32 ms·

I was interested to see the section, "A lawyer's physical attractiveness" -- it reminded me of a few years ago when my wife was supporting a friend during a mes

• thegjp210 6y ago
  I would imagine there's a strong causal link between competence and being "dressed-to-the-nines"/"very sharp". Maybe signals of fitness and fitness here are to an extent the same thing.
  • drchickensalad 6y ago
    I have seen a strong inverse correlation in my (anecdotal and quite brief) professional life :|
    • kbenson 6y ago
      I imagine it's probably fairly dependent on the expectations of the people you interact with. If there's no or very little expectation to dress professionally, those doing so might be doing it because they want to, or are trying to compensate for something else, or are trying to signal some other group (e.g. management). If the expectation of everyone is that you will put effort into it (even if it's because it's self-perpetuating by them making negative assumptions about you if you don't), then it can actually mean people that don't either are trying to make a statement, or can't make that happen, which can signal something all its own.
    • solveit 6y ago
      Collider, happens with lots of good things that correlate. To put it rather bluntly, if they were both competent and sharply dressed, they'd have a better job.
    • barry-cotter 6y ago
      This will vary enormously by field, and countersignaling is a thing. All bankers wear suits. If you see someone wearing a scruffy ill fitting suit maybe they’re just incapable of buying a well fitting suit and keeping it in good nick or maybe they are awesome and know they’re awesome and know everybody else knows it so they can get away with it. You saw the same thing at IBM when they started going casual. If everyone else is wearing a suit, is normal, and there’s one person with blue hair and full sleeve tattoos they’re getting special dispensation because they’re awesome. But the blue hair didn’t make them awesome.
      • andreilys 6y ago
        Correct. Counter signaling is typically done by extremely competent people which balances out their eccentricity
        • sukilot 6y ago
          Or by people imitating the appearance of extremely competent people.
          • spanhandler 6y ago
            I'm pretty sure the transition of "tech fashion" from something early computer nerds did at least somewhat authentically to its modern form was, at first, an example of exactly that (by people who "don't care about their appearance", naturally, wink wink). Of course these days there's a bunch of other stuff it's mixed with, like hipster fashion and outdoor-lifestyle-but-only-the-expensive-stuff clothing, but originally it seems to me to have grown out of exactly that aping-authentic-countersignaling thing.
    • axaxs 6y ago
      Highly dependent on the profession. In programming, I agree with you. In my experience, there's a nearly perfect inverse correlation between how much they care about their looks and how talented they seem. But not in other fields, seemingly. I basically stopped hiring slovenly people in many things because of terrible experiences (real estate agents, plumber, house inspector). I guess the difference are things that can be done solely with the brain vs things that require some amount of physical activity. We programmers have it easy in that respect.
      • neutronicus 6y ago
        There's pressure the other way. When I was in grad school (physics) the female grad students used to talk about how you couldn't wear makeup or do your hair and be taken seriously.
        • axaxs 6y ago
          Fair point. Do you think that's because of the observed correlation in the past, or some other reason? Biases are strong, and I'd admittedly not have a high first impression of the skills of someone who spent a lot of time on looks, male or female, just based on my own past experiences.
          • sukilot 6y ago
            How do you know your current biases aren't informed by your past misjudgements?
            • axaxs 6y ago
              Oh, I'm sure they have been, and I remember distinctly once. Lady on my new team(we were all new) had bleached blonde hair, heavy blue eye shadow, tanned, lipstick, in honest way overboard. My first impression was 'oh boy'. She ended up being a super smart lady from Russia and I thoroughly enjoyed working alongside her. So biases exist, but you(I) have to admit when wrong and adjust accordingly.
    • alexpetralia 6y ago
      Me as well - those who overinvest (as opposed to adequately invest) in their appearance seem to underinvest in their competence. Not always true, but a correlation.
    • nostrademons 6y ago
      This could be because of (anti-)selection bias. If you have a test of skill that can be overridden because someone happens to be very attractive, than the only really incompetent people who will make it past the skill filter are those who are really attractive. If both the skill filter and the attractiveness filter are very selective, then incompetent people will be overrepresented among attractive people by the inverse of the selectivity factor of the skill filter.
      • virtuous_signal 6y ago
        I love seeing this phenomenon appear in the wild: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkson%27s_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkson%27s_paradox In short: people can be correct when they notice an inverse correlation, because their world consists of people who got into the same university, or workplace, or club, as them. But the correlation is exactly the opposite in society as a whole.
    • coldtea 6y ago
      Perhaps that's why it was brief :-)
  • totetsu 6y ago
    This discussion is reminding me of the Japanese judge who posted his "fitness" underpants selfies to twitter. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/06/28/national/tokyo-high-court-judges-semi-nude-tweets-rub-judiciary-wrong-way/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/06/28/national/tokyo-...
