Voters Swayed By Candidates Who Share Their Looks 266
iandoh writes "Stanford researchers have found that voters are subconsciously swayed by candidates who share their facial features. In three experiments, researchers at the Virtual Human Interaction Lab worked with cheap, easy-to-use computer software to morph pictures of about 600 test subjects with photos of politicians. And they kept coming up with the same results: For the would-be voters who weren't very familiar with the candidates or in perfect lockstep with their positions or political parties, the facial similarity was enough to clinch their votes."
I can confirm from my work. (Score:5, Interesting)
I work for a company, that is run mostly by women, but the thing is that all the women that work there, they ALL Look like clones. Or they get hired because they look like the owners, as to give them the comfort in what "looks familiar" or to the fact the women, mimic the looks ...no, they all just look so similar makes me thinks it is more common than we think.
Sad (Score:3, Interesting)
I've heard statistics from some sources as high as 97% of black voters will be voting for Obama, just google for some of it it's out there. Even if they're off and lets say it's only 85%, still.
If 85% of white people voted for McCain, it would be considered racist.
Just saying.
Obama (Score:5, Interesting)
I've wondered for a while if part of what makes white voters more likely to accept Obama as the first black president is the fact that, despite his dark skin color, he has very European facial features. Andrew Sullivan has recently been posting pictures of Obama's (white) grandfather, to whom the presidential candidate bears a striking resemblance.
Obviously, it's impossible to give a truly satisfying answer to such a counterfactual, but I can't help but suspect that if Obama had more stereotypically African features---you know what I mean---that he would not be in the position he is in now.
Re:Mark this article (Score:5, Interesting)
While correlation does not prove causation, it sure does imply causation. It's probably about as close to the definition of imply that I can come up with. The only way I can see the phrase making sense is to use the logic definition of suggest as a logically necessary consequence. Then the original usage may have held a meaning of While causation implies correlation, correlation does not imply causation, basically saying if there is causation, then correlation will follow. So finding correlations is extremely useful, but picking out the root cause of the correlation can be quite difficult, especially when there are multiple factors in play all feeding back on each other.
Re:A new career beckons! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Mark this article (Score:2, Interesting)
While correlation does not prove causation, it sure does imply causation.
More simply, causation causes correlation. If you don't have correlation, then you can't claim causation.
More to the point, causation is highly correlated with correlation (rho=0.977 [netspace.net.au]).
Problems arise when people claim that correlation causes causation. Since causation is a boolean variable while correlation is real-valued, with suitable rounding, then yes, it's true.
It's all very simple really.
Re:Mark this article (Score:5, Interesting)
People tend to like people who are similar to themselves. The old saw "birds of a feather" bit actually rings true a fair amount of the time.
Of course, there's no guarantee that the person who looks vaguely similar to me actually DOES share my views, but if I have no other information to go with, then it's probably a better indicator of who to go with than a coin toss.
Genetics and life experience work together to shape our looks, and those two things also shape our attitudes and actions.
The best explanation is though that despite the great efforts we go through to try and train it out of people, all other things being equal they still prefer in-groups to out-groups. The root of this likely comes from things such as kin selection [wikipedia.org] and the generally tribal nature of early man.
Re:I can confirm from my work. (Score:5, Interesting)
Anybody who has a real job(or anybody who has read Cosmopolitan magazine) knows that every corporation has implicit and explicit dress codes. "Dress like your boss does" is a common saying for a reason.
Yeah, probably good advice in a lot of cases.
I am very selective about jobs I take. I do not wear suits and ties and I do not do Microsoft Windows. That limits, somewhat, the kind of jobs I find myself in, but I've never had a problem with dress codes[1].
It possibly also depends upon experience. Earlier in my career I made the promise that I would start wearing a tie to work if I was promoted and did so after the promotion for a long time. For whatever reason, my advancement after that was very fast.
It also depends upon the company. I was contracting for McDonnell Douglas in a division that got swallowed up by EDS in the early 1990s. The dress code (applied to manager types in our group only at first) was truly draconian. It not only specified things like the permissable range of shades of blue skirts that women were allowed to wear, it specified the distance that said skirts were allowed to stray away from the knee and tie colors/styles and a lot of other crap like that.
It was kind of summed up by a remark I heard from one of the EDS technical guys who had come in to assimilate us - "The customers say, hey, that guy may be a total idiot, but he sure is a sharp dresser!"
Take that for what you will.
