There are other sectors of the economy which steer people away from dressing up and if you dress “too nicely” people are suspicious of you and wonder what you’re all about.
In Fussell's Class he writes hopefully about his "Class X" (IIRC) that rejects class markers, but it's clear even just from his text that they actually don't, and from our decades-later perspective they've obviously just become another category of the class conscious public, for the most part.
No-one is immune to beauty or respect, nor to feeling safe.
It bears rewards to respect people's senses and perception of the world, and to carry beauty with you. Beauty does not have to be grand or inflated, and there's no universal judgement; It doesn't have to be a pretty face in an expensive suit. Any form of expression or presence we carry with us can carry beauty and show respect, whether it is clothing or hygiene or handwriting or choice of words or depth of thought - anything. Anything can hold symmetry and consistency, can be suitably asymmetric and interesting - can hold beauty - and can show respect for other's continuous perception of the world and connection to it. And it make people feel safe. This can be a question of you being literally easy on the eyes, in other words your presentation in the world is energy-efficient to read and parse. But we must be careful to have this opt-in only, to be aware of our own bias, and practice non-judgement based on external appearance.
A raggedy coat can make some people subconsciously worry if you're OK. They have a slightly easier time in your presence if they don't have to filter out those worries. Especially if there's a dissonance with them knowing that you're perfectly fine.
And truly, for some the most beauty is found in people who present themselves as not caring about raggedy coats and for those their impressions probably won't change.
I can only confirm, since I started buying more expensive clothes (and hardware), people seem to have a better impression of me. (Both in professional and private life) It's kind of a waste though...
It's waste by definition. It's social signalling. It's sort of like blockchain proof of work, you show your commitment by displaying hard to fake wasted resources.
Social signalling isn't necessarily a waste, especially if you have a very high profile. When Justin Theroux shows up at an animal shelter and posts a photo of some dogs on Instagram, those dogs get adopted and it raises the profile of those animal shelters.
That was my interpretation initially - I'm guilty of judging people based on this in college. I usually perceived folks in my CS classes that had large 17 inch gaming laptops as being less competent than the folks that had Macbooks. I even recommended a few of my friends switch to Macbooks because of this (which they did).
Though in retrospect, this ended up being a pretty valid heuristic.
We got a puppy a while ago and holy crap, no kidding. If I were single, after that experience, I'd make sure never to walk anywhere without a puppy. Never had so many strangers strike up friendly, longish conversations out of nowhere.
Thank God I am walking around with the most casual clothe possible and feeling good about it. I can't imagine being part of any "circle" where clothing is looked upon as a factor of who you truly are as a person. And by that, I mean deeper than personality or character.
In the eyes of Others... Who are these Others? What makes us so different?
While I agree with you, and I too actively avoid people or institutions where these sorts of status games have taken hold, it's important to understand how privileged it is to be able to opt out. Some people in precarious financial or social situations have to navigate this world to live, and understanding these biases is helpful to them. Obviously in the ideal world we would combat these biases or at least their ability to affect other people's wellbeing, but we're quite far from that world at the moment.
For such people, it's a lot more important to signal familiarity with bourgeois/middle-class values than economic status per se. So it's one instance where one's outfit might actually convey useful info to outsiders. But even then, they don't have to expend huge amounts of money/effort; they just have to not screw it up.
If you look at photos from many decades or even, say, a century ago, back when middle-class values were truly common across the socio-economic spectrum, you'll see it was a lot more common for even low-income folks to wear suits or at least semi-casual wear. The point was not to waste resources or signal wealth; everyone knew that these people were quite poor. It was all about values.
> Some people in precarious financial or social situations have to navigate this world to live, and understanding these biases is helpful to them.
I'm reminded of low income people I've known who struggled to save for a suit to wear to a job interview for yet another low paying job at a factory. Privilege indeed.
Clothing signals who you are, period. There is a difference when you wear a suit or a hawaii shirt or a "Fuck Trump" t-shirt.
