The first fifteen seconds

[shereads]

The pop psychologist du jour was on Today Show this morning promoting his book, "Thin Slicing," which maintains that the perception you form of a person or situation in the first 15 seconds provides sufficient understanding upon which to base certain decisions.

Example: Currently trendy in some cities are "Speed Dating" events where each person spends 3 minutes in conversation with each potential date, and makes a list of the people he/she would like to see again. Thin Slicing author says 3 minutes is 2 minutes, 45 seconds more than you need; within the first 15 seconds, you've both already decided whether there's any chemistry.

Is he right? It's hard to know anymore, since it takes 15 seconds just to post the basic, "Hi, sailor. You're new here, right?" Add smilies, and it's 20 seconds.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The pop psychologist du jour was on Today Show this morning promoting his book, "Thin Slicing," which maintains that the perception you form of a person or situation in the first 15 seconds provides sufficient understanding upon which to base certain decisions.

Example: Currently trendy in some cities are "Speed Dating" events where each person spends 3 minutes in conversation with each potential date, and makes a list of the people he/she would like to see again. Thin Slicing author says 3 minutes is 2 minutes, 45 seconds more than you need; within the first 15 seconds, you've both already decided whether there's any chemistry.

Is he right? It's hard to know anymore, since it takes 15 seconds just to post the basic, "Hi, sailor. You're new here, right?" Add smilies, and it's 20 seconds.

What a crock. Or maybe that's just my SAD talking.

 

[Guest]

 

[impressive]

I totally trust my gut feelings. They've not yet been proven inaccurate. Still, 15 seconds is not long. Depends on the depth of engagement during that time -- observation, direct conversation, stressful situation, etc.

Reminds me also of that new book Blink -- which I can't wait to read.

 

[carsonshepherd]

Just another product of our throwaway, no-attention-span society.

 

[Evil Alpaca]

The pop psychologist du jour was on Today Show this morning promoting his book, "Thin Slicing," which maintains that the perception you form of a person or situation in the first 15 seconds provides sufficient understanding upon which to base certain decisions.

Example: Currently trendy in some cities are "Speed Dating" events where each person spends 3 minutes in conversation with each potential date, and makes a list of the people he/she would like to see again. Thin Slicing author says 3 minutes is 2 minutes, 45 seconds more than you need; within the first 15 seconds, you've both already decided whether there's any chemistry.

Is he right? It's hard to know anymore, since it takes 15 seconds just to post the basic, "Hi, sailor. You're new here, right?" Add smilies, and it's 20 seconds.

You gotta be careful not to confuse "sufficient" with "optimal." You can just look at someone and have a basis for making decisions . . . its just not a very efficient way of doing things. The "optimal" method will generally take longer but be more effective.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Utterly wrong, I would say. I know several people whom I did not initially like, but about whom I was completely wrong in the end. Two of my dearest friends fall into this category.

One assumes that this person has clung to the theory because it's difficult to prove wrong in terms of negative impressions. That is, if you refuse to have anything to do with someone who, by gut instinct in 15 seconds, you don't like, you're not likely to be proven wrong, as you won't be meeting that person again.

When I think what store of loyalty, strength, decency, and wit I would have missed had I followed this advice - well, my 15 second impression is, this person is an idiot.

Shanglan

 

[Subo97]

Subo du Jour

I've been thinking about becoming a pop psychologist. I might even get a radio show and insult people for money.

15 seconds can be an eternity. It only took me 10 to know George Bush was a nimrod.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

I don't think so. I think it's possible to know if the person is a definite "no" within the first 5 minutes of meeting. I met a few in my dating days that I knew within 5 minutes they weren't for me. 15 seconds is kind of quick though.

Of course, I'm on my second marriage, so what do I really know?

 

[shereads]

I totally trust my gut feelings. They've not yet been proven inaccurate. Still, 15 seconds is not long. Depends on the depth of engagement during that time -- observation, direct conversation, stressful situation, etc.

Reminds me also of that new book Blink -- which I can't wait to read.

That was the name of the book! I've been a fool. "Thin slicing" is the name of his theory. The book is "Blink."

Now, you see? 15 seconds ago even I didn't know I was that careless with the names of books. I would have dated me. Now I'm not so sure. What if I'm flighty and unreliable?

 

[Evil Alpaca]

Utterly wrong, I would say. I know several people whom I did not initially like, but about whom I was completely wrong in the end. Two of my dearest friends fall into this category.

One assumes that this person has clung to the theory because it's difficult to prove wrong in terms of negative impressions. That is, if you refuse to have anything to do with someone who, by gut instinct in 15 seconds, you don't like, you're not likely to be proven wrong, as you won't be meeting that person again.

When I think what store of loyalty, strength, decency, and wit I would have missed had I followed this advice - well, my 15 second impression is, this person is an idiot.

