8 ms·

If you take a pair of unwashed 501s and compare them to a pair of unwashed Iron Heart denim, you will see that the quality difference is substantial. Whether th

by baus 9y ago

If you take a pair of unwashed 501s and compare them to a pair of unwashed Iron Heart denim, you will see that the quality difference is substantial. Whether that matters is something you have to decide for yourself Since I wear denim almost everyday, the quality difference and the attention to detail matters to me. It reminds me that attention to detail matters in my own work I don't understand why engineers tend to care so little about the quality of their clothes

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
anigbrowl 9y ago
I don't understand why engineers tend to care so little about the quality of their clothes Virtue signaling. It says you're focused on your intellectual pursuits rather than material things (in contrast to 'the suits'). This is actually great from a hiring manager's point of view, because you can also guess (guess, not know) from someone's appearance whether they are single and to what degree they take care of themselves, while will in turn give an idea of how much work you can pile onto them before they figure it out or change their personality. For those who don't 'get' clothes (as a former sufferer): you may not be able to readily distinguish expensive clothes from cheap ones, or see the point of wearing them. But other people do, and if you look like money, you will be able to get more money in negotiations. If you look or say that you don't care about such things, you'll get lots of affirmation and less money, because affirmation is virtually free. There's also a kind of signaling by people who are rich enough not to care about these things and dress accordingly, which is a way of reminding other people that you have so much money you don't care about what impression you make. This only works when people already know you're wealthy, though.
- wutbrodo 9y ago
  Oh please. Virtue signalling is a useful topic, but it gets really tiresome to see people who just discovered the concept run around and excitedly apply it to everything, like a child with a new toy. The downside of higher quality clothing (money) is obvious: it's the upside that needs explaining. Fashion is the prototypical example of signaling, and quality as held separate from fashion has a couple minor advantages like being long-lasting and marginally more comfortable that many people feel aren't worth the price. I dress moderately well, but that's largely against my preferences. I do it because I'm aware that people treat you differently based on how you look and how you dress, and I've decided that the cost and annoyance of putting together a good wardrobe is worth the benefits. To be clear, I've got a pretty low opinion of those who judge others based on their attire, but I'm realistic (and cynical) enough to get that that's the world I live in. I've worked with a lot of incredibly smart engineers at places like Google, and the people I know pretty much ran the gamut of caring about the quality of their clothing. The only difference is that they tended to have their work performance judged on productivity instead of fashion so, relative to others, their calculus for how to dress included one less variable in favor of dressing up.
  - Nav_Panel 9y ago
    I think there are other reasons to dress well other than just signaling. I personally find psychological benefits to dressing nicely -- I feel much more industrious and "ready-to-work" when I wear a nice outfit to work compared to tshirt/jeans/sneakers, plus I get a nice "switch" effect when I get home and can take it all off. Similarly, I feel more prepared to exercise when I switch into my exercise clothes, even though those DO have "real" benefits thanks to their cut and material. Beyond that, the signaling can be extensive. Not all signals are "quality" -- you can dress to show off your creativity or as a means of expression (I personally love to thrift/vintage shop and learn about fashion trends from other eras). You can dress to emphasize/de-emphasize various aspects of your face and body, presumably for sex appeal. And sure, you can dress to show that you've got money to spend. But a lot of times, people dress to fit in. This can apparently get venomous in certain professions (finance, for one). In tech, there's often a dress code, as described in this comment[1], and "dressing like you don't understand why people care about nice clothing" is realistically pretty close to it. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14404413 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14404413
