Good Looks Count: one problem with democracy

[Lord Zentei]

Lose the Election? Looks May Be to Blame

June 10, 2005

Split second judgments about a politician's competence can predict an election's outcome better than chance alone, a new study reveals. The results indicate that superficial inferences can contribute to voting choices, a process hoped to be rational and deliberative.

Alexander Todorov and his colleagues at Princeton University showed more than 800 people pictures of two candidates who competed against each other in races for either the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives. The researchers asked subjects to rate the politicians on characteristics such as age, trustworthiness, charisma and competence, based on a glance that lasted less than a second. Analysis of the data showed that the rankings of competence correlated with election outcomes: nearly 70 percent of the time the candidate thought to appear more competent was the race's winner. "Although the study doesn't tell us exactly what competence is---there are many kinds, including physical strength, social dominance and intellectual shrewdness--babyfaced people are perceived to be lacking in all these qualities," explains Leslie A. Zebrowitz of Brandeis University, who penned a commentary that accompanied the study in today's issue of the journal Science.

Judging a nuanced character trait such as competence solely on facial features uses a decision-making method known as System 1 processes. As a rule, these choices are fast, unreflective and effortless. A second kind of evaluation that has been implicated in voting choices uses System 2 processes, which are slow, deliberate and require more effort. Conclude Zebrowitz and co-author Joann M. Montepare of Emerson College: "Understanding the nature and origins of appearance biases has real world value, not the least of which may be identifying electoral reforms that could increase the likelihood of electing the most qualified leaders rather than those who simply look the part." --Sarah Graham

[The Grim Squeaker]

So theyre saying that voters will prefer the most attractive candidate?
Now theres a suprise

[Darth Wong]

This is just a side-effect of the root problem underlying democracy in general: 50% of the decision-makers have an IQ below 100.

[Lord Zentei]

So theyre saying that voters will prefer the most attractive candidate?
Now theres a suprise

The surprise, as far as I am converned at least, is the sheer scale of the correlation and how brief the glimpse was (one second!) that the test subjects needed to come to their "conclusion".

[General Zod]

So theyre saying that voters will prefer the most attractive candidate?
Now theres a suprise

The surprise, as far as I am converned at least, is the sheer scale of the correlation and how brief the glimpse was (one second!) that the test subjects needed to come to their "conclusion".

not that big of a shock really. people have known this since the first televised presidential debates.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The first episode of House, M.D., which I expect to be quoting a lot from now on, deals with good lucks and actual ability quite well. It's unfortunate that humanity is hard wired this way, but not everything is rational in this world.

[Lord Zentei]

So theyre saying that voters will prefer the most attractive candidate?
Now theres a suprise

The surprise, as far as I am converned at least, is the sheer scale of the correlation and how brief the glimpse was (one second!) that the test subjects needed to come to their "conclusion".

not that big of a shock really. people have known this since the first televised presidential debates.

Point. Though that was when television was still a new invention: I thought that people had become more cynical since then. Not enough, apparently.

The first episode of House, M.D., which I expect to be quoting a lot from now on, deals with good lucks and actual ability quite well. It's unfortunate that humanity is hard wired this way, but not everything is rational in this world.

That is putting things mildly. Unfortunately I can't see any simple solution to the problem (other than rigorous anti-bullshit training in civvics classes).

[General Zod]

Point. Though that was when television was still a new invention: I thought that people had become more cynical since then. Not enough, apparently.

unfortunately human stupidity and laziness are two of the great constants that will help in keeping this a solid fact for some time to come.

[tumbletom]

So does that mean that...Bush....Is good looking?????

*gags*

[The Grim Squeaker]

So does that mean that...Bush....Is good looking?????

My mind, it burnsss

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

The surprise, as far as I am converned at least, is the sheer scale of the correlation and how brief the glimpse was (one second!) that the test subjects needed to come to their "conclusion".

not that big of a shock really. people have known this since the first televised presidential debates.

Point. Though that was when television was still a new invention: I thought that people had become more cynical since then. Not enough, apparently.

