It is difficult to explain why clothes (or vehicles) with slogans printed on them are bad for you.
On many occasions “difficult to explain” turns out to be a hint for “not actually true”.
the vast majority of people you see outside are not wearing clothes with witticisms
Indeed. The vast majority are wearing clothes bearing advertisement for various brands. I would think twice before concluding that they have decided that is beneficial.
On many occasions “difficult to explain” turns out to be a hint for “not actually true”.
Is this actually an useful heuristic? It seems to me that most things in the world are very difficult to explain truthfully, but especially this case.
We can probably agree that wearing a puffy shirt would be a bad idea, but can anyone really easily explain why?
Perhaps someone could explain why some specific item of clothing is not fashionable, and I am at fault to some extent here, because I have not studied the psychology of fashion in enough depth to eloquently explain this. I am not aware of many people who have attempted to explain specific fashions in a manner that could withstand rational analysis, however.
In earlier centuries, costume rules were a matter not merely of following fashion but of obeying the law of the land. No knight under the rank of lord was permitted to wear a tunic that failed to cover his buttocks.
If the explanation for the original point was: “You can’t wear t-shirts with slogans because the King has decreed it against the law”, would that be a much more satisfying answer? If so, then the answer you’re looking for is that these days fashion is slightly more democratic, but the rules of costume are still mainly decreed by the people with the highest social status, and they have judged t-shirts with slogans on them unfashionable for anyone below a specific rank.
There are better explanations for fashion certainly, but those require intricate knowledge of immensely complex systems, with the system in this case being the synergistic combination of all human animals—all of human society. It is only my opinion, and someone could easily prove me wrong by doing it, but it seems to me that truly explaining a particular fashion in a holistic sense would be a task that well deserves the description — “difficult”.
Desmond Morris writes well about the subject in his book “Peoplewatching”. I found it to be one of the better written and argued writings in the field.
Simply as a matter of empirical counter-example, let me point you to the manyonlineteestores that make an apparently healthy business of selling (among other things) tee-shirts with slogans on them.
Puffy shirts are also worn with beneficial effects by many women—and, if we looked hard enough, a few men as well.
It’s not so much what you wear, I suspect, as how and when you wear it that matters; the various communities that one moves in have codes, and there are relatively predictable consequences of going against those codes. For instance, if you work as a trader at a financial institution you incur detrimental consequences by wearing anything other than suit and tie. But successfully flouting these conventions can paradoxically be beneficial; if you break the codes just enough and get away with it you are rising above the herd.
Johnny Depp can wear a puffy shirt because he is the king. The rest of us...
Special Pleading Objection?
If you are awesome enough, you can wear a rationalist slogan t-shirt...
Or if you are attending a Hacker News meetup, or a software development conference, or an event taking place at a university, or… I’ll stop there: I am predicting (and happily committing to update if I turn out to be wrong) that in these venues, wearing a witty t-shirt will a) score points and b) optimise for striking up conversations with strangers.
Or if you are attending a Hacker News meetup, or a software development conference, or an event taking place at a university, or...
i.e., places where people already have some kind of idea who you are. (If you are Johnny Depp, everywhere is a place where people already have some kind of idea who you are, but if you aren’t...)
That is borne out by my experience, and seems like it more closely matches my social life. It also seems like a better predictor for what sorts of text I find myself noticing on shirts (“noticing” intentionally worded so as to include observational biases).
Sorry, I don’t understand what you mean by this. The meaning of my post was that high status folk set the trends, and have an easier time introducing new fashions to the society at large. This was in relation to your (valid) point that “how and when” you wear clothes matters.
Or if you are attending a Hacker News meetup, or a software development conference, or an event taking place at a university, or… I’ll stop there: I am predicting (and happily committing to update if I turn out to be wrong) that in these venues, wearing a witty t-shirt will a) score points and b) optimise for striking up conversations with strangers.
Sounds sensible. Dressing in clothes that signal your geekiness (meaning here the demographic you describe) is probably a safe bet in such a crowd.
Pointing out that your argument appears to be a form of special pleading—you introduced a general rule (“wearing puffy shirts is bad”), I pointed out counterexamples (Depp, also women), you picked one of these and said “but he is special”.
I see. Through counterexamples we can demonstrate anything to be acceptable fashion in certain scenarios.
The puffy shirt is irrelevant (I feel like arguing but let me try and resist that). I found your counterexamples about t-shirts to be stronger evidence, and I did adjust my beliefs. I can offer you no good evidence on how people on average perceive t-shirts with slogans on them.
