
The Look of a Winner - robg
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-look-of-a-winner&print=true
======
rjprins
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>).

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
Well 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
Heck 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.

------
jmathes
Scientific study shows that appearance is _correlated_ with winning elections.
Journalist _opines_ that it's a causal relationship. Here's another
possibility (just to illustrate the fallacy): maybe being better qualified and
having better ideas gets people to vote for you AND it causes your appearance
to change.

------
kvh
see
[http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009...](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009/02/no_no_noooooooo_1.html).

"one possibility is that the more serious candidates (the ones we know are
going to win anyway) are more attractive. Maybe you have some goofy-looking
people who decide to run in districts where they don't have a chance, whereas
the politicians who really have a shot at being in congress take the time to
get their hair cut, etc."

------
jquery
If someone is incapable of caring for themselves, there's a good chance they
won't be able to care for me. Likewise, when I see a disheveled, unshaven,
sloppy looking candidate, I'll (quite rationally) ask myself whether that's
the same level of care he or she will apply to good governance.

Not that there's anything wrong with being disheveled or unshaven, but if you
want to play a part, you can at least make the effort to look the part.

------
ggchappell
Nice article. Thanks for posting it.

By the way, the "print" link is broken. Here is the correct link:

[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-look-
of...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-look-of-a-
winner&print=TRUE)

------
fuzzythinker
Good counter example: Bush vs. Gore

