Baby-faced Biases

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


The Times of London highlights some interesting research about voter preferences:

Psychologists in the United States have discovered that voters tend to judge politicians with more immature features as less competent, and thus tend to favour opponents with a more grown-up appearance.

Baby-faced politicians, it turns out, are out of luck. But hey, maybe voters “gut feelings” aren’t entirely awry; maybe it’s the case that leaders with immature features do tend to be, on average, less competent. After all, in Malcolm Gladwell’s recent book, Blink, the author laments the fact that CEOs tend to be taller than the average person, and concludes that human “heuristics”—short-cuts used to make judgments about people—are leading us astray into groundless biases. But is the “tall CEO” bias necessarily a grave and mortal error? It’s possible, after all, that taller people are, on average, more likely to have grown up being taller than their peers, and hence more confident, more assertive, etc. That’s just a wild guess, but it’s certainly possible.

So what about baby-faced politicians? Well, Alex Tabarrok notes an earlier set of studies by the same researchers showing that “babyfaced men are actually more intelligent, better educated, more assertive and apt to win more military medals than their mature-looking counterparts.” In this case, then, it looks like our heuristics actually are leading us astray, perhaps leading us to choose less competent leaders. Needless to say, that’s not a good thing.

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate