Calling all dupes

The ‘halo effect’ still remains one of the great examples of research done in social psychology.  Trying to simplify it, the halo effect is the natural inclination on our part to form an overall impression of a person based on one or more superficial traits.  Without being aware of it, we may have formed a favorable impression of someone based, simply, on a person’s good looks or the fact that they are wearing the robes of a Buddhist priest.  This really amounts to a special kind of bias, as if it is always true that good looking men and woman or even religious people wearing robes, tend always to be intelligent, good natured, and wise.  

It is also worth pointing out negative traits also affect our impression of someone such as missing or unequal teeth or in the description of Stevenson’s Mr. Hyde, someone who is “pale and dwarfish” unlike Dr. Jekyll who was “attractive.” 

The obvious place to look for a solid demonstration of the effectiveness of the halo effect is in our evaluation of Hollywood stars.  We believe that because a movie star, for example, looks strong or masculine, who has a can do attitude in the example of Arnold Schwarzenegger, that such a movie star would also make an excellent governor which for Californians, good or bad, is now a reality—which happened before with Ronald Reagan.

For a closer look at the halo effect let’s consider the study done by Nisbett and Wilson who investigated the effectiveness of the halo effect on people’s judgments; how in particular their judgments were based on how they felt about a person.

“Participants watched different videotapes of a college instructor who spoke with a pronounced Belgian accent. On one videotape, seen by half the participants, the instructor came across as warm, engaging, and likable. On a second videotape, seen by the remaining participants, he came across as cold, aloof, and unsympathetic. All participants then rated how appealing they found three specific features of the instructor: his appearance, mannerisms, and accent. Note that these specific features remained the same regardless of his general demeanor (warm or cold). Nevertheless, participants regarded the instructor's appearance, mannerisms, and accent more favorably when his general demeanor was pleasant than when it was unpleasant. Moreover, participants were completely unaware that the instructor’s general demeanor had shaped their opinion of his specific features. In fact, they reported exactly the opposite, that his specific features had shaped their opinion of his general demeanor" (Robert P. Abelson, Kurt P. Frey, & Aiden P. Gregg, Experiments with People: Revelations from Social Psychology, p. 9).

It can be summed up that the pleasant demeanor of the college instructor influenced the overall positive impression the participants had of the instructor.  What is more, the participants lacked any introspective capacity to realize how irrational their judgment had been—moreover, that they were biased against anyone who lacked other than a pleasant demeanor.  

If we conducted the same experiment with a Zen teacher who, for one group, smiled a lot so that he came across as being very warm, and for another group didn't smile, the first group would give the teacher high marks while the second group would not have a favorable impression of the teacher who didn’t smile.  This may also apply with a teacher who wears Buddhist robes for the first group but not for the second group.  Odds are the first group would rate the robe wearing teacher higher than the second.  This would mean, of course, that the robes had a halo effect.  There would also be an additional halo effect if the first group saw a picture of the teacher standing next to the Dalai Lama (Photoshopped of course).

Especially in Buddhism, the halo effect can tip the beginner's decision to go with the Buddhist teacher who smiles a lot; who also wears robes, etc.  On the other hand, if a serious beginner were to read the works of a prospective teacher comparing them with the canon, both the Nikayas and the Mahayana, such a beginner might delay their decision.  Those who might argue with this approach saying it is better to see the man than study his works are setting themselves up to be duped and eventually betrayed.  Seeing the man should come after a careful study of his works—not before.  But then it is ever true that we never learn from experience.  We are always being duped. 

Comments

[NellaLou]

You've made some important points in this piece.

"Seeing the man should come after a careful study of his works—not before"

And seeing him in different contexts as well. Square pegs etc.

[Sally Strange]

In short, you should have stated the ancient truism that idiots "will eat cowshit if you sprinkle some sugar on top of it".

religion IS "the opium of the masses (idiots/fools)".

metaphysics is for the intelligent and wise, religion is for the sheep.

religion is secularized metaphysics, in short (pun) Ted Turner.

never talk religion, it attracts Aholes like cowcrap attracts maggots.
Only metaphysics. The idiots are doomed let them burn in samsara for all eternity "fukem"