{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/15/2019 5:41:14 PM
1
Well. Yes, and no. Articles of clothing can often times be used to determine someone's character traits. Now the value between traits such as serious, relaxed, or uninspired can be debated all day, however that wouldn't be overly productive.
So. Insofar as perhaps the quality of the person (if indeed this is what you mean) is not determined by their choice in attire, then yes. However, the majority of people who would engage in such a dress code are usually those who lack security in their identity such that the greatest statement they can make is in how they dress. Conflating hundreds of years of Scottish Culture with a few people trying to get guys into skirts is a mistake one ought not make. The two are entirely dissimilar, and the people who wear them even more so.
Though, I've been a bit discursive here. Yes. Someone wearing a skirt does not necessitate them being a bad person, or a person lacking in quality. However our culture makes the situation far more nuanced then simple comparisons between war heroes from a different culture could cover.
English
-
No. Just no. Sloppy thinking. Serial killer Ted Bundy lured many of his victims to their death by manipulating their reactions to him through dress and other externals. Dress can reveal. But it can just as easily be a disguise that conceals someone’s nature. And you never know which agenda is being played out on you... and to assume you do is to set yourself up to be exploited or worse.
-
Sloppy thinking would be to use an outlier as a main example. Even worse would be to use an individual who suffered from a mental disorder which causes him to disassociate with society, and who does not think similarly to regular individuals, in a debate over qualities and characteristics of societal norms in and effecting regular people. But, if you pay attention, you'll notice I said usually. As in, often. As in, not always. However, You're certainly not wrong. People are -blam!-, and often cast facades which fool even their friends and family. But facades can be telling. And people tend not to control their subconscious decisions.
-
Edited by TheArtist: 6/15/2019 9:15:45 PMSloppy thinking is thinking you can know what someone is like on the inside by what you see on the outside. Hence the truism to "Never judge a book by its cover." That kind of sloppy thinking is the foundation of every prejudice there has ever been.
-
Mr. Green, I never said [b]I[/b] could tell. That isn't the science I studied. However, platitudes don't make for good arguments. Prejudice specifically has no basis in reason. Unless you think psychology is utterly baseless, I'd recommend refraining from such an argument going forward. I'm not familiar with your spiritual leanings, or lack thereof, but I should also hope you understand mediums make their money through things they extrapolate on. Which is appearance based. So much can be learned about someone based solely on their appearance, that people can make a living off of telling people their entire life story. Granted, people feed into it, but it requires discernment. Psychologists do the same. Your example, Ted Bundy, has been studied thoroughly. Perhaps you should read up on it. Granted, not all observations are correct, and no one should be condemned based on appearance. However, you ought not discount the merit of observations.
-
The scientific facts stand in opposition to your recommendations. Just because I choose to make my points in understandable analogies, don’t make the mistake of assuming there is not a sound scientific basis underpinning these principles.
-
Edited by Vilhelmus II: 6/18/2019 6:45:17 PMExcept the psychological science agrees with my statements. People subconsciously pick clothes, and articles of clothes based around their personality. Even in trying to be formal, the choice in footwear, tie colour, or suit form can be used to learn things about the individual. Thinking that this isn't the case is rather ridiculous. Yes, people can dress a certain way in order to be perceived a certain way, but bringing that up only proves that certain modes of dress indicate personality to us. I'm never going to say that you can learn everything (you never can) that you could ever know about a person from their clothing, or choice of, but to state that outliers disprove this psychological theory is rather ridiculous. The outliers prove the rule.
-
The two things you realize when you actually understand population statistics: 1. Tendency isn’t Destiny. 2. The only stats that matter when you are dealing with individuals are 0% and 100%. Something is either true or it isn’t. It either happens or it doesn’t. People may choose to express themselves in how they adorn themselves, but unless you actually making -blam!-ing effort to get to know them you have NO IDEA whether the do or they don’t.... ...and even less of an idea what it is they are saying. All you are doing is [i]projecting[/i] you own inner issues onto them and making judgments based upon disowned parts of your own inner reality.
-
No one is arguing the first point, except the scarecrow in your field. The second point... having studied ecology, and statistics in university, both of which delve into population statistics, your second point is not true in the slightest. Nothing is ever one hundred percent. There will always be outliers, and data does not just occur in absolutes. No data is useless data, and something that is true 95% of the time is still more reliable then going off of base feelings. Sure, it won't be true in all cases but 19 out of 20 times is a hell of a lot better than baseless assumptions. And perhaps I need to state it again. I never said you can fully know someone, based upon their clothing alone. You can never know any one for who their entirety is even in making an effort to. There are things you will never know, things they never even think to tell you. I'm merely stating an accepted psychological principle, with many studies supporting it, that clothing can tell you a lot about a person. And making it personal, Mr. Green? Was that your best option? I'm not sure what your issue is, or why you refuse to acknowledge something ?might be true when the evidence supports it, and not you. Well. Honestly, I think it's the fact that you become invested in arguments you don't understand, and over the course of you being discursive, you convince yourself that despite all evidence to the contrary, you must be correct. And anyone who argues against you must be a flawed person. Which is quite presumptuous, especially for someone with your stance on this matter. Before I go, I'd suggest not resorting to such sweeping statements. If you're going to get personal, at least have the conviction to be precise.
