Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wearing flashy/status clothes makes people less likely to cooperate with you

digest.bps.org.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 287 posts

Re: Wearing flashy/status clothes makes people less likely to cooperate with you

#181

Post by Gys »

detritus wrote: post #77
brookside wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would buy clothes with no distinctive marks if I could find them. Uniqlo

I've worn a 'uniform' based around Uniqlo's long sleeved tees for about 15 years now and I've noticed the quality drop off remarkably over the past few years. A shirt will barely last a few months now, whilst I still occasionally wear a [much be-holed] first generation from way back when and it's kept its size, shape and still feels soft. New ones shrink and feel crunchy after a few washes. Oh, and they're about twic…

Many comments here praise Uniqlo and for years I also bought all 'my uniform', my short sleeve shirts there (guess I live in a warmer climate). But now I got the same feeling as you have. The shirts that I bought a few weeks ago are really different and I finally decided I need to find an alternative.

Re: Wearing flashy/status clothes makes people less likely to cooperate with you

#182

Post by LordDragonfang »

wyager wrote: post #170
Aeolun wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m of the opinion that truly good clothes do not need to sport a logo at all. Unless you can see/feel the quality, why pay a premium just to show people you spent 500% more on your shirt?

Logos are for people who are insecure about status. Next level up involves partial counter-signaling by avoiding logos entirely. There are many layers of status displays. I think SSC's analysis of fashion as cellular automata is the most coherent writing on this.

>SSC's analysis of fashion as cellular automata is the most coherent writing on this

For those unfamiliar, it's the top part of this post: (note the year in the url if you choose to continue to part where it actually discusses politics)

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/22/right-is-the-new-left/

I was also thinking about Scott's review of Fussell On Class, which is similarly insightful

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-fussell-on...

Re: Wearing flashy/status clothes makes people less likely to cooperate with you

#183

Post by rr888 »

dylan604 wrote: post #44
IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for sneakers, I can't think of a single category of clothing where it is common to have visible logos?

What? All of those branded T-shirts, hoodies/jumpers, blue jeans that have logos embroidered, printed, stitched on to them doesn't ring a bell? All of the sports people do it. Nike swoosh. Adidas symbol. Kappa's posed back-to-back figures, etc. Abecrombie & Fitch's giant A&F on every thing. Ball caps with logos. None of this sounds vaguely familiar?

> Nike swoosh. Adidas symbol. Kappa's posed back-to-back figures, etc. Abecrombie & Fitch's giant A&F on every thing. Ball caps with logos. None of this sounds vaguely familiar?

That is expensive trash, not fashion. If I go to a nice restaurant in a big city, people aren't wearing that crap.

Re: Wearing flashy/status clothes makes people less likely to cooperate with you

#184

Post by corrral »

dijit wrote: post #60
r12343a_19 wrote: post #10

I was having this talk the other day: I hate "high end" logo clothes and don't want to compete with people that showcase their logo clothes. The average clothing store is decent enough for me. I would buy clothes with no distinctive marks if I could find them. Just plain material and colors.

Ironically: the gaudy heavily branded clothing of a brand's clothing line is usually the cheapest. The understated stuff is usually much more expensive. I think Vercace is the only brand I know of that's the opposite.

The prominent-luxury-logo-branded stuff is marketed to Fussell's Middle—his class defined by being the most class-anxious and also the most class-confused, so always aiming to elevate themselves, then fucking it up. Like, by falling for this kind of marketing, so failing to signal the way they intended, and instead placing themselves firmly and obviously outside the group they're trying to imitate.

Re: Wearing flashy/status clothes makes people less likely to cooperate with you

#185

Post by petre »

dewey wrote: post #169
daniel-cussen wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mmm...yes it was an expensive car brand, but it is a common car in Africa because it's just so reliable, very rugged and also easy to repair. And it's not that expensive.

I don't really get that comparison. The current day Land Rover / Range Rovers are very different from "very rugged and easy to repair" ones of the past as they are basically SUVs now. This might have been true for the Defender but not any more.

They're owned by Tata Motors now, the manufacturer of the Tata Nano, the world's cheapest car.

