“Does that person who has clearly had Botox have the Cred to be a judge? Who do they think they are?”

My first reaction to hearing that comment was to wonder what anyone’s external appearance would have to do with their knowledge, skills, and ability to be an effective judge. 
I think the person who said the comment truly felt that anyone who would be so vain as to use Botox was a poor judge of anything. I disagree on the vanity-impairing-judgement opinion, but as I was preparing my retort, I started wondering whether Botox in particular could indeed affect impartiality as a judge. 
There’s been a study or two that looked at how freezing a persons face affects their response to stimuli. They found that people who were prevented from smiling found comedies less funny. And people whose faces are frozen have a harder time empathizing. 
When we see other people’s expressions, we unconsciously mirror them fractionally (micro expressions) on our own faces. Something about feeling a mini version of the other person’s expression on our own face makes us feel what they are feeling. It’s probably part of the same system that makes you feel better after you’ve decided to just smile for a while. 
But then the question is how important is empathy in the role of a judge? If you’re equally unempathetic towards everyone, maybe it’s helpful. But in the context of a TV celebrity judge, maybe we pick up on that lowered empathy and dislike the judge for it? 
But do we feel negatively towards people who get Botox because we despise vanity? Or is it because the types of people who mostly get Botox are in categories that we already have biases against? Or is it because somehow Botox, like bad hair plugs, can push a face too close to the uncanny valley? Or just a cultural signified without any meaning, to which different groups respond in different ways to assert their own values?

Comments are closed here.