[Contrastique]

I don't judge people according to the choices being given. They're too superficial. It would be based on conversations, reactions and how they deal with people and situations around them. But I think the OP was aware of that. So if I play by his rules I would most likely choose movies. By that I mean not what people have on their bookshelf but what they actually like.
I have a slight thing against people who only prefer to watch superficial movies although I know that that isn't quite fair.
Books for me don't really count because I love to read myself but hardly can't find the time to read.
And music, well I don't know...maybe they are on the same line as movies for me because of the same reason.
Well, I don't know, It seems I can't play by your rules, OP, coz they are not who I am and if I'd had to choose between those things I would come in conflict with myself and start to contradict myself.

 

[Wmcmanus]

I don't like anyone with whom I don't have at least 2,000 albulms, 1,000 movies and 500 books in common with. Even then, I tend to disagree with their opinions about most of them. This reconfirms my "I'm right, you're all wrong, I've got nothing else to learn" view on life.

Either that, or I'm just kidding. Of course there is much to learn from others in terms of their tastes in music, movies, and books. But really, aren't we all on our own journeys? I wouldn't feel the need to justify my interests and tastes any more than I'd expect someone else to do so for me. Moreover, some of the most honest, sincere, and humble people that I've ever known are neither well read nor culturally sophisticated.

So I guess this means that I agree with what a lot of people have said here in that while music, movies and books might tell me something about a person, it would only scratch at the surface and could never tell me if that person was real of just a pretender.

 

[nibiyabi]

I'll have to refine my statement. . . . If said person's books include "Dianetics" I'll high-tail it out the door.

 

[redshifter]

If I do not see a bookshelf with some well loved books inside, chances are I will not try to draw the person into serious discussion. My experience has been those who do not read tend to be superficial and misunderstanding. No offense, but this has been my experience.

 

[Vicomte]

Why does everyone feel the need to to express that they judge people based on character, moral fiber, and their actions only? It's completely ridiculous. Judging someone, whatever that means, should include everything about them--even things that seem trivial or superficial are incredibly telling, as they are part of who someone is. Why is my music collection less telling of who I am than if I rescue babies from burning buildings? There's no good reason other than the one arbitrarily assigned by what people have been conditioned to believe is the righteous way of living. People judge people always, in all manner of ludicrous ways, unfailingly. There's no need to convince yourself that you only care about inner beauty, or whatever scruples, just because you're so accepting and saintly.

I think people that like the movie Saw are complete morons, the lot of them. Of course, liking said movie is only one miniscule facet of their personality. I contend, therefore, that at least one miniscule facet of their personality is being a complete moron. Is that such a harsh way to judge? I think not.

 

[EyeAmEye]

I find talking to someone for just a few minutes reveals much more than movies, music, books, clothes, etc. I get a pretty good read on people from a few talks, and in my experience, their general preferences provide little insight.

 

[usc goose]

Have any of you ever read the book "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell? Good book. For some reason, the discussion is reminding me of it.

Anyways, don't take this question too seriously. I think Bluetick's right, maybe judge wasn't quite the right word to use here.

 

[zachary80]

All three, they seem to point to different types of a person's characteristics

 

[daycart1]

I'd have thought the most reasonable answer is not even among the choices: Headphone collection!

Remember?

But seriously, it would have to be: favorite philosopher.

 

[Spareribs]

Basically, this type of judging only tells if the person is a low brow or high brow or somewhere in between.

My question is this: Is a person with low brow tastes an indication of bad character?

IMO, no.

 

[Genetic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spareribs /img/forum/go_quote.gif I know some college professors who have good tastes but I would never want to hang out with them due to thier egotistical behaviour.

Only some??? I envy you....

Amicalement

 

[steaxauce]

I'm dyslexic and so I don't read many books, but I still said books. In general, I still know that it's a better measuring stick for intelligence than the other two. But still, looking at someone's library is a horrid method for guaging his intellect.

Honestly I've found from experience that even a person's IQ and level of education can hardly even be correlated with what manifests itself as intelligence in interpersonal exchange.

Actually though, I become friends with whomever is willing to be my friend.

 

[Kirosia]

Out of those three I pick music. Normally, I just judge people based on how they chew their food.

 

[vcoheda]

none of the three.

people can seem nice and helpful and good natured but it may all be false. the best way to judge a person is to see how they react when you do or say something that doesn't accord with their own way of thinking/outlook on life. if they are dismissive or critical of you, then this is a person that i don't want to be around. (that's me personally.)

 

[usc goose]

i was just reminded actually of a teacher of mine who said the best way to judge a person was to see how they treated service industry people (waiters and janitors and such). i've remembered that.

the other one that i like but don't use is the test of serving someone a bad cup of coffee. if the person says nothing, he/she is not to be trusted. but i make damn good coffee so that one's out.