This is one of those veeery subtle class things. People don't realise how much they signal to establishment institutions that they don't belong through through things like how they dress. And because they don't realise it they don't even know they're being disadvantaged.
I've seen people turn up to social events with what is very clearly to an insider the 'wrong type' of suit (wrong fabric, wrong cut, buttoned incorrectly, wrong shirt, wrong tie, wrong type of shoes), with people silently judging them, but they would have absolutely no idea how much they stand out and how they're being disadvantaged by it.
Hard to tackle because it's all silent, the victims are oblivious, and there's not really any concrete action you can point to and criticise.
But it's ok. I did learn in my upbringing that my only value will come from studying and skills and being useful. While rich upper class people are seen to have intrinsic value by belonging to the elite tribe, through a deep web of generation-bridging connections, us plebs must deliver and are only valuable as long as we produce.
Software development and CS are good areas for this, as it requires a lot of effort beyond theatricals and signaling and there is a lot of demand so the elite does pay us through their teeth because they have to, even if they resent our nature in their bones. Although there are definitely restrictive interpretations of "cultural fit" at certain tech companies. But even as an immigrant, work in tech is one of the best ways to a comfortable life. It can be materially comfortable, but integrating to the high circles is practically impossible. We must learn to embrace and find pride in who we are I guess and stop pretending. Being authentic may be a better choice even if it goes with sacrifices.
But overall, dismissing it as just assholes does not reach deep enough. It is an issue to grapple with and process. There is a silent glass ceiling for most of us and it's definitely even a lot lower than mine for many others.
The point is that it may feel frustrating to feel excluded, but everyone feels that except multi-billionaires. I'd say therefore that after ensuring a Western middle-class level of comfort, the rest is mostly a mental game of accepting one's place, as there's always something higher that you can frustrate yourself over.
It would be interesting and possibly revealing to research the source class of tech workers to see how many don't come from a middle class background.
The only research I could find at short notice was this from the UK:
https://www.bcs.org/media/1652/social-mobility-report.pdf
The UK and the US both have poorer social mobility than Europe, so the figures in the US are likely to be even lower than here.
Depends on the country, and I'm not sure it's the same effect, ie not being able to pass culturally due to upbringing mismatch. Probably true for those growing up in very poor, crime ridden places where they can't learn the basic hygiene, punctuality etc needed for work.
As for social mobility, anecdotally, from who went where in my circles, tech and engineering are definitely higher in this than law and economics. Whatever is more concrete and harder to muddle the waters, is better suited for outsiders as a ladder. But the really big money is always in softer things but they a better gate-kept. I don't really think anyone tries to gatekeep the hard fields or trades too much. It's also why "the Polish plumber" is a meme. Easter European immigrants can take up such jobs and often reach a middle class income. I know many simple hardworking people who couldn't progress much due to cultural fit, but do make decent money in England/Germany etc. with physical work (like transporting stuff, setting up stages, cutting trees). Their kids do have a chance to enter the cultural middle class then.
A quick google seems to indicate that it has been used, but my gut tells me it’s not right.
Slightly ironic given the subject of parent’s comments.
Imagine if the person who said the phrase is ‘not right’ told you instead that you poop in the 'wrong' way?
Is there really a ‘wrong’ way to live or wrong way to do things? Or are there just different or alternative ways?
Yes to the former, some people go around murdering and stealing. I’m not being facetious, there’s a whole philosophy bent on subjectivism which is super interesting.
Our choice of clothes communicates a great deal even if we don't want it to - there is no escape from this game.
You are right that you still cannot escape potential consequences of this particular game, but at least you can escape being actively involved in the game itself.
Of course, there are always consequences to everything in life, but you don't have to be an active participant in everyone else's games. Just play the games you want to play.
Now, the consequences to this game do seems to be quite real. My wife is more successful in certain respects than I am, I believe, in part because she is good at playing that particular game while I just can't be bothered to give a damn.
The only difference is your level of steps is just smaller.
But to be generous, maybe you know relatively well-dressed hobos.
I wonder with covid how this is being impacted?
I’ve been on one side of this, making half-conscious assumptions about other guests based on subtle sartorial faux-pas I’d have a tough time articulating, but this made me realize that I could just as easily be on the other side, and probably have been.
I mean, like, you would think the substance bro brings to the table would matter more than his duds 'n' presentation.
