"In many court cases, the truth is destroyed by perception."
Are we, as a nation, guilty of putting too much credence in perception without investigation. It bothers me sometimes when I see a mass agreement about an issue and I don't see individual thoughts having been formulated to really come to the same conclusion. Instead it seems we are subject to regurgitated dogma, devoid of a personal thought, but spoken as truth.
“What you see and what you hear depends a great deal on where you are standing.
It also depends on what sort of person you are.”
C.S. Lewis, The Magician's Nephew
What are the main factors of identification? Personality, gender, physical build and look, social status, work status, country of birth, achievements, rank...have I missed anything out? Are these the true definitions of people and how do we profile which of these is the most significant?
Here is a test...
Take a look at the names below - what is the common identifying factor?
Jean Claude Van Damme
Unless you are not very familiar with cinema, your answer should be in the vicinity of saying that they are all actors...or maybe celebrities. In this case the people can all be instantly identified by their occupation. Yet within that category, if I were a producer or casting agent, their identities as actors might travel into another sub-category, as you can't put any actor, in just any film. It is often cited that Jean Claude Van Damme is a very funny man in real life, yet with the exception of a beer advert, have you seen him in any comedy films? No. Why Because the audience’s initial perception of him, from his arrival until now has been cemented with the identification of an action actor. For for him to switch genre now could cause career suicide, as the acceptance may not travel with his departure from the expected norm.