Any kind of self-promotion is unpleasant, except to other self-promoters. For them its competitive. And yes, this includes the virtue emojis on Twitter and GitHub.
I live in South Florida, a little bit above Miami, and work out of this little co-working space. A couple weeks ago, a new member joined, and after talking with him a bit, I learned that he had worked on the founding team for some very famous technology (don't want to name it publicly). So pretty impressive, but the guy is down to earth and humble about it, which I really respected.
Some other people in the space (non-technical people) thought it was weird that he wasn't more outspoken about his accomplishments, and they even went so far as to doubt that he was heavily involved.
As an introvert, to hear people dismiss someone on the basis of them not boasting about themselves really stuck with me. I just can't express how vulgar I find that viewpoint, and my opinion of the people who dismissed the guy has changed irrevocably.
Because this person has made an irrevocable judgement on the way people performed because of their judgement based on how another person performed. For the very thing he was criticising them about: judging based on appearance of the situation the reality of it, he has done the same to them, but even worse, with explicit malice! I can't really imagine how someone could think they are the good guy in this situation
Finding distaste in other peoples sayings is not malice.
EDIT: I would agree with the post you were referring to, if someone were to judge me based on my boasting I'd rather not work with them because I'd have to put much effort into working around them misjudging me.
I think the key to being happy as an introvert is not depending on the approval and adoration of others for your accomplishments. If you do, you're going to be bitter and toxic over not getting it when you feel you should.
For sure. I bet the guy wouldn't care if he knew they were dismissing him behind his back. But still, it made me angry because there's this whole "networking" culture down here, and it's all very superfluous and scammy.
Now imagine those people being recruiters, bosses and other gate keepers with considerable power over careers. It's dangerous to be a humble introvert in a world that's anything but.
I've been in managerial role for a while now, so I can appreciate the "other side", as a recruiter/interviewer. It's hard because you're having to make judgement calls with very limited information, so I can easily empathize.
But as a recruiter or boss, the onus is on me to suss out the data I need. Given that introverted people have always existed and will always exist, it would be ignorant and lazy of me to only pick from the crop that puts themselves in the spotlight for me. Not to mention the very obvious fact that a lot of people are very good at selling themselves, even when they have nothing to offer.
That's pretty unnecessarily negative/uncharitable. I know people (usually older) who are perfectly un-self-interested and unconditionally sympathetic to all people who use "virtue emojis" very innocently/sincerely on their social media. All you have is the word of my anecdote, but these individuals are not engaging in self-promotion (unless one expansively defines it to include all unprovoked expressions of thought/opinion). These same people wouldn't be caught dead wearing flashy, "fashionable" clothing, or otherwise self-promoting in the spirit of competition.
Then this is not the kind of person i would enjoy hanging around. In my social circles, when you show of any kind of virtue without delivering, you are mocked, and in my opinion, rightfully so.
Actual article headline is, "Showing off your status and wealth makes you seem less co-operative." "Flashy" and "status clothes" are words/phrases that don't even appear in the article.
The actual content of the study just refers to logos for the clothing parts.
> The results showed that participants elected to co-operate with partners whose avatars had unbranded clothing 57% of the time, but when the avatar sported a luxury logo, this figure dropped to 45%.
> A second study, in which participants could first choose the design of their own avatar, found that those who chose branded rather than unbranded clothing themselves were still less likely to choose to co-operate with partners with brand-boasting vs logo-free avatars.
HN posting guidelines are also well-known amongst participants here, so people call out when a title breaks a guideline and breaks it for the specific reason the guideline exists for: reducing ambiguity.
The article's title is "Showing off your status and wealth makes you seem less co-operative", and the title here on HN is absolutely wrong.
I like wearing flashy clothes myself, and I would even say it has proven advantageous to cooperation in my line of work, so I was curious about this article. However, nowhere is it stated that flashy clothes make people less likely to cooperate with you. They say wearing clothes with luxury logos and signal high status does.
