When we are confronted to a situation that does not allow us to make a judgment, we rely on the labels
Unfortunately, we're also incapable of ignoring social labels when assessing a person's intelligence.
In one classic study, two researchers showed that evaluators use labels as a tiebreaker when interpreting this sort of mixed evidence. In that study, Princeton University students decided whether a young Year 5 student named Hannah was performing above, below, or precisely at the level expected of an average student in Year 5. During the first phase of the experiment, the students watched one of two brief videos. In one of the videos, Hannah was shown playing in a landscaped park set in a wealthy neighbourhood. A quick sweep of her school suggested that it was modern and sprawling, graced with sports grounds and an impressive playground. While the students watched the video, they read a brief biographical report on Hannah, which mentioned that her parents were both college graduates and now professionals. This version of Hannah was associated with a series of very favourable labels: wealth, a good school, and educated parents who were employed as professionals. The other Princeton students were acquainted with a very different and less fortunate version of Hannah. They watched a video of Hannah playing in a fenced-in schoolyard with high-density brick buildings, set amid a neighbourhood of small, rundown family homes. This time, the biographical report described Hannah's parents as high-school (but not college) educated, her father working at a meat-processing plant, and her mother as a dressmaker from home. This time the labels were portentous, suggesting that Hannah would need to overcome socio-economic and educational hurdles before attaining academic success.
At this point, some of the students watched a second video, in which Hannah was asked to answer a series of twenty-five questions from an achievement test. The questions were designed to assess her mathematical, reading, science, and social-science skills. Instead of presenting a clear image of her ability, the video was ambiguous: sometimes she was engaged, answering difficult questions correctly, and sometimes she seemed distracted and struggled with relatively easy questions. The tape was designed to baffle the students, to leave them without a clear picture of her ability.
Hannah's ability was difficult to discern from the video, but some of the students began watching with the labels "wealthy" and "college educated" in mind, whereas the others began watching with the labels "working class" and "high-school educated" in mind. These labels functioned as tiebreakers when Hannah's performance was neither flawless nor disastrous. The students who expected Hannah to succeed saw exactly that pattern of achievement in her responses (ignoring her missteps and distractibility), whereas those who expected less from Hannah saw exactly what the negative labels implied (ignoring her intermittent engagement and mastery of the difficult questions). in the end, the lucky Hannah was judged to have performed above her Year 5 level, whereas her unlucky counterpart seemed to perform below Year 5 level. The Hannah study showed that people are suggestible, willing to view the world with the guidance of labels when faced with an otherwise unbreakable tie.
The results (ed. of the study): only 1 percent of the executives said managers should bother showing employees that their work makes a difference. If anything, many companies try to explain the value our work will have in our own lives, the benefits we will reap if we hit a goal, as opposed to the benefit that others will derive.
But remember our biology we are more inspired and motivated when we know we are helping biologically others.
Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal.
That is the curse of the human race. Sociability.
What Christ should have said was "Yea, verily, whenever two or three of you are gathered together, some other guy is going to get the living shit knocked out of him." Shall I tell you what sociology teaches us about the human race? I'll give it to you in a nutshell.
Show me a man or woman alone and I'll show you a saint. Give me two and they'll fall in love. Give me three and they'll invent the charming thing we call "society." Give me four and they'll build a pyramid. Give me five and they'll make one an outcast Give me six and they'll reinvent prejudice. Give me seven and in seven years they'll reinvent warfare. Man may have been made in the image of God, but human society was made in the image of His opposite number, and is always trying to get back home.
No serious sociologist any longer believes that the voice of the people expresses any divine or specially wise and lofty idea.
The voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up for it by the group leaders in whom it believes and by those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion.
It is composed of inherited prejudices and symbols and cliches and verbal formulas supplied to them by the leaders.
A company shouldn’t get addicted to being shiny, because shiny doesn’t last.