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - wutbrodo 9y ago
      Sure I agree with you on this, and I didn't intend for my comment to sound like there's no case for dressing nicely beyond signaling. When I said that the side requiring justification is that of dressing nicely, personal explanations like yours are exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of. What I was arguing against is the maximizing impulse on the _other_ end: the notion that it's so self-evidently universally valuable that the primary reason to not dress well would be Virtue signaling. That comment you linked to is just flat bullshit. People who desperately try to justify strict old-fashioned dress codes somehow conflate "you can literally lose your job if you don't dress this way" with "I feel awkward being the only person dressed this way, even in the absence of anyone else's reaction". It's insane to me that so many people uncritically parrot this utter nonsense.
    - watwut 9y ago
- ashark 9y ago
  > There's also a kind of signaling by people who are rich enough not to care about these things and dress accordingly, which is a way of reminding other people that you have so much money you don't care about what impression you make. This only works when people already know you're wealthy, though. Fussell notes this in his Class. The group he categorizes as "top out-of-sight" (mostly old money) is genuinely beyond caring about appearances and are where you get a lot of "eccentric" rich-person behavior like wearing really cheap clothes. Upper-class folks, especially younger ones, may very carefully and deliberately dress way down, especially when traveling (for some reason), though they will not, and will not intend to, actually blend in. Separately but somewhat relatedly, he claims that higher classes will tend to buy unexceptional things where spending more is seen as primarily a status signaling thing, and especially when the thing is in any way technological—so buying a flashy, expensive, new car belongs to the sensibilities of the upper-middle classes and lower (regardless of their income—talking about socialized class, not income) while the comfortably rich might just own a beat-up Chevy, or an old luxury car. Where you do not see people do it is when there's a risk they might actually be mistaken for belonging to any part of Fussell's "prole" category—so, upper-middle and, especially, middle.
  - Nav_Panel 9y ago
    Fussell's book was written prior to "hipsters" as we know them, but many tenets of "hipster fashion" are predicated on some of the same logic as "upper-class folks intentionally dressing down" -- educated, urban, corporate-employed, well-to-do young people dressing "down" in streetwear or workwear like Carhartt (this one really confused my parents). Obviously they will not be construed as a member of the rural working class, as they live in a city, and the racial dimension also plays a (fairly disgusting, if you think about it) role. Also, although the parts you selected are pretty reasonable and provide insight in this discussion, I would advise taking Fussell's book with some caution: it is an entertaining read but it is not definitive or really all that well-supported beyond his personal observations, and it slices a particular time and culture that seems to be on the wane (as the American middle class disappears, and the nature of the working class changes).
    - ashark 9y ago
- watwut 9y ago
  > you may not be able to readily distinguish expensive clothes from cheap ones, or see the point of wearing them. But other people do, and if you look like money, you will be able to get more money in negotiations. If you look or say that you don't care about such things, you'll get lots of affirmation and less money, because affirmation is virtually free. but ... it is supposed to be meritocracy :)
watwut 9y ago
Some people (me) genuinely are oblivious to the differences - shopping is annoying chore and it just does not make enough difference. You basically want to be done with it and wear whatever is generally socially appropriate as long as you can.