Why don't you think it's a factor of who you are? That thin fabric over your body completes a person. It's one of the no-brainer way for self expression.
And people do judge you by your clothes whether they admit or not.
People outside of HN and similar circles usually get impressed with shiny things. "Regular people", most often in business situations, or with business minded people. I run my own businesses and deal with a lot of this sort of situations, but also with some family and acquaintances, normal folks.
Like it or not, I've most likely been referred and/or gotten deals through due to my Omega Speedmaster, my Burberry winter coat, hade made expensive leather shoes, etc. That sort of clothes and accessories. Because it makes me look successful in the eyes of Others, and people wants to be friends and partners with other successful people.
Shiny things/expensive clothings/etc = Seen as I must be competent to earn that sort of cash.
My friends couldn't care less about what I wear, but they understand why I do it.
> Like it or not, I've most likely been referred and/or gotten deals through due to my Omega Speedmaster, my Burberry winter coat, hade made expensive leather shoes
I hate to break it to you (or maybe you will consider it a good thing), but no one took the time to notice those minute details about you. Store bought leather shoes that are well-polished look virtually identical to handmade. Unless you hold your watch up to people their faces, few are gonna spot its an Omega, let alone that the make is a Speedmaster (cheers btw, I love the moonwatches).
People will spot that you take care of your appearance and try to go for a sophisticated style, but beyond that few will notice the minutia.
Hell, I can do you one better: one time when I was at my parents for an extended stay I decided to buzz most of my hair off whilst they were shopping. I had pretty long hair. When they came back I had a conversation for a full minute before my dad suddenly said 'wait.. what the hell did you do with your hair?!'
> Store bought leather shoes that are well-polished look virtually identical to handmade.
No, they're not. Shoes have a fairly broad spectrum of quality and style. Not everyone notices and not everyone can tell, but it is something that many evaluate.
Yes, it's a status signaling mechanism, but it is a part of culture whether you like or not.
These kinds of evaluations happen not just with executives in suits but also with youth and their ridiculous athletic shoes. Even gender-wise, women are apt to notice minute details of shoes.
> No, they're not. Shoes have a fairly broad spectrum of quality and style. Not everyone notices and not everyone can tell, but it is something that many evaluate.
Yes they are. Not in comfort or longevity, but as long as you don't completely cheap out on store bought you will get close. You're conflating quality and looks. They're related, but not synonymous.
> Yes, it's a status signaling mechanism, but it is a part of culture whether you like or not.
Which I never said. I merely pointed out that people look more to the style package than what logos you wear. Hell, if you for example buy high tier Polo Ralph Lauren the logo is often put on the inside of the collar.
> These kinds of evaluations happen not just with executives in suits but also with youth and their ridiculous athletic shoes. Even gender-wise, women are apt to notice minute details of shoes
Few 21-year old women will care if their date is wearing flashy DCs, flashy New Balance, or flashy Nike Air limited edition. You mentioned minute details: for the Nike, how many of them would even be aware of the difference between a limited edition, Nike ID or normal Laser Red batch? And dress shoes usually don't even have visible logos!
> Expensive clothing often has nicer finish and fits better
Getting mid-tier clothing and getting it fitted will look better and be cheaper than just buying expensive clothing
> They are often better made and therefore last longer
I pointed that out by saying well-polished i.e. well taken care of
> At least in leather there are definitely different quality levels. E.g. most fake leather, bonded leather, genuine leather, top/full grain leather.
But you can go firmly under the price of handmade and still get good quality leather. The large part of the cost of handmade shoes is not the materials but the labor.
I think it's probably a matter of degree or "tiers" of clothing.
It is probably almost always in one's best interest to buy from a higher quality (but not necessarily luxury) brand.[1] For example buying Levi jeans rather than Wrangler or a store brand.
