You ever meet someone and after talking to them and getting to know them you think, “yeah, I sort of figured they would have this personality because they look like they would”?
You ever meet someone and after talking to them and getting to know them you think, “yeah, I sort of figured they would have this personality because they look like they would”?
This is known as physiognomy and lacks any real evidence.
It is likely just confirmation bias playing a trick on your brain. You probably don’t think about all the times a face doesn’t match the personality.
I mean you can definitely look at a goth face and assume they are goth, punk face, metal face, tattooed face, etc.
There definitely is evidence as well.
Yea. Ok. So their style is goth. But do you know what their fears are? Do you know what they like for breakfast or what they watch on TV? Or even if they do watch TV? There is zero sort of reliability in those stereotypes.
Fears defines a persons character? What they eat defines their character? What they watch defines their character?
Those are interesting metrics….
There isn’t reliability and that’s a terrible defense, since nothing really has reliable outcomes or results regardless. There is obviously differences and outliers on every dataset, but most goths have certain personalities, most punks share personalties, it’s literally what defines them…
They also aren’t stereotypes, that’s only if they are pretending to fit into that culture. You’ll know a punk when you see and meet them, same with goths, there is definitely merit there, despite your previous misconceptions.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod