| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| starmekitten |
Posted - 12/29/2005 : 07:42:58
There are four women on the train, it's a busy train so they are all sat around the one table. Being British, and therefore horribly antisocial, they are all reading books with music makers plugged into their ears pretending the others are not there.
The first woman (A) is reading The Da Vinci Code
The second woman (B) is reading Miss Smilla's Feeling For Snow
The third woman (C) is reading Rebus - Three Great Novels
The fourth woman (D) is reading Geek Love
A looks up from her book and decides that C is reading trash, B is highbrow and D is being strange for the sake of it.
B glances at the other books and decides that A is following a populist path, that C lacks discernable taste and D is obviously an oddity.
C steals a view of the other books and rolls her eyes at Bs' wordy book, As' mainstream book and Ds' weird book.
D checks out her table mates, figures that A is a sheep, B is snob and C is a pleb.
On the adjacent table sits woman E. E has read all the books that the table of judgementals has read, some she liked a lot, some she liked less. E doesn't see much of a problem with reading any of these books (well she wouldn't) but does see the way that they are viewing the reading choices of their table mates.
Is it this easy to decide, E wonders, the type of person one is based on the outward appearances. Can you judge a book by it's cover?
Does everyone do it?
E asked me if this was the case, and I considered that I can be pretty judgemental when it comes to people I don't know. If I see an uber styled scenester I automatically think of vacuous clusterfucks of these people with their NME dictated stylings. If I see a twin set and (probably faux-) pearls coupled by a sneer, I do think of pseudo-intellectual class snobbery with hyacinth bucket leanings. If I see burberry and bling narrow minded chavery is the image conjured up. I told E about this, but I also told her I wasn't sure if it was right, but if it was wrong I wasn't sure it could be helped. Opinions could differ with knowledge of the person, and perceptions altered, but that initial snap judgement, well?
Is there anyone who doesn't make these random relatively baseless judgements on people they don't know? Or is it perfectly natural and is stereotype a healthy reference point based on good sound reasoning? |
| 14 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Cheeseman1000 |
Posted - 01/05/2006 : 16:03:25
quote:
if I never see another Italian again that would be fine by me
Floop, what on earth did you do?
 I have joined the Cult Of Frank/And I have dearly paid |
| starmekitten |
Posted - 01/05/2006 : 13:46:24
quote:
Originally posted by Cheeseman1000
On my last train journey, I was reading (as memory serves), 'Death In The Afternoon' by Ernest Hemingway, a non-fiction about bullfighting, and wearing mostly clothes that had been bought for me. Where does this place me?
category special.
quote:
Originally posted by Cheeseman1000
It reminds me of a Calvin & Hobbes where Calvin goes through a series of pictures making distinctions about which is 'high' art and which is 'low' art. I'll admit I lost track of Erebus' argument pretty quickly so I can't argue about your actual science, but I would guess stereotyping can't really be avoided. It's very wrong, of course, in most respects: you wouldn't want anyone to make a snap judgement about you based on what you were wearing and what you were reading.
I think basically erebus was saying we're predispositioned to make judgements on outward apearances. A simple natural analogy would be the way the bright colours are used as a warning, like with the poison arrow frog:
you see it's bright warning you figure it's poisonous so you avoid ot, or the predator does.
How this applies to people and outside appearences, it's all about learning isn't it I guess, if you stick a pin in your hand and it hurts, you won't do it again. If you have a bad experience with a person you will not want to repeat the experience so avoid the "type" for example, if I never see another Italian again that would be fine by me, most burberry clad blingsters are going to be annoying, most drunk growling people in pubs are going to talk crap about being barren so they're avoided.
Other social cues can be used as a measure of judgement, like the books, and these stereotypes obviously have some measure of truth to them. This can be seen in the way things are advertised, targetted to a demographic based on stereotypes. Womens weekly magazines with real life stories of truth and triumph advertised mostly between prime time soaps and day time tv for the housewife group. Lads mags advertised around programs like top gear and football for the "lads" the observer advertised between the more four documentary programs...
I think an acceptance that you're going to be judged on outside appearances means people are more conscious of the outside apearance they present. Hence the social uniforming, and selection of what they show.
It's relatively rare that the presented image isn't slightly contrived, especially when people have the option (i.e. financial ability) to have free range in choice. Even when financially restricted though, I think the uniform theory still applies. But, the lack of contrivance in itself presents an image on which people can pick up.
