Judgements based on Appearance (this time, it's for real!)

[hannahbanana]

I've been thinking about this for a bit now, and I'm interested in how much we rely on physical appearance in making judgements on people (usually playing a role in whether we want to associate with such a person). I find this particularly interesting because this forum is an example where people do not have much opportunity to make such an assessment of someone's appearance. And yet, we still feel that we can get to know someone or recognize peoples' personalities and such on this forum.

So, is appearance necessary, or unnecessary but helpful when evaluating a person? Based on this, how much sway does appearance hold over you in your final impression of a person?

[Leevan]

Appearance is very important. You react based on visual stimulation. It shapes your perception of the individual/s, and thus it changes how you relate to people. For example, I prefer to use my photo when communicating online, however, I've found that my age and how I look handicaps me. Even online, even with a single snapshot image, people end up profiling. It's part of how our brain is designed. An attractive man makes you assume X. An old man makes you assume Y. A fat man...etc.

[luxfelix]

Relevant video:

 

 

I found the distinction between prejudice and discrimination (made at 3:10) noteworthy, and perhaps an indicator of one's intelligence and ability to use empirical evidence to prove or disprove the hypothesis presented by the automatic-mind (if time permits etc.).

[Mister Hugz]

I don't have any evidence to back any of this up at the moment, look yonder if you were looking for something more factual and philosophical.

 

I think humans naturally evaluate the visual information people are putting out. In my experience, it takes a lot of mental energy to completely disconnect from those natural observations. I find it necessary to get the full picture of who and what the person is all about. The unconscious is your best friend when it comes to this. It is there to assimilate all the information e.g. voice projection, posture, eye contact, forced or natural laughing, etc.

 

Hmm, at the moment i would say I'm ambivalent about how much a role it plays on my final impression of a person. If a person spends their time on a board like this and are having compassionate discussions with people who are trying to heal emotional wounds inflicted on them when they were children. It would be safe to say that they have the capacity to explore their own inner world to find out what could be the cause of discontent in their own lives. Therefore having a high possibility to make positive mental, emotional and physical health choices in their lives. This assessment has validity in my opinion. If a person manifests these virtues, will their physical appearance still rank higher on the hierarchy of values than those virtues? in my opinion, no. now if i met this hypothetical board person face to face and they looked like they were suffering from some severe weight problems and smoked cigarettes or whatever. I would be confused for one. But then i would still feel comfortable having a conversation with them about this serious issue because of my observations of their character on the board.

 

sorry if this seems fragmented. (I need to work on my board skillz)

 

Thanks for the post and interesting topic 

[Leevan]

Discrimination is a mind being efficient. Absent additional information, the individual makes an assumption. For example, if I take my car to three female mechanics, and it ends up leaking oil after each visit, I will have reason to assume that men are better mechanics (if a visit to a male mechanic results in no leak.) It doesn't make my discriminatory behavior entirely accurate; but, perhaps, statistically I'm better off. Racism, sexism, and every other form of discrimination are often, but not always, rooted in empiricism. No one should be made to feel bad about utilizing their grey matter and operating off of data that, while not 100%, gives the actor a better chance at achieving his ends than if he were to simply block out the characteristics of another.

[luxfelix]

Discrimination is a mind being efficient. Absent additional information, the individual makes an assumption. For example, if I take my car to three female mechanics, and it ends up leaking oil after each visit, I will have reason to assume that men are better mechanics (if a visit to a male mechanic results in no leak.) It doesn't make my discriminatory behavior entirely accurate; but, perhaps, statistically I'm better off. Racism, sexism, and every other form of discrimination are often, but not always, rooted in empiricism. No one should be made to feel bad about utilizing their grey matter and operating off of data that, while not 100%, gives the actor a better chance at achieving his ends than if he were to simply block out the characteristics of another.

 

I think I agree?

 

It's a kind of pattern recognition, no?

 

I remember a line from Up In the Air where George Clooney moves to an airport checkpoint line with Asians and says it's because they are more efficient (and therefore the line will move faster).

 

I know I do agree, however, about not making people feel bad for the way their mind works.

