It’s a Twitter link so I can’t be bothered to actually read it. My immediate reaction is to ask if this is some form of bias.
Survivorship bias: People who had access to stable lives and institutions are more likely to have their photos passed down to the present day.
Selection bias: are you looking for old fashion photos or just statistically random old photos of people?
Sampling bias: Aren’t well dressed people more likely to be photographed because they are better subjects and because the privilege that allows them to be well dressed also affords them access to cameras and photographers?
I think there’s “people dressed better in the past” and there’s “people only took pictures of themselves when they were dressed nicely in the past”.
There were lazy afternoon pants in yesteryear. However you also owned fewer pants, shirts, etc back then as well. You HAD to take care of what you owned and you had less disposable income. You only bought the nicest you could practically afford.
Nice view of how much manufacturing excess changes things.
—
I still try to dress nicely. I have a nice linen shirt and pants that I love but they were expensive. I have less expensive nice clothing with patterns, flannel shirts, a pair of wool pants, a pair of corduroys, all varying colors. What I enjoy doing is matching different fabrics and colors. That a lone looks fancier than all cotton ensemble even if the fabrics aren’t expensive. And remember you can always put on a flashy pair of sneakers. Usually shoes don’t even have to match anything.
There are simple things you can do too. For example, you don’t have to buy $150 selvedge jeans to roll the cuff up on your pair. Dressing nicely is about variety and flourishes more than cost really.
Yes, and I believe this is due to people following how the rich dresses.
In the past, the well-to-do dressed in suites and nice evening wear, so the poorer people start following them.
Then at the start of "Tech" wealth, the people starting those companies tended to dress down, guess what ? Poorer people followed. I kind of expect it has to do with reproduction as in finding a mate :)
Someone, whether employed or married, being at home every day to faff about boiling and ironing and starching may not explain why people wanted to do that, but it helps explain why it was possible.
Much as I actually do quite like wearing a nice shirt to work, ironing the damn thing plus pressing trousers and running about having suits dry cleaned in the window the laundry is open and I'm not at work is a hassle and if I'm not prepared to do it if I don't actually have to, I'm certainly not going to make my (also full time working) spouse do it for me.
That seems very subjective, i’m more of the opinion clothes are far more practical nowadays, who wants to wear a suit in summer? It’s just not sensible
Socioeconomic class issue to assume attractive clothes are "scorching" in the summer. They are not.
If your family can only afford one buttondown shirt, one tie, and one pair of nice pants you buy the winter weight because its far more durable (will last years or decades) and you will SWEAT in the summer.
If you can afford summer weight stuff, I own plenty of silky light button down shirts that are far more comfortable and flattering to my body than a thick heavy soggy cotton graphics art lower class tee shirt.
Staying "cool" used to mean being rich, or rich enough to own finer fabrics.
There is also a long term generational shift from people were thin and aspired to look good in "thin" clothes, to people are fat and aspire to look good in "thin" clothes, to now people are fat and don't even bother making an effort anymore. Or putting in any effort at all (clean, no holes, not smelly) that puts them in a high enough class that going even fancier is wasted effort if they already look better than 99% of people they'll run into.
In a less "everyone is s**" take than siblings, this could be a number of biases:
- Availability/survival bias: People took fewer pictures in the past and were more likely to be taking those pictures on special occasions (when they were dressed nicely).
- Now that we live in a world of generational fashion, the previous generation's "casual" wear becomes the next generation's "dressy" (read: stodgy) wear.
- People owned less clothing, had less access to varied clothing, and laundry processes were harsh, so they wore sturdier (and heavier) clothing that more easily supported "dressing well".
- "Back in my day, people conformed" isn't exactly a novel take.
> - Availability/survival bias: People took fewer pictures in the past and were more likely to be taking those pictures on special occasions (when they were dressed nicely).
Contra: while not as prevalent as in the current digital age, street photography was a thing in the past too. If you look at the photos (e.g.) Vivian Maier took of everyday people, doing everyday things, you'll get a more random sampling:
I have high-twist wool(!) trousers that are comfortable up to 90 F. Most people couldn't tell they're not normal wool dress trousers. I have linen trousers that aren't really any warmer than shorts (and they keep the sun off you). Ditto for shirts. I'd rather be in long sleeves and trousers, all light-woven linen, in high heat, than in shorts and a T. Doesn't really insulate more, does keep the sun off.
I have an unlined wool navy blazer in a Summer weight that breaths so well it's basically totally ineffective at warming a person up, LOL. Put it on, take it off, makes basically no difference, aside from the color being dark enough that it does absorb heat from the sun. If I wore that kind of stuff more, I'd have other options that're even better in the heat.
I have some sweaters that're completely comfortable into the high 70s F (50/50 silk/linen blend, thin) and one that won't make you feel like your clothes are making you warmer up to at least 85F (that one's 100% linen and open-weave).
I dunno where people got the idea that you have to be uncomfortable if you're wearing much more than a swimsuit, in the heat.
y'all: this is a metacommentary on "make america great again". he's juxtaposing pictures of a variety of people in the past with ugly "modern" Republicans to make the point that their ideology is inconsistent and contemporary.
A couple observations of the not so distant past (in my lifetime). NBA coaches and players, not playing but sitting on the bench, used to wear suits and ties regularly. Also, Most of the congregation in the church I attended as a child dressed up for church. Now a large part of the congregation are in very casual wear (including shorts and tee shirts).
I think if I were to take notes I would notice that women tend to dress better, both WNBA coaches and at church as well as just general out and about.
Good thread. I wish he touched on COVID's impact to the athleisure and its role in popularizing technical fabrics. Athleisure is all the way in these days mostly thanks to WFH.
