase things negatively, in part because all of my grave financial errors have been due to a terribly unrealistic level of optimism, and in part because I fucking hate guys like that.

Now, I always thought of myself as being more honest and direct... and in some ways, I certainly am, but I have been finding, lately that quite often my false humility comes off as being non-confrontational. Sometimes, I fear that it is. Sometimes, I find myself rephrasing my thoughts directly to be less confrontational, which really puts some people off. I mean, if I'm leaving in the negative phrasing, why go through the effort to also be non-confrontational? well, in part because humility is non-confrontational, and I'm attempting, however clumsily, to emulate humility; but should I? I mean, sure, it turns me in to a person I would like more, but most people are exactly the opposite.

I mean, my feeling on the matter is that I can fake what other people call 'confidence' fairly easily by simply letting my scorn for the fact that you value confidence show. Most people seem to think that's close enough to "confidence" to get me the job or the date or whatever. It doesn't really work long-term, but in a job, at least, by the time they figure it out, I've proven myself useful, so it's fine.

My current feeling? emotional bullshit is bullshit; so long as my logistics are good enough, it doesn't really matter all that much, so long as I avoid high-touch sales situations. It's probably fucking my personal life, but that can be dealt with later.