The Kael Effect

Just because you and your circle of friends or advisors like something doesn't mean everybody does.

Remember Pauline Kael?

I’m going to guess that many don’t - knowledge of her is largely esoteric these days because the 60’s and 70’s might as well be ancient history to them.

Pauline Kael was a famous film critic for the New Yorker who was reported to have commented after the 1972 Presidential election, “I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.”

I’ve resurrected some discussion about emotional reasoning, the cognitive tendency to equate intense feelings with objective truth, without noting that it manifests in a couple of distinct but related ways. The first, widely recognized form assumes that if someone feels passionately about something, their belief must be correct. The second, less discussed dimension is the assumption that one’s personal likes or dislikes are universally shared, leading to the expectation that everyone else must feel the same way – one might call it the Kael Effect. This mindset drives decisions that often ignore evidence, public sentiment, or objective reality, resulting in significant consequences, particularly when these assumptions guide corporate or political actions.

Consider several high-profile examples that illustrate this phenomenon.

Bud Light’s 2023 campaign featuring Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender influencer, aimed to appeal to a progressive audience but alienated its core customer base, leading to a boycott and a reported $1 billion drop in sales. Cracker Barrel’s rebranding to emphasize a “gay-friendly” experience similarly misjudged its traditional clientele, sparking backlash and declining customer loyalty. The infamous New Coke launch in 1985, driven by executives’ belief that consumers would embrace a sweeter formula, ignored market research favoring the original, costing Coca-Cola millions.

Public initiatives like painting streets and erecting monuments for Black Lives Matter and George Floyd, while emotionally resonant for some, often disregarded broader public discomfort with glorifying a figure with a criminal history. Rainbow crosswalks, intended to signal inclusivity, frequently provoked division in communities where such displays were seen as performative or polarizing.

Disney’s pivot toward overtly “woke” themes in its Star Wars portfolio alienated fans, contributing to declining box office returns and fan engagement. Claims that transgenderism is a biological reality rather than a psychological condition, or that illegal immigration is not a crime, reflect ideological assertions that dismiss scientific or legal frameworks in favor of emotional conviction. Politicians like Chuck Schumer, who invents fictional “average Americans” to justify policy, or Representative Maxwell Frost, who claimed widespread regret among Trump voters without evidence, further exemplify this disconnect from reality.

What unites these cases is a reliance on what individuals or groups want to believe, rather than what is. Proponents assume their preferences are universal, ignoring data or public sentiment. Schumer’s invented Long Island couple, for instance, reveals a dangerous tendency to project personal ideals onto a fictionalized public, shaping policy without grounding in actual voter needs. Businesses, often guided by consulting firms reinforcing these biases, misjudge their audiences, leading to financial losses. Bud Light and Cracker Barrel’s missteps show how emotional reasoning can override market realities, while Disney’s Star Wars decisions ignored its fanbase’s attachment to the franchise’s original ethos. Public initiatives like BLM monuments or rainbow crosswalks often persist despite clear public division, reflecting a refusal to acknowledge diverse perspectives.

These actions are not rooted in reasoned analysis or solid data but in personal beliefs or ideological agendas. The consequences - financial ruin for businesses or electoral losses for politicians - highlight the risks and costs of this mindset.

This is an area where diversity could be a strength.

A little diversity of thought, encouraging critical examination and inclusion of dissenting views, could prevent such missteps. Instead of assuming universal agreement, decision-makers would benefit from engaging with actual data and varied perspectives to align their actions with reality, avoiding the pitfalls of emotional reasoning.