[Leevan]

Exactly. I just want to assure people that they are not bad for making assumptions based on appearance. It's natural, and it comes from reason and evidence. Yeah, it will result in the occasional unarmed black teen getting gunned down by trigger happy cops, but those cops' actions are in part a reaction to the physical cues displayed by the teen. The cues are seen as dangerous or negative because so many people who exhibit them are dangerous. Discriminatory actions will never cease. The only way to resolve the problems inherent in them is by improving communities. If the cues are not seen as dangerous, those who exhibit them will not be seen as dangerous.

[dsayers]

Though we have five senses, most of the information we collect about the world around us is done with our eyes. If a visual representation of a person is present when we first encounter them, it's part of our evaluation of them whether we like it or not.

 

A person's appearance is nigh on meaningless though. Sure if a person is freshly bathed and clean-cut, you could assume that they want to land well for others. However, you cannot determine by sight alone whether or not that's being considerate of others or manipulating others to lower their defenses so they don't see what a rotten person you are. Barrack Obama for example is quite the dapper gentleman if appearance was all we had to go by.

[Leevan]

Based on this, how much sway does appearance hold over you in your final impression of a person?

 

Appearance impacts first impressions. First impressions can derail or fuel interactions. Be mindful of how you appear to others. Your clothing choices, hair, etc. shape perceptions; and, for those who do not know you well, it is everything.

[luxfelix]

Though we have five senses, most of the information we collect about the world around us is done with our eyes. If a visual representation of a person is present when we first encounter them, it's part of our evaluation of them whether we like it or not.

 

A person's appearance is nigh on meaningless though. Sure if a person is freshly bathed and clean-cut, you could assume that they want to land well for others. However, you cannot determine by sight alone whether or not that's being considerate of others or manipulating others to lower their defenses so they don't see what a rotten person you are. Barrack Obama for example is quite the dapper gentleman if appearance was all we had to go by.

 

I'm glad you pointed this out, because I feel I can add the following:

 

There is something called the McGurk Effect whereby contradicting sensory input between our visual and auditory senses will result in deference to the eye:

 

 

(Maybe this is because light is faster than sound and therefore a higher priority for survival should one need to act fast?)

 

Compound this with the emotional influences of rhythm and pitch (as sometimes exaggerated in cinema with music to express how the audience should feel where a logical explanation would most likely reveal the cognitive dissonance/contradiction of the message being communicated visually), and Obama's speech can more easily bypass the conscious mind.

 

Color psychology (and costume) comes into play as well, as certain combinations can increase your chances of success in a specific endeavor.

 

(If I remember correctly, blue, especially a deep blue/indigo, is supposed to be a great color for giving and receiving information.)

[Wuzzums]

It also depends on someone's self knowledge and knowledge in general, thus the same visual cue can mean different things for different people.

 

For instance, you see a well dressed man: fancy haircut, shiny clothes, well groomed, stylish boots. You can assume he's smart and makes a lot of money thus he can afford to spend a lot of time on himself. If you get more information however that assumption changes completely. Maybe he also uses public transportation, which means he doesn't have that much money and what he has he mostly spends on his appearance. Maybe his clothes are way too shiny indicating he wants attention onto himself which betrays a narcissistic trait. And maybe the heels of his boots are unusually high which should indicate he maybe has a height complexion.

 

Some people are fat because they never exercise. Some people are fat because they don't want to attract attention onto themselves.

 

The more knowledge you have about yourself and people in general the more accurate information you can get from their appearance.

[dsayers]

 

Wow, that's really cool! Especially the part about how after I know the trick, I continue to fall for it.

[Pepin]

I'm a lot better than I used to be, but I tend to overvalue people who are attractive, particularly women. I tend not to judge people as more intelligent from appearances, unless they are wearing glasses or look nerdy, but if you are an attractive woman, I tend to want to hear what you have to say a little more.

 

I work in fast food so I am pretty good at reading people and I tend to be correct about my predictions. People go out of their way to communicate who they are and what they want. Though sometimes I am rather surprised by people who are the complete opposite of how they are.

