David Beckham attends the GQ Men Of The Year Awards 2019 at Tate Modern on September 03, 2019 in London, England.
- A new study from Princeton University shows that perception of competence is linked to dress.
- Researchers discovered the same results over nine separate studies: men that dress better are viewed as more competent.
- Even when told clothing is not a measure of competence, judges ruled in favor of the better-dressed men.
It would be nice to believe that we judge others not based on how they dress, but on their personal character. While such an idea sounds commendable, it's not true, says a new study out of Princeton University.
Regardless of how much we like to think ourselves above judging based on the clothing others wrap themselves in, such decisions are made much quicker than conscious awareness allows—as little as 130 milliseconds. The paper, which includes research from nine separate studies, confirms the long-held sentiment that "the clothes make the man."
Numerous studies have investigated how we judge faces. Speculation about the role of facial symmetry, large eyes, and prominent cheekbones has been around for decades. For this study — it was published in Nature Human Behavior on Dec. 9 — the researchers flashed the photos of 50 men so quickly that facial recognition proved about impossible. Noticing their torso and, more importantly, what that torso was garbed in, remained possible, however.
The team of DongWon Oh, Eldar Shafir, and Alexander Todorov write,
"Faces were shown with different upper-body clothing rated by independent judges as looking 'richer' or 'poorer', although not notably perceived as such when explicitly described. The same face when seen with 'richer' clothes was judged significantly more competent than with 'poorer' clothes."
Clothing Matters | Jan Erickson | TEDxColoradoSprings
Before beginning, the researchers asked a separate panel of judges to ensure that the clothing they chose was not overtly wealthy or representative of extreme poverty. Those partaking in the study were told to judge the competence of the faces they saw on a scale from one to nine based on "gut feeling."
In a few of the nine studies clothing was explicitly mentioned, though the judges were told to not consider what the people were wearing. In one, they claimed that there was no relationship between clothing and competence.
It didn't matter. In every single study, those rocking finer threads were deemed more competent, even when the same man was shown in different tops. If he was wearing nice clothes, he was deemed more competent than when wearing a t-shirt.
These perceptions influence who we vote for and where we spend our money. Oh believes this is especially important in the age of widespread income inequality.
"Wealth inequality has worsened since the late 1980s in the United States. Now the gap between the top 1 percent and the middle class is over 1,000,000 percent, a mind-numbing figure. Other labs' work has shown people are sensitive to how rich or poor other individuals appear. Our work found that people are susceptible to these cues when judging others on meaningful traits, like competence, and that these cues are hard, if not impossible, to ignore."
The researchers hope that by making people aware of their implicit bias toward clothing, such awareness can later translate into better decision-making about the judgment of an individual's character. As we learn over and over again, fine clothing does not necessary represent an ethical or honest person. It just means they can afford to purchase it.
Rapper Post Malone visits SiriusXM Studio on November 30, 2016 in New York City.
Photo credit: Matthew Eisman/Getty Images
Yet this lesson will be a hard lesson to instill. Clothing has long been representative of social status. Shoes were once a social marker separating those who could afford them compared to those that had to wear sandals or go barefoot. At root, humans are extremely shallow: we'd rather show off what we can afford than help others achieve the same status.
Shafir goes so far to claim that uniformity might be the way to go.
"A potential, even if highly insufficient, interim solution may be to avoid exposure whenever possible. Just like teachers sometimes grade blindly so as to avoid favoring some students, interviewers and employers may want to take what measures they can, when they can, to evaluate people, say, on paper so as to circumvent indefensible yet hard to avoid competency judgments. Academic departments, for example, have long known that hiring without interviews can yield better scholars. It's also an excellent argument for school uniforms."
That will be a hard sell an individualistic culture such as America, where outward appearance too often trumps inner character. As long as that's the case, we have to recognize ourselves for what we are: judgmental creatures focused on exterior presentation. Inner work takes practice, but the benefits — namely, not being conned or focused on fleeting materialism — is worth it.
--
Stay in touch with Derek on Twitter and Facebook. His next book is Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy.
Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr, two giants of 20th century science, espoused very different worldviews.
To Einstein, the world was ultimately rational. Things had to make sense. They should be quantifiable and expressible through a logical chain of cause-and-effect interactions, from what we experience in our everyday lives all the way to the depths of reality. To Bohr, we had no right to expect any such order or rationality. Nature, at its deepest level, need not follow any of our expectations of well-behaved determinism. Things could be weird and non-deterministic, so long as they became more like what we expect when we traveled from the world of atoms to our world of trees, frogs, and cars. Bohr divided the world into two realms, the familiar classical world, and the unfamiliar quantum world. They should be complementary to one another but with very different properties.
The two scientists spent decades arguing about the impact of quantum physics on the nature of reality. Each had groups of physicists as followers, all of them giants of their own. Einstein's group of quantum weirdness deniers included quantum physics pioneers Max Planck, Louis de Broglie, and Erwin Schrödinger, while Bohr's group had Werner Heisenberg (of uncertainty principle fame), Max Born, Wolfgang Pauli, and Paul Dirac.