Re: Wearing flashy/status clothes makes people less likely to cooperate with you

#186

Post by mmmpop »

gkop wrote: post #136
mmmpop wrote: post #83

What or who defines "status clothes"? Is it the little Lacoste alligator that sets people off? "How dare they spend $100 on a shirt just to piss me off!" I don't care much for your plain t-shirt with a fuck all Patagonia logo on the chest, but if I decided to not cooperate with that person, I'd have been out of a job by now.

Hey now! Patagonia ish is comfy af. (Just sayin. I upvoted you for your candor)

OH I'm projecting, I own an embarrassing amount of Patagonia clothing because it's really great.

Re: Wearing flashy/status clothes makes people less likely to cooperate with you

#187

Post by deebosong »

detritus wrote: post #77
brookside wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would buy clothes with no distinctive marks if I could find them. Uniqlo

I've worn a 'uniform' based around Uniqlo's long sleeved tees for about 15 years now and I've noticed the quality drop off remarkably over the past few years. A shirt will barely last a few months now, whilst I still occasionally wear a [much be-holed] first generation from way back when and it's kept its size, shape and still feels soft. New ones shrink and feel crunchy after a few washes. Oh, and they're about twic…

one more drop in the uniqlo bucket.

i liked the free hemming on their jeans. and overall one-stop-shop for basics.

but jeans and shorts wouldn't last for a year in the seams. Even their pockets and buttons above the zippers would fail.

i haven't had that happen with other brands.

without making it a conscious choice, i just drifted towards other similar brands after consistently experiencing the quality of their materials.

Re: Wearing flashy/status clothes makes people less likely to cooperate with you

#188

Post by kens »

LordDragonfang wrote: post #182
wyager wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Logos are for people who are insecure about status. Next level up involves partial counter-signaling by avoiding logos entirely. There are many layers of status displays. I think SSC's analysis of fashion as cellular automata is the most coherent writing on this.

>SSC's analysis of fashion as cellular automata is the most coherent writing on this For those unfamiliar, it's the top part of this post: (note the year in the url if you choose to continue to part where it actually discusses politics) https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/22/right-is-the-new-left/ I was also thinking about Scott's review of Fussell On Class, which is similarly insightful https://astralcodexten.substac…

The book On Class is pretty old now, but it's one of my favorite books for its insights. I recommend reading it (and not just the review).

Re: Wearing flashy/status clothes makes people less likely to cooperate with you

#189

Post by Agamus »

wyager wrote: post #170
Aeolun wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m of the opinion that truly good clothes do not need to sport a logo at all. Unless you can see/feel the quality, why pay a premium just to show people you spent 500% more on your shirt?

Logos are for people who are insecure about status. Next level up involves partial counter-signaling by avoiding logos entirely. There are many layers of status displays. I think SSC's analysis of fashion as cellular automata is the most coherent writing on this.

Agreed, though there is probably more to it.

I stopped wearing clothing with logos when I was 19, because I didn't want to impose on people. Still love my Red Sox hat though.

Re: Wearing flashy/status clothes makes people less likely to cooperate with you

#190

Post by deebosong »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #96
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A significant portion of fashion is wearing fashion logos.

And fashion has supplanted function. Anecdata from just last week... My partner wanted some new running trainers. She went to a popular high-street store here in the UK called JD Sports and said to the assistant "I'm looking for some new running shoes". In a bizarre fit of honesty the lady said: "Sorry we don't really do running gear here, we sell more fashion items." I'm sure her manager would have been appalled to…

there was some article from New Yorker or NYTimes – with a quick google search I can't seem to find it at the moment.

but the thesis was basically: sports wear has often influenced mainstream fashion since even like 100 years ago.

but in each generation, people find it initially shocking to see so many people wearing what is marketed and made for sportswear for leisure, or even seeing it spill into the workplace. i think the article was focusing on leggings when they started creeping into non-sports-related settings.

one of the craziest counter-examples i've seen, from the anecdote you share about your partner, was when i saw a man dressed to the nines in a really sharp/ smart business suit, looking like he had a great haircut. but for his kicks, he was rocking Nike Vaporfly 2's, which are known to only have so much life in their foam specialized for distance racing. i personally didn't think it looked at all aesthetically pleasing, but because they were relatively expensive for running shoes, i'm guessing that the man decided to pair them with his high fashion look.

Post reply on HN