The Unique Complexities of First Impressions and Mind Reading

There is nothing to see here. Just the picture of the Chair of Death which showed how confused people—including you—can be.

Every day, I am reminded that humans don’t always know what they want. 

I don’t know whether this should excite me or not.

I don’t know what this changes either but with the story of the Aeron chair (nicknamed the chair of death), I have become aware of the complexities that surround first impressions. 

The Aeron Chair was created by two known industrial designers Don Chadwick and Bill Stumpf hired by Herman Miller in 1994. 

Their vision was simple.

They wanted to come up with a chair that looked different but was still effective to cradle a person in any posture. 

It was not your regular throne-like chair—thick cushion and a high back. 

The Aeron was an odd-looking slender chair that had a weird similarity with the skeleton of a dated insect. 

While people rated the comfort an 8 out of 10, they thought it was ugly, and so the aesthetic scores struggled, initially.  

If I was Herman, I would gouge my eyeballs out and cry myself to sleep. Then, I would scrap the idea.

But Herman isn’t me. He didn’t give up. 

Over time, the chair started to garner attention from the design community.

It won an award, started to appear in TV commercials and its reputation began to bloom. 

The sales skyrocketed. It became a best-selling chair.

Everyone wanted it but most importantly, the aesthetic score became an impressive 8. 

This reminds me of the concept of Incongruity theory which wires us to recognize things because they may threaten our survival. 

The thing about the Aeron Chair is that people misinterpreted their feelings. 

They didn’t hate the chair. They just weren’t used to it. 

Sometimes, ugly isn’t ugly. Sometimes.  

One time, during a blind sip test between Pepsi and Coke in the 1980s, the results showed the majority of tasters preferred Pepsi to Coke. 

Then, Coke decided to tinker with its formula to bring a new product called New Coke. It was a disaster. 

Here is the issue with first impressions again.

The problem with the sip test is that tasters don’t drink the entire can.

They take a sip and they make their choice.

Therefore, a sweeter product can win a sip test and it doesn’t make it a better product. 

The second problem with a sip test is that taking a sip is different from sitting and drinking the whole drink on your couch. 

Participating in a sip test is in an artificial setting.

Sitting in front of your TV at home is a more realistic setting. 

If you are wondering what Coke did eventually, they had to bring back their original product and of course, the rest is history. 

This concludes the problem with first impressions. 

It can be hard to find out what people really think.

I don’t know what this changes for you but maybe the awareness can let you be more gentle with yourself when you make certain decisions. 

Now, is it that first impressions don’t matter? They do. 

But should only first impressions matter? No. 

Mind reading.

Let me try to read your mind.

‘There is something right now that you are working on that you really want to be a success’

‘You have been overly critical of yourself’

If I am right, then you owe me something.

There is no bloody way I am ever going to be able to read your mind. 

The reason you may relate to some of those statements is because they are vague and generic which is a thinking bias that some of these horoscope readings use called the Barnum effect. 

The Barnum effect occurs when individuals believe that personality descriptions apply specifically to them even though the description is actually filled with information that applies to everyone. 

The real aspect of mind reading that I want to talk about has nothing to do with the above statements.

The history of mind reading dates back to two scientists, Silvan Tomkins and Paul Ekman.

Let me tell you how good Tomkins was. 

In a horse race, he could predict how a horse would do based on the horse on either side and their emotional relationship. 

Tomkins could go over the faces of fugitives in ‘wanted’ posters and just by looking at the mug shots, say the crimes they committed. 

In a program called ‘Tell the Truth’ Tomkins could easily spot the people who were lying that he even wrote the producer to tell him it was too easy. 

Tomkins was that guy. 

He was an expert at reading faces which means that he could read minds. 

There is a 500-page-document assembled by Ekman and Friesen that has all the combinations of the possible movements of lips, changes in skin, and distinctions in furrows that can help you figure out how to understand people’s expressions. 

But we don’t need that. Imagine trying to understand how to contract the zygomaticus major, and triangularis or how to flex your mentalis just to figure out what someone is thinking. Super weird. 

Here is what to watch out for—micro expressions. 

Ekman believes the face is not just a signal that shows what is going on in our minds. It is what is going on in our minds.

You can make many facial expressions voluntarily. 

If I try to look happy, I will look happy.

At the same time, there is an involuntary system that governs our faces and makes expressions we can’t control. 

For example, when we are unhappy we involuntarily raise our inner eyebrows. 

Maybe that is why if you are really unhappy, some people can tell even if you deny it. 

It is why when someone physically tells you ‘I love you’, you search their face for genuineness. 

Just for the record, we most likely will never be able to read faces as expertly as Ekman or Tomkins.  

But do we have an idea of the strong link between micro-expressions and mind reading enough to watch out for micro-expressions in milliseconds? 

Yes. 

I would have said I love you too but you can’t see my face to tell if I truly do.