Shanglan

I don't know if I would say "utterly wrong." I did a research project looking at peoples' ability to make personality trait attribution based entirely on appearance, and there is some basis for the idea that some such traits can be discerned. But I also have a Gestaltian view of personality . . . who we are is considerably more complex than the sum of individual building blocks.

 

[shereads]

I'll bet most of us can get a definite "no" in 15 seconds. It's the maybes that turn into gotta-have-hims that take a little longer. (Or should.) The last time I warp-sped into a relationship based on an instant attraction, it took a years to find out I'd just been suffering from a shortage of iron that day.

I don't think so. I think it's possible to know if the person is a definite "no" within the first 5 minutes of meeting. I met a few in my dating days that I knew within 5 minutes they weren't for me. 15 seconds is kind of quick though.

Of course, I'm on my second marriage, so what do I really know?

 

[impressive]

Again, it depends on WHAT is happening during those 15 seconds and IF they're spontaneous (as opposed to "staged" -- like that speed dating thing-a-ma-jiggy).

 

[shereads]

Re: Subo du Jour

I've been thinking about becoming a pop psychologist. I might even get a radio show and insult people for money.

15 seconds can be an eternity. It only took me 10 to know George Bush was a nimrod.

But you haven't sat quietly with the man and looked into his eyes, where you might discern hidden depths of sadness and passion...the burdens of leadership, the unquenchable thirst for knowledge, the anguish when he sees suffering anywhere in the world...No, wait. That was Captain Kirk.

Nevermind.

 

[SeaCat]

I have heard about this before but I still find it hard to believe. From my own, albeit limited personal experiences I feel that it is wrong. (There are times when you do make a snap judgement of a person in considerably less time, but that is usually in times of high stress combat.)

Look at my wife and myself. When we first met we didn't like each other at all. (Loathing would probably describe our reactions to each other.) After being in close proximity to each other for a period of time, (Six months.) we realised there were things about each other we liked. After another year and a half we were married, and have been for over 12 years.

(She thought I was too rough around the edges. The hillbilly in boots, jeans, flannel shirts and long hair under the battered Stetson. {Yes I had long hair then, as well as a full beard. My hair reached the middle of my back and was either in a pony tail of a braid.} With an I.Q. in inverse proportion to the length of my hair. I thought she was the ultimate in Yuppie, Momma's girl scum with her pink, high necked blouses and skirts to the ankles. Man did we learn our perceptions were wrong. )

Cat

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Utterly wrong, I would say. I know several people whom I did not initially like, but about whom I was completely wrong in the end. Two of my dearest friends fall into this category.

Of course first impressions are often dead wrong, but that doesn't stop us from making them, and I think what you just said proves it: You decided when you first met these people that you didn't like them. You didn't reserve judgment. You met them and in 15 seconds or 5 minutes or whatever you decided you didn't like them.

I don't think this guy is saying that we make a final judgment about someone in 15 seconds. It's more like when you go into a job interview and can tell right off the bat if you're going to get along with the interviewer or not. Interviewers are said to make up their mind about a job applicant in the first 15 seconds as well. I wonder if that's where this guy got his idea from.

I just heard something that relates: a book by some managment geek trying to get executives to go more with thier gut feelings in certain instances and not overanalyze a problem. He was talking about what happened when symphony orchestras started conducting their auditions behind screens, which is now widely done. Suddenly orchestras started hiring a lot more women and minorities. The examiners--who all thought themselves educated and enlightened and free of bias--were prejudiced by the musicians' sex and race and it affected how they heard the audition. That's a perfect case of a 15 second judgment.

The 15-second judgment isn't a very good way to find friends and lovers, but I think it's something we all do.

---dr.M.

 

[shereads]

Interviewers are said to make up their mind about a job applicant in the first 15 seconds as well.

Wouldn't it be great if they'd just glance at us, shake hands, wait a few seconds and give us the thumbs-down so we could go have lunch or something?

 

[cantdog]

Yeah. Christ, go through the hell of an interview when the motherfucker already hated you when you came in to sit down. What a waste.

 

[shereads]

Yeah. Christ, go through the hell of an interview when the motherfucker already hated you when you came in to sit down. What a waste.

I've had the mutually humiliating experience of interviewing job applicants when i worked at a corporation whose executives were so terrified of being accused of decisions that every applicant was interviewed by five people.

It was almost as uncomfortable for me as it was for them. I knew that they knew that I knew I was as qualified as the cafeteria lady to determine who should get the job. These interviews dragged on because I didn't want to insult them by being dismissive (or look stupider by having nothing to say.)

Upside: it taught me not to be intimidated by job interviews. Because now I know there's a likelihood that the interviewer hopes I won't think she's unqualified.

 

[oggbashan]

I used to be the Chairman of a three person interview panel.

