Can You Judge a Person By Their Shoes?
Heisenberg
2012/07/11 19:13:51
|
|
|||||
|
170 votes
|
|
44% | |||
|
217 votes
|
|
56% | |||
You're not supposed to judge a book by its cover, but shoes are apparently a whole different story. Recent reports show that shoes reveal a lot about the wearer's personality. If you're agressive, ankle boots are your thing. If you're a more agreeable person, practical shoes are your pick. And the list goes on and on. Do you think you can judge a person by what kind of shoes they're wearing?
BLOOMBERG.COM reports:
BLOOMBERG.COM reports:
If you have been reading newspapers or websites, listening to the radio or watching TV over the past few weeks, you have probably heard the news: “You CAN judge a person by his shoes.” Beginning in mid-June, word of a psychology article titled “Shoes as a source of first impressions” began circling the globe.
Read More: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-09/boots-wer...
Top Opinion
-
Valerie© 2012/07/11 20:08:28
The news article at the bottom contains the main points of and links to a recent study done at Kansas University.
Among their findings were
"Expensive shoes belonged to high wage earners, whereas the flashy and colorful footwear belonged to extroverts. Shoes that were not new but appeared to be immaculate belonged to the conscientious personality types and the political affiliation leaked through with liberals wearing "shabbier and less expensive" shoes than their counterparts.
Agreeable people wore practical shoes while people with aggressive personalities wore ankle boots. The individuals with calm personalities surprisingly wore uncomfortable looking shoes".
http://www.examiner.com/artic...
There are also a couple of things you seem to have overlooked.
1. There's a HUGE difference between evidence and proof. If a large majority of a certain type of people in one study wear a certain type of shoe, then that is evidence that that type of person likes that type of shoe. But that is a long way from proof. So yes, there can be evidence on this but whether there will ever be proof is a very different story.
2. If you read their research fully you will see that a lot of the pointing-out-the-obvious points you made, the people behind the study made too. They admit that there are many reasons that people can be wearing different shoes. However,scientically that does nothing to negate the validity of their findings.
3. If they observed that calm people wear uncomfortable shoes then they found that calm people wore uncomfortable shoes. It could just be a statistical fluke, but it is a still a valid result for this study as it is what they observed and what another study has found should never interfere with a scientist's observations of his own experiment. You can have contrasting evidence for the same thing in science, it's why we do many many many experiments.
It is a very random field of study however, so I would actually like ...
There are also a couple of things you seem to have overlooked.
1. There's a HUGE difference between evidence and proof. If a large majority of a certain type of people in one study wear a certain type of shoe, then that is evidence that that type of person likes that type of shoe. But that is a long way from proof. So yes, there can be evidence on this but whether there will ever be proof is a very different story.
2. If you read their research fully you will see that a lot of the pointing-out-the-obvious points you made, the people behind the study made too. They admit that there are many reasons that people can be wearing different shoes. However,scientically that does nothing to negate the validity of their findings.
3. If they observed that calm people wear uncomfortable shoes then they found that calm people wore uncomfortable shoes. It could just be a statistical fluke, but it is a still a valid result for this study as it is what they observed and what another study has found should never interfere with a scientist's observations of his own experiment. You can have contrasting evidence for the same thing in science, it's why we do many many many experiments.
It is a very random field of study however, so I would actually like to see that other study you mentionned to try and put this research in context and also to compare the methods they used. Might even make a nice case study to try with a GCSE class.
But your poor knowledge of scientific jargon aside, going back to the study I referenced, can you please point out the bits of their scientific method that reveal to you that these results do not count as evidence. I'm assuming after all that to criticise the study so much, you have at least read it in full?
You've just said yourself that you never read past the first sentence, which means that everything you've said is just kneejerk conjecture.
I merely said that there is evidence that you can often tell a person's personality from their shoes and posted the conclusions (and links to) the study. Which means that it is not an opinion or even my opinion, I was merely quoting from the research paper. And if you haven't even read the research paper, how can you comment on the accuracy of it?
BTW, in an earlier post you said that another study revealed contradictory evidence to the study I referenced. Can I see the study? Or were you making that up?
I suppose if I ask you to point out one place where I said I judge people by their shoes, hair or skin colour I'll get a similarly evasive response?
All I've done is direct people to the most recent study on this and tried to explain the difference between evidence and proof. Anything else you've concluded exists entirely within your head.
;)
I am not a big shoe fan(I do know red soles tho) I am more into bags...but someone who takes the time to buy and care for quality has got a couple of points up in my book
If a person is wearing sandals or flip flops, than their pretty easy going, not expecting to be in a rush or doing anything extensive.
If they're wearing tennis shoes or sneakers, then they've got places to go, things to do and are active overall.