 

Something I've noticed is that people with bad childhoods who have done work on themselves tend to send out bad vibes that turn out to be false. This I have found to be an issue with myself. Like there was a girl at my last job who seemed to everyone like she was going to be snobby, but was actually way down to earth. What was strange was that everyone had that impression of her. This is of course is not scientifically proven, but I could imagine some experiments that could be done to test it.

[MMX2010]

I've been devouring the articles of Gregory Hood, Republican, conservative, White nationalist. 

 

He argues that the "You shouldn't judge people by their appearance." position inevitably leads to the destruction of White, English-speaking nations - because a nation that stops "judging people" stops being a nation, and a culture that refuses to "alienate people" becomes overtaken by any other culture that's willing to alienate people.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.radixjournal.com/journal/2014/11/18/a-god-to-damn-us

 

That very long article begins with the following four paragraphs.

 

"The former Army Ranger known as Peter Kassig met his end under the knives of the Islamic State as Abdul Rahman Kassig. Even after his death, his mother is making media appearances wearing the hijab. For that matter, James Foley was a convert to Islam, as were other hostages. And while some undoubtedly convert in the (futile) hope of better treatment, it appears that many of these cases are sincere. Nor is this surprising, as the likes of Kassig, Foley, and others who have been taken captive in the Islamic State’s territory defined their lives by their efforts to help Muslims thousands of miles away from home.

 

Even liberal Whites ostensibly motivated by vacuous concepts like “human rights” can’t help but be impressed by those who possess actual strength of belief, especially from Third Worlders immune from charges of racism or cultural imperialism. Of course, many of these Third Worlders actually are racist or imperialist, but that reality is easily ignored by liberals who insist on viewing them as agency free moral mascots. Yet the fact that some Whites (even former Army Rangers) are willing to dedicate their entire lives to serving the Other and literally renounce their own identity at the moment of death testifies to something deeper than simple egalitarianism. It’s a kind of ethical exhaustion--liberal Whites are weary of the moral responsibility of existence and survival.

 

The very absurdity of our culture (if we can even call it a culture) shows that many Whites are looking for a way out. They actually seek escape through foreign occupation. To be occupied is to live in a world where meaning and cultural context is provided by a foreign people. You can be a religious minority (or an atheist) in a majority religious society and be “free,” but power, narrative, and taboo are ultimately in the hands of someone else. The same goes for being a racial minority or sexual minority.

 

This feeling of occupation is what underlies the fury of most minorities towards their host societies, no matter how well they are treated. To most people, being a minority is alienating--even if no one is specifically insulting you, you recognize you exist at the sufferance of someone else. However, to many liberal Whites, this feeling comes as a relief. In a kind of parody of Christianity, powerlessness constitutes a certain moral authority because it removes the possibility that you can inadvertently oppress someone else. It’s the only way to be free of White guilt, as even charity is just an expression of privilege. To the egalitarian mind, freedom really is slavery."

[Leevan]

I work in the lending 'industry'; and, when I first started, I was shocked by how accurate stereotypes turned out to be. I looked into it, and the Federal Reserve has even done a study on race and credit (scores). They found that Asians tend to have the best credit, followed by whites, hispanics, and blacks. Black people were found more likely to have horrible credit risks. They even were found to underperform predictions while Asians tended to overperform. At the best point in the average black American's credit life (in his 70's), he can be expected to have credit that might mirror a white person in their 30s. (Credit tends to rise with age. So, a white person's credit at 30 is about half of what it will likely be in his 70s.

 

Anyway, if one had the oppurtunity to discriminate in lending (in a free society), do you think it would be ethical to do so? Given the facts, it might be the prudent thing to do. What impact might this have on society?

[dsayers]

if one had the oppurtunity to discriminate in lending (in a free society), do you think it would be ethical to do so?

 

Of course. What a person does with their property is nobody's business unless it's used to initiate the use of force. Lending is about risk assessment. They would likely use a signal such as can't keep a job to deny somebody as well. That's not discrimination, that's anticipating future behavior based on past behavior.

