Ask Kevin Anything – September 2020

Every question you have is open game so go for it. I prefer to answer questions that aren’t googleable.

Dr. Hogan, what is the most surprising body language cue you’ve seen? Psychopaths eyes don’t dilate when viewing violent acts and actions to others.

Kevin, what is the psychology of taking selfies and the editing process that follows? Also, is the selfie changing the definition of narcissism? When the ability to take photographs began 150 years ago, people wanted to record unique moments, people, events. The process then was very expensive, slow and cumbersome. In early photos people didn’t smile and there was no way to edit a photo. 90 years ago people started to smile as taking a photo was a bit faster process but the cameras were still pretty expensive for the average person. 50 – 80 years ago cameras had become more of a middle class staple in the U.S. but you could only take 12 – 24 pictures per roll of film.

Then you took the roll in for processing which could take several days depending on the vendor. The individual took a picture at the Grand Canyon and then one in the desert and then another at another famous monument. A family on a week long trip might take 50 – 150 photos. It was still too expensive for most to take more than one picture of a single shot.

You took a picture of the Rocky Mountains and then one of you in the Rockies. You might have smiled, you might not. The attention during this whole century from say 1870 – 1970 say, was to hold the camera still enough and have the exact light to have a chance at getting a photo as you wouldn’t find out if the picture took for a couple of weeks when you returned home.

The picture was a memory that you were indeed “there.” Many people invited friends and family to come to their homes and look at the photos they had taken of their trip or very special event. Taking pictures of the self was very rare until about 15 years ago. 10 years ago that all changed.

Now you could take 20 or 100 pictures in a minute on a phone then find the best photos. You could then upload that photo to a social media site. Today you can set filters to change what you look like. You can make yourself look like E.T. or a more standard issue narrow chin wide eyed alien. You can add stars or lights or pretty much anything you want to your picture.

You can edit for as long as you can stay awake to accomplish the “perfect effect.” Taking video of yourself or events was once very expensive. Video cameras, recording materials, all were very costly. Even as late as the 1990’s video cameras had poor sound and poor abilities in mediocre lighting scenarios. Now you can get some pretty good video from your phone in pretty poor lighting, at least by comparison to the last 50 years. Enter Facebook and Instagram.

Now we know after multiple studies that the longer people take to edit their photos and post them the worse people feel about themselves, their moods deteriorate quicker and their self assessment of their facial appearance is quite negative. Current studies in 2020 show that women take up to FIVE MINUTES to edit a selfie. They use this time to remove everything that makes them a unique person.

They remove dark circles, change their skin tones/colors and most significantly the shapes of their faces. By the time they are done, selfies bare no real resemblance to the person in reality. Researchers have found that particularly women report being happier with their edited self but the truth is that the task turns out to be self destructive. They become dissatisfied or disgusted with their face.

Certainly narcissism has become a pervasive personality disorder, desirable even. But it’s not the only one. The ability to change reality, so long as you don’t go out into reality so others see what one really looks like can trigger psychopathic tendencies as well. Netflix is filled with shows that favor psychopathic “heroes.” Narcissism when from being annoying at best to so common in the population it is difficult to consider it abnormal.

If you want to start to repair the damage you’ve done to yourself take a bunch of selfies but only do one edit, say a lighting edit. Leave the rest alone. You’ll become happier with your real life face as opposed to the alien face. And that happiness will be lasting.

Kev, should I make it obvious that I romantically want the person I go out on my first post-covid date with next week, or should I play it as stand-offish? I’m looking for someone who will be long term, probably marriage at some point.

You have a POST covid date? I’ll let that slide. The best research shows that if you want the other person to have a sexual interest in YOU, YOU want to give the cues that allow them to be CERTAIN that YOU ARE INTERESTED in them. If you don’t, you create uncertainty and uncertainty reduces sex drive.

BUT,  what was once called, “playing hard to get” or actually BEING hard to get, increases the desire to capture. If you’re looking long term, that can be inserted into conversation along the way. If someone is looking for something different than you, you probably don’t need to invest the time. There are a few phases here to make this simple.

