>

I think there’s a bit of mistranslation here. Forgive me if I’m wrong. I used height and voice pitch as examples but my overall point is the post title. 
Why are CEOs bullshit jobs lol!? I don’t disagree that just really funny to read out loud and I’m curious of your thoughts there.
/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

You’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. 
So, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. 
If you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question. >

But as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right? >

Sure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.
If it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate. >

I understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.
What if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?
I think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually "break," and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego. >

That wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.
An alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. 
Social movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.
So, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings  already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” … >

firstly, you yourself invoke value in "stronger".  A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here.  Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3" is going to be stronger than a 5'9" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)
secondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height.  I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a "hiring problem" when it's really a chicken and egg problem.  That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow?  This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the "should" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense. >

Could you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence? >

I believe they are saying that there is a vicious cycle at work. Tall people look authoritative -> people obey them more quickly/easily -> identical leading styles yield better results when presented by a tall person ->  more tall people succeed as leaders -> this influences our biases of what a good leader looks like = Tall people look more authoritative -> etc
The very fact we care influences whether or not we should care. We created a flawed, self-perpetuating system with an economic incentive for those in power not to change it. >

How do you propose we change human nature?
Why would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?
Of course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals. >

Thank you for your reply.
We are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone "younger," if you catch my drift, etc.
Maybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that "Character Counts," but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.
As for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.
Edit: doo doo formatting lol >

This might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...
If you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into "Choosing by Advantages" by Jim Suhr, and "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history. >

I actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? 
And thank you for the book recs. >

It's "no one's fault" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of "I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?"
The bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of "weighing pros and cons" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with "low gas mileage" on one side, and "high gas mileage on the other." As Kahneman showed, this "double counting" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.
Even accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their "fast" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our "slow" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the "fast" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or "moral." It would only be by engaging their "slow" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.
Edit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to "build a wall." People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of "immigration reform" often don't sound concrete enough, and their "fast" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration. >

I don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.
Doesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.
In a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.
So Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.
Side note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition. >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

Leadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable. >

I think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience. >

Appearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both. >

LMAO!! So you're saying they were "distinct," looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice? >

No, "~~district~~ distinct" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.
There are maybe a few exceptions. >

Sorry, I think if you look again, my word was "distiNCT" >

Sorry, auto-correct error. "Distinct" is not the word that comes to mind when I look at our best-known leaders. I'll stick with "funny-looking" >

The truth is that most CEOs, elected officials, local leaders etc. are not really chosen by grassroots movements or meritocratic processes at all.
Corporate ownership and leadership are often determined by nepotism and inheritance. Access to think tanks, campaign funds, and political “connections” are also skewed in favor of people who are already tapped into elite circles - consider legacy admissions at the Ivies and T10 law schools that produce the largest number of viable Presidential candidates in the US.
Given how strongly factors like height, race, biological sex etc. correlate with deterministic privilege, it’s not surprising that the candidates for such positions are overwhelmingly homogenous. Some people argue that we need to use representation and affirmative action to “correct” these imbalances but they’re also such deeply systemic issues that we need more than just a re-evaluation of leadership. The most reliably effective way of dismantling these imbalances is equal access to education and basic opportunities, as well as a genuine un-learning of unfounded cultural stigma vis à vis toxic masculinity at its roots. >

Just so I'm not assuming, when you say "these imbalances," are there imbalances that you're leaving out? I'd like to hear more of this view point. >

Most of the factors that I mentioned were the ones that are outwardly perceptible in every person - but there are certainly many other subtle forms of privilege and disenfranchisement. 
Take nationality for example - the country of your birth and upbringing has such a colossal effect on your access to education, individual freedom, healthcare, and eventually, employment opportunities. Former colonial powers, their allies, and white settlements still control an obviously disproportionate level of the world’s wealth. The leadership composition of the largest MNCs, trade alliances etc. clearly reflect this. 
Even countries that seemingly broke through these constraints have tons of systemic discrimination within them. India has a caste system that made education, property ownership and generational wealth virtually impossible for a massive segment of the population until the 20th century - and it’s hardly gotten much better since then. The oligarchic tendencies of Tsarist Russia and the USSR have completely taken over in the post-Soviet era. China has pretty much the same problems in addition to being an information vacuum with dystopian government oversight. The political and financial leadership of these countries is leaning heavily into cronyism, nepotism and all-around corruption. I don’t think that any of these systemic issues are beyond saving, but they need to be addressed at the root level - we need to better equalize the baseline for everyone and install checks and balances that prevent corrupt incentives from taking hold of the economy and policy sphere. >

Doesn't it matter how other people perceive our leaders, particularly our elected leaders?  
If the data you provide is true, then wouldn't we want a president, for example, who can take advantage of this phenomenon?  Certainly it is not the only metric of a good president, but it isn't like it is nothing either.  You want foreign leaders to take the president seriously and this is a factor, right? >

