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

The Year of Dressing Formally (2008)

chronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 118 posts

Re: The Year of Dressing Formally (2008)

#61

Post by jamesaguilar »

echohack wrote: post #58

> But I found that a higher level of formality improved my students' learning. My larger classes ran more smoothly. This is the crux of the article, and he provides no proof to back it up. The article says that this is an "experiment", but how did the professor log his activities? How did he measure the change in his student's perception? How did he isolate the variables of his own bias vs. the impact of new clothes…

You are aware that words have various meanings, right? This guy is not talking about an experiment in the formal, scientific sense of the word. Also, you are incorrect about whether this is the crux of the article. As you can clearly see from how much time is spent on each part, this is merely a happy side effect to what was a personal development for him.

> My personal opinion is that fashion is a gigantic waste of time. In any and all venues.

I'm not sure what you mean by waste of time. Do you mean it in the sense of, "Not something I would prefer to do?" Or do you mean it in the sense of, "Ineffective for all purposes?" One of these two meanings is demonstrably false.

> While I'm not a fan, Steve Jobs had a great outlook on this, and is well known by his jeans-and-turtleneck look.

I think Ryan Gosling's character in Crazy, Stupid, Love had a great outlook on Steve Jobs' outlook on fashion. "Hold on, are you the billionaire owner of Apple Computer? No? Then you've got no right to wear New Balance sneakers, ever." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZwjcpEEkPs

Re: The Year of Dressing Formally (2008)

#62

Post by derleth »

vkou wrote: post #13
[deleted] wrote: post #2

[deleted]

Even if he were a public employee, I'm not sure how you that you have any right to complain about what he spends his salary on.

Because it is taken as axiomatic in some strains of Conservatism (Reactionary, really, but they're pleased to refer to themselves as 'Conservative') that spending tax money on anything other than the military, the police, and the privately-owned jails is unconstitutional. Because having another tax-paid F-22 is not Socialism, somehow.

Re: The Year of Dressing Formally (2008)

#63

Post by guard-of-terra »

benihana wrote: post #60
guard-of-terra wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how I'm a tiny minority. In my life I bang on keys all the day long, and keys don't care what I wear. What could change?

here's why: http://putthison.com/post/49277992157/professionalism-severa... The undertaker at the pet cemetery only buries dead animals, why would they care what he wears? The answer is because other people exist.

People who bury dead animals interact with owners of that animals; I only interact with colleagues and I can't imagine them caring what I wear.

Re: The Year of Dressing Formally (2008)

#64

Post by UVB-76 »

orangethirty wrote: post #40
13b9f227ecf0 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I mostly do it because I'm lazy. You do realize that's exactly the impression your habit conveys, right?

Yes. But I'm the good kind of lazy. I choose to spend my time working on solutions to big problems, rather than working on what shirt to wear tomorrow. I do use different brands with different cuts and styles. Mostly because I grab whatever is available at the store. I also only use name brands, because the last twice as long. It's also a sort of camouflage. I blend in very easily. I like that.

> I choose to spend my time working on solutions to big problems, rather than working on what shirt to wear tomorrow.

It worries me that so many hackers use the delusion of "solving big problems" to justify their often self-destructive lifestyles.

Re: The Year of Dressing Formally (2008)

#65

Post by mindcrime »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #57
mindcrime wrote: post #15

FWIW, wearing a suit (in the modern "business suit" sense of term) isn't technically "formal" dress. Heck, it isn't even semi-formal. Semi-formal would be a tuxedo (for men), and formal wear would be "morning dress" or "white tie".[1] "Business suits" fall into the category of "lounge suit" which is considered informal dress.[2] [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_wear [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lounge_su…

In the US, black tie is the highest level of formality that most people are ever likely to encounter. This requires a tuxedo (or, on the more casual level of black tie, an all black suit, white shirt, and black tie). Nothing is "technically" formal, since there is no defining body that lays down the specification of the word with the authority to enforce that specification. Like most non-technical language, it is a t…

I still want one of those tail-coats though.. and an opera scarf. Just because they look awesome. :-)

Re: The Year of Dressing Formally (2008)

#66

Post by jamesaguilar »

mindcrime wrote: post #65
jamesaguilar wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, black tie is the highest level of formality that most people are ever likely to encounter. This requires a tuxedo (or, on the more casual level of black tie, an all black suit, white shirt, and black tie). Nothing is "technically" formal, since there is no defining body that lays down the specification of the word with the authority to enforce that specification. Like most non-technical language, it is a t…

I still want one of those tail-coats though.. and an opera scarf. Just because they look awesome. :-)

I would never discourage you from such a pursuit. I would also love to see someone pull off a full cloak and mantle outside of Game of Thrones. I doubt I will live to see that day, but it would be incredible.

Re: The Year of Dressing Formally (2008)

#67

Post by bcbrown »

The article reminded me of a quote by Heinlein I recently came across:

'Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid excessive wear. Honorifics and formal politeness provide lubrication where people rub together. Often the very young, the untraveled, the naïve, the unsophisticated deplore these formalities as "empty," "meaningless," or "dishonest," and scorn to use them. No matter how "pure" their motives, they thereby throw sand into machinery that does not work too well at best.'

Re: The Year of Dressing Formally (2008)

#68

Post by sliverstorm »

keiferski wrote: post #49

I find it amusing how people want beautiful architecture, good weather, nice greenery, and so on, but don't make the next step and want people (including themselves) to dress better. Clothes are just another facet of visual culture. That's how you get tourists with sweatpants and fanny packs outside the Florence Duomo.

Personally I suspect the disconnect centers around utility. Beautiful architecture can be beautifully functional too. Good weather is pretty, and also comfortable. Greenery is pretty, and cleans the air.

Semi-formal and formal wear are practically the antithesis of functional and comfortable.

Personally, I have been making an effort to dress up a step or two, but I have to balance this against carrying more changes of clothes for my various activities outside of work.

Re: The Year of Dressing Formally (2008)

#70

Post by anchorsteam »

keiferski wrote: post #49

I find it amusing how people want beautiful architecture, good weather, nice greenery, and so on, but don't make the next step and want people (including themselves) to dress better. Clothes are just another facet of visual culture. That's how you get tourists with sweatpants and fanny packs outside the Florence Duomo.

Americans might think it superficial or an infringement of individuality to criticise dress, but in other parts of the world the concern is for others. Putting oneself together is respectful.
Post reply on HN