1. Your profile should show that you are SELECTIVE but UNIQUE. After my last long term relationship, my profile had a very narrow age range for example. 21 – 30.  I also made a detailed description of the kind of woman I don’t want in my life (I didn’t want to meet someone who was married, for example) and I also stated the opposite of what almost every other man said in their profile. Most people for example,  say, “no drama,” “no baggage.”That’s not possible of course so I said, “I expect some drama and I’m here to listen to your past challenges because that IS how life IS.” My profile photos made it clear that I was an international speaker and traveler and when out of country especially, I love to go out to nice restaurants and see and do cool stuff when I travel, I’m happy to just have dinner and hang out doing one of dozens of things at home, when in town. Finally I made it clear that a two hour dinner date a restaurant was not going to happen. I said, “Research me first, decide if you can handle this public person who is also reclusive. If that’s new, bring a bottle of your favorite wine and I’ll take care of making dinner.” (Something like that, it’s been a year and I should have saved my profile.) All photos were current and unfiltered for better or worse.
2. Once you meet the person trade 2 for 1’s. Let them tell two great stories after you tell one great story. You can’t interrogate but you want stories. And you want to tell great stories on that first night because you don’t want to waste your time with someone who isn’t interested in you. If they have something you like, you can work your way toward romance, but there is no need to make that happen the first time you see someone. You can. It is a Tinder world out there, but, if you get that today, you might find they’ll eventually offer that to someone else. That may not be worth it. There’s no hard and fast rules here but romance is different in every situation and couple.
3. Talk a lot, listen a lot more. Awkward is fine early on. It’s OK to let the person know that you have three people waiting to take you out next week. It’s also OK to let the person know that you don’t have time for someone who is seeing other people.  Don’t lie or B.S. people. If you have options, tell them that (Scarcity) but tell them that you wanted to meet this person FIRST so you might be able to say “no” to everyone else as the day/evening progresses.

Scarcity matters at the profile stage and being able to show you have high value as a potential life partner (resources, beauty, knowledge, unique talents, skills). People will feel better, on average seeing someone who is in demand but willing to put attention on THEM instead of the next three guys/girls.

Ultimately if you are straight with people, frame truthfully and wisely, you could end up with some really great experiences and the price of great experiences are some challenging one’s even with the best laid plans…Kev, I’ve heard you say something like, “Google hasn’t helped life as much as you might think.” I have to disagree.

I can find answers to problems today that took my Mom months of visits to the library of the bookstore. Google gets us to where we need to go as fast as possible and shows you where to get gas, food or whatever else. I think you are wrong on this one. I find google to be incredibly helpful…just not as much as you might guess… As a writer and fact checker of life, I find it a vast resource.

I’d rather have it than not, that’s for sure… BUT… google changes your perception of what LIFE IS. Google doesn’t help you make more money, be a better parent, stop child abuse, help you find a job. The average person on this planet isn’t using google to change the quality of their life… at all. Google let’s you do all kinds of things that would have been impossible 15 years ago. You can go to Google Earth and pretty much see what a guys yard looks like in Greenland. You can see how people live in seconds in almost any place on the earth.

You can find out almost anything you need to learn about another person in minutes. You can find out bits of information (sometimes they are facts and sometimes they are not) instantly. In fact, you have almost the entire social collective conscious of knowledge AND INTENT at your fingertips.

And everyone has access to the same information though you will get different answers to your questions than I will get to the same questions based on my search history. Google often tells you what you want to hear and not what the best and most precise answer based on study and rigorous data actually is. And here’s the thing. With this entire resource of every bit of recorded history and landscape of the earth and indeed the universe, you still have no better income or quality of  life to show for it. I am often quoted about this: “If it’s googlable it probably won’t help your life all that much.” Now that is true I say that and it’s true that it’s not an accurate assessment.

The precise assessment is that “on average, you have the knowledge of the world at your fingertips and your life is no better off for it.” The reason is that success and quality of life are not based on what is googleable. Quality of life comes in the nuance, in the interaction skills you have with other people. It’s all the “soft skills” that change the world and make it better or worse.

It’s in the emotional intelligence, the ability to influence. Never let go of the database of human knowledge, it’s a great resource, but it is not where you find life’s answers in YOUR LIFE.  That’s why people who’s life revolves around stuff that is NOT googleable have a chance to be wealthier, happier and healthier. Kev, What’s the most important influence technique of the last five years? Since I wrote Invisible Influence in 2013 we’ve added almost 50 new Laws of Persuasion. There are some serious contenders for the most important.

Instead I’ll give you one of the most interesting and we’ll get to the most important in the upcoming book. Perhaps one of the most fascinating influence discoveries is the deep research into the impact of beauty on Conservatives and not Liberals. I wouldn’t have come up with this on my own.

I was incredibly skeptical when it was first presented to me but the evidence is overwhelming. The impact is broad. Attractive conservative candidates tend to capture more votes than their competitors all other factors being equal. But we already knew that. What we didn’t know was that conservative candidates first are on average more attractive than their liberal counterparts.

Second conservative VOTERS are influenced by beauty and attractiveness but on average liberal voters are not. Expanding further conservatives in most walks of life rate attractiveness in others as a significant point of differentiation in social status and the hierarchy of the social atmosphere.

Beauty is a sign of status for the individual and for the person (she in this case) is with, in the conservative mind. The liberal mind? It’s all superfluous. On a simpler scale, most Twin Peaks and Hooters restaurants, are found in red states and patronized by conservatives more so than liberals.

The distinction and difference of how conservatives view beauty and attractiveness when it’s of little concern to liberals is fascinating. Conservatives value beauty as a way of differentiating themselves from others. There is debate as to whether the politics causes the significance of beauty or whether beauty is evolutionarily speaking, a reward or status symbol of those who are conscientious.

You’ll have more depth about that in the upcoming book, Prestige Persuasion. There is so much research here and all of this stems from even deeper distinctions into how ideologies cause people to see the world differently from others.

