Today we entertain ourselves by asking people who are bad at explaining things to explain the inexplicable.
For some reason, the occasional discussion of free will on this blog is the thing that gets people most irritated. But always remember that irritation is what allows oysters to create pearls. Thank goodness for oysters because ulcers make crappy necklaces.
Today’s question: “If free will exists, why do the tallest candidates with the best hair usually win elections?”
The correlation is incredibly strong. And yet even the most poorly informed voter understands that neither hair nor height have any correlation with competence.
You can see the same bias in favor of tall, good looking people in business too. There are plenty of studies showing that tall and/or attractive people earn substantially more than short, ugly people and they get promoted faster too.
And yet I suspect few people would ever admit “He seems more competent because he’s taller. In my opinion, that outweighs the fact that he’s a pedophile and a male crack whore.” His supporters would instead concoct tortured arguments for why his leadership would be better than the short guy who was a Rhoades Scholar with 20 years in the Senate.
There are tons of similar examples where companies can manipulate customer behavior by altering colors and music and odors at stores. None of those things change the quality of the products, and yet they change people’s buying decisions. Where is the customers’ free will in all of this?
No one disputes the fact that on average, people who would have made one sort of decision can be influenced to make another by factors that those same people understand are not important to the decision. And so how can these people be thought to have free will if their buying decisions are made by Walmart?
Discuss.