As for heat/cold: wool is unbeatable for hot formal wear. A super 120 wool suit with a wool blend shirt will feel effortless and will actually help cool you down a little bit.
While I very much enjoy Derek Guy's posts, I find "dressed better" very vague. That were the way clothes were made in the past, that was the style then. I recall seeing an older lady (75-80ish) waiting at a bus stop in San Francisco in the early 2000s and that woman was dressed in an older style but very nice suit and a small hat. That's how people dressed when they went out in public back in the day.
Now we have sweats, yoga pants, blob shaped shoes, saggy pants, and ripped jeans, and it's all acceptable wear, at least in the urban landscape.
25 comments
[ 1.0 ms ] story [ 31.4 ms ] threadSurvivorship bias: People who had access to stable lives and institutions are more likely to have their photos passed down to the present day.
Selection bias: are you looking for old fashion photos or just statistically random old photos of people?
Sampling bias: Aren’t well dressed people more likely to be photographed because they are better subjects and because the privilege that allows them to be well dressed also affords them access to cameras and photographers?
Didn't really resonate with me, I'm not very interested in fashion.
I did think the first comment was interesting, that it could be selection bias as fewer photos were taken so people dressed up.
There were lazy afternoon pants in yesteryear. However you also owned fewer pants, shirts, etc back then as well. You HAD to take care of what you owned and you had less disposable income. You only bought the nicest you could practically afford.
Nice view of how much manufacturing excess changes things.
—
I still try to dress nicely. I have a nice linen shirt and pants that I love but they were expensive. I have less expensive nice clothing with patterns, flannel shirts, a pair of wool pants, a pair of corduroys, all varying colors. What I enjoy doing is matching different fabrics and colors. That a lone looks fancier than all cotton ensemble even if the fabrics aren’t expensive. And remember you can always put on a flashy pair of sneakers. Usually shoes don’t even have to match anything.
There are simple things you can do too. For example, you don’t have to buy $150 selvedge jeans to roll the cuff up on your pair. Dressing nicely is about variety and flourishes more than cost really.
In the past, the well-to-do dressed in suites and nice evening wear, so the poorer people start following them.
Then at the start of "Tech" wealth, the people starting those companies tended to dress down, guess what ? Poorer people followed. I kind of expect it has to do with reproduction as in finding a mate :)
Much as I actually do quite like wearing a nice shirt to work, ironing the damn thing plus pressing trousers and running about having suits dry cleaned in the window the laundry is open and I'm not at work is a hassle and if I'm not prepared to do it if I don't actually have to, I'm certainly not going to make my (also full time working) spouse do it for me.
If your family can only afford one buttondown shirt, one tie, and one pair of nice pants you buy the winter weight because its far more durable (will last years or decades) and you will SWEAT in the summer.
If you can afford summer weight stuff, I own plenty of silky light button down shirts that are far more comfortable and flattering to my body than a thick heavy soggy cotton graphics art lower class tee shirt.
Staying "cool" used to mean being rich, or rich enough to own finer fabrics.
There is also a long term generational shift from people were thin and aspired to look good in "thin" clothes, to people are fat and aspire to look good in "thin" clothes, to now people are fat and don't even bother making an effort anymore. Or putting in any effort at all (clean, no holes, not smelly) that puts them in a high enough class that going even fancier is wasted effort if they already look better than 99% of people they'll run into.
- Availability/survival bias: People took fewer pictures in the past and were more likely to be taking those pictures on special occasions (when they were dressed nicely).
- Now that we live in a world of generational fashion, the previous generation's "casual" wear becomes the next generation's "dressy" (read: stodgy) wear.
- People owned less clothing, had less access to varied clothing, and laundry processes were harsh, so they wore sturdier (and heavier) clothing that more easily supported "dressing well".
- "Back in my day, people conformed" isn't exactly a novel take.
Contra: while not as prevalent as in the current digital age, street photography was a thing in the past too. If you look at the photos (e.g.) Vivian Maier took of everyday people, doing everyday things, you'll get a more random sampling:
* https://www.vivianmaier.com/gallery/street-1/
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_photography
I have high-twist wool(!) trousers that are comfortable up to 90 F. Most people couldn't tell they're not normal wool dress trousers. I have linen trousers that aren't really any warmer than shorts (and they keep the sun off you). Ditto for shirts. I'd rather be in long sleeves and trousers, all light-woven linen, in high heat, than in shorts and a T. Doesn't really insulate more, does keep the sun off.
I have an unlined wool navy blazer in a Summer weight that breaths so well it's basically totally ineffective at warming a person up, LOL. Put it on, take it off, makes basically no difference, aside from the color being dark enough that it does absorb heat from the sun. If I wore that kind of stuff more, I'd have other options that're even better in the heat.
I have some sweaters that're completely comfortable into the high 70s F (50/50 silk/linen blend, thin) and one that won't make you feel like your clothes are making you warmer up to at least 85F (that one's 100% linen and open-weave).
I dunno where people got the idea that you have to be uncomfortable if you're wearing much more than a swimsuit, in the heat.
Rich people always had tailored clothing: tuxedos were expected for men at dinner
Poor people didn't: lots of "unfortunate pants" and dresses made from sacks
I think if I were to take notes I would notice that women tend to dress better, both WNBA coaches and at church as well as just general out and about.
As for heat/cold: wool is unbeatable for hot formal wear. A super 120 wool suit with a wool blend shirt will feel effortless and will actually help cool you down a little bit.
Now we have sweats, yoga pants, blob shaped shoes, saggy pants, and ripped jeans, and it's all acceptable wear, at least in the urban landscape.