I do agree with you though I think there are some other factors that might need to be considered. In theory, I think some individuals conform to certain roles/occupations because of their appearance or physical attributes and so there are likely more candidates of that nature. And so even growing up, I never would have taken basketball seriously because I knew I wouldn't fit the bill. This is highly correlated in physical occupations and sports, like basketball, because as we know being larger or stronger has a perceived benefit in this domain. 
So the ultimate question here is, does being larger or stronger make you a "better" leader? I think it does, but that's entirely based on innate primal instincts and our current social/cultural understanding of the world, as you've kind of suggested yourself. In individual circumstances, I would therefore say that if I was a chairman and could choose the next CEO of a company, it would be justified if physical appearance would be part of my criteria, because this may be strongly perceived by internal or external stakeholders and could yield additional positive effects.
What you're effectively challenging is whether we should change societal standards such that all stakeholders in society don't consider physical demeanor a determinate factor in evaluating leadership. I think the vast majority of people would agree with you here, and I would too. But that would require unravelling years of history to the point where I'd say what you're advocating for is almost theoretical as opposed to practical. >

Thanks for your reply.
When you said, "it does," my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. He was boasting about his height and muscles and was talking about how people take him more seriously because of these things. 
After an hour of delving into that protein-powdered wormhole, I thought, "wow, he's really just playing on everyone's instincts." 
Another commenter made a great point that people are just following what benefits them, but how many great people are being tossed aside in favor of what we think are great leaders? Would Andrew Tate be possible with this thinking? Would Hustler's university exist? I think not.
I think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was. >


When you said, "it does," my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon.  
I think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.

Exactly. I don't think Andrew Tate is a good person but his pure physical demeanor allows him to be perceived as confident, persuasive, etc., which allow him be effective at what he does, and in essence, a better leader for people that believe in him. And so I think it's fair to say that his physical demeanor, therefore, does make him become perceived as a better leader. And as a result of being perceived this way, that does make him a better leader by result.
By the way, I should clarify so that when I say "better" leader I don't mean if they are good or bad (Like how Hitler exuded very strong leadership characteristics but is undeniably a terrible person). >

Depends what the position is. Something like president their real job isn’t to manage the state. That’s the job of all the underlings, the various department heads, chief of staff etc. the job of the president is to inspire and here things like charisma are invaluable. CEO more or less the same. >

I think you may be disregarding the feedback loop of aesthetic advantage.
It's not just that people with these qualities pop into the world yesterday with a full spectrum of ability. People who have the aesthetic qualities associated with leadership- as shallow as they may be- don't just get assigned the CEO job out of the blue. As unfair as it may seem, they get thrust into places of authority early in life. The feedback loop is that early trust and respect gives them more confidence and more experience, and those qualities ARE important in leadership.
There was a great study a while back on hockey players in Canada. They found that an extraordinary number had birthdays clustered into the same few months. How could this be? It turned out to coincide with the cutoff for starting school. Kids who were at the older end of their grade level would be bigger and have better motor skills than their slightly younger peers. They would have more early success on the ice than their peers because of the advantage of a few months of age, so they would enjoy it more, practice more, be more likely to envision a future as a player. Parents and coaches would see that early success and dedication and funnel more energy into training those kids.
By the time they were grown, that few months of age meant nothing by itself, but it had started a cascade, in a fairly merit attuned system, which made them better hockey players.
Because of the month they were born in.
So even if the selection of CEOs and world leaders were done entirely blinded to height and tone of voice, I fully expect that most leadership would still have those qualities to some extent, because whatever biases make them preferred for leadership, likely actually made them better leaders.
Maybe you could say we should rid the world of these biases at every level. I think that's a great ideal, but also a tall order. We've been trying to teach kids to "never judge a book by it's cover" for a long time now. And I suspect hammering it even harder would have the backlash effect that "Just say no" did. It's likely not a very moveable set of biases. >

Yeah you're quoting Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, which is an excellent read.
And man, you've almost changed my view, but I don't think we can accept that our biases can't be molded. It sounds live giving in and a shortcut from hard work, which is what our society preaches; to think hard and work hard to create a better world. That can't be done if we're handing out important roles to people that just "look," the part. >

I'm not as much saying our biases can't be molded.
But what I am saying is that aesthetic bias works in a broader, more systemic way that wouldn't be eliminated even by blinded voting and hiring.
Certainly some things can be done to lessen the effect to some extent.
But if we get down to the roots of it, human's first experience of authority is their parents- who are much taller and deeper voiced than them. I don't think we'll erase the effects of the very earliest childhood experience.
We could compare it to other problems that are as baked in and systemic. Take for example, greed. I'm sure we can agree that greed is not a good thing (Unless you're Gordon Gekko). And we can have educational systems in place that seek to lessen greed and teach kids to be better. But we're not going to get rid of greed entirely. And if someone were to post a CMV that said "We should get rid of greed" I'm not sure how to even address that. >

Δ! The parents being taller and deeper voiced, or more physically imposing is an EXCELLENT, excellent point. 
I still stand by my post but I will amend my future thoughts on this topic with this point. Thanks!!
And love the Wall Street reference. >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/-paperbrain- (86∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

A leader isn't someone with a genius plan to increase revenue. It's someone who can command other people. A plan means nothing without execution, and coming up with plans is not leadership. Anyone can do that. In fact, being able to take in and enact other people's plans is a leadership skill >

Fair point. I didn't mean to say that's the only factor; my point was that what a smaller man/woman brings to the table will be overlooked. Height and a deep voice does not equal "commanding." >

I mean, you are saying here both that it's unfair that tall people with deep voices are universally automatically considered to be more "commanding," and also that that exact qualities is important for leadership 
Not that it really matters because CEOs are bullshit jobs anyway, but if that's the argument on the table, let's go with it. If someone is naturally shy and an introvert, but otherwise has qualities that would potentially make them a good leader, that doesn't necessarily make up the difference