Making a Fuss about Descriptions

I prefer liquid descriptions rather than solid ones. Liquid descriptions capture and quantate a character within well-defined time frames. Such a description does not highlight specific incidents and churn out a gist of the subject's personality based on inferences drawn only and only from the highlights. It does not punctuate the stagnant or the radical components of one's nature, and neither does it merge the two to expound an ulterior motive. It's merely an as-is reproduction of the subjects malleable personality, from the commencement of observation, to its end. Note that by malleable personality, I only mean to imply that character is prone to change (in the subject's environment). The morphing of character is probable, but it's not writ in stone. A weather forecast for rain does not make it rain, but merely announces the possibility of a downpour.

I'm no theologian, but it's my observation that the living cannot be explained in terms of solid and consistent.  liquidity is the intrinsic property of life. Think about it. Every living thing is more or less fluid. If not manifest macroscopically , the fluidity is on a microscopic level, hidden from the naked eye. "The Juice of Life", to put it more colloquially. To ignore this underlying property when enunciating someone's personality, is perhaps a fallacy.

(inspired by Malcolm Gladwell, on the Fundamental Attribution Error, from his book, "The Tipping Point.")