[1] I've seen stricter enforcement of dress codes in weekend amateur tournament bowling clubs than I have experienced at work.
Re:Obama (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't help but suspect that if Obama had more stereotypically African features---you know what I mean---that he would not be in the position he is in now.
Actually, I suspect the answer to his popularity lies somewhere in this paper http://www.pennypresslv.com/Obama's_Use_of_Hidden_Hypnosis_techniques_in_His_Speeches.pdf [pennypresslv.com]
I do not buy all of that, as I am not convinced Obama is his own man, but certainly he gives much different speech in impromptu sessions (all the "uh" hesitations, his own admission that he is not effective in 1-on-1 communications) versus prepared speeches and his own VP candidate has gone on record (twice!) as saying that once he gets into office his poll numbers will go down and we will not like what he does ... at first. Between a teleprompter and careful coaching, I think he may be achieving the hypnotic effect described in that paper.
Re:Mark this article (Score:3, Interesting)
The one that sounds like them.
Re:I can confirm from my work. (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Low level manual labor - whatever's comfortable.
2) Customer representative - Shirt and tie, or whatever uniform is specified.
3) Technical - Comfortable, nice looking clothes, probably collared shirt and khakis.
4) Project/People managers - Shirt and tie (not like a uniform) and probably a suite as your salary goes up.
These observations are only for men's dress codes though.
If you have to work under someone and deal with customers, you probably will have to be assimilated, because that's just better for business. Otherwise, you only dress nice because it's comfortable and helps you fit in. : /
Re:I can confirm from my work. (Score:2, Interesting)
3) Technical - Comfortable, nice looking clothes, probably collared shirt and khakis.
I prefer t-shirts, but whatever.
I will note for the record that I saw my boss**3 (3 management levels above me and I work for a huge company) wearing clothes about on those lines when he was visiting the area this week.
If you have to work under someone and deal with customers, you probably will have to be assimilated, because that's just better for business.
I would agree with that. Maybe that's why I prefer email as a primary contact point.
Otherwise, you only dress nice because it's comfortable and helps you fit in. : /
No. You dress nicely if you are single to impress the attractive [insert-your-preferred-gender]s around you in the workplace. As a male, a starched collar and a nice tie does go a long ways in that area ...
Re:Mark this article (Score:3, Interesting)
Because it is very simplistic.
C -> D
D -> F
D -> E
E -> G
G -> A
F -> B
In this relationship C -> A and C -> B
But in order to pinpoint C, you have to work back from A and B via E,F and D. Verifying a C is relatively easy. Finding C can be very nasty. And if there are loops involved it can be a lot nastier.
Sure, correlation implies causation. But which one?
Re:I can confirm from my work. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep. I had a boss... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yep. I had a boss who had long hair and who had hired me for a customer service position back in the 90s when I had long hair. Every other woman she hired also had long hair. I thought the hair length was incidental until she got a short hair cut and started pressuring all of her employees to cut their hair. I transferred departments to get away from her nuisances.
Dress codes don't have much of a real impact on performance as long as employees don't take advantage and wear clothing that is not appropriate and clean.
However, as long as no one expects me to wear the Evil that is also known as panty-hose, I can deal.
!pantyhose (Score:3, Interesting)
Our company had a very strict pantyhose rule when I first started here; one lady in accounting was actually sent home for wearing shoes with no hose - with a PANT SUIT. Not even a skirt. Just showing a bit of ankle. We only recently have been allowed to wear open-toed shoes in summer.
If you want happy workers, let them dress comfortably. Sheesh.
Wrinkly versus non-wrinkly (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Obama (Score:3, Interesting)
As someone who finds Obama dangerously inexperienced and a socialist joke for a candidate for the Presidency of the United States, I must say this paper is worthless.
The giveaway is the opening fifteen pages where the author finds it necessary to defend his claims and to say how dangerous and illegal the claimed "techniques" are. A serious position paper or study will first present a position, then present supporting evidence, and then possibly present a defense against possible attacks. The effect that the author seems to be shooting for is to create hysteria about the danger and illegality of the "technique", so that any amount of flimsy evidence will be accepted as proof that Obama is dangerous and felonious for using the "technique".
Now, look,...uh...Obama gives speeches following the cadence and structure that has been employed by fundamentalist southern Baptist preachers for many years....uh...It isn't anything special. It's just a ...uh... practiced techNIQUE. It isn't even particularly eloquent, except to those 'openminded' folk who've never bothered to visit a tent meeting.