Cumulative Advantage (Part Two)

May 3, 2007, 9:00 am; posted by
Filed under Articles, Steve  | 6 Comments

Last week, I talked about the randomness inherent in artistic success, like U2 or Harry Potter. The cited experiment concluded that the quality of an artistic work has little to do with its popularity, because what people like “isn’t just what they like — it’s what they think other people like.”

But how far does this principle extend, and what are the most important variables in success?

Obviously it doesn’t apply to every aspect of life. There’s a direct correlation between test performance and success in a class; if you do poorly at work, you’ll soon be out of a job. But what about those things about us that aren’t objectively quantifiable, things like influence and attractiveness? If there’s no concrete way to make judgments about such matters, how are they made?

Return to the sandbox of your youth if you will, an idyllic setting. At your side is your best chum; you’re both playing happily in the sand, you with a truck, your friend with a shovel. Digging in the sand, your friend uncovers a forgotten airplane, buried by the cat, and casts aside with glee the lowly shovel to fly the friendly skies.

Now you want the airplane.

The concept is social proof, the apparently innate desire of sentient beings to habituate their actions to those of their kind. How do you know how to walk, respond to the national anthem, behave at a funeral, or describe the concept of free will? If you think about it, you’ll notice most of your everyday actions, habits and quirks were not your idea originally. You saw, heard or experienced someone else performing them, and now you do, perhaps without even thinking about why. As one psychologist put it, “We view a behavior as correct in a given situation to the degree that we see others performing it.” In layman’s terms, monkey see — monkey do.

Just today, I was stunned to hear that the dowdy Drew Barrymore was named the most beautiful woman by People magazine. Then I saw the cover and thought, “Hey, she’s not as bad as I remembered.”

I quickly snapped back to reality. Drew Barrymore is not even among the top million attractive people in the United States — I was right and People magazine is dead wrong. But my initial doubt was the result of cognitive dissonance. A national magazine said Drew Barrymore is not just attractive, but THE MOST attractive. Doesn’t that mean she is??

Women are attracted to men that (they think) other women are attracted to. Men find a woman more attractive when they learn another man finds her attractive; I could give you hundreds of examples for that. (This is one reason, by the way, that women generally end up with older men — aging frequently has a beneficial impact on male confidence, prestige and maturity, an effect it usually does not have on physical beauty.) Even in social networking groups like those on the Facebook, the growth curve is steady until it reaches the tipping point, when suddenly it seems like “everyone” has joined. Why did one group at my school supporting Virginia Tech grow to 200,000 members, while another virtually indistinguishable group stalled at 400? Because in some very real ways, people are like sheep. And nothing succeeds like success.

I think this insight is freeing. God is in ultimate control of the universe, and I’m not. In fact, it seems I don’t have much influence at all, except to go where He sends me, in the confidence born of a proper understanding of my place in the universe. I will never understand how people work or how God works, what’s the result of chance and what’s the result of skill, how to lie, cheat, talk or gladhand my way to the top.

But that’s okay. Because that’s not what I’m here for anyway.


Comments

6 Comments to “Cumulative Advantage (Part Two)”

  1. Josh J on May 3rd, 2007 10:39 am

    Drew Barrymore is the least attractive supposedly attractive woman, maybe ever.

  2. Dsweetgoober on May 3rd, 2007 10:44 am

    I wish my cat had only buried things like airplanes in the sandbox.

  3. Marcus on May 3rd, 2007 2:43 pm

    I love subject formation. It is so very fascinating. Below is an excerpt from something I’d written a while back which, I hope, speaks to some of the issues you address. It was a piece about collective memory, but this one bit touches on what you wrote:

    “To properly understand the dynamic between personal and collective memory, we must first have a proper grasp of the individual within the cultural group– that is to say, we must account for ideology. Some feel uncomfortable with the notion of “ideology” because the requisite dissolution of a strict individual/group binary has unsettling consequences for free will. If one’s culture shapes or dictates his/her thoughts or actions, then personal agency is eroded and is replaced by some form of social determinism. Ideology, for some, carries a negative connotation–it is seen as the host of “unnatural” dictates foisted upon us from an external oppressor. This view is as stunted as it is illogical.

    Ideology is both internal and external–it is either contested through our criticism or it is validated through our approval (whether this approval is actual or merely inferred from our apathy is, for now, tangential). Individuals are participants in the substantiation and propagation of ideology. Often times, we are unconscious of its pervasive nature. According [Memory Studies author Maurice] Halbwachs, “we deem ourselves the originators of thoughts and ideas, feelings and passions, actually inspired by some group. Our agreement with those about us is so complete that we vibrate in unison, ignorant of the real source of the vibrations.” In The German Ideology, Marx and Engels had similarly argued that although individuals often believe that their thoughts are the product of unadulterated reflection, they are mistaken: their ideas are determined by their historical and social moment . Halbwachs adds that “insofar as we yield without struggle to an external suggestion, we believe we are free in our thought and feelings. Therefore most social influences we obey usually remain unperceived.” Individuals will rarely attribute to social indoctrination those “common sense” concepts which they support.

    Individuals are social beings and can not be seen in a vacuum. This does not mean that they lack a degree of agency. After all, it is their prerogative to investigate, challenge, and change ideology. Perhaps it would be more accurate to refer to ideology in the plural–analogous to linguistic varieties (or dialects) within a language. I am the product of the overarching American ideology, to be sure, but I am also subject to the rural, New England ideology as well. When Halbwachs discusses the ethos of a group (the “collective”) he approximates my use of ideology. As it is primary identity (e.g. rural New Englander from a mostly Protestant, mostly Scotch-Irish town) rather than, say, a national identity that holds the most sway over my personal development, it is easier to see how I might be an agent of cultural change within that primary milieu.

    Ideology is not the product of the repressive state but is, rather, a natural social phenomenon. We live our lives in overlapping groups, each of which has its own particular brand of ideology–each of which in turn is defined by (or defined against) the larger, “national” narrative. Identity is likely found in the points of contact between and among these overlapping group boundaries.”

  4. Dsweetgoober on May 3rd, 2007 3:05 pm

    My post may have been shorter but…well it was actually less substanstial too. Much less.

  5. Karen on May 3rd, 2007 3:05 pm

    Maybe they picked Drew Barrymore for the cover because women will be like “If Drew Barrymore is the most beautiful woman in America, maybe I’m not as ugly as I thought”

  6. Dsweetgoober on May 4th, 2007 9:12 am

    I have always suspected as much when it comes to popularity. It seems People need to be told what they like. I wonder if The Tree of Life would have even caught Eve’s attention without the PR work.

Leave a comment!