“It is amazing how complete is the delusion that beauty is goodness.” -Leo Tolstoy
Do you consider yourself physically attractive?
Don’t worry, I won’t tell anyone.
My hunch is that your initial reaction is “no.”
Even if you are someone society labels as extremely physically attractive, answering this question is not so simple.
So let’s go a little deeper…
Can you think of one opportunity in your life where you felt passed over because you weren’t attractive enough?
Sigh. We’ve all been there before.
Reading Moneyball Judaism won’t make you more beautiful, but perhaps I can make you feel more beautiful.
Doing so begins with this week’s heuristic.
Halo Effect
In what will surprise absolutely no one, evidence suggests that people others find physically attractive are often described as smarter, nicer, etc., than other people, even though one characteristic has nothing to do with another.
In 1920, Edward Thorndike published a paper entitled “A Constant Error in Psychological Ratings” that provides the initial evidence for this week’s heuristic, the Halo Effect.1 Thorndike describes how when commanding officers rate the quality of their soldiers based on physical qualities, intelligence, leadership, and character, soldiers rated more highly in terms of physical characteristics like height or attractiveness were also rated more highly in terms of intelligence and character, even though these qualities have no relationship to one another. Thorndike argues that there is a “constant error of the halo” and that people doing ratings cannot treat individuals as “a compound of separate qualities,” thus allowing one quality to affect their perception of others.2 The logic, or lack thereof, might go as follows:
I think that Person X is more physically attractive than Person Y.
Therefore because Person X is more physically attractive than Person Y, Person X must also be smarter than Person Y.
Of course, this is an awful argument, but we make it all the time.
If you need proof, look at how much better-paid handsome quarterbacks are in the NFL, even if said quarterback is awful on the field.3
While Thorndike’s experiment focuses on the military, ultimately, subsequent research reinforces Thorndike’s findings for any setting where people are asked to rate people based on subjective criteria. As Solomon Asch argues in a later experiment on the Halo Effect, “We can no more prevent its [our first impression’s] rapid growth than we can avoid perceiving a given visual object or hearing a melody.”4
The Halo Effect also helps us understand why “Moneyball” became such an effective strategy for Billy Beane and the Oakland Athletics. In an early scene in the movie version, Beane argues with scouts who say they should sign one player with subpar hitting numbers because he has a “good body”:
Billy Beane wants statistical evidence that a player is a good hitter; instead, he’s told that the player “looks the part.” This is an example of the Halo Effect in action, where one characteristic clouds our perception of other characteristics. When Beane forces his scout to focus on production numbers instead of vague characteristics, rebellion ensues:
Baseball is not the only profession that suffers from the Halo Effect. When political fixers advocated for Warren Harding to receive the Republican nomination for president, they justified their choice by saying that Harding would make a “great-looking president.”5 Harding died in office before potential impeachment, and historians consistently rank him as one of the United States’ worst presidents.
We don’t need to look far to find examples of how the Halo Effect impacts Jewish organizations; it can be any trait in the “right” (or wrong?) context. But we need to dig deeper if we want to move beyond complaints and minimize how much the Halo Effect impacts us.
Ninety Percent Mental
The Halo Effect can easily lead to fatalism.
I don’t think anyone should judge me on my physical attractiveness, where I went to college, or what kind of car I drive. But they do. And I can’t stop them.
So if I want to live in the world as it is, I “call” Bob Tewksbury.
Naturally, Tewksbury has never heard of me. But since Tewksbury had a mildly successful career in major league baseball, I would have never heard of him but for his second act as a mental skills coordinator for professional baseball players. Some people have the coolest jobs, and you can learn about Tewksbury’s in his book Ninety Percent Mental.
One of my favorite mental strategies in Ninety Percent Mental is something called the “mental garbage disposal,” what Tewksbury defines as the ability to “simply grind up [hurtful] words…and make them disappear.”6 Returning to the Halo Effect, the flip side of allowing certain characteristics to affect our perception of other characteristics is that it leads us to doubt ourselves through an internal monologue, leading us to use the same ridiculous arguments we make under the influence of the Halo Effect about ourselves:
Another person being beautiful does not make me ugly.
Someone labeled “brilliant” does not make me stupid.
The world does not have a finite amount of competence, so just because someone’s work style does not match mine does not mean they are incompetent.
In the abstract, we all know this, and there would be no need for people like Tewksbury if we could just let these terms wash over us when they strike a nerve. But words hurt, and comparisons sting.
In response, Tewksbury recommends that we counteract the negative images others projected onto us by developing our own mental imagery library that shows us performing at our best. He writes:
“Mental imagery incorporates visualization, motor imagery, mental practice and mental rehearsal…[This requires] Seeing and feeling yourself in your mind perform an athletic skill or activity before you actually do it. It stimulates an inner feeling of action, producing responses both physiological and emotional…The benefits are immense…When an unwanted situation occurs in a game and the player already has prepared with mental imagery, calm should replace a fear of the unknown or even panic, and instead the thinking goes, Ah, I’ve been here before. I’ve got this.”7
Whether the halo-in-question comes from within or within, the halo is not real; just because the world outside gives you the impression you aren’t talented doesn’t mean they are right.
Tewksbury argues that “nobody goes into your room with a syringe, sticks you with a needle, and withdraws your talent and confidence.”8 Instead, we need to think and cultivate a realistic perspective of what we can achieve and what is possible at any given moment. It won’t eliminate the halo effect, but with the right training, it might overpower it.
From Phenom to the Farm
71%
Current rating on Rotten Tomatoes for 10 Things I Hate About You, which just celebrated its twenty-fifth anniversary with this profile of Julia Stiles (aka “Kat Stratford”.) And yes, I know this is based on The Taming of the Shrew:
Staci Zemlak-Kenter, you’re welcome =).
What I Read This Week
Blessed Are the Ship Pilots: My mind has been on my hometown of Baltimore after the terrible crash at the Francis Scott Key bridge. But for an experienced ship pilot, the accident could have been much worse.
Some Ideas Not Worth Debating: Many years ago, I decided that some people hold ridiculous opinions, so I should ignore them.9 But is that an effective strategy? Read more.
Don’t Tell America the Babysitter’s Dead: My oldest daughter will be an amazing babysitter. But apparently, babysitting as a teenage rite of passage is becoming less common. And that’s bad.
A Bullshit Genius: I debated whether or not to use this title for obvious reasons, but this is the article analyzing Walter Isaacson’s biographies of Elon Musk and other “geniuses.” And it’s worth reading.
Why Playing It Safe is the Riskiest Strategic Choice: Thought-provoking.
Ibid., 28-29.
Ibid., 80.
Ibid., 132.
No, not about Derek Jeter.