Right, this is reinforced by understanding that also many brands are not recognized by most people but are respected enough by the people that matter, and so could not disrupt cooperation.
I was told it is never a faux pas to show up over dressed, but it is to be under dressed. If you look like a pimp, that's one thing. Showing up in a nice pair of pants and shirt when everyone else is in shorts and t-shirts is different.
So like wearing a tuxedo to a job interview is kosher? It’s not wearing a pimp outfit, but surely there are so many examples of wearing inappropriate fancy clothes that you can’t really say that it’s never possible to overdress.
If that's the spirit in which you want to take this conversation then, yes, absolutely, show up to a job interview in a tux. If you're applying any where other than Downton Abbey, then you get what you deserve for taking the conversation in this direction
Can you help me get on track by sharing what you mean by its never a faux pas to show up overdressed? That’s the part that just seems quite surprising to me in my experience. I would say it’s just as easy to show up over as under dressed in an awkward way, rather than something that can never happen.
Ah ok, I had somehow misread your comment as saying it is never a faux pas to show up over dressed. Thanks for the clarification, that makes way more sense!
Sure it is. In the tech world at least, a lot of people will judge you negatively if you are a programmer and wear a business suit to an interview at a tech firm
According to the article, the study entailed using avatars with or without luxury logos branded on clothing.
Suits can be luxury goods, but the study didn't explore that. It's unclear at a glance if this was actually about status given the methods. There could be other reasons people don't favor corporate-branded clothing, considering that wealthy people don't just wear polos with big corporate logos on them. Maybe it telegraphs poor taste, or that boosting luxury companies makes it seem like you're trying too hard to show that you have money (I make a distinction between this and someone who plainly looks high-status owing to their choice of wear). The obvious thing to include would have been avatars with non-luxury brands, it's possible that would have repelled as well.
On the other hand, every piece of heavily-branded clothing could be considered "luxury" in its own way and the only difference is social class, demographics. In low-culture you'll see Crooks and Castles, Fox Racing, Adidas, etc
One case where that works against people is sales. For example, we had a sales rep for some software we use that would always show up with gaudy gold rings on almost every finger, an obviously-5-figure watch, high end suit, etc.
It sent a pretty strong signal to us that their margins and commissions had a lot of room to negotiate down. I suspect we negotiated harder with this organization than we would have otherwise, looked for opportunities to reduce usage, and so on. Not solely because of the wealthy display, but I'm sure it played some part.
Pretty sure the guy knew exactly what he was doing. First, the fact you were negotiating means he already got over the first step, which is simply to engage in a negotiation at all. Then he set himself up so that your team felt you could push extra-hard, resulting in a discount you all probably high-fived about. So he sets his initial price above his peers and even with your super discount you ended up at the same price as everybody else. Or maybe you did pay less... it's software! Marginal cost = pennies. Cheesy sales guy still made a fat commission.
a study of people putting status symbols on online avatars made them less likely to be cooperated with to perform menial tasks is what it actually says
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.
More than 80% of my wardrobe is from Uniqlo, including 10 dry pique polos, 20 supima cotton tees, and 10 flannel button ups, all black. Makes getting dressed in the morning stress-free because I know I'm going to like how I look every day. The blacks do not fade — I have 5-year-old shirts that look practically as good as 6-month-old ones.
Their jeans, especially their selvedge jeans, are also high quality and priced well. Same for my winter parka, vests, fleeces, shorts, socks, underwear.
Same for me. It took me some time to find a brand that doesn't dazzle everybody with their logo, uses the fabric and design that suits me, is durable enough and so on. I place a substantial order and forget about clothing for a few years.
I'm definitely in full dad mode at this point. I've resisted New Balances thus far, but I can see them peeking out over the horizon, a massive iceberg into which I'll inevitably crash.
Some of the surfer brands like Volcom, Reef, Lost etc sell wovens with little tiny logos on the pocket you can remove with a thread-ripper. I think that's not rare, though. Pretty sure you can even remove logos from some of the jeans. I guess I should also probably plug the lightweight pants from Club Monaco that I'm wearing right now because I don't see a logo on them. MUJI is also nice and unlabeled, still Japanese sensibility but a little more eclectic (their linen pillowcases are great).