The first episode of House, M.D., which I expect to be quoting a lot from now on, deals with good lucks and actual ability quite well. It's unfortunate that humanity is hard wired this way, but not everything is rational in this world.

That is putting things mildly. Unfortunately I can't see any simple solution to the problem (other than rigorous anti-bullshit training in civvics classes).

Unfortunately, this tendency to trust a more "mature" looking person is inbred into us. Tens of thousands of years of natural selection has made this rather instinctive, since, after all, for 99% of human history, if one lived long enough to look "mature" then they were doing a lot of things right.

And I don't think rigorous classes are going to help, except in the cases of the people who are already predisposed to viewing these things slowly and rationally, rather than relying on 200,000 years of gut instinct, or voting straight party tickets.

A possible way to alleviate this is to provide a standardized guide to the candidates and their positions. And then administer a short quiz based on the guide, at the voting booth to see if the potential voters have been paying attention. Of course, some will automatically bitch that this is unfair to the illiterate people, or the poor test-takers, or the people who are in a hurry, or the crazy homeless bums rounded up off the street, and the old folks loaded onto busses and instructed to vote straight party ticket, otherwise the Party(Parties) of 3V|1 will take away their Medicaid, and that someone will administer a different quiz to the minorities (which in the deepest, darkest parts of Southern Jesusland, would actually be something of a legitimate concern.)

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

So does that mean that...Bush....Is good looking?????

*gags*

No, both Bush and Kerry had that "mature" look going for them. So what was left were the usual gaggle of one-issue voters, life-long Republicans/Democrats voting straight party ticket, and fence-sitters easily swayed by the emotional sophistry that only a thirty second TV spot can provide.

[Gil Hamilton]

So does that mean that...Bush....Is good looking?????

*gags*

No it means that Bush doesn't look like a Wax Sculpture touring Death Valley, which isn't true of John Kerry.


But this is nothing new. Physical appearance often is a big factor in politics, has been for ages. Take Richard Nixon versus John Kennedy. When they debated, Nixon was just coming off being sick, was fugly to begin with, and was wearing a hideous suit that blended into the backdrop they put behind the candidates. Meanwhile, you've handsome Jack looking tall and youthful and, well, presidental. Interestingly enough, for the people who listened to the debate on the radio, the consensus was that Nixon won the debate, but for those that watched it on TV, Kennedy creamed him.

[Zero]

Could we solve something like this if we could somehow end the televising of political debates? Would that at least help?

[General Zod]

Could we solve something like this if we could somehow end the televising of political debates? Would that at least help?

not likely. televised debates are the best way to reach millions of potential voters. not everyone has the internet, and not everyone listens to the radio, but almost everyone watches television in one form or another.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Could we solve something like this if we could somehow end the televising of political debates? Would that at least help?

not likely. televised debates are the best way to reach millions of potential voters. not everyone has the internet, and not everyone listens to the radio, but almost everyone watches television in one form or another.

If we're that desperate to stop it, we could always have the candidates debate behind curtains, with what they say being spoken by giant floating heads a la The Wizard of Oz.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Could we solve something like this if we could somehow end the televising of political debates? Would that at least help?

No. You could end televised debates, but as has been said, few people tune in to radio who aren't just tuning in for white noise on the drive home/to work. And if you end the debates, what your left with are the slew of political ads designed to appeal directly to your System 1 decision-making processes (i.e. they're generally complete bullshit, but they'll tug at your emotions and feelings.)

[wolveraptor]

How about having to incredibly hot chicks representing the candidates? You could equip them with a headphones, and the real presidents would sit backstage, telling them what to say based on what the other guy said. All they'd have to do is repeat what they heard and stand around looking gorgeous. Problem solved.

[Surlethe]

How about having to incredibly hot chicks representing the candidates? You could equip them with a headphones, and the real presidents would sit backstage, telling them what to say based on what the other guy said. All they'd have to do is repeat what they heard and stand around looking gorgeous. Problem solved.

The problem with that is the 50% of the population not paying attention to what the chicks are saying.