Some people will notice if you are wearing a particularly high end item, but once you reach that "high end tier" there is probably diminishing returns for getting the highest of the high end. For example, I have had people notice the Swiss watch that my father gave me. However, it is basically the entry tier model for Swiss watches and I doubt I would get much benefit from instead wearing a more expensive model. For men at least, I suspect that wearing a luxury brand is probably more effective for accessories and shoes since mens fashion tends to follow a strategy of conservative clothing with more flashy accessories.
I think there is also a lot to be said for having some specific style even if it isn't fancy. For example, G-Shock digital watches aren't particularly "fashionable" but they are known for being very high quality. If someone who cares about watches noticed you wearing one they might not consider it professional or fashionable but they would likely recognize that you cared about your appearance enough to buy quality.
[1] When I say "always" I'm meaning for a professional with a good income. I realize that for people with lower incomes fashionable clothing may not be the best priority.
> Because it makes me look successful in the eyes of Others
This is going pop psychology pretty fast but do you think an explanation could be that it's you who believe that? "I have this expensive watch now 'cause I'm successful" and what others are picking up is your confidence that stems from this belief.
I totally agree that people want to do business with confident/successful people but I believe that you could have the same aura which would get the same results with a nice anonymous $50 watch spending all your money on other expensive things that you don't wear/display on your body.
Of course it is. It's part of the signaling equation. The same way that someone might put on a nice suit for an interview or a date when they're usually not wearing suits at all. "I have this suit now because I need the confidence it gives me (in addition to showing that I can dress appropriately)". One just have to be aware of it.
The HN demographic(s) just has a different set of shiny things used for signaling value. I'd make a joke about hoodies and flip flops but I think that's a little out dated.
That said, I think you're over-estimating the signal difference between "being well dressed" and "wearing half a grand". The returns per dollar greatly diminish.
Folks were going nuts over $2000 “tech fashion” jackets in a thread yesterday.
And wearing half a grand is about the lowest you could possibly get away with to be in something tailored and not-obviously-cheap, and that’s probably still gonna require getting some of it second hand.
[edit] I mean a basic non-casual business outfit. Suit, shoes, shirt, tie. And by tailored I just mean a tailor’s made sure your off-the-rack clothes fit more or less OK.
I think the point of this study is that it wasnt predicated on the subjects. The results of the study are not that rich people judge people by their clothes, but that people judge people by their clothes.
It's important to dress the part when you want to achieve something working with others. Put on the mask and try to become that role.
It's also important to not get attached to the image that comes back as projection from others.
Dressing casually in all situations and all groups is a sign that you are fixated to some self-image, exactly the same way as always being Dapper Dan is. You will self-select yourself into a some group and role in it without knowing it. The role you are most comfortable in is not what you really are. It's just where you are most comfortable. Challenging that may be stressful.
There is no role that is 'real you'. What you 'really are', or finding your 'true self' is pop psychology. Being comfortable and constantly adjusting to situations and roles is the best we can do.
Swapping out a button-down shirt and khakis--assuming that's what you tended to wear in a business context a few years ago--for jeans and a more casual shirt to better look the part at a developer conference is every bit the same as putting on a suit for a different context.
This is very interesting. I have in the last year or so given up on ties or even tucking in my shirt. For me it there was a point where the discomfort of business attire wasn't worth the fun of playing that role. I liked it, on occasion, but the difference in comfort levels is enough that it distracts me if I am trying to do technical work.
You may not be quite as different as you think. Nerds often "wear" trendy frameworks and laptop stickers while patting themselves on the back for not caring about designer labels. In clothing and couture at least the superficiality is up front.
See also: $120+ hoodies, certain hiking & climbing wear. You can spot the tech folks pretty easily and with reasonably high confidence if you know what to look for. There's a uniform, a look, and that's even the ones who don't make it easy by wearing tech company or nerdy legible t-shirts.
It's nice that there's a study that confirms this, but it is pretty obvious that people do judge other people from the way they look. Clothes is only part of the mix. Skin color, gender, face shape, eye color, hair styling, general posture, micro movements, smell, sweatiness, etc. also alter the way people will categorize others.
