New research suggests that people can predict election results based solely on the candidates' facial features - it's thought that we make snap-judgments based on how "competent" the politician appears. As I note in my latest Comment is free piece, that's good news for Hillary Clinton - a study suggests that she has a slightly more prototypically competent face than Barack Obama.
But while outward appearances can reportedly help predict elections, they aren't necessarily the best criteria for picking presidents. In his book Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, Malcolm Gladwell argues that Ohio Republican Warren Harding swept to victory in the 1920 presidential election largely on the strength of his rumbling baritone and "presidential" demeanour. Unfortunately, it didn't work out. Harding's scandal-besieged administration went down as one of the worst of all time, with the beleaguered president himself admitting: "I am not fit for this office and never should have been here."Gladwell tells me he's not surprised to hear that voters are still judging politicians by their looks. Political races are essentially popularity contests, he says, and people are generally excellent at making snap judgments about traits like attractiveness, friendliness and likeability. Unfortunately, we can't make similarly rapid assessments of intelligence or integrity. "That's why candidates who pass the 'blink' test win," he says. "It's also why candidates who pass the blink test aren't necessarily particularly honest or conscientious."
Read the rest here.
Leave a comment