When doing a webinar should I be seated or should I stand? I’ve seen you interviewed on several webinars this year and I’ve noticed you usually stand but not always and I’ve noticed you favor a red and black plaid shirt. Why?

If you are the host it’s sometimes better to be seated so you can have your notes at hand. I don’t host a lot of interviews and can’t remember the last time I interviewed someone else. What I have discovered is that red is the most valuable attractor of all colors a person can wear. Because of my body shape and image, I find I look better in red/black vs. straight red (though burgundy or cab shades of red work well with a navy blue jacket for me).

That fact noted, I’ve probably worn a red/black long sleeve shirt in half of my webinars this year. If I were doing my own webinars as we will next month, this will not be the case. For you, you have to consider red as a possibility simply because it is hard to NOT look at red. Red captivates and typically holds attention. But red doesn’t look as good on everyone as another color might.

That said, red tends to make most people more attractive to most people. If everyone starts to wear red the impact will reduce. Standing vs. sitting. Sitting removes all variability and is much easier to look away from than watching someone who is standing. It takes a lot of guts to stand during a webinar.

I’ve seen Victor Antonio, for example, pull it off. I do fairly well. You have to be comfortable with your material and your interviewer to stand as you do NOT have an instant calibration tool as to whether you are behaving appropriately and it makes structure more difficult. Standing gives more fascination to stories.

The upside of being seated is that your audio is more stable and that is a high positive factor. The camera will pick you up more perfectly as well, not having to adjust as you move. You’ll have your notes at hand and people expect that “news anchor peering at the paper feel” more than you would have with standing.

Kev, you’ve been pretty on target with investments this year. What’s the latest? What do you think of bitcoin?

There is simply no reason to not hold physical gold and silver. Over and over we see that when things get confusing and uncertain in the world, gold and silver hold their own. For similar reasons bitcoin MIGHT be able to develop a positive/similar track record. It’s anti-dollar, anti-Euro, anti-everything much like gold/silver and I like that a lot as an investment point.

Anything can happen in life so I wouldn’t ignore bitcoin, nor would I put more than 5% of wealth into bitcoin or crypto’s. It’s early, I hope, in crypto’s. Less than 20 years. Gold and silver have been money for 5,000 years. That’s a big sample vs. a very small sample. I expect gold to stay between 1875 and 2000 over the next two months, into the election. Metals are being heavily manipulated right now.

The tone of the U.S. in November will tell us a lot about the price of gold and silver. Some new things go on to succeed. Most staples, remain staples in life though most things also have a life cycle. For the last couple weeks I’ve been in DUST and SQQQ.  That could change on a dime. These are not long term places to be, but short term it’s more likely that gold stocks will go down, more likely that the QQQ’s will go down. More likely doesn’t mean that’s what I “think” will happen. It means it’s MORE LIKELY.A 70% chance of rain doesn’t mean I think it will rain. It means in 70% of all situations like THIS, it will rain and 30% of the time it won’t.

That said, if the Fed keeps printing unlimited money supply then of course EVERYTHING could have a higher price over time.

Kev, the first week of covid you talked about a Zombie Apocalypse. What’s going to happen?

Part of it has occurred. You’ve seen all kinds of craziness in the U.S. You’ve seen demonstrations, looting, people being shot for no reason. You’ve seen Graceland defaced. You can guess that sickened me… All that said, the world has been lucky that the world leaders triggered fear into their citizens.

For awhile it kept people at home reducing transmission and demonstrations. But it also keeps emotions that WILL be released …released. There simply will come a point when you’ll see a reaction to whoever wins the election that will blend with covid and the various movements. It’s more likely to be significant in the southern states because of winter climate more than anything. People won’t “demonstrate” in Minnesota in January, but they very well might again in May.

Kevin, I saw you talking about “civil wars” and I want to know if you think that is really possible in the U.S.

I think a civil war SINGULAR is highly unlikely. The north and south already had it out and the results are history. But I would say there is at least a 10% chance you’ll see something between city demonstrations and all out city wars in November and in May. That also means I think there is a 90% chance you will not. For me, it is logical to prepare for a 10% chance of anything significant in life.

Kev, do you still think Biden will win the election?

I never thought that or said that in public or private. As of today September 12, 2020, the election is close to an even money bet. Certainly no one could “think” someone will win or lose. How would you “think” that? You could place a bet on one side or another however. (Do you think “heads” will come up when you flip a coin or do you know that over 1 million tosses, about half the time it will be heads?) I do THINK whoever wins Florida is very likely to win the election because it holds a 50 vote swing in the electoral college. The data I look at shows no real difference between the candidates right now. 7 weeks away is too far away to “think” much of anything… Currently the sportsbook I use has Biden as about a 55% chance of winning the election but Trump as a 53% chance of winning Florida. I suspect those two things will NOT happen simultaneously in this universe.

Kev, when you return to Poland!

If events return to the real world, we’ll be back there in 2021.