I'd say jackety thing and shortish hair imply boy, but what do I know? If I'm right about that bit, the child her/himself will no doubt turn out to be entirely inauthentic, some sort of holographic or robotic simulacrum. :)
I agree with Steve, but I also think that there is a clue in the face, which seems to have a rather serious expression. Isn't it that female humans are less serious than males? For instance, see the way that the author of this post regards the post of her fellow blogger.
Alastair: In our household we call that "making up a theory based on no evidence". Indeed there is an easy counter-example: 3 days ago James wrote a very funny post (I thought so anyway).
Yes of course it's a boy! Obviously! Everyone knows that girls can't fly!
I presented the evidence of the conflicting style of your and James's posts, so it is grossly unfair to say my theory "is based on no evidence". You provided a counter example, but in non-linear dynamical systems such as human behavior and facial expressions, then counter examples do not disprove a theory.
For instance it is widely accepted that men can run faster than women. That is why men and women have separate events in the Olympics. But the fact that I cannot run faster than Paula Radcliffe does not disprove that law.
I have plenty more personal experience to support my theory that men are less light hearted than women, which would explain the po-faced look on that boy. But I am falling into the trap of taking this all far too seriously. Perhaps that is because I am a male :-)
5 comments:
I'd say jackety thing and shortish hair imply boy, but what do I know? If I'm right about that bit, the child her/himself will no doubt turn out to be entirely inauthentic, some sort of holographic or robotic simulacrum. :)
I agree with Steve, but I also think that there is a clue in the face, which seems to have a rather serious expression. Isn't it that female humans are less serious than males? For instance, see the way that the author of this post regards the post of her fellow blogger.
Alastair: In our household we call that "making up a theory based on no evidence". Indeed there is an easy counter-example: 3 days ago James wrote a very funny post (I thought so anyway).
Yes of course it's a boy! Obviously! Everyone knows that girls can't fly!
Jules,
Argggh, I forgot the smiley :-(
I presented the evidence of the conflicting style of your and James's posts, so it is grossly unfair to say my theory "is based on no evidence". You provided a counter example, but in non-linear dynamical systems such as human behavior and facial expressions, then counter examples do not disprove a theory.
For instance it is widely accepted that men can run faster than women. That is why men and women have separate events in the Olympics. But the fact that I cannot run faster than Paula Radcliffe does not disprove that law.
I have plenty more personal experience to support my theory that men are less light hearted than women, which would explain the po-faced look on that boy.
But I am falling into the trap of taking this all far too seriously. Perhaps that is because I am a male :-)
Yes, I joke weekly (weakly) to jules, and she is polite enough to laugh, so long as I give her advance notice...
The boy is blue with a bold scene. The girl was pink with flowers. This is Japan - that's about as complicated as it gets.
Post a Comment