by baus 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

anigbrowl 9y ago

I don't understand why engineers tend to care so little about the quality of their clothes Virtue signaling. It says you're focused on your intellectual pursuits rather than material things (in contrast to 'the suits'). This is actually great from a hiring manager's point of view, because you can also guess (guess, not know) from someone's appearance whether they are single and to what degree they take care of themselves, while will in turn give an idea of how much work you can pile onto them before they figure it out or change their personality. For those who don't 'get' clothes (as a former sufferer): you may not be able to readily distinguish expensive clothes from cheap ones, or see the point of wearing them. But other people do, and if you look like money, you will be able to get more money in negotiations. If you look or say that you don't care about such things, you'll get lots of affirmation and less money, because affirmation is virtually free. There's also a kind of signaling by people who are rich enough not to care about these things and dress accordingly, which is a way of reminding other people that you have so much money you don't care about what impression you make. This only works when people already know you're wealthy, though.

wutbrodo 9y ago
Oh please. Virtue signalling is a useful topic, but it gets really tiresome to see people who just discovered the concept run around and excitedly apply it to everything, like a child with a new toy. The downside of higher quality clothing (money) is obvious: it's the upside that needs explaining. Fashion is the prototypical example of signaling, and quality as held separate from fashion has a couple minor advantages like being long-lasting and marginally more comfortable that many people feel aren't worth the price. I dress moderately well, but that's largely against my preferences. I do it because I'm aware that people treat you differently based on how you look and how you dress, and I've decided that the cost and annoyance of putting together a good wardrobe is worth the benefits. To be clear, I've got a pretty low opinion of those who judge others based on their attire, but I'm realistic (and cynical) enough to get that that's the world I live in. I've worked with a lot of incredibly smart engineers at places like Google, and the people I know pretty much ran the gamut of caring about the quality of their clothing. The only difference is that they tended to have their work performance judged on productivity instead of fashion so, relative to others, their calculus for how to dress included one less variable in favor of dressing up.
- Nav_Panel 9y ago
  I think there are other reasons to dress well other than just signaling. I personally find psychological benefits to dressing nicely -- I feel much more industrious and "ready-to-work" when I wear a nice outfit to work compared to tshirt/jeans/sneakers, plus I get a nice "switch" effect when I get home and can take it all off. Similarly, I feel more prepared to exercise when I switch into my exercise clothes, even though those DO have "real" benefits thanks to their cut and material. Beyond that, the signaling can be extensive. Not all signals are "quality" -- you can dress to show off your creativity or as a means of expression (I personally love to thrift/vintage shop and learn about fashion trends from other eras). You can dress to emphasize/de-emphasize various aspects of your face and body, presumably for sex appeal. And sure, you can dress to show that you've got money to spend. But a lot of times, people dress to fit in. This can apparently get venomous in certain professions (finance, for one). In tech, there's often a dress code, as described in this comment[1], and "dressing like you don't understand why people care about nice clothing" is realistically pretty close to it. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14404413 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14404413
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - wutbrodo 9y ago
    Sure I agree with you on this, and I didn't intend for my comment to sound like there's no case for dressing nicely beyond signaling. When I said that the side requiring justification is that of dressing nicely, personal explanations like yours are exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of. What I was arguing against is the maximizing impulse on the _other_ end: the notion that it's so self-evidently universally valuable that the primary reason to not dress well would be Virtue signaling. That comment you linked to is just flat bullshit. People who desperately try to justify strict old-fashioned dress codes somehow conflate "you can literally lose your job if you don't dress this way" with "I feel awkward being the only person dressed this way, even in the absence of anyone else's reaction". It's insane to me that so many people uncritically parrot this utter nonsense.
  - watwut 9y ago
ashark 9y ago
> There's also a kind of signaling by people who are rich enough not to care about these things and dress accordingly, which is a way of reminding other people that you have so much money you don't care about what impression you make. This only works when people already know you're wealthy, though. Fussell notes this in his Class. The group he categorizes as "top out-of-sight" (mostly old money) is genuinely beyond caring about appearances and are where you get a lot of "eccentric" rich-person behavior like wearing really cheap clothes. Upper-class folks, especially younger ones, may very carefully and deliberately dress way down, especially when traveling (for some reason), though they will not, and will not intend to, actually blend in. Separately but somewhat relatedly, he claims that higher classes will tend to buy unexceptional things where spending more is seen as primarily a status signaling thing, and especially when the thing is in any way technological—so buying a flashy, expensive, new car belongs to the sensibilities of the upper-middle classes and lower (regardless of their income—talking about socialized class, not income) while the comfortably rich might just own a beat-up Chevy, or an old luxury car. Where you do not see people do it is when there's a risk they might actually be mistaken for belonging to any part of Fussell's "prole" category—so, upper-middle and, especially, middle.
- Nav_Panel 9y ago
  Fussell's book was written prior to "hipsters" as we know them, but many tenets of "hipster fashion" are predicated on some of the same logic as "upper-class folks intentionally dressing down" -- educated, urban, corporate-employed, well-to-do young people dressing "down" in streetwear or workwear like Carhartt (this one really confused my parents). Obviously they will not be construed as a member of the rural working class, as they live in a city, and the racial dimension also plays a (fairly disgusting, if you think about it) role. Also, although the parts you selected are pretty reasonable and provide insight in this discussion, I would advise taking Fussell's book with some caution: it is an entertaining read but it is not definitive or really all that well-supported beyond his personal observations, and it slices a particular time and culture that seems to be on the wane (as the American middle class disappears, and the nature of the working class changes).
  - ashark 9y ago
watwut 9y ago
> you may not be able to readily distinguish expensive clothes from cheap ones, or see the point of wearing them. But other people do, and if you look like money, you will be able to get more money in negotiations. If you look or say that you don't care about such things, you'll get lots of affirmation and less money, because affirmation is virtually free. but ... it is supposed to be meritocracy :)

watwut 9y ago

Some people (me) genuinely are oblivious to the differences - shopping is annoying chore and it just does not make enough difference. You basically want to be done with it and wear whatever is generally socially appropriate as long as you can.