“checking the name of the writer Ooookay, this article about appearance is written by a woman. As was expected. It’s probably not worth to read it...”
The best way to get me to actually throw charity out the window, is to imply that I’m likely to throw charity out the window because I explicitly thought a dumb thing relating to your personal characteristics.
“checking the name of the writer Ooookay, this article about appearance is written by a woman. As was expected. It’s probably not worth to read it...”
The best way to get me to actually throw charity out the window, is to imply that I’m likely to throw charity out the window because I explicitly thought a dumb thing relating to your personal characteristics.
This looks like an example of the Pygmalion effect—you read less charitably because the expectations are low.
There’s a rebellion effect as well. I tend to overcorrect for noticeable manipulation attempts, and this means that I react in the opposite was as the author intends.
Accusing me of wanting to skip the article due to shallowness very nearly made me skip the article.
The best way to get me to actually throw charity out the window, is to imply that I’m likely to throw charity out the window because I explicitly thought a dumb thing relating to your personal characteristics.
This looks like an example of the Pygmalion effect—you read less charitably because the expectations are low.
There’s a rebellion effect as well. I tend to overcorrect for noticeable manipulation attempts, and this means that I react in the opposite was as the author intends.
Accusing me of wanting to skip the article due to shallowness very nearly made me skip the article.
I skipped the article for exactly this reason (although now that I have spare time I might read it).