The first ordered lunch and wine, in the most unconsciously casual, elegant way. The second then tried to imitate that manner, failing pathetically. I.e. the clothes didn't take away the upper class manner, nor bestow upper class mannerisms.
It's hard to fight your upbringing.
Put them on the floor of a blacksmith shop and you will see them get nervous.
Put them on the floor of a McDonalds in a questionable neighborhood -- that's where they'll get nervous.
Your comment reminded me of a similar experience of mine, but in reverse.
I was washing my hands in the restrooms at work, and decided to drink some water. I bent over, cupped my hand and started drinking.
At this moment, a guy went out of another stall and walked up to the sink next to me. He was some sort of manager, I guess, because he'd always be in a suit when I've seen him around the office before. When I got up, I saw him drinking water the same way I did, only he was failing to get much of it into his mouth. :-) Obviously, this was his first time.
People are really good at convincing themselves that things are just so.
tech is somewhat famously informal; so replace the black hoodie or conference t-shirt with: a shirt, tie and button-down vest.
Despite perhaps looking nice, it would undoubtedly look very out of place, you might even not trust the person as much.
You can definitely dress in a way that doesn't look that much "lower" to an outsider but looks very wrong, and, gasp, poor to someone in-tune with tech worker fashion. So it's not just dressing too nice that does it, and hell, for that matter you can spend about as much as the cost of an on-sale Brooks Brothers suit buying a "tech shabby" outfit[0], with results that will definitely be appreciated by many your fellow tech workers, or simply overlooked by others in a way that Red-State-Working-Class or suit-and-a-tie won't.
[0] The aforementioned Red Wing Heritage boots are north of $300 for most models, full retail, and check out Arc'teryx and such for how expensive trail shoes can get ($150+, and they're not the most expensive brand), but even something like Danners are pretty pricey compared to what normal people buy for shoes; dropping $200 on a hoodie and rain layer is easy (again, go for expedition-clothing sorts of products to run up the price tag but also the tech worker cred—$300 just for a paper-thin rain jacket isn't even the top of the range); $80 merino wool hiking shirt ("I just love how it keeps me dry, but also I love talking about merino wool with other people who know how expensive it is"); and shit, jeans, sky's the limit, you can hit $200 on those while still just "buying more quality" and not even in just-paying-for-the-label territory yet.
But we all have implicit biases, and it wouldn't be my gut feeling to trust a person who does not present as 'one of my group' like this.. even though I'm aware of the bias.
Nowadays I wear mostly t-shirts. The tech environment beat the button-down shirt out of me.
Somehow, I keep getting handed principal and director gigs and my peers are fine with me. I'm pretty sure it's OK, tbh.
I'd "dress up" for an interview, but that's really what I think of it as. I think I average wearing a suit once a year, and that's usually for a wedding, funeral, or similar formal occasion.
Other than that, I've replaced t-shirts with polo shirts. Maybe it's just the t-shirts I buy, but they usually shrink weirdly and I prefer the pique fabric used in most polos. I also appreciate the collar (for protecting my neck from sun) and being able to unbutton to cool off a bit in summer. They also tend to last longer.
That being said, it is also important to not look like you're trying too hard. Rolex and Omega are typically loud in the same way an "improper" suit is. They might hurt more than help, whereas Patek, Vacheron or Lange would be more impressive. Socialites who care enough about these things tend to have a certain affected air about them -- they (ostensibly, if not actually) appreciate them for fine craftsmanship rather signaling, which becomes a signal of its own. It would be an easy outsider error to assume that signal is about how expensive the watch is rather than which expensive watch it is.
Subtlety is everything. It is important not to look as though you're exerting effort to fit in. And you can afford to break from the ingroup convention if your mannerisms are otherwise "correct" and everyone in the group is aware of your status.
You can pick up old money relatively easily even if they're in a frumpy grandma sweater, even from a distance.
Edit: upon some reflection, perhaps my stereotypes are outdated and it's not really necessary for even old-money-rich young people to care about fancy watches and wines any more. I mean some base level knowledge is needed, but I have to remind myself that when I think they may have it worse in some respects I'm probably wrong. Why would they restrict themselves to rigid bullshit, if it's not pleasant? Probably the rules are more flexible today. Probably I'm totally blind to whatever the current actual class markers are as they are invisible to us.
The point is that these people don't care about fashion or watches or how much you spend on your clothes. They dress conventionally instead, which is a standard that only changes over the scale of a decade or so. The mistake outsiders make is to think that the point is to follow fashion and buy an expensive watch. That's why they don't fit in - they wear something fashionable.
