Yes, I should be sleeping.

[keire_ke]

Pondering material for tonight: how is judging people by their character any better than judging them by their appearance?

I mean, both are something we have little control over, as character is the result of upbringing and genetics, while appearance is the result of genetics and environment. There is a certain amount of influence we can exercise on both, but it only goes so far. No amount of trying will turn a shy person into an roaring soul of the party, same as no amount of trying will turn alter the bone structure (because plastic surgery has its limits).

So, how is "I love you 'cause you're pretty" more offensive than "I love you 'cause you are kind"? (well, love is more of a "despite the" clause, but eh, that's a story for another day) It's not like anyone chooses to have kind as a character trait. It just happens. Acting kindly, sure, your choice. Being kind? Buahahaha.

Thoughts?

---

Oh, on the subject of questions: did everyone assume Sherlock couldn't get a read on Irene Adler because she was naked? I thought it was because she did away with anything personal in life as well as in dress, as per the mask quote.

Comments

[lawless523]

Love based on looks is treated as more superficial than love based on characteristics. While it's true that temperament is pretty much set, barring plastic surgery, which has its limitations, as you note, I don't think it's true that we have as much control over our looks as our behavior. "Acting kindly" is what leads to the characterization of "being kind." Maybe some people are naturally better at it, but I'm not sure how much of that is personality and how much is upbringing and environment.

I thought her nakedness was much of it, and frankly I have niggles with that scene. She was wearing earrings, pumps, and makeup. He couldn't make deductions from those? Of course, there's the problem that as a professional dom, she's always "on" and acting, but that's going to be a problem no matter what she does or doesn't wear.

Conceptually, it could be because she did away with anything personal in her life as well as her dress, but I don't buy that based on the episode. There were clues in the way she furnished her house. The mask quote, which I only remember hazily, has more to do with whether he can rely on what clues he finds or whether those are just evidence of her self-constructed persona.

[keire_ke]

There is only so far the control over our behaviour extends, though. It's true, we can easily fake kindness for a while, but we can't actually fake being kind. There are generally clues that suggest that the acts are borne of a particular mindset and that is why we have "acting" as a profession. My argument is thus that dismissing love based on looks as shallow and insisting that loving the personality is deep doesn't hold up in sharp light. Don't people internalise their looks, anyway? It's not like you stand in front of a mirror one day and discover your eyes changed colour and the shape of your nose is aquiline you will likely think "huh, this sure as hell isn't me", whereas if you do something out of character (i.e. you are a Fluttershy in your everyday life for thirty years, then you get roaring drunk at a party and overturn tables while screaming for social justice) you are likely to rationalise it and accept that you have done something you normally wouldn't do, but surely it has come from within, therefore it was you who did it.

---

There is this to consider: Sherlock is used to knowing and understanding the details, because he has an excellent framework of reference, based on observation. He looks at a person and instantly knows how many siblings they have, what they had for dinner, etc, but that only works when he has clues to work with (photos where he can see, hastily washed hands). If a person he meets leaves nothing on personal importance around and is freshly showered, when he hasn't met that person before, he might find himself with nothing to work with. That's what I think happened there: Irene's nudity didn't so much eliminate the clues, it eliminated the framework of reference. Sure, he could probably deduce where those pumps have been, but what guarantee he had that anything he could deduce about her would be correct? He is a scientist, after all, and a scientist must dismiss the results of an experiments if he cannot replicate the conditions.

[macavitykitsune]

Well, dude, I've spent eight months in Canada now, in a parental role. I haven't hit the kid, called her a worthless piece of shit, slut-shamed or fat-shamed her, invaded her privacy, forced her to be affectionate with me, fixated creepily on her underwear or her clothing or her contact with boys, or denied her affection. If character's genetic, I must have been adopted, as I don't remember three weeks in my life when all of the above hadn't happened to me when I was around my family of origin. So, do I have to spend a lifetime acting kindly before I get to say I'm kind? Or, since I've got a few pedophiles in my family tree (as I found out as a child from personal experience), do I have to present a Did Not Ever Diddle Kids certificate to the world on my dying day to describe myself as "not a pedophile" in the interim as opposed to "just not acting like the pedophile genetics determines I am", hm?

Also, who gets to judge when something goes from being the sum of choices to a character trait? I'd rather be around someone who consistently chose to be kind than someone who just overflowed with fuzziness and hugs and puppies. Those are the kind that tend to be the obnoxious martyrs and the emotionally manipulative sickos, IMHO.

Appearance is the sum total of genetics; character is the sum total of choices.

[keire_ke]

Ah, I'm not saying the character is genetic. It is certainly informed by genes, but the way it plays out is not necessarily a straightforward trait-for-trait. It's perhaps build on a foundation of traits that aren't of themselves good or bad, but choice and circumstance and application make them so. Stubbornness comes to mind. It's a fairly basic personality trait which become either good (having the will to see something through to the end, despite opposition) or pigheadedness (refusing to admit to an obvious mistake). Paedophilia is not a character trait any more than cancer is.

Nor am I saying character of an individual can be judged by their environment. It can't. Character is a product of the environment, yes, but the way a person develops is not mathematical. The same experience can produce vastly different people, and I don't know how much choice is involved there. You don't shame people because you want to be contrary; you don't shame them because you feel it's a horrible thing to do. The reason I say there's little to no choice involved is that I presume you didn't just decide one day that you want to be different from your family and therefore do the opposite of what they would do. No, you are different, that's how you know they are wrong.

As for the kindness/being kind thing, that's something (general) you have to know. Are you being kind because "well, duh, obviously", or are you acting kind because you must? I'm drawing the distinction not because it ultimately matters, if it's a consistent choice, but because it's fairly crucial to characterisation.

I don't actually 100% agree with the original post, I feel I should add. It's just something to ponder.