4 ms·
Well, so far I count 4 out of 5 comments immediately trying to reject the conclusion of the article (people base their vote on superficial features of the candi
by rjprins 17y ago
Well, so far I count 4 out of 5 comments immediately trying to reject the conclusion of the article (people base their vote on superficial features of the candidates).
That represents wishful thinking, we would all very much like to believe it's just correlation, that good looks are a result of capability, that Gore actually looks more competent then Bush (he doesn't: http://tinyurl.com/d6hur2 http://tinyurl.com/d6hur2).
But really, you have to realize this is true, people are hardwired to judge on looks. First judgements tend to stick, because people want to see their suspicions confirmed and when you start looking for something (especially during political campaigns) you will find it.
Wouldn't it be nice to just try to have elections where the candidates are anonymous? Everyone will be told the education and work history of the candidates and ofcourse all their standpoints. They'll have discussions purely in text, by newspaper or blogs. Unimaginable, I'm sure, but how would the voters react?
- Ardit20 17y agoWell we have evolved as social being and at times perhaps depended on judging their character. There is no reason to not think that we instinctly know the character of the person by their looks. Further, there is no reason to not believe that beauty and looks go together. Is it not possible that these people who so happened to be good looking and further went on to win the race are also more competent?
- rjprins 17y agoHeck no!! I mean, well yes, it is possible that the political views you happen to hold go together with the good looks of some candidate.. Also competence may even correlate with looks, but even then correlation does not make any assumption safe! No, never judge by looks, remain sceptical on words and judge on their actions. Because ultimately only the actions count.