I am sure all of you had the same reaction I did as Tiger Woods slid into taudry tabloid hell: “thanks, Tiger, for creating a teachable moment for development economics!”
Our expectation that celebrities will be model citizens, contrary to vast evidence, is based on the Halo Effect. The Halo Effect is the idea that someone that is really, really good at one thing will also be really good at other things. We thought because Tiger was so good at being a golfer, he also must be very good at to have and to hold, forsaking all others, keeping thee only unto her as long as you both shall live…
What Tiger considerately did for our education was to show how the Halo Effect is a myth. This blog has a undying affection for those psychological foibles that cause us to strongly believe in mythical things, and the Halo Effect is a prime example (and the subject of a whole book on its destructive effects in business.) Why would marital fidelity and skillful putting have any correlation?
OK fine and good, but many of you are asking: What the Vegas Cocktail Waitress does this have to do with development? The Halo Effect was discussed in a previous blog, but when assaulting psychological biases, you can never repeat the attack enough. Not to mention that we all remember the psychology literature more easily when illustrated by a guy with 10 mistresses.
So if we observe a country is good at say, technological innovation, we assume that this country is also good at other good things like, say, visionary leadership, freedom from corruption, and a culture of trust. Since the latter three are imprecise to measure (and the measures themselves may be contaminated by the Halo Effect), we lazily assume they are all good. But actually, there are plenty of examples of successful innovators with mediocre leaders, corruption, and distrustful populations. The US assumed world technological leadership in the late 19th century with presidents named Chester Arthur and Rutherford B. Hayes, amidst legendary post-Civil War graft. Innovators include both trusting Danes and suspicious Frenchmen.
The false Halo Effect makes us think we understand development more than we really do, when we think all good things go together in the “good” outcomes. The “Halo Effect” puts heavy weight on some explanations like “visionary leadership” that may be spurious. More subtly, it leaves out the more complicated cases of UNEVEN determinants of success: why is New York City the world’s premier city, when we can’t even manage decent airports (with 3 separate failed tries)?
The idea that EVERYTHING is a necessary condition for development is too facile. The principles of specialization and comparative advantage suggest you DON”T have to be good at everything all the time.
So the true Tiger Woods Effect tells us something else more interesting than the false Halo Effect: that if you are very, very good at hitting a 1.68 inch ball into a 4.25 inch hole, then you can often get away with everything else for a long time. But sometimes not forever.
11 Comments
i dont understand this blogpost.
if the accusations are true, the tiger IS very good at what he does. he is good at golf, AND he is good at managing his private affairs with several women, some of whom, simultaneously.
so it IS true — if you are driven at one thing, you are probably gonna excel in other things that are related; in this case, competition for women.
the fallacy is that we are wont to wish our sports heroes to be rolemodels/heroes in general for moral behavior.
thats it.
I thought the number of women was indeterminate and probably an exponential figure.
Gabby, you have answered your own question — we expect our star athletes to also be good as role models/heroes/moral paragons. That is a inaccurate expectation that is due to the “Halo Effect”.
I think it’s sort-of a Halo Effect, but you’ve got the wrong interpretation.
The correct interpretation is not that because he is successful in golf, he is successful in his public life. The correct interpretation is that he is likable as a public figure, so he must be likable as a private figure – and likable private figures don’t cheap multiple times on their wife. I don’t follow golf, but my understanding always was that Tiger Woods was a well-liked celebrity. We expect his well-liked public persona to transfer to his private persona. I don’t think people assumed that because he was good at golf, he was good at life. I think people assumed that because he was likable as a golfer, he was likable as a person and so would reflect the vision of a “good person” in his private life. I believe this was the reason OJ Simpson’s saga was so “surprising.” Because his public persona seemed likable.
Look at this from the flip side. Take another sports great, like Mike Tyson. He was always known as an arrogant jerk, so nobody is surprised by his personal behavior. Or take an actor like Charlie Sheen (I think he’s a sucky actor, but it suffices he’s popular for whatever reason). He was known as a former drug abuser and all-around jerk, so nobody was shocked when Denise Richards made those claims against him.