And then once they speak, the way the voice sounds brings another massive layer of pre-conceived judgment. Add social background, education, occupation, sexual orientation, etc. In the end, all these elements will form an idea of who a person may be.
Then this image erodes as one gets to know the other person.
Eh, I don't think this is true anymore. Folks that I see walking out of the other FANG offices look cookie cutter. Allbirds, iPhone 11 Pro, nice Patagonia quarter zip...
Not surprised at all to see so many engineer-y types here on HN dismissing the importance of clothing even the face of evidence. I used to be one, until I saw Kill La Kill.
Fact is, clothing has power. The ability to shape people’s perceptions of you is valuable, and it can mean the difference between a deal and dismissal.
It can also have the adverse effect: wearing mismatching colors or patterns or clothing of poor condition signals immediately to me that the wearer is either unconcerned with their appearance or unable to distinguish between attractive and unattractive aesthetics - a major red flag on my perception of their judgement.
If someone wearing clothing like that works in tech I’ll spend 30 seconds determining if they’re too much of a super-genius to be concerned with their appearance (and if they truly are then they should acquire an identical wardrobe, Jobs/Zuckerberg-style). Otherwise, I think to myself that if this person is so lacking in perception to not comprehend how hideous they look, then what other major blind spots do they have?
I'm smiling at the idea there's a lesson to be learned from Kill La Kill. It's an anime where there's special clothing invented that gives you superpowers. It's similar to saying you learned this lesson from the Spider-man villain, Venom, or watching Iron-man movies.
The story revolves around these things called “life fibers” which when sewn into clothing gives wearers superhuman abilities. That story opened my eyes to the power that clothing not only could have in the future with the aid of technology, but also the implicit power it has held for thousands of years.
The clothing itself isn't really what I necessarily expected, if you look at the pictures themselves (https://osf.io/v2j43/). The "rich" clothing is just more like "formal" or "conservative" clothing, and the "poor" is more "casual". They seem to have tried to control for the formality aspect but I'm not sure they did so completely (for example, there's still blazers in the set with "formal" attire removed). I also suspect there's an age dimension involved as well, in that some of the clothing is much more likely to be worn by younger individuals than older individuals, or vice versa.
Of course this will be correlated with wealth, because dressier clothes are more expensive, and older individuals probably will have more wealth than when they were younger. However, the clothing isn't the spectrum I was expecting necessarily, and I'm not sure "rich" versus "poor" are the right labels.
Also, I can understand how most of the clothing came to be categorized the way it was, some of it is confusing to me. There's definitely items that I think would be classified in the other category. It would be nice to tailor this more to specific individuals more.
To be honest I'm a bit surprised this is getting this much attention because the social psychology literature is full of findings like this already.
64 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 69.4 ms ] threadIt bears rewards to respect people's senses and perception of the world, and to carry beauty with you. Beauty does not have to be grand or inflated, and there's no universal judgement; It doesn't have to be a pretty face in an expensive suit. Any form of expression or presence we carry with us can carry beauty and show respect, whether it is clothing or hygiene or handwriting or choice of words or depth of thought - anything. Anything can hold symmetry and consistency, can be suitably asymmetric and interesting - can hold beauty - and can show respect for other's continuous perception of the world and connection to it. And it make people feel safe. This can be a question of you being literally easy on the eyes, in other words your presentation in the world is energy-efficient to read and parse. But we must be careful to have this opt-in only, to be aware of our own bias, and practice non-judgement based on external appearance.
A raggedy coat can make some people subconsciously worry if you're OK. They have a slightly easier time in your presence if they don't have to filter out those worries. Especially if there's a dissonance with them knowing that you're perfectly fine.
And truly, for some the most beauty is found in people who present themselves as not caring about raggedy coats and for those their impressions probably won't change.
Though in retrospect, this ended up being a pretty valid heuristic.
In the eyes of Others... Who are these Others? What makes us so different?
I think it not thoroughly conscious choice how we dress, but a mix of how we see ourselves and how we want to be seen by others.
