The Heel Heuristic

You discover that your favorite movie star is a full-blown heel. He cheated on his spouse, got caught, and ended up divorced. Now, he’s estranged from his kids.

Question: How do you respond? Do you boycott his future movies? Stop watching his earlier movies? Treat him as an unperson?

Or do you shrug in disappointment, muse “Well, it’s really none of my business” - and continue to enjoy the star’s work?

These days, anyway, almost everyone takes the latter course. So says common sense, and so says this Twitter poll.

Is this because being a full-blown heel is “No big deal”? Hardly. Almost everyone agrees that the star’s behavior is quite blameworthy. They just don’t think that it compels any action on their part. So says common sense, and so says this Twitter poll:

Now consider each the following other actions.

1. Exposing yourself to acquaintances in your hotel room.

2. Using the N-word during standup comedy.

3. Affirming the biological reality of gender.

4. Using a racial epithet on camera when you didn’t know you were being filmed.

5. Posting a sexist tweet.

Question: Are any of these actions remotely as bad as being a full-blown heel - a man who cheats on his wife, gets divorced, and stops seeing his kids?

Honestly, I doubt almost anyone sincerely thinks so.

Which brings us to a great puzzle: Virtually no celebrity gets “cancelled” for being a full-blown heel. In stark contrast, notable celebrities have been cancelled for each of the offenses on my list. What’s the logic?

The most plausible response is roughly: “Being a bad father has roughly the same bad effect if you’re famous or obscure. But being racist or sexist has a vastly worse effect if you’re famous than if you’re obscure, because you’re a role model.”

Yet on reflection, the most plausible response remains weak. Why can’t a celebrity father be a role model for other fathers? And if you question the size of this role model effect for fatherhood, why not question the size of the role model effect for racism and sexism as well? How many people actually look to Louie C.K. to decide how to treat women, or Michael Richards to calibrate their racial sensitivity?

The real story, I warrant, is just vividness and herding - what I’ve previously called “the Unbearable Arbitrariness of Deploring”:

I can explain what I cannot accept.  When I witness the unbearable arbitrariness of deploring, two unsympathetic types of explanations come to mind. 

First, people’s negative emotions depend far more on the vividness of the evil than its badness.  A hundred stories about celebrity harassers would upset the world far more than ironclad statistical proof that 10% of celebrities harass.  Indeed, it’s likely that one detail-rich story about a celebrity harasser would upset the world more than the best statistical study ever performed.

Second, people’s negative emotions are intensely social.  People don’t want to rage alone.  They want to get mad with their friends and countrymen.  So when a new round of ugly stories pop up, almost no one asks, “Is this really the best target of our collective anger?”  Instead, they jump on the bandwagon.  Who cares where we’re going, as long as we’re united in negativity?

What is to be done? I propose that we strive to defuse the power of vividness and herding with what I call the Heel Heuristic. Here’s how it works: Whenever a scandal erupts, ask yourself: Is this really worse than cheating on your wife, getting divorced, and no longer seeing your kids? If the answer is no, tell yourself, “This is really none of my business” - and forget about it. Even though the story is gripping. Even though other people hunger to discuss it.

If others keep pushing you to care about issues that don’t deserve your attention, respond by sharing the Heel Heuristic with them. Ask others: “Is this really worse than cheating on your wife, getting divorced, and no longer seeing your kids?” and “If you can overlook being a heel, why not overlook the latest scandal as well?”

Don’t get angry. Instead, encourage others to share your equanimity.