 

While I don't think skin color is the best predictor of future behavior, it should be noticed that stereotypes are not just outward in. Some people conform to stereotypes believing that they don't have a choice in the matter. It's a consequence of the State stealing from people to the point of them being motivated to work more, leaving the children in the care of strangers where their survival is predicated on peer bonding. Here, we see people defaulting to the lowest common denominator for the sake of acceptance. If a person feels being a certain way is how to gain "street cred," then this is what they'll do. They haven't been taught how to look at such things objectively and decide that's not for them, rising above stereotypes.

 

I used to deliver pizzas when I learned that black people tend not to tip. It wasn't until later that I learned that this is actually an established stereotype. At the same time, one of the most polite customer we had was this black family that some might unfortunately refer to as uncle toms. They ordered big, regularly, tipped well, and were always a pleasure to interact with. Clearly they didn't fit most stereotypes. Those people were working hard to model for their children things like value and personal responsibility. Meanwhile, I've seen whites that are on welfare, can't afford their rent, choosing to have children anyways, smoking while pregnant, yelling at each other in the baby's presence, etc.

 

I digress. Point being that while stereotypes may be based on truth, they're certainly not universal. A store owner in a free society could deny access to whomever he chose for whatever reason he chose. If he had a no hispanics policy for example, he'd be cutting down his customer base directly by only catering to a smaller percentage of potential customers and indirectly by the business he would lose to people who refuse to do business with somebody that would not service hispanics. In a free market of competition and consequence, he'd be pressured to either revise his policy or be less successful up to and possibly including going out of business. But it wouldn't be unethical as it doesn't prescribe the initiation of the use of force.

[growler76]

I certainly feel that I was often treated as being less intelligent by strangers when I had long hair. 

 

Also, I've been working for my current company for over six years now, and I cut my hair short nine months or so after I first started working here. Even in this context, I think coworkers started taking me more seriously.  I'm very well regarded by the company owners now, and recently when a coworker brought up how I used to have long hair, one of the owners said he didn't even remember me having long hair. It does make me wonder if my salary increases would have been influenced had I not made the change.

[Jot]

Exactly. I just want to assure people that they are not bad for making assumptions based on appearance. It's natural, and it comes from reason and evidence. Yeah, it will result in the occasional unarmed black teen getting gunned down by trigger happy cops, but those cops' actions are in part a reaction to the physical cues displayed by the teen. The cues are seen as dangerous or negative because so many people who exhibit them are dangerous. Discriminatory actions will never cease. The only way to resolve the problems inherent in them is by improving communities. If the cues are not seen as dangerous, those who exhibit them will not be seen as dangerous.

Relevant to this topic Stefan said that he strives to give everyone he meets for the first time 50% credibility for default regardless of the person's appearance. Now he said that this can go down in a fraction of a second if he senses red flags.

[J. D. Stembal]

I work in the lending 'industry'; and, when I first started, I was shocked by how accurate stereotypes turned out to be. I looked into it, and the Federal Reserve has even done a study on race and credit (scores). They found that Asians tend to have the best credit, followed by whites, hispanics, and blacks. Black people were found more likely to have horrible credit risks. They even were found to underperform predictions while Asians tended to overperform. At the best point in the average black American's credit life (in his 70's), he can be expected to have credit that might mirror a white person in their 30s. (Credit tends to rise with age. So, a white person's credit at 30 is about half of what it will likely be in his 70s.

 

Anyway, if one had the oppurtunity to discriminate in lending (in a free society), do you think it would be ethical to do so? Given the facts, it might be the prudent thing to do. What impact might this have on society?

 

Malcolm Gladwell includes some insightful studies that he cites in Blink that deal with race. There was one in the Chicago area performed at car dealerships. The black people who participated in the study were quoted statistically higher prices on vehicles. The conclusion they came to is that people, even other blacks, can't help but see blacks as unintelligent so there is an unconscious tendency for car salesmen to take advantage. Studies such as these provide all the reason we need to convince people to stop or ignore the race baiting going on in the media because it does blacks a disservice by painting them as stupid, helpless victims. The same reasoning should be applied to feminist victim-shaming rhetoric, which doesn't give women the same moral agency as we typically give children.

