The Halo Effect

The Economist studies the phenomenon:

The existence of the so-called halo effect has long been recognised. It is the phenomenon whereby we assume that because people are good at doing A they will be good at doing B, C and D (or the reverse—because they are bad at doing A they will be bad at doing B, C and D). The phrase was first coined by Edward Thorndike, a psychologist who used it in a study published in 1920 to describe the way that commanding officers rated their soldiers. He found that officers usually judged their men as being either good right across the board or bad. There was little mixing of traits; few people were said to be good in one respect but bad in another.

Later work on the halo effect suggested that it was highly influenced by first impressions. If we see a person first in a good light, it is difficult subsequently to darken that light. The old adage that “first impressions count” seems to be true. This is used by advertisers who pay heroic actors and beautiful actresses to promote products about which they have absolutely no expertise. We think positively about the actor because he played a hero, or the actress because she was made up to look incredibly beautiful, and assume that they therefore have deep knowledge about car engines or anti-wrinkle cream.

How Do You See Your Life?

Robert Moran passes along an unusual poll question

StrategyOne polled Americans (n=1,000 telephone survey) October 9-12, 2009 with the following question:

"People often use metaphors to describe their life… Which ONE of the following do you think best describes your life?"

A Journey: 51%
A Battle: 11%
The Seasons: 10%
A Novel: 8%
A Race: 6%
A Live Performance, Like a Play: 5%
A Carousel: 4%
Other: 2%
Unsure: 2%

The responses above were provided to participants and are well-known life metaphors from Western culture. For example, life as a journey is from Homer's Odyssey (and the Epic of Gilgamesh should also be credited as well). Life as a battle is Homer's Iliad. Life as the seasons is from Ecclesiastes and ascribed to King Solomon. Life as a race is from St. Paul. And life as a performance or play is from The Bard – Shakespeare.

The interesting thing about the data in this instance is that (a) journey is the dominant metaphor for life among Americans and (b) there are minimal differences by age, gender and region. The only real difference is by income where those making less than $35,000 are three times as likely to describe their lives as a battle (20% vs. 6% average for the other income groups).

Karzai: America’s Favored Weakman

DiA downgrades the Afghan leader:

In late 2001 there were two powerful forces facing each other in Afghanistan: the mainly Pashtun Taliban, and the mainly Tajik and Uzbek Northern Alliance. But America wanted to unite the country, so, as usual, we went looking for a "third force". Hamid Karzai fit the bill because he was ethnically Pashtun but anti-Taliban (and foreign-educated and urbane). But for the same reasons that he didn't fall into either of the two main camps, Mr Karzai was weak. He wasn't Taliban, but he wasn't really Northern Alliance. He was "untainted" only because he didn't have his own army. And this is always the problem with third forces. If they were strong, they wouldn't be the third force; they'd be one of the first two forces…

It would be entirely possible for America to mount a COIN campaign in support of our favourite Afghan strongman. But in Hamid Karzai, we didn't pick our favourite strongman. We picked our favourite weakman. That's why we're in trouble.

The Daily Wrap

Today on the Dish we observed a range of news on bigotry. The good: Jennifer Vanasco and George Takei gave us a glimpse at the end of gay culture. The bad: Republicans smeared some Muslim interns and a gay official. The ugly: moral degenerates lashed out against gays in Queens and Iran.

Andrew mused over a fascinating take on American exceptionalism from James McManus. Robert Drape revealed the fascinating tale of Obama's race speech. A gay ex-soldier came out of the Camo Closet, while an ex-marine shared some shrewd wisdom.

Readers spelled out the conservatism of "cut-and-run" here and here. Steven Metz shot down the idea of a "civilian surge" while Judah Grunstein took a shot at the media covering Af-Pak. We also got a letter from Tehran.

Sarah Palin got her read on. 

— C.B.

A Non-Event

A reader writes:

I disagree completely with the 82nd Airborne vet. I served a four-year enlistment in the Marine Corps and I did live in crowded barracks, floated for six months on an even more crowded ship, and served a combat tour in the field. And, as I think back to that time, I can honestly say that no Marine in any command I ever served in would have been “fragged” for being openly gay. It is beyond my imagination that anyone would have tolerated that. (By the way, fragging, if it even occurs anymore, would be far more likely a reaction to poor leadership than sexual orientation.)

What I can imagine are some awkward moments, maybe some not-so-good-natured teasing, hazing, even a fight or two. But that's a large part of what goes on in many hyper-masculine environments anyway. (Hell, that's what goes on in some college dormitories.) At the end of the day it was about earning and maintaining the trust of your platoon. Unit cohesion was almost singularly about whether you could pull your weight and be counted on to share the suffering than who you were hooking up with.

I think you are dead-on that vast majority of soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen will not come out in the barracks (or wherever they serve). Those that do would likely do so quietly to trusted peers. Most would continue to keep their private lives to themselves. Which is what most successful Marines did, gay and straight.

Now, none of this is to say that a gay activist, someone who really wants to let that freak flag fly, would be tolerated very long. But it wouldn't be because they are gay– rather, the military isn't tolerant of activists in general. By it’s fundamental nature the military is a unique setting and by joining you give up some aspects of individuality and, yes, even some rights – after all, the whole is more important than it's parts.

There is a behavioral box, and you are expected to operate within that box. And that means you keep your drinking under control, you keep your spouse from interfering with your job, you downplay your politics and religion, you keep your personal business from affecting your work. If you choose to act out you will run up against a wall. That wall might be from your command or it might be from your peers, but there will be resistance to activism.

I would argue that it might actually be easier for the military to make this transition than it was to integrate blacks or move women into combat environments – because gays would have the option of deciding for themselves who knew what their sexual preference was. Racists knew who they hated and there was no hiding if you were black. Misogynists, probably a larger problem in the military anyway, made little effort to hide their feelings towards women.

I believe this will be a non-event once it happens. And it needs to happen. And happen sooner than later.

Obama’s Senior Bribe, Ctd

Andrew Briggs sighs as well:

Wisely, the Obama administration stuck to a theme of helping those in need and stimulating the economy rather than trying to make a substantive inflation-based case for the payment. (That said, seniors are hardly the most in need in the current recession and it's not clear how well these payments work as stimulus. I didn't say it was a good argument, just better than the alternative.)

[…]The Obama policy is less bad than the Republican alternatives from Reps. Walter Jones (NC) and Rodney Alexander (LA). These would have given all beneficiaries a 3 percent increase (2.9 percent in Alexander's proposal; got to be fiscally responsible these days…) but then build future COLAs on top so that benefits would always be 3 percent higher. My guestimate is that these plans could cost close to $200 billion over the long run, so I guess we dodge a bullet on that one.

So, once again, the GOP is more fiscally irresponsible than Obama.

As Long As We Are Quoting Leviticus…

A pastor writes:

Too bad the guy with the passage from Leviticus tattooed on his arm didn’t read the next chapter:

“You shall not make any gashes in your flesh for the dead or tattoo any marks upon you; I am the LORD”

Or in the King James Version:

“Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.”

Of course since when is the Bible applied to oneself. It is apparently only to be applied to others, as an excuse for abuse.