I am not really too concerned with those type of people.
If you look at photos from many decades or even, say, a century ago, back when middle-class values were truly common across the socio-economic spectrum, you'll see it was a lot more common for even low-income folks to wear suits or at least semi-casual wear. The point was not to waste resources or signal wealth; everyone knew that these people were quite poor. It was all about values.
I'm reminded of low income people I've known who struggled to save for a suit to wear to a job interview for yet another low paying job at a factory. Privilege indeed.
Why don't you think it's a factor of who you are? That thin fabric over your body completes a person. It's one of the no-brainer way for self expression.
And people do judge you by your clothes whether they admit or not.
Like it or not, I've most likely been referred and/or gotten deals through due to my Omega Speedmaster, my Burberry winter coat, hade made expensive leather shoes, etc. That sort of clothes and accessories. Because it makes me look successful in the eyes of Others, and people wants to be friends and partners with other successful people.
Shiny things/expensive clothings/etc = Seen as I must be competent to earn that sort of cash.
My friends couldn't care less about what I wear, but they understand why I do it.
I hate to break it to you (or maybe you will consider it a good thing), but no one took the time to notice those minute details about you. Store bought leather shoes that are well-polished look virtually identical to handmade. Unless you hold your watch up to people their faces, few are gonna spot its an Omega, let alone that the make is a Speedmaster (cheers btw, I love the moonwatches).
People will spot that you take care of your appearance and try to go for a sophisticated style, but beyond that few will notice the minutia.
Hell, I can do you one better: one time when I was at my parents for an extended stay I decided to buzz most of my hair off whilst they were shopping. I had pretty long hair. When they came back I had a conversation for a full minute before my dad suddenly said 'wait.. what the hell did you do with your hair?!'
I hear you and agree to some extent.
No, they're not. Shoes have a fairly broad spectrum of quality and style. Not everyone notices and not everyone can tell, but it is something that many evaluate.
Yes, it's a status signaling mechanism, but it is a part of culture whether you like or not.
These kinds of evaluations happen not just with executives in suits but also with youth and their ridiculous athletic shoes. Even gender-wise, women are apt to notice minute details of shoes.
Yes they are. Not in comfort or longevity, but as long as you don't completely cheap out on store bought you will get close. You're conflating quality and looks. They're related, but not synonymous.
> Yes, it's a status signaling mechanism, but it is a part of culture whether you like or not.
Which I never said. I merely pointed out that people look more to the style package than what logos you wear. Hell, if you for example buy high tier Polo Ralph Lauren the logo is often put on the inside of the collar.
> These kinds of evaluations happen not just with executives in suits but also with youth and their ridiculous athletic shoes. Even gender-wise, women are apt to notice minute details of shoes
Few 21-year old women will care if their date is wearing flashy DCs, flashy New Balance, or flashy Nike Air limited edition. You mentioned minute details: for the Nike, how many of them would even be aware of the difference between a limited edition, Nike ID or normal Laser Red batch? And dress shoes usually don't even have visible logos!
- Expensive clothing often has nicer finish and fits better.
- They are often better made and therefore last longer.
- At least in leather there are definitely different quality levels. E.g. most fake leather, bonded leather, genuine leather, top/full grain leather.
Getting mid-tier clothing and getting it fitted will look better and be cheaper than just buying expensive clothing
> They are often better made and therefore last longer
I pointed that out by saying well-polished i.e. well taken care of
> At least in leather there are definitely different quality levels. E.g. most fake leather, bonded leather, genuine leather, top/full grain leather.
But you can go firmly under the price of handmade and still get good quality leather. The large part of the cost of handmade shoes is not the materials but the labor.
Machine made, decent leather from cows (not anything unusual), shoes, not boots: ~$200-600
Same, but handmade: ~$500-900 (usually the leather’s a little better too, though)
Then there’s custom fitted, probably $750 (Eastern Europe) and up.
I think it's probably a matter of degree or "tiers" of clothing.