• staticautomatic 6y ago
  A) You can dress to the nines without spending a fortune B) Dressing to the nines can work against you as a lawyer or litigant Source: I study jurors and coach trial lawyers for a living, among other things.
  • rschneid 6y ago
    Since you study this stuff, do you mind sharing a description of the kinds of situations in which the 'sharp appearance' or related type of tactic has a negative effect?
    • rayiner 6y ago
      You don’t want to be a dressed to the nines Manhattan lawyer in a Texas courtroom (or really, anywhere but maybe Manhattan and Los Angeles). https://abovethelaw.com/2017/05/at-lunch-with-david-boies-20-years-after-his-departure-from-cravath/ https://abovethelaw.com/2017/05/at-lunch-with-david-boies-20... Re: David Boies (who is a prominent Manhattan attorney): > Part of the David Boies legend is his rejection of high fashion. He’s a millionaire many times over, and many aspects of his lifestyle reflect what I’m guessing is a nine-figure net worth — his primary residence, an 8,000-square-foot mansion on almost 10 acres; an $8 million pied-à-terre here in New York City, at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel; and a racing yacht, because you’re nobody until you have a yacht. But his wealth doesn’t go into his wardrobe. He eschews Prada and Patek Philippe in favor of navy blue suits from Sears or Lands’ End, inexpensive plastic wristwatches (worn over his sleeve), and what look like black sneakers (but are actually walking shoes by Merrell).
      • haecceity 6y ago
        To people who think the point of fashion is to imitate people with higher status, fashion loses its value if your name carries status for you.
        • rayiner 6y ago
          Nobody on a jury knows David Boies, or any other lawyer, by reputation.
• riquito 6y ago
  > Maybe all the lawyers and jurors should be literally blindfolded, like Lady Justice. I bet lawyers would get biased depending on their voice then. You could have their sentences read by a computer though (you could do it today too and not let the lawyer be visible)
• koolba 6y ago
  > Maybe all the lawyers and jurors should be literally blindfolded, like Lady Justice. This should be doable by requiring the entire process be done remotely. Seems like a perfect time to try it out too! Even regional accent bias[1] can be removed by requiring unformatted text responses. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accent_perception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accent_perception
  • notahacker 6y ago
    > Even regional accent bias[1] can be removed by requiring unformatted text responses. I'm not sure replacing accent bias with spelling and grammar and familiarity-with-IM-tools bias is an improvement. And we might overestimate our ability to spot lying in person, but it's a damn sight better than our ability to gauge it based on speed and coherence in typing responses...
    • sukilot 6y ago
      Are you sure? Being overconfident isn't more right than not knowing.
  • nostrademons 6y ago
    25 years of online communities provides a great testbed for this hypothesis. Language becomes the new class marker. Even in strictly text-based media, people make snap judgments about who is worth listening to. It's based on spelling, complete sentences, punctuation, 1337speak or other dialects, even things as subtle as paragraph structure and who (and how) you cite. Back before Tinder became a thing, I knew several women (my now-wife among them) who would instantly ignore a man if he had spelling errors or improper grammar in his online dating profile. Daniel Kahneman wrote once that if you really want an unbiased decision, you need to have a computer make it, because all humans are biased. Even then, the software ends up biased in the same way as its creators.
  • triceratops 6y ago
    If we're doing that, we might as well conduct all trials by email.
• chrisseaton 6y ago
  > Obviously it helped that the Manhattan lawyer was very quick on her feet, but my wife commented at the time that "even from the way she was dressed, the Long Island lawyer didn't have a chance". This is one of those veeery subtle class things. People don't realise how much they signal to establishment institutions that they don't belong through through things like how they dress. And because they don't realise it they don't even know they're being disadvantaged. I've seen people turn up to social events with what is very clearly to an insider the 'wrong type' of suit (wrong fabric, wrong cut, buttoned incorrectly, wrong shirt, wrong tie, wrong type of shoes), with people silently judging them, but they would have absolutely no idea how much they stand out and how they're being disadvantaged by it. Hard to tackle because it's all silent, the victims are oblivious, and there's not really any concrete action you can point to and criticise.
  • mensetmanusman 6y ago
    This happens in all human tribes to different extents
  • rubber_duck 6y ago
    If you try to fit in as just another member of the group then you need to pick up on the group norms, but I fell like people react positively when you pull off something well.
