The journalist Peter Dizikes, writing in The Boston Globe in 2008, notes that popular culture likes the idea of the butterfly effect, but gets it wrong. Whereas Lorenz suggested correctly with his butterfly metaphor that predictability "is inherently limited", popular culture supposes that each event can be explained by finding the small reasons that caused it. Dizikes explains: "It speaks to our larger expectation that the world should be comprehensible – that everything happens for a reason, and that we can pinpoint all those reasons, however small they may be. But nature itself defies this expectation." 
A study by Verhulst, Lodge & Lavine (2010) found that attractiveness and familiarity are strong predictors of decisions regarding who is put in a position of leadership. Judgments made following one-second exposures to side-by-side photos of two US congressional candidates were reasonably predictive of election outcomes. Attractiveness and familiarity were correlated with competence in this study. Candidates who appeared more attractive and familiar were also seen as more competent and were found more likely to be elected. Similar studies ( Palmer & Peterson 2012 ) found that even when taking factual knowledge into account, candidates who were rated as more attractive were still perceived as more knowledgeable. These results suggest that the halo effect greatly impacts how individuals perceive political knowledge and it demonstrates the powerful influence of the halo effect in politics.