Actors

A surprising number of very successful actors are men with right hair parts. Perhaps this is because they can portray a character with easy sincerety and empathy. But on the flip side, very often the character is also weak and has some critical flaw in their social interactions. Again, as a generalization, this one has a slew of exceptions, but the fact that it fits so many times makes you take notice.

Another factor to consider is that the movie heartthrob quality of many of these stars would seem to negate the premise that the right part can be a handicap to men, but the theory basically says that if you are especially good looking, it can be an incredible bonus. Rarely is the effect neutral.

The classic movie that features the power of hair parts is Superman, with Christopher Reeves. As Clark Kent, the constanly bumbling, ever scared reporter just happens to have a right part, but when he flips to the perfect Superman, they part his hair on the left!

Another movie that uses hair parts to color how we look at the actor is Risky Business. When Tom Cruise was shy, introverted, worried, he wore a right part:

But when he gets that magic makeover from Rebecca Demorney and gets cool, voila, his hair part changes as well:

Historical Movie Actors

Cary Grant

Watch what happens to that debonair look when you reverse the photo:

More coming!

Comedians

A lot of comedians are sporting the right hair part, either directly, or as a foil a left parting comedian (Conan Obrian and Andy Richter are a good example). The thing that is clear about each of these comedians is how unique their personalities are - think about the skit that Steve Martin and Dan Ackeroyd did with the "Wild and Crazy Guys". Who else could have pulled that off?

Steve Martin

Dan Ackeroyd


Andy Rooney

Louie Anderson

Princess Diana

Princess Diana was often described as very beautiful, but interestingly, you don't necessarily hear "sexy" used very much (one post to illustrate). Perhaps a hair makeover? She always parted on the left - almost every single picture i have ever seen is with her with a left part. On women, the left part emphasizes the masculine, assertive side, and generally hides the feminine side. Its a lot tricker with women to apply the hair part theory consistently, but its effect is still present in a lot of cases. Consider the following photos of Princess Di, all with a left part, followed by the one picture I have ever seen of her with a right part:

So compare the general feeling you get from the above 3 very familiar, left hair parting, images of Princess Diana, with the only image I discovered where she is not wearing a left part...it was on a Newsweek cover for a commemorative edition. Different, no? Sexy, yes!

Rogues Gallery

One of the most intriguing aspects of the Hair Part Theory is how it can shed light on some of the most bizarre personalities in history - specifically those of men who have parted their hair on the right - the non-traditional, often eccentric side.

Once again, its important to stress that the effects of a hair part are not a sufficient or necessary condition towards anything - just that it often fits.


The best example of the eccentric, and frightening, is Hitler. So many of his biographies point to the masterful way that he was able to take advantage of the emotions of his countrymen, and not surprisingly, had a very unique personality.



The second in our gallery is the notorious Jim Jones, of the Guiana Kool-Aid massacre


The third, Marsall Applewhite, of the Hale-Bopp comet cult actually appears on the same page as the above in a blog about false

Messiahs

Then there is PolPot, notorious for killing more than a million of his fellow citizens:

Cause or Effect?

Recently, the news was full of another mass shooting that occurred in America, and as I saw the picture of Robert Hawkins, i noticed his right hair part right away. So would the hair part theory help characterize him? What were people saying about him?

from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3012136.ece

"Robert Hawkins was a depressed teenager " ...“When he first came in the house, he was introverted, a troubled young man who was like a lost pound puppy that nobody wanted". Mrs Maruca-Kovac described the note in which he said “he was sorry for everything, that he didn’t want to be a burden to anybody, he loved his family, he loved all of his friends. He was a piece of shit all of his life and now he’ll be famous."

So yes, the image of the loner, depressed, self-depreciated image fits one of the possible types of the right hair parter. When you read further in his short biography on the web, it looks like he had a rough life in a lot of ways. Whether his hair part contributed or not is unknown - was his particular difficulties a lot more unusual than the "normal" ones a troubled teenager goes through - thats what might be the effect of the hair part - it always seems to push the envelope in a personality.

Interesting that just from his appearance, you would think he could be a lot more. what would he look like with a left hair part? Here is his image flipped, which gives a bit of an idea:

Caveats - When does the Hair Part Theory apply?

The goal of this blog is to post examples of public figures - celebrities, politicians, newsmakers and newspeople - who I feel have personalities or behaviors that might be affected by their hair part.

The main thing to remember about this kind of analysis is that the hair part is a "bias" - its just one factor in many that determine what someone is like or what they might do, but my belief is that it can be an important, and previously unacknowledged factor. It is like saying that someones race or gender is important factors, but we all know that those are just partial factors, and of course they are accepted and acknowledged factors. The fact that hair parts are not considered is, to me, a huge missing factor, and that often we are picking our leaders and newsmakers based on subconscious choices - which may not be particularly valid.

For instance, in the current Presidential race, there are quite a few men with right hair parts - Edwards, Huckabee, McCain - all are considered outside of the mainstream, but they appeal to our emotional and eccentric sides, our desire to get someone in the presidential spot that is coming from somewhere other than the archetypal patriarchal model (such as Romney or Guiliani). But while the softer, more feminine and receptive side of a candidate may be good for our emotional side, what happens when they get into office and can not govern the basically male dominated world of politics? This happened to Jimmy Carter - a classic right parter - his soft spoken, heart felt world hit a wall even with his own party's Congress. Note how Jimmy Carter has appeared since 1979, when he switched his hair part to the left (this actually was after I wrote him a letter suggesting he do so!)

So through the last few presidential cycles, the right parting maverick candidates have made a strong showing, and yet no one is saying that they might be disasters in governing! Al Gore (right parter) may have upheld the core values of our American system much better than George Bush (left parter), but who can say what other kind of mess we may have been in after his term as President?

There are clear exceptions to this rule of the right parter being able to govern - so its not a hard and fast rule - its just something that should be taken into consideration, and not allowed to hoodwink the electorate with someone who appeals to one side of us and misses out the other.

The strong asymmetry of a hair part and its effect is essentially the biggest flaw of all - its not that the feminine or masculine side is bad, its just that its out of balance if it is always there - a defined hair part affects every single encounter at some level. As it turns out, there is only one candidate that has no part - Barack Obama. When he gave his speech at the convention a few years ago, we saw what that kind of balance can produce - a sense of symmetry between the conflicting sides - towards a goal of "we are one" vs more and more disharmony.