Their shirts are good, yes. I have several pairs of their chino shorts though and those do not hold up long term, to the point where I’m looking for alternatives that’ll last a bit longer.
Uniqlo selvedge denim is really good, I wear it a lot. Most US brand 'jeans' (Levis etc) are just cotton pants in a jeans cut. If you tear them on a nail or cut them the hole will spread and fray - real denim does not do this and the uniqlo pants are cut well for my body type, last for ages and when damaged the hole stays small.
You have to pay hundreds for genuine denim Levis which puts them in the fashion pretentious class imo.
I am looking into buying stuff from them, I would also love some feedback. I just wants simple pants that fit, this seems to be a difficult requirement to fulfil.
The concept is good, checked them out some years ago, but afaik the execution should be better. Scandis don't have an eye for fabric, except Denim. Often too smooth / shiny / plasticky or bland.
I really wish there were affordable clothes in Asket spirit but with fabrics Italian premium brand would choose.
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 twice the price. Inflation, I guess.
Haven’t bought clothes from them in a while because they last so long but the “line” matters too. My standard cotton ones are starting break but the suprima cotton ones are still going strong 4 years later.
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.
Lands end has decent stuff imo. I like their "tailored fit" super-t. Some of the colors are bad but they fit me well I think. I don't know if their pants are any good. I just get Levis.
They also, crucially, have sizing beyond just S/M/L et c. but within each they have regular (fat) slim (kinda fat—this is me) and tall. I think I've even seen tall-slim and maybe one other size on there (do they have a Trim size for people who are actually skinny, or is that another brand I'm thinking of?)
That's a must for getting a decent fit for off-the-rack clothes. Even t-shirts.
Plus, they don't even put logos on their polos, which is the one place that actually-nice clothes can get away with a logo. They're not the best-constructed, but they're not terrible, and no logo. BB's polos are better-made and use nicer material but when I wear them I feel like a douche because of the stupid embroidered sheep logo. I think both favor tennis-tail though, which sucks if you like to wear them untucked.
I'm a huge fan of their hoodies, that's the first thing I ever bought! I probably would have mentioned it if it was hoodie-wearing season where I live but those have been tucked away for a few months already.
As you get into the really expensive design stuff from brands, logos disappear. And of course, the people who buy the expensive stuff consider the cheaper stuff to be barbarian.
The expensive stuff still bears the trademark of the brand, the lead designer, or the collection. It's more subtle, but ultimately the reason why people buy it. And some brands really just sell the logo at a high price, like Hermes or Louis Vuitton.
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 overhear it, though
perhaps the assistant is into sports herself and made an honest
distinction between quality sports gear and the logo-heavy branded
items in the store.
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.
> made for sportswear for leisure, or even seeing it spill into the workplace
Hopefully you are young enough to have been spared the indignity of
witnessing a plague of fluorescent legwarmers and sweatbands escape
the aerobics gyms of the 1980s. :)
> 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.
I'll sometimes do this sort of thing when I travel. Lot easier to travel light when you don't need a separate pair of running shoes.
> 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.
A lot of modern casual and even business-casual fashion is (or was) sports wear.
Polo shirts? Explicitly designed for tennis—it's the reason the design exists. Pure sportswear.
Oxford-cloth button-downs? Sports wear. That's why it's got the buttons to keep the collar down, and why the cloth is so heavy-weight and rugged.
Rugby shirts? Jerseys? Of course.
Sneakers, of course. Also, many other shoe designs, from equestrian and hunting sports.
What's not sports wear is often former underwear. T-shirts and A-shirts (thought the latter remain very informal, at least) were/are underwear. Arguably leggings are underwear that (somehow—this trend remains baffling to me, but on the other hand, I mean, thank god for it, obviously) became sports wear and then became everyday casual wear.