On many occasions “difficult to explain” turns out to be a hint for “not actually true”.
Indeed. The vast majority are wearing clothes bearing advertisement for various brands. I would think twice before concluding that they have decided that is beneficial.
I dunno. Brands can be a pretty effective status symbol. (That reasoning might not be explicit, though.)
Is this actually an useful heuristic? It seems to me that most things in the world are very difficult to explain truthfully, but especially this case.
We can probably agree that wearing a puffy shirt would be a bad idea, but can anyone really easily explain why?
Perhaps someone could explain why some specific item of clothing is not fashionable, and I am at fault to some extent here, because I have not studied the psychology of fashion in enough depth to eloquently explain this. I am not aware of many people who have attempted to explain specific fashions in a manner that could withstand rational analysis, however.
In earlier centuries, costume rules were a matter not merely of following fashion but of obeying the law of the land. No knight under the rank of lord was permitted to wear a tunic that failed to cover his buttocks.
If the explanation for the original point was: “You can’t wear t-shirts with slogans because the King has decreed it against the law”, would that be a much more satisfying answer? If so, then the answer you’re looking for is that these days fashion is slightly more democratic, but the rules of costume are still mainly decreed by the people with the highest social status, and they have judged t-shirts with slogans on them unfashionable for anyone below a specific rank.
There are better explanations for fashion certainly, but those require intricate knowledge of immensely complex systems, with the system in this case being the synergistic combination of all human animals—all of human society. It is only my opinion, and someone could easily prove me wrong by doing it, but it seems to me that truly explaining a particular fashion in a holistic sense would be a task that well deserves the description — “difficult”.
Desmond Morris writes well about the subject in his book “Peoplewatching”. I found it to be one of the better written and argued writings in the field.
Simply as a matter of empirical counter-example, let me point you to the many online tee stores that make an apparently healthy business of selling (among other things) tee-shirts with slogans on them.
Puffy shirts are also worn with beneficial effects by many women—and, if we looked hard enough, a few men as well.
It’s not so much what you wear, I suspect, as how and when you wear it that matters; the various communities that one moves in have codes, and there are relatively predictable consequences of going against those codes. For instance, if you work as a trader at a financial institution you incur detrimental consequences by wearing anything other than suit and tie. But successfully flouting these conventions can paradoxically be beneficial; if you break the codes just enough and get away with it you are rising above the herd.
Johnny Depp can wear a puffy shirt because he is the king. The rest of us are probably better off saving our puffy shirts for Halloween.
But yes, what you say is true. If you are awesome enough, you can wear a rationalist slogan t-shirt and make it work.
Special Pleading Objection?
Or if you are attending a Hacker News meetup, or a software development conference, or an event taking place at a university, or… I’ll stop there: I am predicting (and happily committing to update if I turn out to be wrong) that in these venues, wearing a witty t-shirt will a) score points and b) optimise for striking up conversations with strangers.
But Johnny Depp is special: he’s Johnny Depp. He’s an elite. And breaking (fashion) rules may be part of why he continues to be perceived as an elite (I’m thinking particularly of Kleef et al 2011 in http://lesswrong.com/lw/dtg/notes_on_the_psychology_of_power/ ).
i.e., places where people already have some kind of idea who you are. (If you are Johnny Depp, everywhere is a place where people already have some kind of idea who you are, but if you aren’t...)
See Things You Can’t Countersignal.
That is borne out by my experience, and seems like it more closely matches my social life. It also seems like a better predictor for what sorts of text I find myself noticing on shirts (“noticing” intentionally worded so as to include observational biases).
Sorry, I don’t understand what you mean by this. The meaning of my post was that high status folk set the trends, and have an easier time introducing new fashions to the society at large. This was in relation to your (valid) point that “how and when” you wear clothes matters.
Sounds sensible. Dressing in clothes that signal your geekiness (meaning here the demographic you describe) is probably a safe bet in such a crowd.
Pointing out that your argument appears to be a form of special pleading—you introduced a general rule (“wearing puffy shirts is bad”), I pointed out counterexamples (Depp, also women), you picked one of these and said “but he is special”.
I see. Through counterexamples we can demonstrate anything to be acceptable fashion in certain scenarios.
The puffy shirt is irrelevant (I feel like arguing but let me try and resist that). I found your counterexamples about t-shirts to be stronger evidence, and I did adjust my beliefs. I can offer you no good evidence on how people on average perceive t-shirts with slogans on them.