Overall the peace of work was very interesting. Its main thesis being about cognitive fluency, "simply a measure of how easy it is to think about something, and it turns out that people prefer things that are easy to think about to those that are hard." This actually makes a lot of sense to me. In terms of stocks, myself being an active analyst and trader, I had to laugh at their point towards this. I then got to thinking about some of the more well run companies. Take Goldman Sachs for example (goldmen sax pronunciation). It is the the best ran business in the country because of its business model, and their ability to execute successfully strategies... Although Goldman sax is a pretty easy and smooth annunciation, I than got to thinking of other banks, who are very successful but don't share the same title, or perhaps are not even viewed in the same league, and lots of them have rather strange name. take Deutsche bank for an example, pronounced doy-tcha, are their analysts not as smart as Goldman's? Are their ceo's not former business school elite graduates with forward long-term thinking? Absolutly not yet Deutsche bank is not nearly as successfully in attracting customers to their investments, cause: Hard to pronounce name?? That can obviously never be linked to causality, but no one can deny the funny correlation.

Continuing on to their next point about names. This actually makes sense to me. I think of all my profesors that I have had sense college, and the one's names I remember first, and end up remembering in the future, are the most simple and ascetically pleasing. Paul Davis. Being exposed to this concept, I can see from the outside that I simply remember his name because of how simple it is. But, a year or two down the road, when the only professor's name I can remember is his.... will I remember that this is simply because he has a easier to pronounce name than my other professors at the time? The study of Cognitive Fluency thinks not; Their logic is that a few years later, the simple fact that I remembered his name will be linked with the idea that he was probably an influential professor. So looking at this deductively..... People in which you remember their name, made some sort of impact on you- people with easier names, are easier to remember (their names are easier to remember- SO, people with easier names, have a greater chance to make an impact on you... Its not the craziest logic I have ever heard. When speaking about this, I look back at my entire educational experience, in and out side of classes. I must admit there has been more than one occasion where I have seen someone get told something, 3 to four to five times and never take it in. However, one person will come along and say the same thing, just a little bit different, and than all of a sudden it clicks. Cognitive fluency could be a reason of how exactly this is possible.

Lastly in terms of looks, I truthfully could not agree more. On a broad scale there has been many occasions where I have had to make a choice, between a number of different things. Take coats for instance. Just the other day I was looking at three different styles of zip up sweaters made by the same company. All were consistent with the same Sort of patterns, slightly different colors, and the same structure. Thinking about it now, the one I did end up with, the one that at the time I thought was just the most "aesthetically pleasing" was in fact the greatest compilation of all the features all three jackets had to offer. I thought back to many different situations like this, and the logic of Cognitive fluency consistently made me smirk, and shake my head in a up and down vertical motion ( the act of me realizing that this stuff actually makes sense).

In terms of people, Mr. Drake Bennet applies this logic too, "beauty-in-averageness." At first this concept is easy to ignore and shake off. Because when the words looks, and average, are connected, its usually followed by an average response, certainty not beauty. However I than begun to think more in depth. In order to analyze "beauty-in-averageness" you have to throw away your application of the word average, towards beauty. Because our explanation of average is on a quartile median rather than mean scale. EX: If we saw 10 people, rated them from 1-10, the average person would be number 5. This is the type of thinking that needs to be thrown out in order to understand this quote. Now thinking about attractive people in my life, my self as a guy who has interest in only females, I found this hard to apply to the females that I knew. However I than realized that this is impossible, because my embedded and natural opinion of beauty has been consistent for 20 years. So rather than looking at someone I thought was attractive, I than switched rolls, and viewed and analyzed a subject that a mass group of people think is attractive, and I don't, so I looked at a picture of the Beatles. This was a lot easier for me to analyze seeing hows I am not attracted to men. Once again my smile and nod re appeared. They don't necessarily have thick illustrious hair, chiseled jaw lines, or Diamond blue eyes, their just rather average looking to me. They posses traits in their facial structure and hair, that many of their followers can probably relate to. The fact that they are acclaimed to be the greatest band of all time might have a pull, but I think Cognitive fluency can appeal to that too. Who on this planet doesnt listen to music? Who on this planet has never had a wild dream? Who on this planet has never slightly desired to be a rebel? All these traits the beatles excelled in, so many can relate to them, thus making them attractive. Take for instance John Lennon vs the most attractive olympic Freestyle Ski jumper of all time. John Lennon would be drewled over 10 times more than the olympic Freestyle guy (of coarse my opinion). Is this because he was chizeled like a god, no its because he did something that almost everyone can relate to.

The concept itself is extremely interesting and very applicable in my opinion. The way it was presented all in all was good. A philosophical/maybe even scientific phenomenon like this, is very difficult to put on a page in the manner that everyone can agree and understand. Because of this I think the article lacks some logic in some of the questionable explanations, but all in all they did a good job enlightening people to this development

a good job, but possibly not perfect, or Cognitive Fluency might say... Average ;)