Pinkfreud .. as will become evident as to why, I choose you as the
beneficiary in trust of the $ herein to donate to a worthwhile
charitable organisation. Please post any answer when it becomes
obvious that the game is up, in order to transfer funds to you for
your trusted distribution!

Everyone ..

How do we arrive at a mental picture drawn of someone we have not
seen? Recall a telephone conversation, this medium of exchange, letter
swapping and electronic mail dealings with another, as yet unknown
face to face. What image comes to mind and why? How do we arrive at
such a conclusion? Is it from phrases, words or attitude within a text
that reminds us of
someone else? What if an unknown's words are unrelated to someone
known to us? How and why do we then draw that picture in our mind of
an unknown, to be blonde, brunette, redhead; tall, short, thin or
thick-set?

Sure it may hopefully be a fun game, but it's about our perception of
one another, unknown.

Rules: Only two. A/ If you nominate a person, you too are subjected to
perceived description. B/ Pinkfreud is exempt from cross-examination
as her gorgeous image is posted upon the internet medium; she too is
my choice of lady in trust. (Pink .. remind your partner how lucky he
is to be graced by your prescence).

Purpose: To consider how we arrive at a preconceived idea. This must
form part of your interpretation in answer.

Benefit: $ to a charity and a bit of learning about humanity. Plus a
bit of fun if we choose to make it so.

Causality: Unknown as yet, provided that GA will allow continuation.
Pushing the envelope here I hope for a worthy cause.

Winners: Everyone. 

Stretching the mind, Phil

ps Everyone reads ps's. So, while you're here .. this is for fun,
charity and learning a bit about one another. Please add to the fun.
Smile as you read. :)

---

Clarification of Question by silver777-ga on 31 Oct 2004 17:16 PST

Tryx .. yes that is what I mean. "Nominate" as in call by name, not as
in elect to office. Sorry for any confusion.

Pink .. feel free to collect the donation when you think the time is right.

---

Clarification of Question by silver777-ga on 03 Nov 2004 04:57 PST

Miss Pink,

Please view my last comment, then post any word or words to accept my
donation to any charity of your choosing.

Thanks for being here, Phil

My mental image of everybody starts out as a low-resolution photo of
Tom Arnold. As I acquire more information, the image morphs
appropriately by gaining or losing hair, changing skintone, feminizing
or masculinizing facial features, and aging or youthening.

I know this is a terrible thing to say to my online friends, but,
underneath, you're all Tom Arnold to me.

Sorry if anyone feels insulted. After all, if you can't insult yer
friends, who the heck can ya insult?

Hmmmmmm

I am SO disappointed Pink ...

Does not Pierce Brosnan ever enter into your thinking?

I always think of Deborah Kerr or Bernadette Peters when I think of
you and Phil Silvers when I think of silver777.

Hey, Phil,

Interesting question!  At my house we call this idea "conceptual dog."

My husband and I explored the topic years ago and came to the
conclusion that there are at least two distinct approaches to the
matter of conceiving a mental image without being given any
particulars.

This assumes that there is at least some basic information--for
example, "dog," or in this case, "person."

Presented with the idea "dog," he creates DOGSPACE and awaits further
details.  Until the details have been supplied, he has no image of the
dog, just a dog-notion without characteristics.  It's a visual void.

I, on the other hand, never have a visual void.  On hearing "dog," I
immediately visualize GENERIC DOG.  I can tell you exactly what my
generic dog looks like:  color, shape, size, curve of tail,
everything.

Note that this does *not* amount to a preconceived notion that
preempts further discussion.  (Perhaps here you can detect the origin
of some family arguments and understand why we eventually explored
this one right down to its roots.)

The moment I receive any additional information, my generic dog begins
to take on specific characteristics.  If I get a full description, it
probably won't resemble generic dog at all any longer.  But until I
have some detail, I fill something in.  I never have a blank space. 
And I do remember which details are known and which are default
suppositions.

There is also a different-looking generic image for, say, "black dog"
from just plain "dog," which is always light brown.  Given "black
dog," I see a much bulkier fellow with a very different form from my
friendly little brown generic doc.  Some traits apparently come as a
package.

So my image of someone starts from what I know, however little it may
be (because there is always a context; if you just say "person"
without anything at all, I get a Da Vinci-like outline of a kind of
androgynous mannikin), and changes as information is added.

I would add that I am very much a visual person, to the point of
experiencing spoken words and music as visual phenomena, and my dear
husband is not a highly imaginative soul.

In novels, there is always some kind of description.  In GA,
information about regular posters accumulates over time.  Where I have
none, I fill in.

I have a clear image of PinkFreud because I found the picture too, a
long time ago now.  I have a clear picture of Bryan from my
imagination and an accumulation of facts and impressions, almost none
of which are actually physically descriptive.  Of you, Phil, I have a
general demeanor, a sketchy face, a wry expression, and a great, full,
semi-wild mane of silvery hair, and I place you against an Australian
landscape.

