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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
show me a valid way of drawing conclusions in a humanities field where you have thousands of variables and are never sure of cause, effect and correlation.
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.