Predicting Future Successes Based on Characterizing the Past

Current trends in cognitive psychology suggest that a person’s future success can be predicted by a quantitative analysis of past events, applying a Laplacian trend analysis to the data, then making certain qualitative interpretations. However, this methodology fails to interpret the artefacts naturally arising from this method. These artefacts are known among psychoanalytic proponents as “irruptions of the real”. As irruptions, they cannot be predicted in specific terms. Further, the realm of the future is entirely rhetorical, and therefore, it can only be predicted with erudition.

This paper examines the underlying theory for an erudite predictive methodology, based on those parts of psychoanalytic doctrine derived from ancient Greek rhetoric. The article is based on Plutarch’s work on parallel lives, in which he was able to draw parallels between pairs of real lives. In particular, it draws on Plutarch's treatment of General Alcibiades.

Plutarch’s Parallel Lives

An examination of the legends of Plutarch’s Alcibiades must begin with an analysis of Plutarch’s structural style, because the structure dictates the discourse. It has long been common knowledge that Aristotle’s ethical doctrines are the basis of Plutarch’s dicta on character. Plutarch’s style is to state his conclusions on character and public persona inferred from significant evidence that he had traced. He usually makes his early points on the basis of the hero’s education. This process does not treat the hero’s evolution. Instead, it concentrates on his innate character after completion of education, with any apparent changes in character being merely a progressive revelation of latent characteristics, as a result of the context of chance and event, like all slots casino no deposit or something else. This view of character serves as a long-term preservative.

Examining Early Life Stories

Russell stated that the genre in which Plutarch wrote is rooted in the 4th century B.C.E. structures of Isocrates and Xenephon. Plutarch’s standard form and arrangement, which suits and conforms to Alcibiades’ character well, is in nine divisions:

1. ancestry;
2. personality revealed in childhood anecdotes;
3. campaigns as a boy;
4. entry into politics;
5. first main climax;
6. in the wilderness in war and peace;
7. second main climax;
8. dramatic change of fortune;
9. post-war governments.

Both late life and ancestry may be characterized using old age, death, funeral, and children.

Plutarch dealt with childhood by the device of anecdotes, which are either the building block units of, or complete statements of, the chreia, a story based on amplification of a famous statement or action. He deals with wars using the device of epitome, which is a summary of an already-written work, necessarily full of gaps.

The favour and affection given to Alcibiades by Socrates contributed to his reputation. Alcibiades’ beauty flowered in boyhood, youth and manhood as lovely and pleasant. His lisp was charming and persuasive. His character had many inconsistencies commensurate with vast undertakings and varied fortunes, and this statement is an example of mythic knowledge as a stream of alternating and opposite pieces of knowledge. He loved rivalry and preeminence.

Rainolde had set out three kinds of chreia:

• the saying kind;
• the action kind;
• the composite saying and action kind.

He proposed that the most erudite form of the chreia comprises the following elements: a praise of the author; expounding the meaning of the saying; the reason for the saying; comparison by a contrary; gather the evidence of witnesses; conclusion. It is of particular note that the three chreia of Alcibiades childhood are inerudite in that some of their elements must be inferred from the surrounding so-called facts.

The first chreia of Alcibiades is of the ‘mixed’ kind, comprising both saying and action. Once, in a wrestling match, he bit his opponent’s arms. His opponent accused him of biting like a woman, with inherent implications of effeminacy. He rejected this characterization, coming up with the alternative view that he bit like a lion. This chreia is indicative of a repressed wish not to be effeminate.

The second chreia of Alcibiades was of the ‘action’ kind. As a boy, he was once engaged in a game of knuckle bones in a narrow lane way. A heavy wagon came along and he asked the driver to stop. When the driver refused to bring his team to a halt, Alcibiades threw himself down on the path, face down, and the driver quickly stopped his wagon in terror. This chreia is indicative of a repressed wish not to be stopped playing, with Alcibiades’ behaviour symptomatic as a conscious showing-off to his play friends, his fear of death having remained unconscious.

The third chreia of Alcibiades is of the ‘saying’ kind. At school, Alcibiades refused to play the flute, saying that it was an ignoble and illegal thing. He preferred the lyre because his features would still be recogniseable, whereas the flute robbed him both of voice and of speech. The other boys agreed with him and the flute was dropped from the curriculum, after Alcibiades made his legal argument of stare decisis by referring to Athene and Apollo, the former having cast away the flute, and the latter having flayed the presumptuous flautist. This chreia is indicative of a repressed wish not to be quietened.