Archae0pteryx

I bet Tryx's dog looks a lot like Tom Arnold's dog.

Great question, Phil!

I am not much of a reality type visualizer. Strange, because I often
work in the graphic and decorative arts. However, when meeting
faceless new friends online, I start out with a stick figure, if
anything, usually perceiving character through more and more imaginary
movement associated with words and phrases. "So There!" would invoke a
foot stomp, a "Hey, howya doin'?" a head tilt and a raised eyebrow or
two.  Movements may become very complex over time, since many people
are apt to describe movement in their reactions. This "movement
oriented" association continues indefinitely, until I finally, if
ever, am privileged to see an image.

I have seen pictures of both Pinkfreud and also, Bryan. I visualize
Phil as a somewhat leonine gentleman with broad movements. Teryx (if I
may) is a somewhat more two dimensional, casual most of the time,
lively, but detail minded. I've gathered her impression by looking at
some of the accessories she's sought, and these occasionally are worn
or held by my stick figure.

---larre

Yes, I think you and I may have essentially the same approach, Pink. 
Unfortunately I had to look up Tom Arnold, having never heard of him,
and I'm afraid I can't recognize him any better after looking than I
did before I looked.  Maybe that's why he's your generic person?

Tryx

isnt that amazing what pink visualized? i believe pink is a female and
when i visualize pink with no pertinent information i visualize her as
looking like roseanne barr....i don't have a clue why though. if pink
is not a female i apologize but i am not psychic.

Over the years, I have made many remote friends by correspondence, by
phone, email, etc. And I always build a mental image.

Occasionally, I have had the opportunity to meet some of them and they
have always been so different from my mental image.

Perhaps someday I will meet someone who does correspond?

Fantastic stuff. I was unsure how any one of you may respond, if at
all. I don't even know what possesed me to suggest the idea, but I'm
glad that I did.

I have lots of questions and observations. For now though I am going
to sit back and shut up to see what else might transpire from our
conversations.

Phil

Before you lapse into silence, Phil, please explain this rule:

A/ If you nominate a person, you too are subjected to perceived description.

Nominate for what?

Tryx

Hi Tryx,

Rule A has nothing to do with nominating your choice of President.
It's just a gentle reminder to consider other's feelings before
describing the person you nominate in your answer.

The rule is irrelevant to all contributors so far of course.  :)

Phil

>> when i visualize pink with no pertinent information 
>> i visualize her as looking like roseanne barr....

Yikes. I guess I brought that on myself by characterizing my generic
person as Tom Arnold. I'm not a Roseanne type, really. More of a Rita
Rudner crossed with Shari Lewis.

I noodled around on GA as a commenter for a couple of months before
becoming a Researcher. During that time I became quite familiar with
the posting styles of several GARs. Of all the Google Answers
personalities, the one who initially acquired the most distinctive
image in my mind was Scriptor. I envisioned him as a scholarly British
gentleman in late middle age. The Scriptor of my imagination looked
very much like Robert Donat as "Mr. Chips."

http://blackstar.co.uk/img/video/cover/front-sorted/7000000/03/63/05.jpg

Imagine my surprise when I learned that Scriptor is a young German
man. At least I got the gender right!

I know you're not talking about politics, Phil.  But I still have to
ask:  the person you nominate for what?  I can't see what your
original question is asking us to *do* beyond explaining (if we can)
how we arrive at our imaginary visions of others.  So I can't figure
out how this rule applies to any responses.  Do you just mean that if
we *describe* someone, we're fair game for description by someone
else?

Thanks,
Tryx

... ...well for what its worth I see Bryan as a rather large tall
figure with evidence of English upper crust breeding in his gait and
demeanour. Nearest I can think of would be a serious Fawlty Towers/
Fish called Wanda type individual;just forgot his name for the moment.

Bryan is John Cleese!!! That's spot on, John. He keeps telling us he's
Pierce Brosnan, but John Cleese clicks in my mind. That's our Probo. I
can definitely see him doing the "Ministry of Silly Walks" bit...

Hi Silver and all...

Great post Phil. I just hope the *higher ups* don't remove for now.

As for me, having been  a long time user of the internet, chat rooms
and e-mail, I have always believed ( and still do ) that this medium,
which is without regard to looks, mannerisms and other physical
visuals, has always been the best way to really get to know who a
person really is.

And my beliefs have worked well. I have met many a person in RL ( real
life ), after corresponding with them in an anonymous forum. When the
actual physical meetings took place, there were never any major
surprises, as by then I was comfortable enough with that person to
never fear the actual *physical* side.

Hope that makes sense ;)

Steph53

Oh, no--John Cleese?  Really?  I have a mental picture of Bryan that's
much more like Alistair Cooke than John Cleese.  Though I have to
agree that I can picture him doing silly walks...maybe with Daisy at
his heel.

