So it Appears

Appearance is pretty significant. It can determine whether someone is an attractive romantic prospect, or whether someone is appropriate for a job. It can improve chances of queries to agents or publishers being accepted, or improve the believability of a research paper’s findings (i.e., what’s called “face validity”). It can make all the difference in interactions; people can take you seriously, hear you out, give you the time of day, and consider you and what you say thoughtfully; and people can do none of these things based on appearance.

Appearance can be a tool of influence. There are typical comedy bits about women dressing or behaving provocatively to seduce or manipulate men (and vice versa). Before 1978, dress codes for airplanes had formal attire that was coupled with formal behavior (it’s debatable which is cause and which is effect). Yadda yadda, you get the point. I think it’s interesting to consider the context of how appearance affects the way things are perceived and subsequently treated. What is a given person’s visual threshold for handing that homeless man some money or ignoring him: does it require a sign referring to him having kids? What is a given person’s visual threshold for deciding to not go down an alley: does it require one or more overturned garbage bin(s) with a dozen (give or take) rats, roaches, or other wildlife rummaging through it? What is a given person’s visual threshold for answering the door: does it require the person knocking to not be holding a Bible?

They say, “Don’t judge a book by its cover,” but they also say, “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.” Both evoke solid messages, but it’s prudent to know when to put a given message into practice. In the literal sense, I wouldn’t likely ignore information on a book cover that’s plain as day: for example, if a book has a shirtless guy standing intimately close with a woman and its title is “Flames of Love,” I’d judge it to involve romance; and whether its inner content was good, well, that would be stepping into the grey area of assumptions I’d be less inclined to judge. That said, I’d be very surprised if the book largely told a dry bibliographic account of California wildfires interspersed with anecdotal asides of the author’s romantic life, as I would be more so expecting smut. Anyway, how things seem doesn’t necessarily translate to how things are.

Verisimilitude: the appearance of being true or real. Like I said earlier, appearance can be a tool of influence, and it can oftentimes be deceitful. Maybe a homeless man with a sign saying he had kids to feed was lying and he was really childless—or maybe he wasn’t homeless at all and was really a YouTuber in disguise for a video he was in the midst of filming. Maybe a woman on a dating app displayed flattering pictures of herself only they were taken several years ago when her weight didn’t start with a number above 1 and didn’t include three digits—or maybe she wasn’t a dating prospect at all and was really a fake profile created by the app makers to boost app engagement. There are plenty of things in today’s world that are taken at face value, but when put under sunlight and scrutiny are revealed to be something not as they seem.

There are ways of combating the deception and manipulation. My personal #1 method that is anathema to many is moderation. It’s not necessarily skepticism (or actively doubting certain things), but it is just about as capable of sending religious or political proponents into a fit. Carl Sagan created more rigorous and fleshed out methods of discerning truths from falsehoods, or science from pseudoscience. In his book The Demon-Haunted World he playfully calls it a “baloney detection kit.” These methods include finding independent confirmation of “facts” (i.e., seeking evidence from those with little-to-no conflicts of interest), distrusting arguments from authority, considering multiple hypotheses rather than the first one you create, and considering whether a hypothesis can be falsified (i.e., tested). Sagan also reviews several biases and logical fallacies that are always helpful to be aware of, including appeals to ignorance (i.e., the idea that if something can’t be proved false then it must be true and vice versa), false dichotomies (i.e., considering only two extremes on a continuum of possibilities), and confusion of correlation and causation (e.g., I am confident and I was born in early August, therefore my astrological sign makes me confident). I recommend reading his book for more, but to summarize my thoughts on practicing moderation I have this handy-dandy quote:

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it.”

So, let’s say you’re prepared to remain neutral and analyze possibilities; those who’d balk at your seeming indecisiveness or noncommittal attitude or who’d lob criticisms and insults such as “fence-sitter,” “Nazi,” or “communist” won’t faze you; what do you dare to question?

That conservative uncle you have and you know is considered abominable by those devout in the political left-wing, what did he really mean when he said, “Deport all illegal immigrants”? Did he mean all immigrants, or those that truly crossed into a territory illegally? Did he mean all illegal immigrants, or does he except those that would undergo legal processes and be provided legal statuses? Maybe he isn’t the outward xenophobic racist he’s been taken for?

That leftist cousin you have and you know is considered woke by those devout in the political right-wing, what did she really mean when she said, “All cops are bad”? Did she mean all cops, or those that abuse their authority and engage in misconduct? Did she mean all cops that engage in misconduct, or does she except those that would undergo disciplinary action and be provided probation and reinstatement? Maybe she isn’t the outward anarchist snowflake she’s been taken for?

Speaking of all these labels, it stands to reason labels don’t typically give the full picture, so what are some other labels that are different from what they seem? Why do some Christians agree with abortion and other Christians don’t? Why do some Antifa, or Anti-fascists, engage in militaristic actions and forcible suppression of opposition? Why do some activists from Just Stop Oil attempt to bring about desired social and political changes but end up rallying opposition? Why does nothing at Dollar General cost $1?

I may have gotten ahead of myself in identifying examples of things one may find different from their surface-level appearance. It’s not so easy being prepared to look deeply and question such things. There are personal factors that pressure people to sanctify their beliefs; thoughts like, “I am a good person,” among many more biases. There are significant external factors that pressure people similarly; people that threaten to disown you, cut you out of their life, or contact your employer among many other things. Another handy-dandy quote, this one from David McRaney’s book How Minds Change:

“You’ll be more free to question your beliefs if you’re free of the fear of ostracism for doing so.”

I want to get more into the influence of appearance, particularly when it comes to writing (cough subversion cough foreshadowing vomit), but I also want to save it for a more specific post on writing. So, that’s all for now!