Never judge a book by it's cover

To begin the discourse I would like to bring in a little bit of context for the topic. Definitions: [1] Nev - er [ADV] - At no time in the past or future; on no occasion; not ever: [2] [The idiom under which this discussion takes place. ] Don't [Do not] Judge a Book by it's Cover [Idiom] - Don't judge a book by its cover means not to judge people or things by what they look like from the outside. People shouldn't be judged by how they look but be judged by their actions. With this in mind, let the audience be aware that in order for Pro to win this discourse, the condition [1] Never must be true, in the sense that someone or something can never be judged by it's appearance. For the inferred intentions of Pro, the criteria will be limited to people, or individuals, rather than objects or organisms. I hate to operate on such stringent parameters, so I will be attempting to demonstrate, that, according to modern psychology and statistics, on a broader scale one can in fact 'judge a book by it's cover'. First impressions are a fundamental component of human interactions, and many, including myself, believe that an individual's appearance is a metaphorical window into someone's inner traits. The manner in which someone conveys themselves is almost universally indicative of personal desires, perceptions, and personality. This could be through physical appearance or the atmosphere around said individual. According to a study conducted by a team at the University of Colorado, it was deemed that appearances indeed could be accurately assessed for a variety of things, such as intelligence and basic personality traits. While this may not be to the degree of exact details, it still disproves the notion that is the topic. The team used a testing group of 1600 hundred subjects, [All of which were twins] easily large enough to account for a variety of distinct personality traits and intelligences. Relevant data about IQ and predispositions was retrieved from a variety of databases, such as QIMR and LTS [Twin Data Sets. SAT and other relevant scores were obtained as well. Another set of randomly selected raters was used to 'judge' composite photographs of the twins. In a set of 15 second exposures, the raters were asked to 'judge' a variety of qualities from only the subjects faces [Personally I think this cut out some relevant data. .. ]. The result? The 'raters' [For lack of a better word] were surprisingly accurate when pairing the individuals to general descriptions of intelligence and personality, be it extroversion vs introversion, or depression. The fact is, people convey themselves in ways that are proportional to their inner character. Extroversion is indicated by a tendency to be well groomed or a substantial use of cosmetics, while the opposite is true for introversion. When asked on how they inferred intelligence, raters called into aspect a variety of traits, be it hygiene, facial expression, or personal effects. Also, socio economic standings and neuroticism were accurately assessed as well. Keep in mind, this was all gathered from 15 second exposures. What would be the outcome of longer periods of study and observation? Or if the 'raters' were allowed to view the entire individual, to assess clothing and physique? This study, and a variety of others in the field of psychology, are showing that perhaps there is more to appearances than first imagined. .. Sources: [1] . https://scholar.colorado.edu... [2] . https://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] . https://dictionary.cambridge.org...