Also, to defend the idea a bit, the idea of a dress code is exactly that purpose - so that you don't need to worry about what you're wearing or how much it cost or wether someone thinks it's fashionable or not.
That's how I've come to understand it. These wealthy types are not horophiles or sommeliers. They just casually appreciate beautiful craftsmanship & the taste of high quality alcohol- and who doesn't? Just look at how techies love machined metal laptop bodies, and the popularity of craft beer. The reason out-groups are quickly identified is because they cargo-cult the material things.
Right, although Patek, Vacheron or Lange are significantly more expensive than Rolex and Omega.
I mean, there are human beings who are making these ridiculously overpriced vanity watches day in, day out, in a miserable factory somewhere. All I see when I see these ads for Patek Phillippe, or similar, is a hopeless human doing work that they won't benefit from.
I wish rentier capitalism would end now, so we’d all live in a Commons-based peer production life where everyone was fed, instead of this ‘some people will buy a Ferrari and a rolex today, and some children will die from malnutrition’-world.
Luxury is a scam. The ultra rich (read: dominators) are just as anxious as the Precariat, scared to lose it all. Not to mention their kids are often ruined and unbearable people. [1]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maWdDl_OjlQ
-
Edit: when I write "Patek or similar" I am really talking about any type of 'luxury good', like a Prada bag, or a cheaper-than-Rolex Michael Kors watch etc.
The people 'defending' Patek are missing my point (or I am missing them?) My point is that living in a world with artificial scarcity-creating systems is disturbing to me (Rentier Capitalism by Prof Guy Standing)[1]. It constantly surprises me how our priorities became the way they are with many of us in chains, and a few rolling around in a pool of blood-stained gold and diamonds. [2],[3]
[1] https://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-08-03/book-day-corru...
It's very uncharitable to assume that because you can't see the craft in something that it doesn't exist or is a scam. I couldn't taste the difference between two kinds of whisky if you put a gun to my head but it doesn't mean other people can't or that it's some kind of status game in disguise.
What the hell does that mean? 'human drones'
> It's very uncharitable to assume that because you can't see the craft in something that it doesn't exist or is a scam.
“I don't believe in charity. I believe in solidarity. Charity is so vertical. It goes from the top to the bottom. Solidarity is horizontal. It respects the other person. I have a lot to learn from other people.”
― Eduardo Galeano
But luxury handbags and other "fashion" items are inexcusable, because they are literally assembled in sweat shops by slave labour and then sold for four/five/six/seven figure price tags to vulgar stupid people.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90279693/did-a-slave-make-your-s...
The point of this kind of luxury isn't utility or quality - it's pure status display, combined with narcissistic indifference to the fate of the unfortunates whose work is being displayed so ostentatiously.
A modern minivan is faster than a classic Porsche in virtually every metric. That doesn't lessen the appeal of the Porsche; speed isn't the point.
What's the 'bad' kind?
> logic needn't go out the window in pursuit of an outlet for that anger
Many of these watches are Swiss. Switzerland is (or was) a known tax-haven...
It's our inability to connect the dots that baffles me sometimes. Where else do the wealthy elites get the kind of cash needed to buy these watches?
Yes, we're part of the Global North. We have a relatively high standard of living now, due to not having blown ourselves up twice last century, before which we were considered poor in relation to our neighbours. Compare Heidi. (Iodine in salt may have helped immensely, too.)
[1] the brits may still be salty that our bankers did to them what Soros did to thailand. Someone's gotta make sure The Market stays efficient, innit?
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23975900
How are worker protections in your jurisdiction? Solidarity is an ideal invoked here even by the pro-free trade pro-small business centre-right party.
(One way our rich flex amongst themselves is on the Züri equivalent of Groundhog Day: they ride horses around a giant wooden snowman with explosives in its head after it's been set on fire. The faster it goes boom, the better the summer will be.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reuJ8yVCgSM&t=58
One can tell the Zürchers are a bunch of capitalist pigs who'll be against the wall when the revolution comes[3] because although the holiday is celebrated on a Monday evening, some of them don't even get the day off.)
[3] at the end of Cold War I, we learned we'd had a secret https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stay-behind unit active on our soil. This was a scandal, because we are not a Nato member. Thank you, UK!