 

Imagine if no one talked about race inequality for a generation or two? Racism would be eliminated from the collective unconscious.

[Leevan]

 

 

Imagine if no one talked about race inequality for a generation or two? Racism would be eliminated from the collective unconscious.

 

 

 

I don't know if this would be the case. Given the current status of the black community in the USA, publicly ignoring race wouldn't eliminate discrimination that's based on race. A significant portion of the black community would still have problems, and this would continue to result in discrimination. People will react based on their observations.

[Bipedal Primate]

Great question, that imo, everyone should put thought into.

"So, is appearance necessary, or unnecessary but helpful when evaluating a person? Based on this, how much sway does appearance hold over you in your final impression of a person?"

 

​1. Yes, appearance is helpful and necessary when evaluating a person. [As Stef says in one of his podcasts, he demonstrates what he looks like with a huge swastika on his forehead and him without it on his forehead. I think that proves a major point about appearances and perceptions.]

 

for example: a string bikini, high heels, and tons of make-up vs a person is wearing a Burka 

 

2. For me, the 'visual' stamp that is tattooed on my brain can be tough to remove, if after talking to the person I discover their personality does not match up with their appearance, my brain will experience cognitive dissonance, because my eyes are sending me a visual message, but my ears are telling me something different. This can cause confusion and makes me uncomfortable. I feel at ease when my eyes and ears send the same message to my brain.

 

for example: the person wearing the Burka offers a you $5 BJ and the person wearing the bikini hands you literature on joining the Mormon community

 

I try to follow this pattern of thought: catch it, check it, change it

 

I struggle with the 'catch it' part of myself when I start forming judgments based on appearance alone, because stereotypes have been tattooed on my brain and I have to preform laser surgery on myself to have these false assumptions removed. I then 'check it' by asking myself if I have enough evidence to hold this belief? I then 'change it' / revise my opinion based on all the information available to me.

 

The strongest memory I have of experiencing the above is when I was working in a Chinese vitamin and herb shop. A customer walked in and I had an immediate reaction/judgement to his appearance. He was wearing a white tank top, baggy jeans hanging below/around his hips exposing his underwear and half his buttocks, he had gold teeth, and he was also huge, maybe 250 pounds. All of this visual information led me to form a preconceived idea of him being 'dangerous.' He came up to the counter and the second he started speaking, I went into shock, because his voice was so gentle and kind. He asked me some great questions about the benefits of medicinal herbs and we ended up having an interesting conversation. In the end, he was a super polite, friendly, nice guy!

 

This experience really hit home the message that appearances can be deceiving, and helped me realize the woman wearing the business suit with the briefcase might actually be the one shoplifting the 'Cascara Sagrada Bark' ;-)

[Buggy]

...

 

Some of the choices that can be made by an individual when it comes to constructing appearance will not tell you anything concise if you do not know some basic psychology and don't interact to gain information about the person. 

 

There are "simulations" you can do using basic psychology to create very plausible generalizations without interacting. For example, a tattoo is almost always taken for the purpose of adding to one's shallow social capital, in some way. It is therefore reasonable to assume that any individual with a tattoo is socially integrated in society. If an individual is socially integrated in our current western society, the individual is unlikely to host any "red-pill" knowledge or point of views. The same applies to overweight individuals. Being overweight and wanting to stay alive is somewhat of a contradiction. The individual is most likely not aware of this consciously. Being overweight is therefore usually a sign of lack of knowledge and awareness, which again is fueled by society, which again makes it much less plausible that the individual has any "red-pill" knowledge or awareness. The individual is also highly unlikely to be mentally healthy per clinical western standards. 

 

And that is as much as you need to get into it (qualitatively), as social conformity is a huge deal when it comes to why people behave and live like they do. As Stefan put it a few shows ago, people are basically "inanimate objects" when it comes to behavior, as they have no self knowledge or intellectual path to review their actions. They go with the herd and their emotions. You say X and you get Y, always. All we need is to gain critical mass in number of people having self knowledge, and society will socially come to a dead stop when looking at its own animalistic functioning. 

[luxfelix]

...

