"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..." If you thought something like this you confirmed how prejudices dominate our mind. And even if you didn't think something like that, you can't argue its importance away.

Ooookay, this article about prejudice is written by somebody who plays the gender card in the very first line. It's probably not worth to read it...

The Pygmalion effect, or Rosenthal effect, is the phenomenon whereby the greater the expectation placed upon people, the better they perform.[1] (Or the observer thinks it would be so!) A corollary of the Pygmalion effect is the golem effect, in which low expectations lead to a decrease in performance. (wikipedia)

Link

As Wikipedia says, this effect is difficult to replicate.

Majority influence refers to the majority trying to produce conformity on the minority, while minority influence is converting the majority to adopt the thinking of the minority group.[1] Unlike other forms of influence, minority influence usually involves a personal shift in private opinion. Minority influence is also a central component of identity politics.(wikipedia)

Link

Minority influence can be postive or negative.

Since what others think of you will modify your self-evaluation, your appearance will influence your self-evaluation, too. Also by direct feedback when looking in the mirror.

So?

If you thought something like this you confirmed how prejudices dominate our mind. And even if you didn't think something like that, you can't argue its importance away.

Basically you start the article with saying that people have to take your prejudges about how people are going to read the article seriously.

in the opposite way: being dressed to well might make you look stupid (imagine a "Barbie" talking about AI)

Dressing well depends very much on your audience. If you want to talk about AI you could wear a T-Shirt or hoodie with a Logo of some Hacker conference to signal that you are a hacker who knows something about computers.

And even if you didn't think something like that, you can't argue its importance away.

It's not clear. To the extent something happens only rarely, it's unimportant. In the hypothetical where this event happens very rarely, it's not important, and so someone who has that information can argue against the importance of that event. If in actuality, we can't argue against its importance, this suggests that it happens more frequently, but you didn't argue that (at that point).

Starting off by negging the reader? Kthxbye.

Prejudice is prejudgment, or forming an opinion before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case.

How exactly does this differ from a Bayesian prior?

The Pygmalion effect, or Rosenthal effect, is the phenomenon whereby the greater the expectation placed upon people, the better they perform.[1] (Or the observer thinks it would be so!) A corollary of the Pygmalion effect is the golem effect, in which low expectations lead to a decrease in performance. (wikipedia)

Um, there is a lot of debate about whether this effect exists.

If you thought something like this you confirmed how prejudices dominate our mind.

You might have written "If you thought something like this then you're not reading this line".

There are two kinds of people in the world, people who think there are two kinds of people in the world, and people who don't.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Good luck finding the right image to project to the world. It's not easy.