Maybe they understand fashion and have different goals than you.
Some people want their fashion to make them blend in. Some people want their fashion to make them stand out. That doesn't mean one misunderstands it and one doesn't.
> I would buy clothes with no distinctive marks if I could find them.
Find a local tailor. Pick the fabrics you want from a catalog. Get your clothes made for your body while supporting someone's small business and artistic craft.
They're almost always sewn on as pre-made patches nowadays, at least in my area. I will forgive the clothier a printed patch but yes the fabric manufacturer's must be woven.
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?
It actually took me a minute to figure out what OP meant. I think it depends a lot on where you shop. And even somewhere like Wal-Mart, there's plenty of clothing available that doesn't have prominent branding and isn't "legible" clothing. I don't think finding men's clothing without branding is at all difficult, and it's actually easier the higher end you go.
Yeah, I guess it depends on location to some degree. In Europe, the cheap mainstream would be H&M and Zara, neither of which puts logos on things.
Above that, you're wearing a dress shirt, which never ever has a logo. Adidas and the like is strictly worn only by people who have lost control of their lives.
> 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.
Pretty much any shirt or hoodie or jacket you’re going to find in common stores will have a brand logo on it. If there’s no logo, at least it sports some random gibberish (New Mexico Surf Club ‘86).
I’m also from camp „not your free advertising estate“, and it’s difficult to find plain or ad-free clothes at times. Unless you’re strictly into suits, that is.
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.
>> I would buy clothes with no distinctive marks if I could find them. Just plain material and colors.
The irony being that actual "high-class" clothing is exactly what you're describing, at least since I've been a lucid adult. Seems like there is a bit of an inverse correlation between a person's income and the amount of logos they'll tolerate on their clothing.
Most people only think of military surplus and maybe don't want that
sort of gear. But if you want super quality, plain "grey-man" gear
like top-quality cotton polo shirts, very hard-wearing smart trousers
there's a whole world of surplus brokers who take government contract
overspill and whatnot.
I make a point of either removing or covering logos on my clothing and accessories when I can't find unbranded options. A seam ripper is useful for removing sewn-on patch style logos. For embroidered or embossed logos, I often sew on a Cascadian flag patch - all of my backpacks and utility bags have them!
I do that too all the time. A downside though is that you risk ripping the material, especially with knitted shirts. I've done that only a couple of times over the years, so it is not a big loss.
I thought you said Canadian flag patch and I remembered back in the 80s hearing about friends traveling in Europe who would sew Canadian flag patches on their backpacks to hide the fact that they were from the US.
My dad talks about backpacking through Europe in the early 60's as an American and it's all open doors and family dinners in every little town.
My experience more recently is that people seem to be aware that an American traveling abroad probably agrees with most of their criticisms and they're just curious about what it's really like here.
And here I thought I was the only one wielding a seam-ripper to this end. However, my patch for covering embroidered logos advertises Weyland-Yutani. I figure if you're going to shill for a company, it might as well be The Company.
Also, for excellent quality, US-made clothes with unobtrusive and easily-removed logos, you can't go wrong with https://www.american-giant.com/ .
If you want me to wear cloths with your logo on them, YOU must pay ME. I'm not going to pay you to wear your advertising.
This perhaps that comes from my days in top-level but obscure amateur/pro sports, but if I'm wearing a logo, it's from one of my sponsors, certainly not some competing brand, and I see no reason this shouldn't also apply to regular life.
I'll buy your stuff it it is good, but for me to advertise it by wearing a blatant logo you must pay me (the amount is up for discussion, but not the principle).
They were doing the same with car wraps, and again, if I support the produce and the pay is enough I'll wrap my car, but I'm sure AF not paying you to do it. Same with clothes.
I like them and wear them but get the logos removed by eg a seamstress, it's very cheap like 3 dollars. Crocodiles especially, I removed one myself but it took like 3 hours. They're on super tight.