Almost a century afterward, the debate rages on.
Einstein vs. Bohr, Redux
Two books — one authored by Sean Carroll and published last fall and another published very recently and authored by Carlo Rovelli — perfectly illustrate how current leading physicists still cannot come to terms with the nature of quantum reality. The opposing positions still echo, albeit with many modern twists and experimental updates, the original Einstein-Bohr debate.
Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr, two giants of 20th century science, espoused very different worldviews.
I summarized the ongoing dispute in my book The Island of Knowledge: Are the equations of quantum physics a computational tool that we use to make sense of the results of experiments (Bohr), or are they supposed to be a realistic representation of quantum reality (Einstein)? In other words, are the equations of quantum theory the way things really are or just a useful map?
Einstein believed that quantum theory, as it stood in the 1930s and 1940s, was an incomplete description of the world of the very small. There had to be an underlying level of reality, still unknown to us, that made sense of all its weirdness. De Broglie and, later, David Bohm, proposed an extension of the quantum theory known as hidden variable theory that tried to fill in the gap. It was a brilliant attempt to appease the urge Einstein and his followers had for an orderly natural world, predictable and reasonable. The price — and every attempt to deal with the problem of figuring out quantum theory has a price tag — was that the entire universe had to participate in determining the behavior of every single electron and all other quantum particles, implicating the existence of a strange cosmic order.
Later, in the 1960s, physicist John Bell proved a theorem that put such ideas to the test. A series of remarkable experiments starting in the 1970s and still ongoing have essentially disproved the de Broglie-Bohm hypothesis, at least if we restrict their ideas to what one would call "reasonable," that is, theories that have local interactions and causes. Omnipresence — what physicists call nonlocality — is a hard pill to swallow in physics.
Credit: Public domain
Yet, the quantum phenomenon of superposition insists on keeping things weird. Here's one way to picture quantum superposition. In a kind of psychedelic dream state, imagine that you had a magical walk-in closet filled with identical shirts, the only difference between them being their color. What's magical about this closet? Well, as you enter this closet, you split into identical copies of yourself, each wearing a shirt of a different color. There is a you wearing a blue shirt, another a red, another a white, etc., all happily coexisting. But as soon as you step out of the closet or someone or something opens the door, only one you emerges, wearing a single shirt. Inside the closet, you are in a superposition state with your other selves. But in the "real" world, the one where others see you, only one copy of you exists, wearing a single shirt. The question is whether the inside superposition of the many yous is as real as the one you that emerges outside.
To Einstein, the world was ultimately rational... To Bohr, we had no right to expect any such order or rationality.
The (modern version of the) Einstein team would say yes. The equations of quantum physics must be taken as the real description of what's going on, and if they predict superposition, so be it. The so-called wave function that describes this superposition is an essential part of physical reality. This point is most dramatically exposed by the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics, espoused in Carroll's book. For this interpretation, reality is even weirder: the closet has many doors, each to a different universe. Once you step out, all of your copies step out together, each into a parallel universe. So, if I happen to see you wearing a blue shirt in this universe, in another, I'll see you wearing a red one. The price tag for the many-worlds interpretation is to accept the existence of an uncountable number of non-communicating parallel universes that enact all possibilities from a superstition state. In a parallel universe, there was no COVID-19 pandemic. Not too comforting.
Bohm's team would say take things as they are. If you stepped out of the closet and someone saw you wearing a shirt of a given color, then this is the one. Period. The weirdness of your many superposing selves remains hidden in the quantum closet. Rovelli defends his version of this worldview, called relational interpretation, in which events are defined by the interactions between the objects involved, be them observers or not. In this example, the color of your shirt is the property at stake, and when I see it, I am entangled with this specific shirt of yours. It could have been another color, but it wasn't. As Rovelli puts it, "Entanglement… is the manifestation of one object to another, in the course of an interaction, in which the properties of the objects become actual." The price to pay here is to give up the hope of ever truly understanding what goes on in the quantum world. What we measure is what we get and all we can say about it.
What should we believe?
Both Carroll and Rovelli are master expositors of science to the general public, with Rovelli being the more lyrical of the pair.
There is no resolution to be expected, of course. I, for one, am more inclined to Bohr's worldview and thus to Rovelli's, although the interpretation I am most sympathetic to, called QBism, is not properly explained in either book. It is much closer in spirit to Rovelli's, in that relations are essential, but it places the observer on center stage, given that information is what matters in the end. (Although, as Rovelli acknowledges, information is a loaded word.)
We create theories as maps for us human observers to make sense of reality. But in the excitement of research, we tend to forget the simple fact that theories and models are not nature but our representations of nature. Unless we nurture hopes that our theories are really how the world is (the Einstein camp) and not how we humans describe it (the Bohr camp), why should we expect much more than this?
