> Many see Gates, Dorsey, Ellison, etc as CEOs with certain traits, like nerdy, charming, well-spoken, funny/outspoken/brash, etc, but I don't think they assume they are evil.
I’m really from the other side of the world, then ;) Gates’ 1998 hearings made him look extremely bad; the modern Gates is charming, but so charming it’s made up (people are used to PR stunts, teenage now distinguish ads hiding as memes very quickly, same goes for any PR stunt); Dorsey is seen as quite evil for those who know him in my circles, rather like a Taliban in his last congressional hearing, reminding of Bin Laden: https://media-vanityfair-com.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/media.va...
I reckon beautiful hair can have a lot of impact on perception. Philosophers have long hair. I’ve also read somewhere that we intuitively estimate people’s intelligence to the size of the displayed forehead (Some Slavic haircuts with hair down, have negative prejudices associated), and maybe a part of your point about Zuckerberg’s haircut is doesn’t display a large enough forehead.
Superficial, but masses have collective behaviors.
"When working on her doctoral dissertation in psychology, Robin Abrahams dreamed one night that she was asked to be the editor of a prestigious psychology journal with a singular editorial policy: all articles must mention Steven Pinker's luxuriant, flowing hair. ...She told Marc Abrahams about this dream and the Luxuriant Flowing Hair Club for Scientists was born.
The first member, chosen by acclamation, was psychologist Steven Pinker, whose hair has long been the object of admiration, and envy, and intense study. From that lone, Pinkerian seed, there has grown a spreading chestnut, black, blond, and red-haired membership tree. ...
The public loves to see and applaud scientists who have luxuriant flowing hair, a luxuriant head of former hair, or luxuriant flowing facial hair. Therefore, all LFHCfS members who come to Improbable Research events are invited to take a bow, allowing the audience to shower them and their hair with applause."
Maybe check out their blog featuring new members, with their pics and them talking about their life and hair:
> "Dorsey is seen as quite evil for those who know him in my circles, rather like a Taliban in his last congressional hearing"
Do you mean people who know of him, not know him personally? That's the only way that makes sense because if they knew him personally I don't see what his looks in the hearing have anything to do with it.
Personally I'm surprised Dorsey isn't received better. He's clearly the most social mission oriented. Gave away 28% of his Square equity, Twitter is barely profitable, and his SF lifestyle is fairly modest in comparison to these other super-CEO's. He just doesn't strike me as one who cares much about personal wealth. But I guess the distaste comes from his tweeting for leftist causes.
I'm wondering about the perception of the majority of people who are privy to nothing other than the public image of these executives, not those who do have information on how Gates did/does business, or those who know Dorsey in your circles. If you were to see them through the eyes of that majority, what would you see?
I’m really from the other side of the world, then ;) Gates’ 1998 hearings made him look extremely bad; the modern Gates is charming, but so charming it’s made up (people are used to PR stunts, teenage now distinguish ads hiding as memes very quickly, same goes for any PR stunt); Dorsey is seen as quite evil for those who know him in my circles, rather like a Taliban in his last congressional hearing, reminding of Bin Laden: https://media-vanityfair-com.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/media.va...
I reckon beautiful hair can have a lot of impact on perception. Philosophers have long hair. I’ve also read somewhere that we intuitively estimate people’s intelligence to the size of the displayed forehead (Some Slavic haircuts with hair down, have negative prejudices associated), and maybe a part of your point about Zuckerberg’s haircut is doesn’t display a large enough forehead.
Superficial, but masses have collective behaviors.