You
may have heard that said a few times, as well as the converse, “Why are
hot women crazy?” And the truth is that neither statement is true.
Sure, there are jerks and crazies in any population, but often your
perception is colored by
Berkson’s fallacy.
It’s a math concept. Slate illustrates this concept with a square, in
which we assumed all men are scattered around in a fairly even manner.
Now
the source of the phenomenon is clear. The handsomest men in your
triangle, over on the far right, run the gamut of personalities, from
kindest to (almost) cruelest. On average, they are about as nice as the
average person in the whole population, which, let’s face it, is not
that nice. And by the same token, the nicest men are only averagely
handsome. The ugly guys you like, though—they make up a tiny corner of
the triangle, and they are pretty darn nice. They have to be, or they
wouldn’t be visible to you at all. The negative correlation between
looks and personality in your dating pool is absolutely real. But the
relation isn’t causal. If you try to improve your boyfriend’s complexion
by training him to act mean, you’ve fallen victim to Berkson’s fallacy.
I
might add that the men in the upper-right of the square tend to get
taken out of the available dating pool at a pretty swift clip, which may
contribute to the fallacy. When considering the “dating pool,” I always
feel better about growing old, because while time tends to make one’s
looks go downhill, it also tends to teach wise men (and women) to be
nicer to each other. And what are looks when your eyesight is failing,
anyway?
An article at Slate explains Berkson’s fallacy in more depth and how it applies to other conundrums in life.
No comments:
Post a Comment