I really like nice sportswear due to the materials, they’re just comfortable to wear. Unfortunately everything seems to require a Nike or Adidas logo somewhere on the clothing. I don’t even play sports! Anyone have recommendations for similar clothing but without the logos?
> I would buy clothes with no distinctive marks if I could find them.
Where do you shop and how do you dress? Most "corporate wear" mall brands (think Banana Republic, j-crew, brooks bros) sell clothes without logos. If you're into boring casual, Target sells racks of plain colored t-shirts and pants.
Seconding uniqlo, especially if you're on the thinner side. Indochino is great too, but can lean a little flashy.
This puts me off. If I Google how much the corporation is paying the workers on average and then see flashy office, expensive suits and workers make average sums... I mean why not pay that money to the worker? I don't understand.
Could be, but as someone who get lower body pains and injuries (ankles and knees mostly) and lower back fatigue relatively often (from exercising), I do prefer brands that are rooted in actually athletic use rather than purely design/looks.
Maybe it's just placebo but I feel like they're going to be more comfortable and give me better posture/support.
Yes, but authenticity as value signaling, not as a commitment to behave without unnecessary layers.
I lived in a meditation center for a year, and I saw some people there that claimed to be authentic, and worked to look like the stereotype. But they were actually hiding a desire for materialism and the failure to live up to it behind the apparent choice of rejecting it.
Style and looks is just what it is, a shell. And some people use clothing to augment what they are lacking in their character. And smart people can see through that.
I think this is why I get along so well with construction workers. As far as my personal presentation goes, I definitely look more like a carpeneter than a sysadmin on any given day.
I had a phase when I would wear expensive clothes. I thought that this way I would show the world that I am someone. You know an ego boost. But then I realised that almost nobody really cares and those people who care about these things are not the people I would like to be associated with.
Then when realise that this expensive piece of clothing is actually cheap and made by near slave workers somewhere in a third world country, you realise that you actually look stupid in those clothes.
Since then I only care if the clothing is made of good material and preferably in my own country - but this is not a given - it may say it's made in my country, but it could have been made in Asia but without tags.
My fashion tip if you’re a somewhat attractive 18-34 man: look at what unisex styles are fashionable among young women and try to recreate the look from the mens section.
You’ll have an outfit that looks sharp, and you can avoid a lot of the “$200 plain shirt with a logo” bullshit.
Except with Patagonia which made the decision to no longer supply these items as the recognized they were becoming a part of the uniform for finbros[0].
Flashy, but not if it's clean and professional. No bling or bright orange sneakers.
I worked with a gentleman once. He was a tall, handsome, intelligent manhattanite. Very pleasant to communicate with. He told me a story of how he was wearing some very simple clothing after running in Central Park at lunch - sweat pants and a vest. Someone later mistook him for a delivery boy. And on the opposite end, when he wears a suit, he is treated like a total VIP.
Do not underestimate the power of presentation and projection of success.
I get treated strikingly different by virtually everyone I meet when I'm wearing a just run of the mill suit[1] than when I'm wearing casual clothes. It's worth noting though, that the basic suit is meant to be subdued and even many very nice suits[2] aren't exactly flashy, they just fit together perfectly and look like they were made for you. I do wonder how much the typical person can tell the difference nowadays.
[1] From one of the online made to measure outfits for a few hundred bucks.
[2] The kind where you get a lot of quality time with your tailor from the start to the end of the process. These will run you into four figures to start.
I wonder if something similar applies to cars; anecdotally, people seem less likely to let a shiny Audi Q7 merge compared to an old Skoda or something.
I know some folks that own a successful clothing company. The wife is one of the top designers in the field. She's won all kinds of accolades, and is respected by the top people in the world (but not well-known, outside the industry).
They wear expensive clothes, but it's not noticeable, unless you really look. I suppose they "put on the ritz," when they go to industry events, but I don't attend those.
Some of the humblest, most down-to-earth folks I've ever known.
There are plenty of high quality, somewhat responsibly produced brands, that are highish priced but would never qualify as flashy (sunspel, l'estrange, common project, ...). They are also not what the article is talking about I guess, since they carry basically zero brand recognition.
