jtr,
I am once again amazed at how radically different our understands of the world are!
For starters, while evolutionary and survival considerations may provide insight into where certain behaviors came from, they in no way touch the moral issues involved. In this particular instance, I don't see the value in that angle because I do not believe that stereotyping, in the sense here considered, is "hardwired" into us. What one society stereotypes as good can be exactly what another stereotypes as bad. However, I don't want to dwell on this topic, and will concede that perhaps this sort of stereotyping is a survival trait in the sense of tribal or ingroup loyalty, where whatever is different from the group is likely to be seen as bad. Let's admit that.
Even so, that would have implications for a first impression, not for a conceptual thought structure and considered stances! For example, OK, my mom sees Matt and has a WTF reaction. Totally understandable. She's an animal, subject to flight or fight and such-like responses. Granted. But, after some time, after seeing first-hand that Matt is still a polite, considerate, and upstanding boy, this would fade away to be over-ridden with what culture has written on her soul.
But this is exactly where the stereotyping comes in, and not in the first impression. We're not talking a tiger or a badly mishappen, horrific human figure here. We're talking black hair, eyeliner, and black clothes. Big freaking deal. Not the sort of thing that would trigger a "hardwired" response.
No, the issue was not with evolution at all, not with my mom's "animal" nature, but rather with her prejudices and cultural notions as to what is "good / acceptable" and what is not. So the evolution argument is not only irrelevant here, it is actually misleading.
What I'm more interested in addressing, however, is your assertion that tattoos are just as superficial (if not more so) as stereotyping, and your feeling that it's ironic for me to have a problem with stereotyping but not with tattoos, as if the two were logically tied together.
The fact that you think they are linked together in this way is completely a function of your own personal ethos regarding appearance and expression of individuality, which I will address below. First, however, let's consider two different actions that you have lumped together as "stereotyping":
1. You see a specific person with a specific tattoo and that weighs significantly in your first impression of the person. Something about the tattoo and where it is on his or her body speaks to you. Maybe you get a bad "vibe" from it. Maybe you get a good one. But, either way, you have made a connection between the "surface" and the "depths", between the tattoo and what the wearers personality is. This I do NOT consider to be "stereotyping". This is better considered as intuition or a "first impression", to my mind.
2. You have a general feeling and ethic that anyone with any tattoo is more likely to be an undesirable than someone without. Now THIS is stereotyping. This is a prejudice. Literally something active before there is anything to actually judge upon. The classic example is racism.
And THIS is what I have been railing against, and not the first. See, because, I totally disagree that modern society in any way necessitates more of the second type of stereotyping. Quite the opposite, actually.
Now, is it "superficial" to get a tattoo? Or to get plastic surgery or implants or get your hair dyed?
Once again, a sweeping, stereotyping judgment is being made here (by you) regarding a WHOLE CLASS of behaviors. To say that everyone who gets a tattoo is superficial, to some degree, is totally unjustifiable. To be sure, some people who get a tattoo, or breast implants, may be in that category. But just as surely, some people are not. You only hold with this because you yourself are too caught up in your own value judgment on appearance and individuality.
There is a difference between what is on the surface, and what is "superficial". There's actually a word for what is on the surface: "surficial", and it has a different connotation than "superficial". As we are talking about it here, "superficial" means "apparent rather than actual or substantial" and "trivial; insignificant". If you get a tattoo because Megan Fox has a tattoo, and you get a design that has no meaning for you, then this is a superficial act. It does not proceed from the core of who you are.
The surface should complement the depths.
It's entirely possible to get a tattoo that profoundly expresses the core of who you are. This is the exact opposite of superficiality.
Who are you to decree that expressing ones personality and core being in a way that is visible on the surface is "superficial"? That's just bull, jtr. So you like to hide yourself away and keep yourself hidden, even from those who are closest to you. Big-whoop-de-freaking-do. I mean, you are obviously free to do so! And more power to you! I have no problem with it. But it doesn't mean that those of us who decide on a different approach to life are superficial or crass.
And note that in any case, outward appearance has a great deal to do with soul. You studiously avoid tattoos and unusual clothing or hair-styles or adornment precisely because this accords with your inward being and your notions of what is best.
Others pay the same attention to their outward appearance by getting tattoos and dressing unusually and wearing jewelry for the same reason: because it accords with their inner being and their notions of what the relations of these things should be.
You don't know why someone gets a tattoo or wears goth clothing. You assume it's because they want to show that they are "special" and "individual", and to "complete strangers" at that. But it's only a generalization, another stereotyping--one which has nothing to do with what is hardwired into your brain. It's simply a lack of imagination on your part, jtr.
Consider Greta. From what I know about her, I can pretty much guarantee you that she did not get her tattoos to impress complete strangers and try to prove to them that she is "special". Trust me when I tell you that she has got way better things to do with her time than that.
You asked me "-how can you see the depths if what is on the surface drowns them out?" The answer is simple: don't drown them out. Let the surface complement the depths. Perhaps this means revealing the depths. Perhaps this means concealing them. Perhaps it means accenting some, and softening others, in an artful way. Who knows. It would be different for each person.
But to suggest that the only authentic thing to do is to avoid expressing anything important on the surface is outrageous.
You, like my mother in the example I mentioned, suffer from a lack of vision here, a lack of imagination on this point. You can't really see this clearly because you judge it only from your own vantage point. And that's ironic, really, considering your attempt to broaden the discussion by bringing in a radically different vantage point (evolution). Try starting with a thought experiment a lot closer to home. Try to imagine that there are people who get tattoos and hair styles and unusual cloths, who have reasons for doing so that are just as profound and integral to them as the reasons why you do NOT do these things.
