The power of a single word could sway a shidduch
Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior by Ori Brafman and Rom Brafman (Hardcover - Jun 3, 2008) touches on a number of studies where planting a bias -- a label of a person fabricated for the sake of the psychological research -- determines how that subject will be assessed, whether for attractiveness, intelligence, liveliness, or amiability.
In one example, students were given a bio of a substitute before he entered their class. There were 2 versions of this bio; the only difference, though, was that one described him as "warm" and the other as "cold." After the class, students wrote up an assessment. All the ones who had been given the "warm" bio gave a positive review and all the ones with the "cold" bio gave a negative one -- two opposing views from students in the same class resulted from the bias that was planted. The authors mention the same type of dynamics could work for someone on a blind date. A certain remark might be taken as proof that the date is a very dry and dull individual or someone with a sense of humor, depending on what one has been told about the person in advance.
Think of the possible ramification for words spoken by people applied to for "information" about shidduchim. On the one hand, shadchanim may have actual cause to believe that describing a young woman as "pretty" may indeed make her so in the eyes of the bachur beholder. On the other hand, those who choose adjectives with possibly negative connotations (for example, "intellectual" is considered a negative label by some) could plant a bias that would make the person going out expect to not like the date and glimpse everything the date says or does through a prism of preset expectations.
There is another interesting point in the book about the clash between materialistic and altruistic motivations, which should be applied to the argument of solving the shidduch crisis by offering more money for people who make shidduchim for specific categories. I won't get into the whole thing because it actually goes through an explanations of different parts of the brain that get stimulated by pleasure or money and that get stimulated by doing something to help someone out and also provides an example of students paid pennies for correct answers on tests who performed worse than students who were not offered the money. But if there is any parallel between shadchanim and the people in Switzerland offered sums of money for their cooperation in a certain instance, then the monetary incentive will not work.
A post I just saw offered me a great illustrative example. Let's say someone tells me, "sell me your kidney; I'll give you $3000." Unless you are completely desperate for that sum, you are not likely to do it, I would guess. If the person then up the offer to $5000, you would probably be equally reluctant. Why would anyone want to give up organs for money? But, if the appeal was to save a life of someone, then you may consider it. If it is someone you know, you will likely consider it more seriously. If it is someone close to you, particularly someone like your own spouse or child, I would guess that you be very quick to do whatever is in your power to save the life of that person who is so dear to you. It would be an insult to have someone offer to pay money to provide the organ that would save the life that is as important to you as your own.
That is a difference between the power of altruistic motivation and materialistic motivation. Oh, I'm sure there are people out there -- you know the type about which they say "he would sell his own grandmother for a nickel." -- who would be motivated to do just about anything for the right price.
In one example, students were given a bio of a substitute before he entered their class. There were 2 versions of this bio; the only difference, though, was that one described him as "warm" and the other as "cold." After the class, students wrote up an assessment. All the ones who had been given the "warm" bio gave a positive review and all the ones with the "cold" bio gave a negative one -- two opposing views from students in the same class resulted from the bias that was planted. The authors mention the same type of dynamics could work for someone on a blind date. A certain remark might be taken as proof that the date is a very dry and dull individual or someone with a sense of humor, depending on what one has been told about the person in advance.
Think of the possible ramification for words spoken by people applied to for "information" about shidduchim. On the one hand, shadchanim may have actual cause to believe that describing a young woman as "pretty" may indeed make her so in the eyes of the bachur beholder. On the other hand, those who choose adjectives with possibly negative connotations (for example, "intellectual" is considered a negative label by some) could plant a bias that would make the person going out expect to not like the date and glimpse everything the date says or does through a prism of preset expectations.
There is another interesting point in the book about the clash between materialistic and altruistic motivations, which should be applied to the argument of solving the shidduch crisis by offering more money for people who make shidduchim for specific categories. I won't get into the whole thing because it actually goes through an explanations of different parts of the brain that get stimulated by pleasure or money and that get stimulated by doing something to help someone out and also provides an example of students paid pennies for correct answers on tests who performed worse than students who were not offered the money. But if there is any parallel between shadchanim and the people in Switzerland offered sums of money for their cooperation in a certain instance, then the monetary incentive will not work.
A post I just saw offered me a great illustrative example. Let's say someone tells me, "sell me your kidney; I'll give you $3000." Unless you are completely desperate for that sum, you are not likely to do it, I would guess. If the person then up the offer to $5000, you would probably be equally reluctant. Why would anyone want to give up organs for money? But, if the appeal was to save a life of someone, then you may consider it. If it is someone you know, you will likely consider it more seriously. If it is someone close to you, particularly someone like your own spouse or child, I would guess that you be very quick to do whatever is in your power to save the life of that person who is so dear to you. It would be an insult to have someone offer to pay money to provide the organ that would save the life that is as important to you as your own.
That is a difference between the power of altruistic motivation and materialistic motivation. Oh, I'm sure there are people out there -- you know the type about which they say "he would sell his own grandmother for a nickel." -- who would be motivated to do just about anything for the right price.
Comments