If we are going to avoid Switzerland because it's a tax haven then we should probably avoid doing any commerce with any country, including the one you probably are in now (unless you're in NZ or something).
And with regards to your update - no one is talking about faux luxury consumer goods here; in fact an argument can be made that the _only_ sustainable mode of consumerism is the kind practiced by these luxury watch makers if antrhung.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/style/international/what-...
I don't really have a dog in the race when it comes to whether or not such veblen goods should exist. I agree they are often only sought after as status objects, but I also can't discount the possibility that some people really do appreciate their craftsmanship.
As opposed to "a sweatshop in a low cost geography by some human drones", like another person who replied wrote?
You do know that the Global North is hoarding IP, and that another world of Commons-based peer production is possible, right? We could all be 'well paid craftsmen' if we shifted to that. In my eyes, you're showing an incredible privilege here, being aware of, and talking about, Patek watches.
Uppppper class. [1]
> I can tell you that the cost of a Rolex is well worth it, from the particular point of view of 'access' to the guys with watches and hey let's talk about them . The watch club. The $40 fake I had was good enough, because who is going to unwind someone else's winder at a social gathering? Similarly other Veblen goods like a Lamborghini (rent one!) that a guy talked about as a conversation piece on a Reddit AMA a day or two ago. Whatever someone is deeply interested in, they will glom onto you if you show anything like authentic interest.
A fancy watch might earn you some respect from the tiny subset of rich folks that are themselves watch affectionados, but the respect will come from your depth of knowledge about watch construction, brands and history. The fact that you own one is largely inconsequential.
If you really want to cheat the system, skip buying the watch yourself. If you study the fancy watches, you can compliment folks on their watch, and get the benefits of appearing both knowledgable and friendly.
The wealthy don't value things you can buy with money. Spending money will not impress them.
I saw Americans seriously arguing that ads are a legit means of brainwashing. My bet would be that she was a walking advertisement and any rentable image would fly.
B) Dressing to the nines can work against you as a lawyer or litigant
Source: I study jurors and coach trial lawyers for a living, among other things.
https://abovethelaw.com/2017/05/at-lunch-with-david-boies-20...
Re: David Boies (who is a prominent Manhattan attorney):
> Part of the David Boies legend is his rejection of high fashion. He’s a millionaire many times over, and many aspects of his lifestyle reflect what I’m guessing is a nine-figure net worth — his primary residence, an 8,000-square-foot mansion on almost 10 acres; an $8 million pied-à-terre here in New York City, at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel; and a racing yacht, because you’re nobody until you have a yacht. But his wealth doesn’t go into his wardrobe. He eschews Prada and Patek Philippe in favor of navy blue suits from Sears or Lands’ End, inexpensive plastic wristwatches (worn over his sleeve), and what look like black sneakers (but are actually walking shoes by Merrell).
Also, fashion isn't for strangers. I mean, I don't know anything about what is fashionable. Nearly nothing at all. So obviously stranger can't impress me with expensive clothes because I can't detect it. The situation is similar with most fashions which are signals for inside an in crowd.
It is like a developer putting "Haskell" or "Scheme" on a resume. The goal isn't to impress randoms in HR who don't know what a Haskell is and are suspicious of scheming programmers. It is to signal within a group of semi-peers who don't specifically know who you are.
He did represent Al Gore before the Supreme Court, although I suppose that's ancient history now. And he was involved in the SCO vs. Linux stuff.
Maybe _everyone_ on a jury is filtered out to only take people completely disconnected from society but.... probably not.
(case in point: many people on this website are not in legal professions yet recognize the name)
as far as your point, the 1% of people here reading recognized the name. didn't know why, then googled and remembered. the jury is not here. it's '12 random people from the dmv,' and they don't recognize it, nor will they care to google it. they don't even know who steve jobs is, and won't google it on their iphone.
Value to who ?
Defense attorneys usually put on a show to relate to you in some way. The prosecution usually looks like undertakers and usually appeal to the institution of justice, sacred duty as a citizen, etc.
Just different flavors of bullshit.
Reforms expanded the pool, for instance in NY.
From a 1996 NY Times article:
"As of Jan. 1, all 27 former exemptions and disqualifications for jury duty in New York State have been repealed"
"...as many as one-third of Long Island's residents have been exempt from jury duty because of their white-collar professions, particularly doctors, dentists and lawyers"
https://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/07/nyregion/exemptions-for-j...
