The beard cycle

Still need a gift? 🎄

Get the book. 135 sketches explaining the world

These days beards are in. There will come a day when beards are out. And a day when beards are back in again. That’s how it seems to go.

Turns out there is a name for this kind of thing: negative frequency-dependent selection. Essentially, the less common it is, the more useful a trait it is. As opposed to positive frequency-dependent selection which, as you can imagine, is the reverse.

According to this study , for example, when there are fewer men with beards in a population, they are judged as more attractive than when there are more of them. Hence they become gradually more popular until the effect starts to wear off and the clean-shaven look starts to appeal again. And round the cycle we go.

Published 1 Jul 2017

A weekly sketch by email

Learn something new in a sketch each Sunday

Get the book!
Big Ideas Little Pictures

Prefer to listen?
Try the podcast

Sketchplanations is ad-free
thanks to supporters like you.See more on Patreon

Keep exploring

The Availability Heuristic illustration: Plane crashes, cold snaps, and winning lottery tickets are shown as examples of uncommon but widely reported events that might affect the significance we associate with them.

The availability heuristic (and bias)

Impossible staircase

Word spectrum

The coastline paradox

The frequency illusion explained in a sketch with an expecting couple suddenly seeing babies everywhere

The frequency illusion: we notice what’s top of mind

The Doppler Effect

The availability heuristic is a deceptively simple, almost too simple to notice, heuristic where we consider the likelihood of events by the ease with which relevant instances come to mind. In simple terms, things that we can easily recall or where we can think of examples, we generally consider as more important or more common than other things. A heuristic is a mental shortcut to solve a common problem. If we were asked to consider the divorce rate in the community, we might evaluate that by considering how many of our acquaintances are divorced. If none of your friends are divorced, you’re naturally less likely to think the divorce rate locally will be high. In many situations, it makes good sense to give credence to what you remember easily. However, in situations involving probabilities, in particular, the heuristic will lead us predictably astray such that more often I think of it as an availability bias — a predictable pattern of thought and behaviour leading to incorrect conclusions. So, the vividness of shark attacks causes us to overrate how likely they are to actually occur. Or we’re more likely to worry about lions than hippos, even though hippos kill more people each year than lions. Or the risk of being struck by lightning vs stuck by a car crossing a road. Or, the prevalence of violent crime on the news compared to the likelihood of you being a victim. Or the fact that it’s cold outside and yet the planet is gradually warming. Here’s a 1973 Kahneman and Tversky paper: Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability…The availability heuristic is a deceptively simple, almost too simple to notice, heuristic where we consider the likelihood of events by the ease with which relevant instances come to mind. In simple terms, things that we can easily recall or where we can think of examples, we generally consider as more important or more common than other things. A heuristic is a mental shortcut to solve a common problem. If we were asked to consider the divorce rate in the community, we might evaluate that by considering how many of our acquaintances are divorced. If none of your friends are divorced, you’re naturally less likely to think the divorce rate locally will be high. In many situations, it makes good sense to give credence to what you remember easily. However, in situations involving probabilities, in particular, the heuristic will lead us predictably astray such that more often I think of it as an availability bias — a predictable pattern of thought and behaviour leading to incorrect conclusions. So, the vividness of shark attacks causes us to overrate how likely they are to actually occur. Or we’re more likely to worry about lions than hippos, even though hippos kill more people each year than lions. Or the risk of being struck by lightning vs stuck by a car crossing a road. Or, the prevalence of violent crime on the news compared to the likelihood of you being a victim. Or the fact that it’s cold outside and yet the planet is gradually warming. Here’s a 1973 Kahneman and Tversky paper: Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability

Newer

RRandom

Older