HUSAYN MERALI (Y13)
This article was submitted as part of the WBGS Fuller Research Prize Competition 2022.
To stereotype a person is to reduce a person to a set of characteristics that are impersonal; often offensive, untrue and built on foundations of hearsay. Such judgments are often conceived at first sight - yet built upon decades of indoctrination and hundreds of years of othering and subordination. These judgements vary in range according to the damage it presents - a mere second glance at someone to ascertain their suitability as a mate or a friend is vastly different to the bigoted racism that expresses itself through overt hatred. However, the danger of such pigeonholing only occurs in the extremes - the suggestion that having stereotypes in its totality are conclusively wrong is an overgeneralization which is not only unfair but also hypocritical - we make such judgements with such regularity that they are necessary, commonplace and are required to negotiate this world in safety and satisfaction.
Such preconceived ideas are dangerous only when pervasive and perpetuated - potentially becoming a self-serving prophecy whereby such ideas are not allowed to change and evolve - leaving a majority to be based on the acts of a minority. It would also be negligent to forget the creation of such conventions are from historical factors outside the control of the afflicted parties - whether that be the subjugation of a particular group to poverty,to harmful propaganda, to segregation and a loss of assets and wealth.
Regardless of their conception, at its foundation they are founded on truths - ugly truths - but truths; and the two types of judgements that occur can be from a first impression - or viewing from glasses that have already been muddied. We shall concern ourselves with the former - This article is thus here to question just how much information one can ascertain about a person's character/ friends/ academic talent etc from a 3 second glance at a person. It was recently brought to my attention that there is a term for it - physiognomy - whereby it is the art of judging a character from facial characteristics. Make no mistake - to judge someone without knowing their character is unfair, nevertheless from just their appearance- for instance, studies have shown that some job interview candidates are immediately at a disadvantage from their name alone - a judgement even before eyes meet. I hope, in this article, merely to refer to the almost lighter aspects of a person - yet of course, bear in mind that there are so many who will not conform to my aspersions, and many more who had no say in becoming who they are.
The first barrier to knowing a person is through their name. The phrase nominative determinism refers to the idea that a person will fulfil, or resemble, the characteristics or actions of their namesake - or more specifically occupation. If I showed you two shapes - one smooth curved and rounded, and other spiky, sharp and protruding - and two names - Mimi and Kiki - subconsciously we immediately associate the former name to the first shape. Therefore, we immediately associate names to feelings, and feelings to emotions, and those emotions may be evoked before personal contact has even occurred. This was explored in studies, most notable of it in Freakonomics - whereby names that are correlated with success eventually dissipate towards the lower socio-economic range. There is, of course a racial undertone of ‘white’ and ‘black’ names that are present.
If such names are relevant in procuring emotion, then it is not a far reach to suggest we can know a lot about a person from their names. It is why authors spend so long on developing the perfect name for mystery/horror/relatability, and why people will have different impressions from ‘Eleanor’ to a name like ‘Frankie’. Some names just feel right for people, and perhaps the phonetic connotations of a name either rubs off the name holder, or indeed is just a peculiar placebo effect in which we affirm our own biases. Nevertheless, to know someone's name may well prejudicate our ideas about that person, and why parents will labour so long about picking a strong and successful name for their child.
To briefly adjourn our discussion, I do want to stress the importance of physiognomy as a concept, and why it is something which I felt the need to express. Intentionally or unintentionally, we use what we know to pick friends, spouses, mentors. Is it so sporadic that we are drawn to people who act like us, look like us and talk like us? After all, any school cafe will have groups split up by ethnicity; Is that external divisive bigotry or an underlying need to move closer to those who we relate to? American high school movies and books are perhaps the perfect representation of such a concept. The ‘jocks’, the ‘nerds’ and the ‘mean girls’ as immediate archetypes for popular cliques. Without even a second thought we have immediate associations with each, which I do not intend to labour. And are those groups of people individual in their qualities; if we plotted people who play rugby against people who get ‘A’s, would it be presumptuous to suggest a negative correlation? And likewise, on a more sarcastic note, would the severity of glasses prescriptions have any positive correlation towards better grades?
I know people who not only display excellence in sport but do so too in academics. I am not suggesting we place people into one size fits all assumptions - the tendency to oversimplify and flatten corrugated personalities is already too strong - but potentially over a large enough population, there will be trends, which we can examine and question. Is life’s genetic lottery a give and take? Do those who lack athleticism make up for it in memory, or charisma and discipline? Do some get the short end of the stick and end up with ‘nothing’ - and some who possess ‘shining lights’ have it blown out for them through personal circumstances? It is what makes those who excel in all facets of all special - the Tris-like Divergence which occurs when talent and luck intercede. ‘Outliers’ is a fantastic study into the idea that being successful has little to do with your own hard work, and a lot to do with your opportunities. The Beatles who got an offer of a lifetime, Bill Gates’ access to university facilities, and Pro Hockey players being born in the early months having growth advantages which they do not secede. And speaking of physical advantage, and indeed height; are taller people more likely to be seen as stronger, physically imposing and more adept? Do they get paid more, recognised as leaders better, and are biologically at premiums? And do more attractive people have an upper hand in life through ‘pretty privilege’ - get rewarded through beauty ‘premiums’ such as higher wages, better job acceptance rate, and positive associations about intelligence, personality and social success.
Physiognomy is enshrined in Victorian literature - used as a method of building character, Mr Hyde is described as ‘pale and dwarfish’; ‘with a displeasing smile and deformity’. For those who write, and those who read, it is without doubt that authors have understood the power of appearance - and how they can manipulate the readers' preconceptions before we have even been introduced to them. So then, why is it such a far cry that we can do the same thing in real life? Teachers may be the greatest at doing so - picking out potential troublesome students from the glint of an eye or the frown of the face. It may have been founded on racist principles, and has malfeased itself into an art that has largely been disregarded and forgotten about. It may be due to a society that has fought to overcome racial stereotypes for so long that it may have tipped the other way, with backlash of any judgement; acceptance over cynicism. There have been studies both in its favour and against its existence. A study at the University of Michigan as well as at St Andrews both found evidence that traits such as extroversion, conscientiousness and openness can be predicted from appearance.
Assuming we are correct in our assumptions, how far back could you predict these tendencies? If I showed you a class of year 6 kids (10-11), how accurately would you be able to predict what they will become? An unethical experiment would make educated assumptions, in line with physiognomy, and follow their successes and failures. Their intelligence / sporting prowess / social ductility and attitude to life may be the parameters - and I well and truly believe that over a large enough sample size, and potentially a better scientific method than just my musings, would make the guesses correct - and potentially even from a younger age.
Try this other experiment not bound by GDPR laws - out of the following pictures, which one of them are a:
- Criminal
- Author
- Mathematician
- Athlete