Also, I’m fortunate to have a job where there is no financial penalty for service, I find it interesting, and I’m not comfortable hamming up some nonsense to avoid it. I’m always surprised I’m picked because of my job (lawyers don’t like engineers on juries), and I am friends or relatives with a bunch of attorneys and policemen.
Consider a legal trial to be a giant machine executing a huge set of detailed and arcane and sometimes arbitrary instructions. Either the machine does the right thing (one side arguing there was no crime) or the wrong thing (the other side arguing there was a crime). What engineer doesn't love figuring out why the machine's behaviour is correct or incorrect?
Trial lawyers present a narrative to the jury, and thus prefer jurors who are more likely to believe the presented narrative. Your typical engineer believes themselves to be capable of discerning truth independent of expert opinion. This could be an advantage or a disadvantage, depending on how the trial lawyer plans to present their narrative.
That's not universal -- two of the most religious people I've met were some flavor of engineer; they never bother to challenge their own biases -- but in aggregate they're a riskier jury pick than a teamster or housewife or cashier.
If a lawyer dresses to the nines and wins the case, the client will feel justified in paying their fees.
Even if loud, angry lawyer guy doesn't win, dragging them to court and making them pay for a lawyer -- and then slinging vitriol at them in court -- has more emotional satisfaction than a dispassionate, slow, boring, go-nowhere hearing that ends with a moderate settlement.
(note: in some places the loser pays all of the fees for the winner, so locality matters here)
A hobo who hasn't showered in a decade should be able to argue his case, be heard and receive justice. Anything less, you're using rules to enforce a social order, the legal system has no relationship with justice if this is acceptable.
How someone looks informs your prior probability of who they are. What they say informs your posterior probability, but you gotta take that prior into account when forming the posterior. At least, if you want 'accurate' statistics.
(Bias - variance trade-off not withstanding, nor second-order effects of doing the 'correct' thing being possibly more detrimental than the advantage given by the 'correct' thing)
Are you comfortable applying this same bayesian logic to other factors like race?
Secondly, and more importantly I think, what effects does a 'correct' bias have when it starts interacting with other people. It might be the optimal choice in isolation. But that doesn't make it a good idea game-theoretically if everyone starts doing it.
The end result can be difficult to explain though. Because it means that not taking certain useful information into account leads to better decisions.
I think that, sometimes, we argue that a systemic bias is stronger than the statistics warrant. When sometimes the argument should be that sysyemic bias, statistically warranted or not is harmful.
(Note, my original comment was me making the mistake I argue against in this post)
Should is they keyword and maybe one day we'll reach that point. Meanwhile, looks and appearance can make a huge difference, so why take the chance?
"Finally, it may be possible that a third variable affects the relationship of attractiveness and criminal accusations/activities. Socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and developmental advantages (e.g., nutrition, schooling) might be such factors.[29]"
Your physical attractiveness and the way you dress can both signal information about you. Rich & powerful men with status tend to marry attractive women, even if the men are not always attractive themselves. After a couple generations, rich & powerful families with status tend to have more attractive families. They can also afford better nutrition and educational opportunities. Dressing nice and fashionably indicates that you care about your appearance. While a few people can pull off the idea of someone being such a genius that they can't be bothered to care about their appearance, the general trend is that people that can't be bothered to care about their appearance also can't be bothered to care as much about other things, like preparing for work.
It would be nice if we could get rid of any attractiveness biases. I sure would be angry if I was disadvantaged in a court case because I'm not attractive. I would be extra angry if I was disadvantaged because my lawyer wasn't attractive. I have a feeling that just blindfolding the jurors or blocking their view would cause them to miss out on other important things like being able to see faces and reactions during testimony. At least if we know about the bias we can work to fight it in other ways. Getting people to "think slow" sounds like some Malcom Gladwell popular B.S. that has probably been debunked, but it's probably better than nothing, and any lawyer can probably work at getting juries to think a little harder.
...unless they inbreed (which a lot of european royalty did), in which case it works in reverse. Also, income mobility probably prevents this from having significant effects. According to [1] if your father is in the top pentile, you only have a 36% chance of remaining in the top pentile. Repeat this over 5 generations, and you only have a 0.6% chance of staying in the top pentile.
[1] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/02_econ... page 4, table 1
IIRC this is a common misconception. The son of a traditionally handsome man isn't necessarily going to get all of the traditionally handsome male features from his dad; he might get some of his traditionally beautiful mother's traditionally beautiful female features. Genetics is a crapshoot like that.