It is probably almost always in one's best interest to buy from a higher quality (but not necessarily luxury) brand.[1] For example buying Levi jeans rather than Wrangler or a store brand.
Some people will notice if you are wearing a particularly high end item, but once you reach that "high end tier" there is probably diminishing returns for getting the highest of the high end. For example, I have had people notice the Swiss watch that my father gave me. However, it is basically the entry tier model for Swiss watches and I doubt I would get much benefit from instead wearing a more expensive model. For men at least, I suspect that wearing a luxury brand is probably more effective for accessories and shoes since mens fashion tends to follow a strategy of conservative clothing with more flashy accessories.
I think there is also a lot to be said for having some specific style even if it isn't fancy. For example, G-Shock digital watches aren't particularly "fashionable" but they are known for being very high quality. If someone who cares about watches noticed you wearing one they might not consider it professional or fashionable but they would likely recognize that you cared about your appearance enough to buy quality.
[1] When I say "always" I'm meaning for a professional with a good income. I realize that for people with lower incomes fashionable clothing may not be the best priority.
This is going pop psychology pretty fast but do you think an explanation could be that it's you who believe that? "I have this expensive watch now 'cause I'm successful" and what others are picking up is your confidence that stems from this belief.
I totally agree that people want to do business with confident/successful people but I believe that you could have the same aura which would get the same results with a nice anonymous $50 watch spending all your money on other expensive things that you don't wear/display on your body.
That said, I think you're over-estimating the signal difference between "being well dressed" and "wearing half a grand". The returns per dollar greatly diminish.
And wearing half a grand is about the lowest you could possibly get away with to be in something tailored and not-obviously-cheap, and that’s probably still gonna require getting some of it second hand.
[edit] I mean a basic non-casual business outfit. Suit, shoes, shirt, tie. And by tailored I just mean a tailor’s made sure your off-the-rack clothes fit more or less OK.
It's also important to not get attached to the image that comes back as projection from others.
Dressing casually in all situations and all groups is a sign that you are fixated to some self-image, exactly the same way as always being Dapper Dan is. You will self-select yourself into a some group and role in it without knowing it. The role you are most comfortable in is not what you really are. It's just where you are most comfortable. Challenging that may be stressful.
There is no role that is 'real you'. What you 'really are', or finding your 'true self' is pop psychology. Being comfortable and constantly adjusting to situations and roles is the best we can do.
And then once they speak, the way the voice sounds brings another massive layer of pre-conceived judgment. Add social background, education, occupation, sexual orientation, etc. In the end, all these elements will form an idea of who a person may be.
Then this image erodes as one gets to know the other person.
Fact is, clothing has power. The ability to shape people’s perceptions of you is valuable, and it can mean the difference between a deal and dismissal.
It can also have the adverse effect: wearing mismatching colors or patterns or clothing of poor condition signals immediately to me that the wearer is either unconcerned with their appearance or unable to distinguish between attractive and unattractive aesthetics - a major red flag on my perception of their judgement.
If someone wearing clothing like that works in tech I’ll spend 30 seconds determining if they’re too much of a super-genius to be concerned with their appearance (and if they truly are then they should acquire an identical wardrobe, Jobs/Zuckerberg-style). Otherwise, I think to myself that if this person is so lacking in perception to not comprehend how hideous they look, then what other major blind spots do they have?
I guess the above poster sees it as a metaphor.
But peoples' choice of whether to dress "rich" or "poor" provides information about them.
Of course this will be correlated with wealth, because dressier clothes are more expensive, and older individuals probably will have more wealth than when they were younger. However, the clothing isn't the spectrum I was expecting necessarily, and I'm not sure "rich" versus "poor" are the right labels.
Also, I can understand how most of the clothing came to be categorized the way it was, some of it is confusing to me. There's definitely items that I think would be classified in the other category. It would be nice to tailor this more to specific individuals more.
To be honest I'm a bit surprised this is getting this much attention because the social psychology literature is full of findings like this already.