Well yeah, Boomers are still everywhere and most haven’t formed a new opinion since 1997.
Is this article even worth my time? Is this research worth anything?
Edit: I have read it and disagree with how the experiment was conducted. If participants are supposed to guess personality based on the image of the tattoo, maybe the tattooed person isn’t giving an accurate description of themselves. Participants should also rate the personality of someone and not just let the tattooed person rate themselves.
Overall, people were fairly consistent in how they judged tattoos. Raters tended to agree with one another about what certain tattoo features might suggest about personality. For instance, cheerful and colorful tattoos were linked to impressions of higher agreeableness. Large, traditional-looking tattoos were associated with higher extraversion. Tattoos that appeared low in quality or included death imagery led raters to perceive the wearer as more neurotic or less agreeable.
However, these judgments were largely inaccurate. When the researchers compared how participants were rated with how they described themselves, most of the links between tattoo features and personality fell apart. Except for one pattern: people who had tattoos described by raters as “wacky” were somewhat more likely to score higher on openness to experience in their self-assessments.
The country where I live still will not let you donate blood if you have a tattoo.
My mother indoctrinated me to think that tattoos meant a person was “bad.” I have three and I’m looking to get more when I figure out what the next ones are.
Bad bad child
I was at a concert last night and it struck me just how much I LOVE seeing how people who showed up to share an experience can be so different. My kids were pointing at strange looking people but it just made me smile more and more as explained why I loved their expression and courage to literally wear it in public.
Diversity, new experiences, unexpected is how life should be. I am tattooed, mine are pretty ordinary but last night someone commented on one of mine on the way out of the show. She thought it was strange, so I explained it and we had such a lovely conversation. She had recently beat cancer and was about to get her first.
I don’t know, it’s early and this resonated.
Well how about this guy
Norwegian royalty, tattooed his birthday on his chest. Currently being trialed for accusations of rape and sexual assault among other 20+ charges.
Can we at least say it is ok for SOME tattoos.
Have you heard of the phrase anecdotal evidence?
Doesn’t apply to my case, it is the first time I am seeing someone tattoo his birthday on his chest and even if he did not hold a gun or stuff his crotch with fistfuls of money, my impression of him would be quite similar.
Doesn’t apply to my case
Really? Anecdotal evidence, in a scientific setting, is described as
casual observations/indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis
This study is about the general trends of people judging others with tattoos incorrectly. It doesn’t mean everyone, always, judges people incorrectly.
It also states that context matters for how accurately you judge someone. The gun, money, and the public information of his terrible actions, all change how you assess them and how accurate your assessment is.
So in your case, yes, if you judged him as a rapist because he had a birthday tattoo, you were correct. But that is anecdotal evidence. And context based.
Unless you’re implying everyone with a birthday tattoo is also a sexual assaulter/rapist, which is certainly a take, then it is anecdotal and doesn’t go against the studys findings.
No I was using this definition:
“Anecdotal evidence consists of personal experience or narrative used to draw a conclusion or make a point.”
If you are asking my opinion on the matter, I would think that a person who has their birthday tattooed on their chests has a high probability to be a narcissist. It could of course be another sentimental issue like mother dying during birth etc but nothing I could see indicated this for the particular example.
“Surprising”? Are you taking the piss?
The headline here made it sound to me like they were claiming people with tattoos were the ones making poor judgments.
I was like, that’s a pretty ballsy claim to be making.
As a tall, tatted goth lady, many people have the first impression of me that I am intimidating and edgy, which couldn’t be further from the truth. So, sample size of me, this tracks.
You’re right, totoally misjudged the dude with the gaint swastika and HH tattoos.
My only judgement is how much money they’ve spent on them. I hope they’ve been saving for retirement as well.
I mean we all judge each other automatically and if you’re an outlier you are going to be targeted. There’s a reason people wear suits and get cleaned up when they have to go to court.
Ohhh. The headline made it sound like people who get tattoos make poor decisions.
The article says people’s opinions about a tatooed person does not necessarily match the tattooed person’s view on themself. The article was frustrating to read because it lacked details.
On my first read, I got the meaning right. However, I agree that it’s very ambiguous. Were the “of” a “by”, I’d swing the other way as well.
So all tattooed people aren’t ketchup drinking rapists?
Well, no one said anything about them NOT drinking ketchup
So there’s some question about whether they drink ketchup, but not that they’re rapists?
Precisely. Clearly not rapists, but ketchup drinkers…well, Im gonna need some more evidence to the contrary
Science!