I think what people might be missing here is that there are $60 unbranded T-Shirts and $300 jeans.
If you have even a mild eye for clothing you would still be able to see that they are not just a hanes shirt with levis. Casual fashion is a thing too.
I constantly wear clothes with logos such as : O'Reilly, Slackware, Debian, FSF, Postgresql... do you think it makes people less likely to cooperate? :)
I like to wear nice clothes at work. I feel good in them and it is my way of being respectful to the workplace.
I probably carry this too far when traveling. I have very light weight traveling sport coats and slacks - all washable in a hotel room and lots of hidden pockets (TravelSmith is a favorite brand). Sometimes it pays off big: when my wife and I were traveling around Central America with a buddy of mine and his wife, my friend just packed tshirts, shorts, and sandals. Every time we walked into a restaurant to eat, his wife complemented me on looking so nice. This bugged my friend, and if we can’t irritate our friends, then what is the joy in life :-) Seriously though, it just feels respectful to be nicely dressed when entering restaurants and people’s homes when traveling.
286 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 272 ms ] threadSome other people in the space (non-technical people) thought it was weird that he wasn't more outspoken about his accomplishments, and they even went so far as to doubt that he was heavily involved.
As an introvert, to hear people dismiss someone on the basis of them not boasting about themselves really stuck with me. I just can't express how vulgar I find that viewpoint, and my opinion of the people who dismissed the guy has changed irrevocably.
EDIT: I would agree with the post you were referring to, if someone were to judge me based on my boasting I'd rather not work with them because I'd have to put much effort into working around them misjudging me.
Please don't judge me on my absence of boasting.
EDIT: Oh you added a bunch of extra stuff now, please don't ninja edit like that
But as a recruiter or boss, the onus is on me to suss out the data I need. Given that introverted people have always existed and will always exist, it would be ignorant and lazy of me to only pick from the crop that puts themselves in the spotlight for me. Not to mention the very obvious fact that a lot of people are very good at selling themselves, even when they have nothing to offer.
I live in Kendall and am always on the lookout for decent ones that aren't the WeWork's.
That's pretty unnecessarily negative/uncharitable. I know people (usually older) who are perfectly un-self-interested and unconditionally sympathetic to all people who use "virtue emojis" very innocently/sincerely on their social media. All you have is the word of my anecdote, but these individuals are not engaging in self-promotion (unless one expansively defines it to include all unprovoked expressions of thought/opinion). These same people wouldn't be caught dead wearing flashy, "fashionable" clothing, or otherwise self-promoting in the spirit of competition.
[1] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-support-the-current-thing
> The results showed that participants elected to co-operate with partners whose avatars had unbranded clothing 57% of the time, but when the avatar sported a luxury logo, this figure dropped to 45%.
> A second study, in which participants could first choose the design of their own avatar, found that those who chose branded rather than unbranded clothing themselves were still less likely to choose to co-operate with partners with brand-boasting vs logo-free avatars.
I like wearing flashy clothes myself, and I would even say it has proven advantageous to cooperation in my line of work, so I was curious about this article. However, nowhere is it stated that flashy clothes make people less likely to cooperate with you. They say wearing clothes with luxury logos and signal high status does.
I simply stated what I had been told that if you're going to make a fashion faux pas it is better to be overdressed than under. What is confusing?
Suits can be luxury goods, but the study didn't explore that. It's unclear at a glance if this was actually about status given the methods. There could be other reasons people don't favor corporate-branded clothing, considering that wealthy people don't just wear polos with big corporate logos on them. Maybe it telegraphs poor taste, or that boosting luxury companies makes it seem like you're trying too hard to show that you have money (I make a distinction between this and someone who plainly looks high-status owing to their choice of wear). The obvious thing to include would have been avatars with non-luxury brands, it's possible that would have repelled as well.