My personal view it that the Halo Effect comes from public persona being extended to private persona. Not talent in your profession extended to belief of “talent” in managing your private life. It’s the Halo Effect, but a different form than what you are talking about. It’s that when people like someone’s public personality and behavior, they expect his private personality and behavior to be similarly likable and good natured.
To some extend the Halo Effect perception is common in development because it sometimes is correct, at least in modern times. The countries that have contributed to the largest technological innovations of the 20th century appear to be those that have well-functioning government and education systems. That’s likely where the effect comes from more than a traditional “Halo Effect.” It’s more of when people extend some decently common observation and assume it always hold.
Is there something opposite to the “Halo Effect”? The “Demerit Effect” or the “Great Muddy Valley Effect”, perhaps?
Basically the idea that if you suck at one thing, you’ll suck at them all. Or if you’re a troll in your public life, you’ll show similarly wankerous tendencies in your private life. Despite the somewhat self-perpetuated public persona of “AntiChrist Superstar”, those who know Marilyn Manson personally, insist that he is actually a pretty nice guy…
Who the hell really thinks that all celebrities are model citizens? I don’t think many would’ve bet on Britney to be mom of the year, and I certainly wouldn’t nominate Matt Damon for Vice President (although he would be better than Palin, ahem). Either way, this is a stretch a bit I think for the Halo Effect–and besides that who reallllly cares that Tiger had an affair. He still rocks at golf, and so I still like him. He is a jerk husband maybe, so I wouldn’t marry him. No check that, I would marry him and live with the hundreds of millions of dollars. Obviously there is no correlation here, in fact, marital fidelity isn’t even a skill set and in many instances is not even a determinant of if the public generally likes someone. Look at Christian Bale…goes crazy on site of whatever that movie was. BUT if you were shooting a movie, I bet that he would be in the top five of those considered for lead roles. Because he is an awesome actor. A jerk, yea sure, whatever. In fact, I can think of at least a FEW places where celebs have been in the moral wrong and came out on top, well at least sort of. Heath Ledger. This guy does drugs, and actually dies because of it. Does anyone rain on the parade and refuse to see his movie because the role drove him crazy? NO. And that other director that raped that girl that is in the news again. Celebs want him forgiven bla bla bla. Whatever, I forgot what this whole blog post was about (because it was pretty weak and definitely a stretch).
Oh, and the reason we can’t “manage” our airports properly is lack of enough funding. But I think given the volume that comes through there we do pretty damn good.
You may be confusing expectation and hope.
Without information on character, we make no inference, and we just assume he isn’t a horrible person because most people are not horrible people, not because he’s great at golf. People don’t like him because he’s a great person. They like cheering for him because they earn utility from cheering for winners.
We may hope that he’s good; I don’t think we don’t expect that he is. If your point is that hope is stupid, then fine that’s different, but I would guess you’ll have a much harder time making that argument.
My only complaint about this is the term “mistresses.” Tiger had lovers or girlfriends or FBs or partners. Unless I’ve missed out on some news, no mistresses.
“Distrustful” politicians? Don’t you mean “untrustworthy”?
What he’s saying is that people draw the conclusion from Mr. Woods’ golfing prowess that he is also possessed of “moral prowess”, to coin a term. To be honest, I’m not so sure of this, but then again, I’m not a golf fan so I can’t say what golf fans think of Mr. Woods.
Another good example, albeit a monumentally more tragic one, is our current president. Many of Mr. Obama’s most fervent supporters see that he is a family-oriented, generally decent, and intelligent man, and from that, assume that he is also morally righteous. The truth, however, is that, for all his good parenting and intelligence, he continues to pass off on the continual, secret imprisonment and torture begun under the previous administration, and that he has no desire to either pursue convictions for those responsible, nor reject the expanded “state’s secrets” doctrines claimed by the Bush White House.
Being smart and a Democrat is no more a marker of moral decency than being a good golfer is of fidelity.
basically you only get to ‘believe’ what the media is excited enought to sell you as a belief.
It is odd that you seem to trust the saying of assorted newspaper reporters.