Even if genetics are a crapshoot, I'd expect offspring of rich and powerful families to be, on average, more attractive than the median for their area from these environmental factors.
Honestly, that might be an advantage too. Humans think they’re good at these things, but this sort of judgement gives plenty of opportunity for more bias to creep in.
This should be doable by requiring the entire process be done remotely. Seems like a perfect time to try it out too! Even regional accent bias[1] can be removed by requiring unformatted text responses.
Language becomes the new class marker. Even in strictly text-based media, people make snap judgments about who is worth listening to. It's based on spelling, complete sentences, punctuation, 1337speak or other dialects, even things as subtle as paragraph structure and who (and how) you cite. Back before Tinder became a thing, I knew several women (my now-wife among them) who would instantly ignore a man if he had spelling errors or improper grammar in his online dating profile.
Daniel Kahneman wrote once that if you really want an unbiased decision, you need to have a computer make it, because all humans are biased. Even then, the software ends up biased in the same way as its creators.
I'm not sure replacing accent bias with spelling and grammar and familiarity-with-IM-tools bias is an improvement. And we might overestimate our ability to spot lying in person, but it's a damn sight better than our ability to gauge it based on speed and coherence in typing responses...
The phenomena might be general - looking good is one big part of it, but people in certain roles/work functions are expected to have a certain appearance.
So being shabbily dressed and having stubble is mostly irrelevant here. Maybe you were just much better looking than the other (poor) bloke.
The point I'm trying to make is in addition to that there might be other forms of appearance-based biases: for ex maybe a scientist is expected to project an image of being nerdy, or detached-ly pensive, etc
In trial law, the end goal is to win the hearts and minds of a jury to believe you. Your end deliverable is a set of speeches and presentations to a group of strangers making decisions about ethics. In programming, your tools are your IDE, terminal, manuals, libs, etc. In law, your tools are all the different flavors of rhetoric. Some of these are pure logic-based rhetoric, but many appeal to human emotion and establishing trust and proving character. In the end, the jury needs to trust the evidence and arguments presented by the attorney are real and honest. He always explained to me that humans make lots of inferences about people based on their personal presentation--which is true. E.g. "he put a lot of care into polishing those shoes--I can infer that he did the same when collecting and investigating the evidence" Or, "that lawyer dresses really flashy with cheap clothes and fake gold watches to make it appear he's something he's not--maybe he's bullshitting his arguments too."
He explained it even extended to courthouse design. He'd say "There's a reason courthouses are big, imposing, and serious-looking. It's important that people behave themselves seriously and thoughtfully here; decisions are being made every day that can dispense justice to lives of the wronged and potentially ruin people's lives too."
He was right--when it comes to law, for absolute certain. Most of his trials were defending Fortune 500 companies (for good stuff--stuff he believed in--protecting them against other parties defrauding and legitimately wronging them). His record was something like 300-2. He was a legend and I miss him.
But I'm still going to spin up clusters with barbecue sauce on my shorts.
Meanwhile, my own attorney looked not too far from what you'd expect to see if someone had entered a garbage dumpster circa 1969, and emerged the mourning of the court date. And to this day, I have never been convicted of any crimes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkson%27s_paradox
In short: people can be correct when they notice an inverse correlation, because their world consists of people who got into the same university, or workplace, or club, as them. But the correlation is exactly the opposite in society as a whole.
When I was in grad school (physics) the female grad students used to talk about how you couldn't wear makeup or do your hair and be taken seriously.
I bet lawyers would get biased depending on their voice then.
You could have their sentences read by a computer though (you could do it today too and not let the lawyer be visible)
Everything is done by typed text, with no humans visible. Jurors just sit isolated in a booth reading the text, or have the same person read out all the text to them.
Lawyers would be against it, but everyone would benefit from a society that decides guilt based on how convincing an argument is and not how convincing the person saying the argument is.
"Look at that man, he is guilty." Is not very convincing when the person who is supposedly guilty has never been seen.
Is it to make you feel better or to improve society?
Personally I'd go for improving society because as fun as lynchings are we probably shouldn't kill minorities we don't like.
People are generally quick to complain about bias, for whatever reason, while hypocritically guilty of bias just the same. As a result most people would be incredibly unhappy in institutional conventions with bias objectively removed because the resultant outcome would be wildly different than they intuitively anticipate. The most interesting part about that is that it’s identifiable and measurable.