Time's Op-Ed article last week I found very funny. It's about a study that shows people form opinions about other people in a 100-millisecond glance based on their faces, using a very low-level part of our brains. For example, Clinton looks like an "affable rascal" and Putin is "less gentle grandpa than live mink." The interesting question posed is to what extent do our personalities form our faces VS. our faces forming our personalities. Here is an excerpt (it's not on their website):
"Faciel symmetry appeals to us too. Dick Cheney's least trustworthy feature is easily his smile, a lopsided thing that makes him look as if half his face is pleased with something while the other half is paying bills....
The mingling of face and temperament raises the question of whether the two co-evolve or one produces the other. Was John Kerry's hangdog face responsible for his sodden campaigning? Did Richard Nixon grow his shadowy stubble, or did his shadowy stubble grow him? The British weekly New Scientist has touched on this, exploring what is known as nominative determinism--the common case of people whose names echo their jobs. There is a director of penal reform Frances Crook, the marine biologist Steven Haddock. American culture has been rife with such synchonicity--pitcher Rollie Fingers, Senator George McGovern. 'Are these whimsicalities of chance," Carl Jung once asked, "or the suggestive effects of the name?'
If name drives careers and faces drive personalities, we should have sympathy for politicians consigned by countenance to personalities they might not have chosen. As the midterm elections end and presidential hopefuls look ahead to 2008, there are perils for both the lovely and the unlovely. Those easy on the eye should take care not to overstate the point (MITT ROMNEY: MORE SYMMETRICAL THAN EVER!). Those with aesthetic hurdles should consider whther it's finally time for that eye lift or chin tuck...."
3 comments:
You know what, I used to "debate" with my mom whether nicole kidman is such a knockout or not... My argument was that if kidman weren't an actress, they would never put her on the covers of magazines, whereas they'd still put someone like-er, natalie portman maybe, because she is so pretty. My mom said she thinks ppl like kidman aren't beautiful because their faces are too symmetrical. What does KO think...?
What? I've never heard someone say TOO symmetrical. Haha. Is she really that symmetrical? Well um, there's this whole "trend," as they say, of actresses being chosen on covers over models even though they are less beautiful, because people want to read about them and they are more real than models.... That aside, I think even when it comes to actresses, magazines would tend to choose ones who have model figures, hence Nicole Kidman. But then again I think you have pointed to the biggest exception, which is Natalie Portman, because her face is so intriguing...
Too symmetrical can be bad... like Aaron Kwok's 1990s hairstyle.
Also, I hate Mitt Romney.
Post a Comment