After 14 years of doing interviews I learned to disregard the first minute or two of most interviews because during that time the interviewee was trying too hard to impress and/or was so nervous that the real person was concealed.

During the first minute I (or others) asked simple questions such as 'How did you find the journey to this office?' The answer didn't matter. What mattered was that the interviewee answered and found that talking to us was possible.

Successful candidates included one who failed to shut the door behind him and one of the panel had to get up and shut it; one lady who sat down on the edge of the chair and fell off; one man who insisted on bringing his wet umbrella in with him and didn't know where to put it; and best of all a lady who was struck dumb and couldn't say a word. She was taken back to the waiting room, given a cup of tea and brought back half an hour later. And yes, she was successful and a very good employee.

Job interviews are every stressful for some people and it is very difficult for the interviewers to put the candidate at ease. Until at least some of the nervousness is dispelled the candidate is likely to give a false impression.

Og

 

[impressive]

I absolutely HATE interviewing people -- whether it's a job applicant in the workplace (THANKFULLY no longer an issue), a candidate for the board, or a new babysitter.

The volunteer stuff (service on a non-profit governing board), I think, is a tad easier for the candidate 'cause they don't have as much as stake. However, as an interviewer, it's rough -- because my decisions could have long lasting repercussions for the agency, its staff, and the people it serves.

 

[Guest]

One time, when i was very young, i went for an interview with a company i didnt know very much about.
it was a group interview in which they show a video and make you take a test afterward...and leave you in a room alone with these other strangers to talk about what youve seen. they watched us talking and chose candidates from what they said and their mannerisms.
Wow! i was blown away. i didn't want to work there but was still stung that i wasnt chosen so that i could say "no, thanks" very awkward but honestly it certainly was one hell of a way to thin the herd.

 

[CharleyH]

The pop psychologist du jour was on Today Show this morning promoting his book, "Thin Slicing," which maintains that the perception you form of a person or situation in the first 15 seconds provides sufficient understanding upon which to base certain decisions.

Example: Currently trendy in some cities are "Speed Dating" events where each person spends 3 minutes in conversation with each potential date, and makes a list of the people he/she would like to see again. Thin Slicing author says 3 minutes is 2 minutes, 45 seconds more than you need; within the first 15 seconds, you've both already decided whether there's any chemistry.

Is he right? It's hard to know anymore, since it takes 15 seconds just to post the basic, "Hi, sailor. You're new here, right?" Add smilies, and it's 20 seconds.

Well, yes, of course. I like the AV. Fall in love. Who cares about the rest, it's all my fantasy anyhow. It actually only takes 10 seconds.

 

[domjoe]

I'm a terrible interviewee, but I've often been "wheeled in" as the no-nonsense, shrewd techy guy to do a sanity check on interviewees who might be so slick that they fooled the touchy-feely managers.

Once, after a very rough night, I had to interview someone at 8:30 am. I was unshaved and really tired. I went through some questions with him, made up my mind -- the guy was good. So I told him, as I always did in those situations, that I was going to recommend him, and he could spend the rest of the interview asking me about the firm. I found we got on really well, there was a rapport.

By the end I was saying things like "do yourself a favour, this place will kill you. Look what it's done to me", and he was consoling me and telling me that maybe all I needed was a vacation.

 

[shereads]

I'm a terrible interviewee, but I've often been "wheeled in" as the no-

By the end I was saying things like "do yourself a favour, this place will kill you. Look what it's done to me", and he was consoling me and telling me that maybe all I needed was a vacation.

I did that too, once. Our company was doing so poorly that anyone not in management could see it was doomed to failure (we folded six months later). I had to interview people to replace my partner, who'd been lucky enough to find a job and get out in time.

The best candidate was a likeable guy with a pregnant wife, who would have had to sell his house in another city and move here at his own expense (the company wouldn't admit it was in trouble, but they had stopped paying moving expenses for new hires.) The worst of it was, he was willing to leave another job.

I couldn't stand it. I knew we'd work well together, but he had so much to lose. I couldn't give him details, but I told him he'd be much better off without this job.

He didn't believe me. Kept calling to find out if we'd made a decision, and sending e-mails about how much he'd enjoyed the interview, etc.

So I called him back, and provided details:

"Trust me on this: this office is doomed. We suck. Everything we touch goes to hell."

He didn't believe me. Contacted human resources and offered to accept less money. It still wasn't as little as they wanted to pay. But he kept trying. I kept picturing the wife going into labor on the day of the final layoffs, while unpacking.

I called him again: "Hear my words: You. Do. Not. Want. This. Job."

He wrote another e-mail about how much he appreciated my candor, and that it made him even more eager for us to work together.

Thank god, his continued perkiness and optimism began to annoy me so much that I realized I'd been wrong about our working well together. So I chose another partner. Local man, unemployed, nothing to lose.

If there's anything I can't stand it's optimism in the face of overwhelming evidence of doom and failure.