On the other hand, every piece of heavily-branded clothing could be considered "luxury" in its own way and the only difference is social class, demographics. In low-culture you'll see Crooks and Castles, Fox Racing, Adidas, etc
It sent a pretty strong signal to us that their margins and commissions had a lot of room to negotiate down. I suspect we negotiated harder with this organization than we would have otherwise, looked for opportunities to reduce usage, and so on. Not solely because of the wealthy display, but I'm sure it played some part.
“Science”
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.
Uniqlo
Edit: ok, they seem to be in larger cities. I'm in the Wisconsin, I was able to find that there are stores in Chicago, for instance.
More than 80% of my wardrobe is from Uniqlo, including 10 dry pique polos, 20 supima cotton tees, and 10 flannel button ups, all black. Makes getting dressed in the morning stress-free because I know I'm going to like how I look every day. The blacks do not fade — I have 5-year-old shirts that look practically as good as 6-month-old ones.
Their jeans, especially their selvedge jeans, are also high quality and priced well. Same for my winter parka, vests, fleeces, shorts, socks, underwear.
Best part: nary a logo in sight.
You have to pay hundreds for genuine denim Levis which puts them in the fashion pretentious class imo.
I really wish there were affordable clothes in Asket spirit but with fabrics Italian premium brand would choose.
Asker’s chinos are the comfiest trousers I’ve ever worn. The Egyptian cotton tees are also great.
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 twice the price. Inflation, I guess.
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.
That's a must for getting a decent fit for off-the-rack clothes. Even t-shirts.
Plus, they don't even put logos on their polos, which is the one place that actually-nice clothes can get away with a logo. They're not the best-constructed, but they're not terrible, and no logo. BB's polos are better-made and use nicer material but when I wear them I feel like a douche because of the stupid embroidered sheep logo. I think both favor tennis-tail though, which sucks if you like to wear them untucked.
Frankly, it’s vulgar.
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 overhear it, though perhaps the assistant is into sports herself and made an honest distinction between quality sports gear and the logo-heavy branded items in the store.
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.
Hopefully you are young enough to have been spared the indignity of witnessing a plague of fluorescent legwarmers and sweatbands escape the aerobics gyms of the 1980s. :)
I'll sometimes do this sort of thing when I travel. Lot easier to travel light when you don't need a separate pair of running shoes.
A lot of modern casual and even business-casual fashion is (or was) sports wear.
Polo shirts? Explicitly designed for tennis—it's the reason the design exists. Pure sportswear.
Oxford-cloth button-downs? Sports wear. That's why it's got the buttons to keep the collar down, and why the cloth is so heavy-weight and rugged.
Rugby shirts? Jerseys? Of course.
Sneakers, of course. Also, many other shoe designs, from equestrian and hunting sports.
What's not sports wear is often former underwear. T-shirts and A-shirts (thought the latter remain very informal, at least) were/are underwear. Arguably leggings are underwear that (somehow—this trend remains baffling to me, but on the other hand, I mean, thank god for it, obviously) became sports wear and then became everyday casual wear.
Even their “description” meta-tag makes it clear that they focus on fashion items.
> JD Sports is the leading sneaker and sport fashion retailer. With many limited edition and exclusive design from adidas Originals and Nike.
Some people want their fashion to make them blend in. Some people want their fashion to make them stand out. That doesn't mean one misunderstands it and one doesn't.
Find a local tailor. Pick the fabrics you want from a catalog. Get your clothes made for your body while supporting someone's small business and artistic craft.
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?
Above that, you're wearing a dress shirt, which never ever has a logo. Adidas and the like is strictly worn only by people who have lost control of their lives.
That is expensive trash, not fashion. If I go to a nice restaurant in a big city, people aren't wearing that crap.
I’m also from camp „not your free advertising estate“, and it’s difficult to find plain or ad-free clothes at times. Unless you’re strictly into suits, that is.
The understated stuff is usually much more expensive.
I think Vercace is the only brand I know of that's the opposite.
The irony being that actual "high-class" clothing is exactly what you're describing, at least since I've been a lucid adult. Seems like there is a bit of an inverse correlation between a person's income and the amount of logos they'll tolerate on their clothing.
