Are Soul gazes inherently subjective?

[SerScot]

I was think ming about how Harry mentioned that every Wizard perceives Soul Gazes differently.  Some as pure sound… others as visions… Then it occurred to me how differently people react to being Soul Gazed by Harry and perceiving his soul in return.  Molly was already crushing on Harry and her crush only deepened.  Rudolph’s partner is terrified by Harry and tells him to stay the hell away from him.  Marcone sees Harry as someone dangerous but useful to him.

Are soulgazes inherently subjective based upon what the person being gazed brings to the interaction?

[Conspiracy Theorist]

And Susan fell into a faint.

[Arjan]

Of course they are subjective. That does not meat it is false.

[Mira]

Of course they are subjective. That does not meat it is false.

Exactly, it is how the gazer interprets them that is important.  An experienced soul gazer understands that what is seen is truth, but that truth is complicated.  Take what Harry saw in Molly, at sixteen looking into her was like looking into a kaleidoscope, so many futures were before her both the dark and the light, all were true aspects of her personality, but none dominated yet.  That is why he felt that she could still be pulled back. 

[SerScot]

Of course they are subjective. That does not meat it is false.

Yes, but given the inherent subjectivity… how much good hard objective data really comes from a “soulgaze”?

[Arjan]

Yes, but given the inherent subjectivity… how much good hard objective data really comes from a “soulgaze”?

Nothing that can be measured, published and gets you a Phd in science😊

[Mira]

Yes, but given the inherent subjectivity… how much good hard objective data really comes from a “soulgaze”?

Apparently a lot as far as the White Council is concerned.. Let's not forget that a Warden is required to do a soul gaze on a defendant, then give testimony about what he or she saw in a trail that could cost the defendant his or her head.  Also the Merlin, in Proven Guilty told Harry that he, himself soul gazed the Korean Kid and that he was not redeemable, thus deserved the chop. 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

But then you need to depend upon the veracity of the Warden, fine if it’s Carlos, but Justin DuMorne was a Warden, how many people did he ‘clear’ how many did he ‘damn’ and did he clear some he knew were guilty, and damn some he knew were innocent.

Basically unless a soul gaze can be recorded and played back to third parties they are worthless. You can only check on the veracity of the person reporting on the soulgaze by soulgazing them, but then are you telling the truth ?

Frankly the best objective determinator now is the Sword of Faith it can’t harm the innocent and is capable of rendering different judgements on individuals depending on the circumstances of the case, and you can video what it does.

[Arjan]

Apparently a lot as far as the White Council is concerned.. Let's not forget that a Warden is required to do a soul gaze on a defendant, then give testimony about what he or she saw in a trail that could cost the defendant his or her head.  Also the Merlin, in Proven Guilty told Harry that he, himself soul gazed the Korean Kid and that he was not redeemable, thus deserved the chop.

But that is double subjectivity. First there is the soul gaze itself and then there is the merlin communicating it. Maybe the Korean boy could have been saved.

[Mira]

But that is double subjectivity. First there is the soul gaze itself and then there is the merlin communicating it. Maybe the Korean boy could have been saved.

 Perhaps, that is an interesting scene because the Merlin is trying to assure Harry that the kid was unredeemable,  but at the same time expressing with extreme prejudice, that the answer for most of the kids that begin down that road is the chop.

[RobReece]

Even discounting the subjectivity, they're not precise or all encompassing.  Eb even says in TC,

but there it is.  I reckon you 'gazed him, Hoss, but it ain't a lie detector.  You know that too.

[Mira]

but there it is.  I reckon you 'gazed him, Hoss, but it ain't a lie detector.  You know that too.,

  But that is a more complicated answer than it appears to be.  So while a soul gaze isn't a lie detector, it might be able to reveal that the person being gazed is the type of person who is prone to lying.  I also think that to be an accurate soul gazer takes a lot of experience because there is a lot of nuance to it.

An experienced subject is also able to hide a lot of facts about his or herself, especially if the person doing the gazing is totally inexperienced at it.  Best example is Eb and Harry, Eb seemed to know exactly what sixteen year old Harry was about, but sixteen year old Harry saw nothing as far as Eb being his grandfather, or that Eb was the White Council's hit man.

[seanham]

Best example is Eb and Harry, Eb seemed to know exactly what sixteen year old Harry was about, but sixteen year old Harry saw nothing as far as Eb being his grandfather, or that Eb was the White Council's hit man.

Eb would have taken charge of Harry no matter what the soul gaze showed. As for what Harry saw, I would say that Eb's identity/being is not in being a grandfather nor is it being a hitman. I would guess it's similar to Rawlins in being strong, steady, and protective. 

[Mira]

Eb would have taken charge of Harry no matter what the soul gaze showed. As for what Harry saw, I would say that Eb's identity/being is not in being a grandfather nor is it being a hitman. I would guess it's similar to Rawlins in being strong, steady, and protective.

Or it did, but sixteen year old Harry really didn't know what he was seeing.  Nor did Molly at the time of her soul gaze with Harry, he saw all her possible futures, while what she saw made her want to have a sexual relationship because she saw his loneliness. She never saw the the ice water coming for her head to put end to that notion.

[g33k]

Yes, but given the inherent subjectivity… how much good hard objective data really comes from a “soulgaze”?

Very very little "hard objective" data... like, is this person a Whampire, or not?  Yeah, you can get that as objective data (and such data can be important (e.g. may have saved Ramirez's life)).

But don't discount the idea that you can still get a very great deal of very "good hard objective data" from a 'gaze!

Repeating elements of the Dresden Files include that the "facts" (the "hard data") don't always tell the whole story; and that "objectivity" is more often a fools' errand than not.

... Basically unless a soul gaze can be recorded and played back to third parties they are worthless ...

  I think the White Council relies (much!) too heavily on the results of a Soulgaze.  But I think calling them "worthless" is even further off-base.  They are the single most penetrating way to look into who a person is, down deep.  And AFAIK we see no signs that a 'gaze can be substantively defeated, or defended-against (other than refusing to engage).

But then you need to depend upon the veracity of the Warden, fine if it’s Carlos, but Justin DuMorne was a Warden, how many people did he ‘clear’ how many did he ‘damn’ and did he clear some he knew were guilty, and damn some he knew were innocent...

I seem to remember (unless I mis-remember?) that Warden SOP is to get at least 3 'gazes on someone who's on trial.  That right there would go a long way toward circumventing any DuMornes who would subvert the system that way (if I am misremembering, then clearly they should do it!):  if the Warden corps are so corrupt that 3 random individual Wardens can reliably be presumed to deliver any pre-determined testimony you want, then it's game-over and the Bad Guys have already won.