The whole point of the U.S. electoral college is to save us from the extreme version of this sort of bullshit. Unfortunately, the electoral college is now dominated by party politics like the rest of the government, which doesn't help at all.

[Lord Zentei]

How about having to incredibly hot chicks representing the candidates? You could equip them with a headphones, and the real presidents would sit backstage, telling them what to say based on what the other guy said. All they'd have to do is repeat what they heard and stand around looking gorgeous. Problem solved.

The problem with that is the 50% of the population not paying attention to what the chicks are saying.

Apparently, most people don't pay attention anyway.

The whole point of the U.S. electoral college is to save us from the extreme version of this sort of bullshit. Unfortunately, the electoral college is now dominated by party politics like the rest of the government, which doesn't help at all.[/quote]

Amusingly enough, the most common criticism levelled at the Electoral College is that it is undemocratic since it diminishes the influence of the average voter. With greater party politics in the EC, the power of individual voters to select a specific candidate is increased, as they can be certain that a electoral candidate from party X will choose the X candidate. So it becomes more democratic this way, and yet this may be seen as a disadvantage.

[Surlethe]

Amusingly enough, the most common criticism levelled at the Electoral College is that it is undemocratic since it diminishes the influence of the average voter. With greater party politics in the EC, the power of individual voters to select a specific candidate is increased, as they can be certain that a electoral candidate from party X will choose the X candidate. So it becomes more democratic this way, and yet this may be seen as a disadvantage.

I was under the impression that the EC served as a safety net to protect average Joe Blow Me from himself. With party politics, hard-liners are assigned to the EC to ensure victory for the party, thus removing the safety net. I don't care if average Joe Blow Me is undemocratically represented, because, frankly, Joe probably doesn't pay enough attention to the elections to warrant his vote being counted anyway. With EC voters sucking party line cock, the EC's original purpose is circumvented.

[Lord Zentei]

I was under the impression that the EC served as a safety net to protect average Joe Blow Me from himself. With party politics, hard-liners are assigned to the EC to ensure victory for the party, thus removing the safety net. I don't care if average Joe Blow Me is undemocratically represented, because, frankly, Joe probably doesn't pay enough attention to the elections to warrant his vote being counted anyway. With EC voters sucking party line cock, the EC's original purpose is circumvented.

If Joe Average can't figure out who would make the best president, how can he figure out who would be the best guy to select one? But the reason for the EC is just as much the fact that the states were formerly independant and willingly joined a federation: they each have representatives in the body that selects their common head of state. Thus the number of Electors per state is equal to the number of Congressmen. It is in essence a parliament with the sole purpose of selecting the Executive.

[Dahak]

The impact of looks depends partly on the political culture, I think.
In the US, it seems to be more a personal thing, where the individual is quite important.
Here, while individuals are somewhat important, people vote more along the lines of parties. It might not be a bad idea to brush up your looks, but even when a candidate looked better than his opponent, and people thought him to be more likeable and competent, it doesn't mean that this will also get the party more votes...

[SPOOFE]

No, both Bush and Kerry had that "mature" look going for them. So what was left were the usual gaggle of one-issue voters, life-long Republicans/Democrats voting straight party ticket, and fence-sitters easily swayed by the emotional sophistry that only a thirty second TV spot can provide.

So basing your vote decision on sound bites, single issues, and party lines is BAD, but voting based solely on appearance is A-OK? I don't follow.

A lot of people do a lot of things for stupid reasons. It applies to politics, it applies to grocery store purchases, it applies to relationships, it applies to everything.

[Surlethe]

If Joe Average can't figure out who would make the best president, how can he figure out who would be the best guy to select one?

It doesn't necessarily have to be Joe Average selecting the electors if the parties don't. It could be the top achievers on a statewide test of political competence, for example.

But the reason for the EC is just as much the fact that the states were formerly independant and willingly joined a federation: they each have representatives in the body that selects their common head of state. Thus the number of Electors per state is equal to the number of Congressmen. It is in essence a parliament with the sole purpose of selecting the Executive.

That's true.