We are not what we do, but what we do does in many ways stem from what we are.
You can always trust a person to do what is true to their nature. For example, you can trust a scorpion to try to sting you. Yes. It’s true of humans also. Have you ever noticed that hyper-sexualized people also tend to be maybe a bit hyper-kinetic?
Yes, the two things go hand in hand. More energy means more arousal, and vice-versa. They do, but some other associations are not necessarily correct. Like the assumption that a touchy feely person is sexually motivated. These people also tend to touch themselves a great deal. They tend to be timid and nurturing, and in extreme cases a bit of a hypochondriac. In a sense, they touch you because they are trying to figure out where it hurts. To them, everything is a possible hurt, and they tend to get their feelings hurt readily when people reject being touched. They take it personally. They identify themselves with touch so naturally you should be willing to be touched.
Quite often they (we) are right about it. Right? Yes, their perception can still be correct which just recalls the previous point. As much as our perceptual profiles differ from each other, nobody is inherently wrong, and those who are better adjusted to their own perceptions tend to be more often correct and sometimes profoundly so. Many with exceptionally sensitive perception are even motivated to pursue the arts as a way of feeling centred in themselves if for no other reason.
Vocalists tend to be emotionally sensitive, even if that sometimes gets drowned in a growing narcissism.
Visual artists tend to have a profound sense of order and disorder, and are often more accepting of information in general than others who focus more on different senses. The visual centre being the largest in the human brain might have something to do with that. It’s also the most connected to our other cognitive functions. People most readily understand what something looks like than anything else. This is why we have the phrase, “It’s not what it looks like!” Although that protest tends to mean it is exactly what it looks like.
Performing artists tend to have sharper predictive abilities. I consider the martial arts to also be performing arts. Katas have even been displayed in that way many times. Dancers even adapt parts because they suit their own style and routine.
Do we not recognize faces, at the first, as shapes? We do not first recognize shapes, though it happens fairly quickly. We first recognize patterns of motion.
Like a baby learns to smile at a face smiling back even if it’s a face on a toy. Yes. They do that rather soon, but they first learn to orient on an approaching blurry image, and they even learn sound before they can discern facial features. A baby will get excited by their mothers voice more than a picture of their mother. At early stages, they won’t even recognize the picture as depicting anything at all. This is maybe part of why some people seem to find it easy to overlook the humanity of others in Second Life. They are reacting to what they think of as abstract images, video game characters.
Many think Second Life is “not real.”
Martial artists tend to be good judges of character. They were sought out in traditional culture as mediators, not because of the threat of violence they might offer anyone, but because of their keen sense of what is motivating people. They train themselves to look both for signs of strength and aggression, but for signs of weakness as well.
Those who practice the culinary arts tend to have well developed intra-personal skills, a keen sense of what makes them feel good and by extension others. They develop a liking for cooking because it’s an easy way to share that feeling good state.
Any of this sounding off base so far? And with these simple perceptual profiles, I am describing a lot of a persons personality, am I not?
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.