Still, I find it distasteful to pay extra so they don't stick a logo. So I don't.
Most people only think of military surplus and maybe don't want that sort of gear. But if you want super quality, plain "grey-man" gear like top-quality cotton polo shirts, very hard-wearing smart trousers there's a whole world of surplus brokers who take government contract overspill and whatnot.
My experience more recently is that people seem to be aware that an American traveling abroad probably agrees with most of their criticisms and they're just curious about what it's really like here.
Also, for excellent quality, US-made clothes with unobtrusive and easily-removed logos, you can't go wrong with https://www.american-giant.com/ .
If you want me to wear cloths with your logo on them, YOU must pay ME. I'm not going to pay you to wear your advertising.
This perhaps that comes from my days in top-level but obscure amateur/pro sports, but if I'm wearing a logo, it's from one of my sponsors, certainly not some competing brand, and I see no reason this shouldn't also apply to regular life.
I'll buy your stuff it it is good, but for me to advertise it by wearing a blatant logo you must pay me (the amount is up for discussion, but not the principle).
They were doing the same with car wraps, and again, if I support the produce and the pay is enough I'll wrap my car, but I'm sure AF not paying you to do it. Same with clothes.
Where do you shop and how do you dress? Most "corporate wear" mall brands (think Banana Republic, j-crew, brooks bros) sell clothes without logos. If you're into boring casual, Target sells racks of plain colored t-shirts and pants.
Seconding uniqlo, especially if you're on the thinner side. Indochino is great too, but can lean a little flashy.
Easy, https://loropiana.com/
If at a trade show, or big internal presentation, then some degree of ‘flair’ is helpful.
This puts me off. If I Google how much the corporation is paying the workers on average and then see flashy office, expensive suits and workers make average sums... I mean why not pay that money to the worker? I don't understand.
Often we don't have the choice.
I lived in a meditation center for a year, and I saw some people there that claimed to be authentic, and worked to look like the stereotype. But they were actually hiding a desire for materialism and the failure to live up to it behind the apparent choice of rejecting it.
Irony can be pretty ironic.
That I've noticed, most grown-ups have a fairly decent sense of what social messages their clothing might send, and how others will likely react.
Does that mean you enjoy dressing up for work?
You’ll have an outfit that looks sharp, and you can avoid a lot of the “$200 plain shirt with a logo” bullshit.
[0]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/midtown-uniform-patagonia-will-...
I worked with a gentleman once. He was a tall, handsome, intelligent manhattanite. Very pleasant to communicate with. He told me a story of how he was wearing some very simple clothing after running in Central Park at lunch - sweat pants and a vest. Someone later mistook him for a delivery boy. And on the opposite end, when he wears a suit, he is treated like a total VIP.
Do not underestimate the power of presentation and projection of success.
[1] From one of the online made to measure outfits for a few hundred bucks.
[2] The kind where you get a lot of quality time with your tailor from the start to the end of the process. These will run you into four figures to start.
They wear expensive clothes, but it's not noticeable, unless you really look. I suppose they "put on the ritz," when they go to industry events, but I don't attend those.
Some of the humblest, most down-to-earth folks I've ever known.
https://www.wmagazine.com/story/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-bru...
If you have even a mild eye for clothing you would still be able to see that they are not just a hanes shirt with levis. Casual fashion is a thing too.
I probably carry this too far when traveling. I have very light weight traveling sport coats and slacks - all washable in a hotel room and lots of hidden pockets (TravelSmith is a favorite brand). Sometimes it pays off big: when my wife and I were traveling around Central America with a buddy of mine and his wife, my friend just packed tshirts, shorts, and sandals. Every time we walked into a restaurant to eat, his wife complemented me on looking so nice. This bugged my friend, and if we can’t irritate our friends, then what is the joy in life :-) Seriously though, it just feels respectful to be nicely dressed when entering restaurants and people’s homes when traveling.