When intuition lies
Lesson 26 of 31 in the course “Brain Hacks”. Free, with animations and a quiz.
The president who “looked the part”
Last lesson we found out when a hunch can be trusted. Now the flip side. In the early 20th century the US had a politician named Warren Harding. Tall, handsome, with a deep voice and confident bearing. People looked at him and thought: now that’s a real president. He wasn’t especially smart or experienced, but nobody really checked. He was promoted precisely because of how he looked. In 1920 Harding became US president. Most historians rank him among the worst presidents in the country’s history. In a split second autopilot added up “height + voice + bearing = leader” and stopped thinking. That’s the dark side of instant impressions: looks drown out everything else.
Extra centimetres, extra money
Think that’s a century-old story? Look at height. One survey of CEOs at the biggest US companies found the average male CEO was nearly 6 ft (183 cm), while the average American man is about 5 ft 9 in (175 cm). About 14.5% of all US men are 6 ft or taller. Among these CEOs, 58% were. The survey was informal, but the picture matches solid data. Researchers analysed four large studies that followed thousands of people from birth to adulthood. Adjusting for age, sex and weight, each inch of height was worth about $789 more per year on average. Nobody says out loud “he’s too short for this job.” Autopilot just links height with strength and leadership, and decisions quietly drift that way.
The car-dealership experiment
Even starker. A US researcher recruited 38 helpers: white and Black, men and women. All were trained to act the same: similar clothes, the same story about themselves, the same bargaining script. They visited more than two hundred car dealerships in Chicago and asked for a price on the same car. The first offer above dealer cost: white men $725 on average, white women $935, Black women $1,195, Black men $1,687. Even after forty minutes of haggling, Black men ended up nearly $800 higher than white men got without haggling at all. Many salespeople probably didn’t see themselves as biased. Their autopilot decided in a second, by looks, who could be fleeced, and then simply stopped listening.
The salesman who beat first impressions
Here’s the opposite example from the same field. At a dealership in New Jersey there was a salesman who sold about 20 cars a month, more than double the average. His secret sounds simple: he never judged by looks who was in front of him. Once a farmer walked in straight from the field in work overalls. Other salespeople would have thought: “not a buyer.” He took him seriously, and the farmer became a regular customer. Or a teenager colleagues brush off: sometimes he comes back that evening with his parents and buys a car, just from a different salesperson. This man didn’t switch off his gut. He picked up whether someone was confident or lost, informed or not. But anything that was only about looks he deliberately threw out of the equation. And he earned more than anyone for it.
Associations you don’t know you have
Why does autopilot do this? Scientists designed a hidden-association test. Words and faces flash on screen, and you press a key as fast as you can: “good” or “bad”, “man” or “woman”, “career” or “family”. If the pairs are familiar to your autopilot, you answer fast. If not, a fraction of a second slower. Millions have taken the test, and most turned out to have associations at odds with their beliefs. Someone sincerely supports equality, and their fingers still stumble. Associations are assembled from what we see around us: in films, news, the feed. Honest caveat: as a gauge of one particular person, the test is disputed. The same person’s score jumps noticeably from one try to the next, and it predicts behaviour weakly. But the fact that autopilot learns from what it sees isn’t in doubt.
Saved by a screen
1980, Munich. The philharmonic is looking for a trombonist. An invitation arrives: “Dear Herr Abbie Conant.” The audition is behind a screen; the jury only hears the music. Candidate number 16 plays, cracks one note, and leaves to pack up. But the jury is thrilled, and the conductor shouts: “That’s who we want!” The others are sent home. Out from behind the screen steps… a woman. In that orchestra at the time, the trombone was seen as a “man’s” instrument. Years of court battles followed: she was demoted and nitpicked for “weak breath.” She won, because her best review was given blind. In the US, audition screens became standard, and over 30 years the number of women in top orchestras grew about fivefold. Honestly: how much of that came from screens and how much from other changes is debated. But the idea works: take looks out of the decision, and you take out their distortions too.
Danya and two trading bloggers
Danya is looking for someone to learn trading from. Two bloggers show up in his feed. The first films in front of a supercar and talks loud and confident: “I can feel this market.” The second sits in a plain room, speaks quietly, and every week posts all his trades for the year, losers included. Danya’s gut instantly picks the first: he looks like success. It’s the same autopilot that once picked a “president by looks.” Danya remembers the screen. He turns off the video and compares only what can be checked: is there a full trade history, are losses shown, do the numbers add up. The first has no history at all, and the car could be rented. The second has modest but honest returns. Danya follows the second. A screen doesn’t mean distrusting people. It means looking at facts first and the picture second.
Try it: three screens
You can’t just “switch off” a first impression, but you can get around it. Screen one: facts first, face later. Choosing a tutor, a barber, a product from a blogger? Look at reviews, portfolio, numbers first. Photos and videos after. Screen two: the same questions for everyone. That’s what the salesman did: everyone got the same attention. Choosing among several people? Ask them all one list of questions and compare answers, not charisma. Screen three: more varied experience. Associations are built from what you see. Follow people of different looks, ages and styles who genuinely have something to teach. Fresh experience shifts first impressions, but the effect doesn’t last, so it takes regularity. And above all: decide which criteria you’ll choose by in advance, before the picture has a chance to hook you.
Check yourself
- Why did Harding become president?
Correct answer: He looked presidential, and nobody checked further. Yes. Autopilot added “height + voice + bearing = leader” and switched off checking. - What was the same for the helpers in the dealership experiment?
Correct answer: Clothes, backstory and bargaining script. Yes. Behaviour was identical, only looks changed, and prices diverged. - Why does the orchestra-screen story carry a “disputed” label?
Correct answer: More women got in, but how much of it is due to screens is debated. Yes. The growth is real, but other changes in society and hiring rules also played a part. - Danya is choosing a trading blogger. Which step best reflects the lesson?
Correct answer: Check the trade history first, then watch the videos. Yes. That’s the screen: facts before the picture, so looks don’t decide for you.