 

Some of the choices that can be made by an individual when it comes to constructing appearance will not tell you anything concise if you do not know some basic psychology and don't interact to gain information about the person. 

 

There are "simulations" you can do using basic psychology to create very plausible generalizations without interacting. For example, a tattoo is almost always taken for the purpose of adding to one's shallow social capital, in some way. It is therefore reasonable to assume that any individual with a tattoo is socially integrated in society. If an individual is socially integrated in our current western society, the individual is unlikely to host any "red-pill" knowledge or point of views. The same applies to overweight individuals. Being overweight and wanting to stay alive is somewhat of a contradiction. The individual is most likely not aware of this consciously. Being overweight is therefore usually a sign of lack of knowledge and awareness, which again is fueled by society, which again makes it much less plausible that the individual has any "red-pill" knowledge or awareness. The individual is also highly unlikely to be mentally healthy per clinical western standards. 

 

And that is as much as you need to get into it (qualitatively), as social conformity is a huge deal when it comes to why people behave and live like they do. As Stefan put it a few shows ago, people are basically "inanimate objects" when it comes to behavior, as they have no self knowledge or intellectual path to review their actions. They go with the herd and their emotions. You say X and you get Y, always. All we need is to gain critical mass in number of people having self knowledge, and society will socially come to a dead stop when looking at its own animalistic functioning. 

 

If only we had a mirror large enough... 

[yagami]

I lean heavily on appearance for first impressions. Now obviously everyone knows that someone can appear one way and actually be totally different. But I cant deny if someone looks a certain way and 9/10 times the appearance is matched by a certain behavior then it is most efficient to act assuming the behavior will follow. It's completely rational to me. Sure that 1 time out of 10 I will be wrong but think of the energy it takes to treat everyone the exact same and to be let down 90% of the time. I wont do it.

 

That being said I dont think someone's appearance has much baring on the final evaluation of the person. Im assuming you mean after you suspend judgment long enough to get to know them. At that point it doesn't matter what they look like because you know who they are now. I mean if Steph started dressing like Hitler would we really think he as a person has fundamentally changed? We may think he is having an odd day but he would still be the same person at his core.

 

If I had no choice but to evaluate someone lets say someone for a job interview I would say you need to rely on appearance. You cant take that chance that this might be the guy that dresses like a thug but is a genius with computers shows up on time never causes any problems.

 

I dont think we are really judging people by their looks on this forum. I mean im showing my face but what exactly can you tell? If someone were to make a judgement about how I may behave in the forums based on the fact that I am black I wouldn't fault them for that. If you grew up in a bad neighborhood getting beaten up by black people all your life you cant help by make judgement based on your experiences. I do the same thing with everyone I meet. When I run into someone who looks like something I have experienced I will judge them based on those experiences. It's not a bad thing and I believe it is a very helpful thing.

 

The problem comes in when you cant distinguish between good and bad people. If you are constantly told say men are dog and pigs and blah blah blah you might have a difficult time ever getting to know a man and being able to see hey there are men that actually aren't like that. Same goes with appearances if you are willing to accept that people can be different regardless of any particular feature then you have open the door to rational evaluation.

[hannahbanana]

Wow, thanks for all the responses, everyone! They are much appreciated

Sorry I haven't responded sooner, since I've hit a very busy time in my school schedule...I have not yet had a chance to really read in detail each response, but I am looking forward to as soon as I can.

I'm glad other people find this topic interesting as I do, since a lot of times it seems like a given that people will look and act in corresponding ways more often than not. I agree that it is very important when it comes to on-the-spot decisions, or interactions that don't involve long-term contact (for example, calling in people for interviews based on online applications: sometimes the person's look doesn't match the application at all). But I think that it has smaller value in long-term relationships, where you really get to know the person.

But at the same time, small markers in appearance can also indicate the mood of the person as well, I think. Especially for someone you know well, you can tell if they are tired or agitated or happy based on very small visual indications that you might not pick up on otherwise. I suppose that's why sometimes meaning and tone can be misunderstood in texts, since you can't see the other person to gauge their appearance.

 

Sorry this may be disorganized, I only have a very short time to write this, but I hope that I can contribute in some way