Large literatures discuss our widespread human emphasis on first-impressions, and the difficulties faced by late-bloomers (who do well later after poor first impressions).
My alternative explanation is that in the evolutionary context there simply weren't many instances of raw first impressions that lead to repeated interaction. You had tribe members where your first impressions were shaped by the impressions of those who had known them for life and likely unrelated interactions with strangers.
As such, maybe we simply roll the prior info given by fellow tribe members into our first impression. This is a good hueristic in a hunter-gatherer society but goes wrong in a moden one.
I don't understand what creates the incentive not to increase an initially poor initial judgement assuming you haven't bad mouthed them. You suggest it's because we are judged on the consistency of our judgements over time but surely this only pushes the problem back -- if it's better to update on latter impressions then you should expect people to evaluate you better for doing that.
Sure, maybe there is pressure not to lower positive judgements to advertise that you aren't a flaky ally but I think you need more explanation for why mediocre initial impressions are sticky.
One explanation is that someone who makes bad first impressions are themselves a less valuable ally. But that still doesn't explain why a bad first impression would be sticky if we see them later make good first impressions with others.
And mere cognitive labor saving seems insufficient. We invest huge amounts of energy in sharing and discussing our interpersonal judgements so surely there should be significant evolutionary pressure not to waste potentially valuable chances for high quality allies by not updating appropriately.
Econ herding is where people copy others due to others behavior embodying info on a shared measure of common value. In the above I'm talking about a net preference for copying others' judgements, which can include many such causes.
If you look at grade school data, statistically, the US shouldn't be educationally competitive with other countries. But perhaps because people have an entire lifetime to track themselves into a track, it is competitive at the highest levels. People self-sort.
Another clear insight I hadn't thought of but which seems obviously true in retrospect. Probably leads to trackable differences in trait approval in early-bloomer communities (i.e. hometowns) and late-bloomer communities (i.e. a university in the old sense).
My alternative explanation is that in the evolutionary context there simply weren't many instances of raw first impressions that lead to repeated interaction. You had tribe members where your first impressions were shaped by the impressions of those who had known them for life and likely unrelated interactions with strangers.
As such, maybe we simply roll the prior info given by fellow tribe members into our first impression. This is a good hueristic in a hunter-gatherer society but goes wrong in a moden one.
You have early impressions of ALL associates. Many of those are about kids who later grow up.
I don't understand what creates the incentive not to increase an initially poor initial judgement assuming you haven't bad mouthed them. You suggest it's because we are judged on the consistency of our judgements over time but surely this only pushes the problem back -- if it's better to update on latter impressions then you should expect people to evaluate you better for doing that.
Sure, maybe there is pressure not to lower positive judgements to advertise that you aren't a flaky ally but I think you need more explanation for why mediocre initial impressions are sticky.
One explanation is that someone who makes bad first impressions are themselves a less valuable ally. But that still doesn't explain why a bad first impression would be sticky if we see them later make good first impressions with others.
And mere cognitive labor saving seems insufficient. We invest huge amounts of energy in sharing and discussing our interpersonal judgements so surely there should be significant evolutionary pressure not to waste potentially valuable chances for high quality allies by not updating appropriately.
When the group coordinates on who is in and who is out, you need to share their judgements on this to be seen as a loyal and capable group member.
Sounds related to the "herding" literature in economic theory.
Econ herding is where people copy others due to others behavior embodying info on a shared measure of common value. In the above I'm talking about a net preference for copying others' judgements, which can include many such causes.
My first impression is that I like what you say. Does that lock me in?
If you look at grade school data, statistically, the US shouldn't be educationally competitive with other countries. But perhaps because people have an entire lifetime to track themselves into a track, it is competitive at the highest levels. People self-sort.
Another clear insight I hadn't thought of but which seems obviously true in retrospect. Probably leads to trackable differences in trait approval in early-bloomer communities (i.e. hometowns) and late-bloomer communities (i.e. a university in the old sense).