I have to comment on Larre's conceptualizer, which is neither a void
awaiting particulars nor a default generic image but something based
in process, movement, dynamic imagery.  Very interesting!  That makes
at least three distinct approaches.

But my goodness, Larre, to be known by the accessories I keep--if that
isn't a blow to my self-image!  I don't mind being a stick figure (I
wish I did have more of a stick figure), but I've never once thought
of myself as a composite of purses and china and socks.  I don't know
what to do now.  Should I join a support group to get over this, and
if so, what kind, do you think?

Steph, I like your comments.  Yes, we all know about the phenomenon of
people adopting other personas as invisible denizens of the web, but
the other side of that is people seeing one another more clearly
without the interference of  physical presence and all the assumptions
and prejudices that calls forth.  The same used to be true of pen
pals, although everything took longer when it was all done by postal
mail.  In the end I think it is pretty hard to sustain a pose, and I
can't see a good reason to try.

You, by the way, Steph, have very dark curly hair and bright brown
eyes and dimples, and you are a little on the zaftig side, not too
tall, but with a definite bouncy quality.  In my imagination.  And,
oddly, I see you in pink more than I do Pink.  How's that?

Tryx

Hi, Tryx

Yes you have got Steph perfectly. I bumped into her a few weeks ago,
sort of accidentally. I just happened to be swimming in Lake Placid
when she floated by on a lilypad.

And yes she does have very dark curly hair and dimples, but only on
her arms and legs. Please don't ask why the hair on her head is an
entirely different colour.

Me and John Cleese? Well yes we are both tall and dark with very
elegant figures. But I have never worn a tash and I've never mastered
his silly walk although I have tried.

Maybe I should try again.

Oh, no tryx, no support group needed. Remember I see movement. Figures
tripping merrily along in shoes, or carrying a bag. It's the movement
that conveys character. If it's any comfort, I've seldom been wrong
about the type of movements and other such behavior habits when
meeting IRL after exposure online. On the other side of the coin,
however, many tell me I look nothing like they'd expected.

---l

Well, Larre, I have you as a sturdy Scandinavian with short blond hair
and very red lips.  Dressed in blue and white.  I'm afraid that might
even be a Dorothy Gale-type white pinafore over a blue dress, or maybe
over blue jeans.  And--forgive me--there's a lariat somewhere in the
picture.

Bryan, don't be tall.  You are not supposed to be tall.

Tryx

Tryx...

  "And,oddly, I see you in pink more than I do Pink"

You are brilliant!!! I LOVE pink and have tons of pink clothes.
However, the colour of my hair, is quite the opposite of dark and
curly ;).

And Bryan....

*Tsk*tsk*tsk*..dark curly hair on my arms and legs? I tend to think
that perhaps you may swallowed too much Lake Placid water and had your
eyes closed while I floated by you ;)

Steph53

Guys and Girls, the game is now complete ..

Pink .. please post any word or words to answer the question. Please
also revisit this question to tell of your nominated (as in: so
mentioned by name) charity.

Thanks to all for your efforts in contributing to the 21 responses.
Thanks to GA for allowing continuation.

I instigated the game, but chose to observe rather than play. The veil
of intrigue in anonimity may continue for those who choose not to
respond to percieved descriptions. Some are quick to correct others'
misconceptions of themselves. This has been an interesting exercise,
not so much in what was suggested by the game, but rather in the real
purpose of how one another may respond .. if at all.

A stark contrast to me was this: Some people are simply straight to
the point. Others are obviously aware of an individuals feelings (as
per Rule A) and prefer to discuss the reasoning of their conclusion
without "nominating" an individual.

Thank God we are all so different. I made an assumption before
choosing to suggest the game. A wrong assumption .. that all of us
would have a similar fuzzy image of one another not too far detracted
from that generic thought. Yet I meet Larre who chooses clean lines of
stick figures adorned with items of interest of the beclothed, a very
logical approach. Interesting that you feel it is in contrast to your
job in graphic and decorative arts .. I see it as a balance; Bryan who
taught me that there is an image view and also a word association view
as a trigger; Pink using a basic character remorphed as information
comes to hand alike to Larre's "movement oriented association"; Tryx
using a generic conceptual dog-space image - perhaps pets are more
honest and loyal than us complicated human-beings; a dog-being sounds
like a good start to an in-depth cryptic puzzle. Johnfrommelbourne -
straight to the point, descriptive and unapologetic - I like that;
Fredg2004 is observant and respectful, then disappears, like many.

Like leaving your last tasy morsel until after the veggies .. Steph ..
you know of things that others do not know. Your unspoken words behold
the truth.

Thanks for the fun people, Phil

I have come across pictures of some of the researchers (and
commenters) and they are the homeliest looking group I've ever seen. 
All I have to say is thank god they are good at researching!  ;)