I think my first pair of heels shows that I am now an actual grown up
*clickclick*
And I just couldn't be bothered typing out names over and over, hence leters. |
| VoVat |
Posted - 01/05/2006 : 12:22:33
quote:
My question would be, are all British women named after letters?
No, that was just a popular trend in the late sixties.
"If you doze much longer, then life turns to dreaming. If you doze much longer, then dreams turn to nightmares." |
| Cheeseman1000 |
Posted - 01/02/2006 : 15:52:29
I agree with shineoftheever.
On my last train journey, I was reading (as memory serves), 'Death In The Afternoon' by Ernest Hemingway, a non-fiction about bullfighting, and wearing mostly clothes that had been bought for me. Where does this place me?
It reminds me of a Calvin & Hobbes where Calvin goes through a series of pictures making distinctions about which is 'high' art and which is 'low' art. I'll admit I lost track of Erebus' argument pretty quickly so I can't argue about your actual science, but I would guess stereotyping can't really be avoided. It's very wrong, of course, in most respects: you wouldn't want anyone to make a snap judgement about you based on what you were wearing and what you were reading.
If I see the cute girl with apparent dodgy taste, a la Brian's post, I try and look on the positive side. Maybe Miss Smilla's Feeling For Snow has been recommended her by a friend who's opinion is appreciated; maybe she'd finally given in to reading the Da Vinci Code after holding out for ages; perhaps she's used to only reading bestsellers but is trying to branch out by reading Geek Love because she's heard of the author; perhaps she was in a rush and bought Rebus at the station because she suddenly realised she was about to miss her train.
Either way, a cute girl's a cute girl, that's the most important thing.
I have joined the Cult Of Frank/And I have dearly paid |
| shineoftheever |
Posted - 12/31/2005 : 19:37:34
best thread ever! C i was trying to be like the fonz all cool and shit and i took a little E while reading the story of B and i was all like connecting with the girls and playing hockey and some solid D and we won the game and i was like Ayyyyyyyyy!
The waxworks were an immensely eloquent dissertation on the wonderful ordinariness of mankind. |
| danjersey |
Posted - 12/31/2005 : 18:56:23
i'm waiting for the last judgement |
| kathryn |
Posted - 12/31/2005 : 18:15:02
Just last night my college roommate and I were talking about how we hated each other's guts the first time we met 24 years ago and how wrong we were and what good friends we've been all these years despite our erroneous initial judgements. Everybody does this, I think.
I got some heaven in my head
|
| see meant |
Posted - 12/30/2005 : 17:24:50
My question would be, are all British women named after letters? |
| fumanbru |
Posted - 12/30/2005 : 06:23:23
this reminds me of the movie breakfast club.
i'm into personality profiling and the enneagram. and recently i'm reading a book on speedreading people. this is all pretty much stereotyping and categorizing people. i find if you're using the info in a positive way it's all good. hopefully you can gain a better understanding, see things from a different perspective, and thus communicate better with different people and be more tolerant of peoples differences.
peace out!
 "I joined the Cult of Frank/ cause I'm a real go-getter!" |
| starmekitten |
Posted - 12/30/2005 : 04:37:15
Clothes always interest me in these sorts of things, the way people lean towards the uniform that is expected of people with their "personality" type or projected personality type. Young rock/alternative kids are great examples of this I think, with the black and eyeliner, the multiple bangles, so many cliches they all seem to fit and you know by looking at them whether they like Green Day or not.
I guess some people work very hard at deciding what image they want others to see, which is where social stereoptyping can be very useful in making judgements. I wonder what I was trying to say with this bobble hat...
I'm not sure about the taste/appreciation suggestion though, it would suggest that those who are at (how can I put it) a cultural disadvantage when young will have no opportunity (or propensity) to develop from there. I think I don't like it because it's a miserable thought more than anything though, heh. |
| zub_the_goat |
Posted - 12/29/2005 : 16:08:27
Nice topic, I suppose thats exactly what we're doing, i very much agree that we symbolically consume-in that we buy things almost entirely because of the message it gives to others about the person we would like to be seen as. There has been a lot of sociological work stating that taste is something that we are taught-ie it is impossible to appreciate fine art naturally, if you can afford to you teach your children to appreciate fine art because it is selective and not open to the mainstream. The reason books like the da vinci code are seen as trash is because they are mainstream, you do not have to have come from a certain educational and social background to have access to it, different things are defined by the cultural elite as better, or worse, depending on who has access to it, so in a way, yes i think what book each person is reading does tell us a lot about the person, because, subliminally thats what they intend to do. However it can only tell us of a smalll part of their personality, it is certainly not set in stone.