  • qzw 6y ago
    Indeed. I always remember that when GW Bush nominated Harriet Meyers to the Supreme Court, there was quite a bit of sniggering in the media about how her outfits looked like they’re out of a Talbot’s catalog. Of course she was also woefully under-qualified for a SCOTUS appointment, but the way she dressed certainly further made her stand out as an outsider, even though she was working in the WH at the time and not exactly some random lawyer from podunk.
  • bsanr2 6y ago
    How is that even a thing. I'm trying to wrap my head around how someone would even make those observations, let alone justify changing how they interact with someone because of it. I mean, like, you would think the substance bro brings to the table would matter more than his duds 'n' presentation.
• ed_balls 6y ago
  That's why most of the Europe has a dress code in court rooms.
• austincheney 6y ago
  > Maybe all the lawyers and jurors should be literally blindfolded, like Lady Justice. People are generally quick to complain about bias, for whatever reason, while hypocritically guilty of bias just the same. As a result most people would be incredibly unhappy in institutional conventions with bias objectively removed because the resultant outcome would be wildly different than they intuitively anticipate. The most interesting part about that is that it’s identifiable and measurable.
• parsimo2010 6y ago
  It doesn't get a ton of attention in the article, but I think this starts to explain a little of it: "Finally, it may be possible that a third variable affects the relationship of attractiveness and criminal accusations/activities. Socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and developmental advantages (e.g., nutrition, schooling) might be such factors.[29]" Your physical attractiveness and the way you dress can both signal information about you. Rich & powerful men with status tend to marry attractive women, even if the men are not always attractive themselves. After a couple generations, rich & powerful families with status tend to have more attractive families. They can also afford better nutrition and educational opportunities. Dressing nice and fashionably indicates that you care about your appearance. While a few people can pull off the idea of someone being such a genius that they can't be bothered to care about their appearance, the general trend is that people that can't be bothered to care about their appearance also can't be bothered to care as much about other things, like preparing for work. It would be nice if we could get rid of any attractiveness biases. I sure would be angry if I was disadvantaged in a court case because I'm not attractive. I would be extra angry if I was disadvantaged because my lawyer wasn't attractive. I have a feeling that just blindfolding the jurors or blocking their view would cause them to miss out on other important things like being able to see faces and reactions during testimony. At least if we know about the bias we can work to fight it in other ways. Getting people to "think slow" sounds like some Malcom Gladwell popular B.S. that has probably been debunked, but it's probably better than nothing, and any lawyer can probably work at getting juries to think a little harder.
  • airstrike 6y ago
    Very rarely does one find someone else commenting in a way that so perfectly mirrors one's thoughts. This is one of those instances, so thank you for posting that most eloquent insight.
  • jackbravo 6y ago
    "Liking what you see: A documentary" is a short story by Ted Chiang published along side Story of your life (Arrival) that talks just about this topic. Sci-fi story about what could happen if we had the technology to remove beauty bias entirely. Well worth a read: https://afuzzyrants.wordpress.com/2017/03/08/liking-what-you-see-a-documentary-by-ted-chiang/ https://afuzzyrants.wordpress.com/2017/03/08/liking-what-you...
• rabbitonrails 6y ago
  Oh my goodness! We had better ban clothing from court altogether.
  • dang 6y ago
    "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
• WalterBright 6y ago
  When I was involved in a lawsuit, my lawyer commented that both parties were the same race, sex, and socioeconomic status, so the judge would most likely rule on the actual merits of the case.
• boring_twenties 6y ago
  I had kind of the opposite experience. I showed up to a court date where dozens of other people were being charged with the same thing. Their lawyers all had Brioni suits and haircuts that looked like they cost more than my smartphone. Every single one of them was just pleading guilty to the original charges! Shit dawg, you coulda done that for free! Meanwhile, my own attorney looked not too far from what you'd expect to see if someone had entered a garbage dumpster circa 1969, and emerged the mourning of the court date. And to this day, I have never been convicted of any crimes.
  • sullyj3 6y ago
    Maybe the difference was that they did the crimes and you didn't.
    • boring_twenties 6y ago
      Maybe, but I doubt it.
• schemy 6y ago
  Just copy blind auditions orchestras do. Everything is done by typed text, with no humans visible. Jurors just sit isolated in a booth reading the text, or have the same person read out all the text to them. Lawyers would be against it, but everyone would benefit from a society that decides guilt based on how convincing an argument is and not how convincing the person saying the argument is. "Look at that man, he is guilty." Is not very convincing when the person who is supposedly guilty has never been seen.
  • thephyber 6y ago
    The conversion of {speech, body language} to {text, nothing} is pretty severe when you're on a jury trying to establish if the person on the stand is credible.
    • schemy 6y ago
      I have a dream, that one day I will live in a country where peoples credibility will be decided by the strengths of their argument and not the sound of their accent.
