4 ms·

I saw your reply just after posting mine (though you posted ahead of me). Very similar. One factor that is counter to your point 1: it could be that in our evo

by 13ren 18y ago

I saw your reply just after posting mine (though you posted ahead of me). Very similar. One factor that is counter to your point 1: it could be that in our evolutionary past, there was greater variation in physical appearance than today that did affect competence, such as disease, malnutrition and accident, and so judgments based on appearance had greater predictive power then than they do today - but we still retain it as a basis of judgment. A scary thought is that judgments of "competence" might really be judgments of "power" - i.e. it's judging whether you'd better go along with them; not their competence. In fairy tales, the princes and princesses are good looking, because they are well-nourished, looked after and trained - which is because they are supported by a power structure (the king/queen). Regardless of their "competence", you'd better defer to them. Keen awareness of the local power structure is strong in gregarious animals like us. I'm suggesting that health and confidence are indicators of power to our evolutionarily-trained instincts.

DaniFong 18y ago
There's an example that's fairly easy to measure. tallness. Here's what Malcom Gladwell had to say: I polled about half of the companies on the Fortune 500 list--the largest corporations in the United States--asking each company questions about its CEO. The heads of big companies are, as I'm sure comes as no surprise to anyone, overwhelmingly white men, which undoubtedly reflects some kind of implicit bias. But they are also virtually all tall: In my sample, I found that on average CEOs were just a shade under six feet. Given that the average American male is 5'9" that means that CEOs, as a group, have about three inches on the rest of their sex. But this statistic actually understates matters. In the U.S. population, about 14.5 percent of all men are six feet or over. Among CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, that number is 58 percent. Even more strikingly, in the general American population, 3.9 percent of adult men are 6'2" or taller. Among my CEO sample, 30 percent were 6'2" or taller. Whatever the reasoning, Americans seem to want to be lead by taller people. Maybe there is some actual correlation between competence and looks. That wouldn't be terribly startling (though maybe it's due large to the fact that competent looking people are given more opportunities). But what would be startling is for it to have such an overwhelming effect. That, I'm almost sure, is a fluke.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- 13ren 18y ago
  I think you're suggesting "tallness" as an alternative to "looking competent", but I'm already happy with the article's definition and method of measuring "looking competent" as objective. I was asking for an arena with an objective measure of "actual competence" (not opinion, and not affected by circumstance). One example is how straight a line someone can draw. The performance of politicians and CEOs is notoriously affected by circumstance. A possible experiment design: rank people by to how "competent they look" (using the article's method); then rank their "actual competence", by the objective measurement of how straight a line they can draw. What is the correlation between "competent looking" and "actual competence"? Another area in where competence can be objectively measured grammatic correctness (written or spoken). Or, standard tests: IQ tests, university tests/entrance exams. Very convenient for a psych dept, so I bet it's been done to death.
- DabAsteroid 18y ago
  Americans seem to want to be lead by taller people. What would that have to do with CEO's tending to be taller than average? Maybe there is some actual correlation between competence and looks. It has been established for many decades that looks are correlated with g. Here is an abbreviated list of positive-correlations of g that were established by 1987: http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics/articles http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics/articles Eye color, lightness of Hair color, lightness of Handgrip strength Height Health, fitness, longevity Income Leadership Metabolism (high) Myopia Sports participation at university Symmetry of facial features Talking speed Vital (lung) capacity Inversely correlated with g are: Aging (biological senescence) Smoking Weight/height ratio

by 13ren 18y ago

DaniFong 18y ago

There's an example that's fairly easy to measure. tallness. Here's what Malcom Gladwell had to say: I polled about half of the companies on the Fortune 500 list--the largest corporations in the United States--asking each company questions about its CEO. The heads of big companies are, as I'm sure comes as no surprise to anyone, overwhelmingly white men, which undoubtedly reflects some kind of implicit bias. But they are also virtually all tall: In my sample, I found that on average CEOs were just a shade under six feet. Given that the average American male is 5'9" that means that CEOs, as a group, have about three inches on the rest of their sex. But this statistic actually understates matters. In the U.S. population, about 14.5 percent of all men are six feet or over. Among CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, that number is 58 percent. Even more strikingly, in the general American population, 3.9 percent of adult men are 6'2" or taller. Among my CEO sample, 30 percent were 6'2" or taller. Whatever the reasoning, Americans seem to want to be lead by taller people. Maybe there is some actual correlation between competence and looks. That wouldn't be terribly startling (though maybe it's due large to the fact that competent looking people are given more opportunities). But what would be startling is for it to have such an overwhelming effect. That, I'm almost sure, is a fluke.

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
13ren 18y ago
I think you're suggesting "tallness" as an alternative to "looking competent", but I'm already happy with the article's definition and method of measuring "looking competent" as objective. I was asking for an arena with an objective measure of "actual competence" (not opinion, and not affected by circumstance). One example is how straight a line someone can draw. The performance of politicians and CEOs is notoriously affected by circumstance. A possible experiment design: rank people by to how "competent they look" (using the article's method); then rank their "actual competence", by the objective measurement of how straight a line they can draw. What is the correlation between "competent looking" and "actual competence"? Another area in where competence can be objectively measured grammatic correctness (written or spoken). Or, standard tests: IQ tests, university tests/entrance exams. Very convenient for a psych dept, so I bet it's been done to death.
DabAsteroid 18y ago
Americans seem to want to be lead by taller people. What would that have to do with CEO's tending to be taller than average? Maybe there is some actual correlation between competence and looks. It has been established for many decades that looks are correlated with g. Here is an abbreviated list of positive-correlations of g that were established by 1987: http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics/articles http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics/articles Eye color, lightness of Hair color, lightness of Handgrip strength Height Health, fitness, longevity Income Leadership Metabolism (high) Myopia Sports participation at university Symmetry of facial features Talking speed Vital (lung) capacity Inversely correlated with g are: Aging (biological senescence) Smoking Weight/height ratio