Characterising Personality & Predicting Behavior Using the Rhetoric of Chreia

Cornford suggested that these chreia may commune into a genus illustrating the most important point about the stature of the personage of Alcibiades, deriving from a master repressed wish that no-one resist him. Men of high birth gathered around him, in awe of his beauty, and Socrates loved him for his innate excellence and good parts, which Socrates saw radiating in his outward visage. Thus, he sought to protect Alcibiades with the bold and caustic reasoning of philosophy. This created dissonance in Alcibiades because the flatterers and putative lovers sought to turn him away from Socrates. However, ultimately he chose Socrates over his rich and famous lovers. Socrates was to him a lover without desire for unmanly pleasures, seeking instead to expose the soul’s weakness and to rebuke vain and foolish pride. Alcibiades thought that Socrates’ work was a provision of the gods for care of youth. Consequently, he acquired an image of despising himself, admiring Socrates and his solicitude and excellence.

Alcibiades’ colleagues were amazed that he was so close to Socrates, and yet at the same time so harsh with his other lovers. For example, in repetition of the chreia of the lion, Alcibiades once went to a dinner in a drunken state and remained at the entrance of the host’s house, ordering his slaves to take half the food and wine and then carry it home. Anytus, the host, remarked that Alcibiades was moderate and kind for only taking half. Alcibiades once used his reputation to go as surety for a resident alien friend to outbid the tax farmers for their franchises out of a private grudge for them. He would not relent until his friend was paid handsomely to withdraw his bid. Alcibiades’ love for Socrates mastered him, even although he would occasionally slip away to the tempting flatterers. Socrates would hunt him down and bring him back like a runaway slave and he would despise these lovers.

Thucydides characterised Alcibiades as one given to lawless self-indulgence. His flatterers appealed to his love of distinction and fame to induce him to enter public life. But Socrates’ master’s discourse rendered him again humble and cautious. Yet, in war, Socrates once served alongside Alcibiades and saved his life. Socrates gave up the glory of his actions to Alcibiades to increase Alcibiades’ honorable ambitions.

In another repetition of the chreia of the lion, Alcibiades once hit Hipponicus as a joke on a wager. Later he entered the house of Hipponicus to present himself for chastisement. He was forgiven and was given the daughter of Hipponicus for a wife. She was an affectionate wife, but left him because of his wanton ways. He re-took possession of her at court, as was his legal right, and his actions were widely approved of as an exercise of his legal rights.

In a repetition of the chreia of the lion’s bite, Alcibiades owned a beautiful dog he purchased at great expense. He had its tail cut off and deflected chides by saying that he wanted Athenians to speak widely of it, so that they might say nothing worse of him.

Alcibiades entered public life by taking control of an assembly at which a contribution of money to the state was going on. He went forward and made his own contribution to the delight of the crowds. The quail he was carrying flew away in fright, and the crowd helped him hunt the bird.

Alcibiades believed that nothing would give him more influence than the charm of his discourse. He strove to find the proper thing to say and the proper words and phrases to use, but would often stumble in the middle of his speech, clearly as examples of parapraxes. He would stop and pause when a phrase eluded him. After that he would recover and resume with great caution. This is a repetition of his faltering when under the tutelage of Socrates, followed by Socrates dragging him back into a more cautious life.

Thus, it was said of him that he was a prince of talkers, but in speaking most incapable. However, when it came to a vote for ostracism against three people of which he was one, he conferred with one of the three and conspired to ostracise another person instead. This is an example of the subsistence of discourse, where persuasive words have ceased. Once, Alcibiades played a parliamentary trick. The people convened in assembly and he was introduced to them as ambassador. He asked them very courteously what powers they had brought to the assembly. They said that they had not come with full and independent powers. Thereupon, he shouted at them as if he were the wounded person and the assembly was enraged. However, the people lost patience with the assembly and the result was his appointment as general.

Alcibiades had a golden shield with no ancestral coat of arms on it, except an Eros armed with a thunderbolt. This mythic knowledge of Eros and Zeus appeared in the decision of public opinion as undecided about Alcibiades, because of his uneven nature. He was known for drunkenness, lewdness and effeminacy in dress.

The outcomes

General Alcibiades was publicly denounced in absentia by the men of the City of Athens for blasphemy, and his properties were confiscated by default. His impeachment was in the following terms: crime against the goddesses of Eleusis, Demeter and Cora by mimicking the mysteries and showing them to his companions in his own house, wearing the robe of a high priest, contrary to the laws and institutions of the Eumolpidae, Heralds and Priests of Eleusis.

Using the life of Alcibiades as a template, and allowing for the individual's own interpretation, the retained search consultant can adapt Plutarch’s schema to analysis of applicants, and also, analysis of the client organization. From these analyses, the consultant may generate inferences and testable hypotheses.