      • VoiceOfWisdom 6y ago
        Yes, lets take the already limited bandwidth of conversation and hack out more parts of it.
        • cma 6y ago
          Why not test and see if it leads to better outcomes.
    • MaximumYComb 6y ago
      In this case being attractive makes you more credible so I see this as a feature.
  • virtuous_signal 6y ago
    Sounds nice in theory, but the whole idea behind the right to face your accuser is that people depend on their senses to judge if someone's lying or not by how he/she reacts to the confrontation.
• oh-4-fucks-sake 6y ago
  Growing up the software dev son of a trial defense attorney, he was always pushing all these tips, tricks, and dogmas about how this-and-that needs polished and what kind of saddle soap to use and collar stays and these brands of shoes and shirts and how much starch and tie colors and what different cuff styles signal. I could never drive it into his head/make-him-believe that in my field "yeah, presentation counts, but like 3% of how much it counts in yours".
  • quacked 6y ago
    Do you think that all of his tricks actually worked, or was he pushing what he wanted to be right? To really know if specific brands of shoes or shirts really worked, you'd need to do some pretty advanced blind testing, that also might be unethical (would you want your lawyer to wear a pair of shoes he thinks might impact your case negatively?)
    • oh-4-fucks-sake 6y ago
      It's a good question. It depends on the end goals of your field. In programming the end goal is that your systems work as described. The proof is in the pudding, as they say, and whether or not an engineer did a good job is fairly/objectively evident in whether or not the systems work as spec'd. No one really cares that you spun up your cluster in the nude. In trial law, the end goal is to win the hearts and minds of a jury to believe you. Your end deliverable is a set of speeches and presentations to a group of strangers making decisions about ethics. In programming, your tools are your IDE, terminal, manuals, libs, etc. In law, your tools are all the different flavors of rhetoric. Some of these are pure logic-based rhetoric, but many appeal to human emotion and establishing trust and proving character. In the end, the jury needs to trust the evidence and arguments presented by the attorney are real and honest. He always explained to me that humans make lots of inferences about people based on their personal presentation--which is true. E.g. "he put a lot of care into polishing those shoes--I can infer that he did the same when collecting and investigating the evidence" Or, "that lawyer dresses really flashy with cheap clothes and fake gold watches to make it appear he's something he's not--maybe he's bullshitting his arguments too." He explained it even extended to courthouse design. He'd say "There's a reason courthouses are big, imposing, and serious-looking. It's important that people behave themselves seriously and thoughtfully here; decisions are being made every day that can dispense justice to lives of the wronged and potentially ruin people's lives too." He was right--when it comes to law, for absolute certain. Most of his trials were defending Fortune 500 companies (for good stuff--stuff he believed in--protecting them against other parties defrauding and legitimately wronging them). His record was something like 300-2. He was a legend and I miss him. But I'm still going to spin up clusters with barbecue sauce on my shorts.
• 1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago
  Horsehair wigs and gowns might help mask some of that "physical attractiveness". The US chose to abandon that tradition but it's still alive in some jurisdictions.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• abhgh 6y ago
  I have a funny story of the opposite happening to me. This is when I was leading a small team that developed specialized Machine Learning modules for clients. So we have this in-person client meeting (they had decided to travel down to our office), where someone from project management decided to represent the technical crowd i.e. us and the other devs. Since he has done this before he is dressed impeccably in formals, is his charming self, etc. While the meeting is on, and we backstage folks are at work, I suddenly get a ping from him asking to walk into the meeting to explain a specific module. I'm not cleanly shaved, and frankly, shabbily dressed - because well, I had been told I would not be needed in the meeting. So I walk in, describe what they wanted to know in about 2 min, which was no different from what the other guy had said, and they were suddenly convinced! The phenomena might be general - looking good is one big part of it, but people in certain roles/work functions are expected to have a certain appearance.
  • jkhaui 6y ago
    Good on you, but this doesn't prove anything imo. People are almost always positively biased toward attractive faces due to the halo effect. Biologically/psychologically this is a result of one's facial bone structure, skin, and bodyfat levels. So being shabbily dressed and having stubble is mostly irrelevant here. Maybe you were just much better looking than the other (poor) bloke.
    • abhgh 6y ago
      Maybe I wasn't being clear in the last line of my response. I agree with this "People are almost always positively biased toward attractive faces due to the halo effect." The point I'm trying to make is in addition to that there might be other forms of appearance-based biases: for ex maybe a scientist is expected to project an image of being nerdy, or detached-ly pensive, etc
• LdSGSgvupDV 6y ago
  Maybe we should try anonymous remote court?
• HPsquared 6y ago
  If blindfolded, people would probably judge a bit based on the voice instead.