
Accounting for Taste: Choices in books, movies, music, and art go to the core of self. - fiaz
http://psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20080825-000002&print=1
======
swombat
A surprisingly content-free article. Great read if you're just looking for a
bunch of anecdotes about people's tastes, but not much of a revelation one way
or another. I read through the whole thing hoping for some great insight, but
there was no such thing.

Importantly, the stereotyping was very much just that - stereotyping. I
recognised myself in almost all the stereotypes mentioned in the article - as
good a proof as any that human beings don't fall into these neat
classifications, but instead we're all just a blend of all of them. I guess
that's quite typical of any psychological classification, though.

~~~
Ardit20
They hinted at the complexity of the formation of different tastes and how
there are many other influences which might cause the overlaps you describe.

Mybe it is better to simply give different categorizations than spell in
details how your tastes are formed which in turn might lead to changing your
tastes.

------
nazgulnarsil
a bunch of fuzzy feel good vignettes without any conclusions, classic
humanities essay material.

~~~
peakok
I don't know where you live, but if this article qualifies as classic
Humanities material for you, and if you think Humanities is a synomym of crap,
there must be something wrong with your education system.

~~~
swombat
<http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html>

DH0, DH1, DH2, barely touching on DH3.

~~~
peakok
Yes, but the original statement is barely "DH1" : "Classic Humanities material
= a bunch of fuzzy feel good vignettes without any conclusions". Circle-logic,
my friends.

~~~
swombat
"if x and y you must be an idiot" is just a personal attack. At least the
original statement is attacking a topic, not a person - that makes it a
billion times superior to your response.

~~~
peakok
?

