Now redo the study, but IRL and with actual status clothes == high quality materials, perfect fit, nice flashy style (that means zero logos!). I made this experiment: I have few really cheap suits (looking OK but that's it) and few very expensive suits. When I wear the cheap ones, people are normal with me. When I wear the expensive ones, people wearing normal clothes don't notice and people "in the know" (wearing ex…
Wearing flashy/status clothes makes people less likely to cooperate with you
211–220 of 287 posts
Re: Wearing flashy/status clothes makes people less likely to cooperate with you
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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).
We did eventually get a much-newer sequel to The Official Preppy Handbook, at least—but it's entirely horrible.
Re: Wearing flashy/status clothes makes people less likely to cooperate with you
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, they absolutely "get it." People quickly learn to dress for the occasion. When you go to a nephew's birthday party or something, you don't want to clue strangers in, so you take the Toyota and wear plain clothing. It's like a shibboleth, people who know what a $250 plain shirt looks like will get it, while everyone else is clueless.
Mmm, I'm not convinced. Generally speaking I think wealthy, business and even "custom-savvy" people - if you want to go that far - have enough business sense to realise paying $250 for a plain white shirt doesn't make any sense...
Re: Wearing flashy/status clothes makes people less likely to cooperate with you
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're owned by Tata Motors now, the manufacturer of the Tata Nano, the world's cheapest car.
So, does that make JLR low status?
All these vehicles cost in the same ballpark (or at least have large overlapping ranges) so roughly all the same people have access to them. It's not about status. It's about tribe signaling.
Re: Wearing flashy/status clothes makes people less likely to cooperate with you
#215Now redo the study, but IRL and with actual status clothes == high quality materials, perfect fit, nice flashy style (that means zero logos!). I made this experiment: I have few really cheap suits (looking OK but that's it) and few very expensive suits. When I wear the cheap ones, people are normal with me. When I wear the expensive ones, people wearing normal clothes don't notice and people "in the know" (wearing ex…
Wealthy people are 1% of the population. If only wealthy people like you more when you wear flashy clothes, it says almost nothing about whether people in general like you more. If you wear a purple suit and an ostrich feather in your hat, pimps will like you more.
Re: Wearing flashy/status clothes makes people less likely to cooperate with you
#216Now redo the study, but IRL and with actual status clothes == high quality materials, perfect fit, nice flashy style (that means zero logos!). I made this experiment: I have few really cheap suits (looking OK but that's it) and few very expensive suits. When I wear the cheap ones, people are normal with me. When I wear the expensive ones, people wearing normal clothes don't notice and people "in the know" (wearing ex…
Torontonian here, there's a market for brands like LV/Hermes and others to basically splatter their full logo across the articles of clothing/accessories. People do buy this stuff. You know who. I'm sure it exists in other countries. It strikes me the same as you - it looks ridiculous and in my eyes devalues the brand that they would go to the degree to produce something so gauche. But, here we are. Maybe we're just…
I mean, another commenter said this class of buyers is class-anxious and class-confused. That seems absolutely true to me - these people can't actually afford this stuff. The actually rich people I know don't have golden credit cards (they have the levels above and never show it) and don't drive expensive cars (most have no cars nowadays, on-demand rent is better).
Re: Wearing flashy/status clothes makes people less likely to cooperate with you
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, they absolutely "get it." People quickly learn to dress for the occasion. When you go to a nephew's birthday party or something, you don't want to clue strangers in, so you take the Toyota and wear plain clothing. It's like a shibboleth, people who know what a $250 plain shirt looks like will get it, while everyone else is clueless.
Mmm, I'm not convinced. Generally speaking I think wealthy, business and even "custom-savvy" people - if you want to go that far - have enough business sense to realise paying $250 for a plain white shirt doesn't make any sense...
Re: Wearing flashy/status clothes makes people less likely to cooperate with you
#218I refuse to wear or display any corporate logo, even if I generally like the company or its products. I buy unbranded clothing. When I can't get something unbranded (like a decent parka), I remove or obliterate the logo. I covered the apple on my phone and computer with electrical tape, even though I've been a Mac user for nearly 30 years. I am not a billboard. I reject status and status seeking behavior. I refuse to…
I have a blockbuster video t-shirt that gets lots of laughs. Are we allowed to advertise already bankrupt businesses?
The most prized t-shirt category is vintage. As shown earlier, white people need authenticity like they need oxygen and to have an original vintage t-shirt from the 1970s or 1980s is a very powerful social status symbol. The ideal shirt will have a funny logo, a year attached to it, and will be as thin as rice paper. In the event that two white people have shirts that meet this criteria, the superior ranking is given to the person who paid the least for the shirt. Acquiring a shirt at a vintage clothing store is seen as less respectable than sorting through racks at the Goodwill.
The second category of t-shirt is new and there really are only two options. The first is American Apparel, a company that constantly reminds you it is based in downtown Los Angeles. They are considered an acceptable white company since they produce things that are very simple, but also very expensive. The second acceptable new shirt is Threadless. This Chicago-based company produces artistic and funny t-shirts that are acceptable for concerts, Whole Foods and 80s night. White people like these shirts so much because they are designed by white people, for white people. Sort of like a white FUBU.
Finally, and perhaps the most important to be aware of, is the unacceptable category of t-shirts. There are a few simple rules to follow in order to avoid wearing the wrong t-shirt. First, if it’s made of a stiff, thick cotton, throw it in the garbage immediately. White people t-shirts must be made of the softest, finest organic cotton. This is law. Unless it is vintage, the shirt cannot be made in a foreign country (unless you can certify its labor conditions). The shirt cannot contain a current sports logo. Shirts with sports logos are acceptable, but they must contain a logo that hasn’t been used in 15 years. Last and not least, it cannot be baggy. Your t-shirt must be tight-fitting for both style and mating purposes.
Re: Wearing flashy/status clothes makes people less likely to cooperate with you
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, they absolutely "get it." People quickly learn to dress for the occasion. When you go to a nephew's birthday party or something, you don't want to clue strangers in, so you take the Toyota and wear plain clothing. It's like a shibboleth, people who know what a $250 plain shirt looks like will get it, while everyone else is clueless.
Mmm, I'm not convinced. Generally speaking I think wealthy, business and even "custom-savvy" people - if you want to go that far - have enough business sense to realise paying $250 for a plain white shirt doesn't make any sense...
With that said, not all wealthy people do it.
Re: Wearing flashy/status clothes makes people less likely to cooperate with you
#220Earlier 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.
Then people a notch down from even that level of cluefulness caught on. Land Rover started making cars to cater to that market, which only cared about Land Rover because "it's a rich-people brand" but had no idea how they'd gotten that way, and just wanted a suburban SUV with Land Rover branding. I assume Land Rovers, at least newer ones, are now considered a bit embarrassing for at least the second group (the first wave of imitators).