I guess personally i do judge people by appearances-i wish i didnt, but if i see someone with a book i like, then i automatically assume that they must be like me in some way, and feel less that way if they are reading a book or talking about a film i dislike |
| Daisy Girl |
Posted - 12/29/2005 : 15:46:55
Very interesting. Yeah, I think e sounds the coolest. I think people should watch or do what ever they want. I think I am all a little trash, class, mass and off the beaten path. I think we all are  |
| Erebus |
Posted - 12/29/2005 : 15:19:32
“Is there anyone who doesn't make these random relatively baseless judgements on people they don't know? Or is it perfectly natural and is stereotype a healthy reference point based on good sound reasoning?”
The brain is, among other things, an instrument of correlation and discrimination. It associates symbols and behaviors. If the behavior in question is sufficiently significant to the judging brain, the brain will easily leap to conclusions on the basis of what might in other circumstances be considered insufficient data. For example, because avoidance of toxins is quite significant to the organism, the brain will readily jump to conclusions. In simple biological cases of correlation and discrimination such as this, there will usually not be much disagreement among people about what constitutes sufficient basis. People will agree that a conservative response is prudent.
In a way, we could define all aversion as a will to limit exposure to toxins, which calls into question just how people come to define toxins for themselves. The ladies apparently view one another as “toxic”, broadly defined, on the basis of what would normally be seen as a weak signal, i.e., taste in reading. But they do not find one another so toxic as to move away from or even eradicate the potentially toxic agent. However, they may feel justified in excluding these others from their guest lists.
Tre’s scenario raises a host of questions that are both complex and fundamental. How much of the inclination to judge and act on judgement is genetically hardwired and how much is it the product of childhood (and adult) conditioning? Similar questions are raised regarding just what is seen as toxic, and if toxic, how toxic. If a symbol indicates toxicity, how strong a response is justified? What does justification mean in such circumstances? How much luxury of response does one have in avoiding what is perceived as toxic? For example, if public transport is a relative necessity for these ladies, they will accept proximity to these toxic others more readily than if they have the luxury of a choice of private conveyance.
“Is it this easy to decide, E wonders, the type of person one is based on the outward appearances. Can you judge a book by it's cover? Does everyone do it?”
One could make the case that all one ever senses is the cover. By its very nature, sensing is superficial. I would say yes, we all do it.
It is interesting that calling into question our propensity to judge is itself a process of judgement. We find we don’t like X because “he doesn’t smoke the same cigarettes as me”, and then we judge ourselves for judging, perhaps softening our tendency to make such superficial judgements or perhaps not.
Obviously there is much justification for making judgements, even those based upon limited clues. As the products of seemingly limitless generations of natural selection, we have been honed to make sound judgements. No surviving species lasted this long by consistently drawing fundamentally flawed conclusions. However, again we find ourselves confronting questions about just what constitutes evolutionarily sound judgements. At one pole, since anything external (to the “blind” organism) could be toxic, an organism could reject everything. Conversely, since anything external could be sustaining, everything could be embraced. The “truth” lies within the vast grey area between these poles, and of course for each of us that “truth” is personal. None of us is identical to any other in terms of our standards, where we draw the lines, and how strongly we react. But we can be sure that any species that has survived to this point has been getting some basic things right.
Interesting example and questions, Tre, rich in social and political implications. Truly makes one wonder how we manage to make it through a day, let alone a life.
|
| Broken Face |
Posted - 12/29/2005 : 13:24:34
the other night i was in best buy trying to pick up a CD. while in the jazz/box sets area, i saw this super cute girl walking towards me. however, all of my good feelings were trashed when i saw that she was carrying RUNAWAY BRIDE on dvd.
could she have been buying it for a friend? sure
but i don't take my chances.
so yeah, i judge people all the time. i wish i didn't, but its true.
-Brian
|
|
|
