3 ms·

So if the value of some abundant commodity, e.g. houses, models, etc. is highly dependent on social proof or some other metric that depends on 'gut' feelings to

So if the value of some abundant commodity, e.g. houses, models, etc. is highly dependent on social proof or some other metric that depends on 'gut' feelings to derive its value then that commodity is susceptible to being irrationally valuated.

hugh3 16y ago
Is it that analogous to houses? Entire housing markets can be overvalued, but you never get individual houses getting significantly overvalued compared to others in the same area. This, incidentally, is what Coco Rocha looks like: http://fashionindie.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Coco+rocha+face.jpg http://fashionindie.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Coco+roch... I don't understand it either.
- jewbacca 16y ago
  I'm pulling this mostly out of my ass, but I'm pretty sure that to call a fashion model misvalued because of her facial attractiveness is misunderstanding fashion models. Fashion models are not Maxim models; I'd imagine they're actually actually fairly disconnected pools of talent. There is some conjunction (eg. Sports Illustrated), but there's an availability bias -- most of the fashion models you or I are aware of are the ones who are culturally relevant outside the fashion world (mostly for being really hot). The value of a Maxim model comes from how sexually attractive she is to men. They'll mostly be shorter, healthier and have bigger breasts. Maxim models are also subject to the cultural whims of their audience and their variable loci of attractiveness, not all of them defined by purely physical factors -- Danica Patrick or Hillary Duff, while I certainly wouldn't kick them out of bed, in a cultural vacuum of pure adolescent horniness, would not be in the same league as Miranda Kerr. Fashion models are frames for hanging art. A weird, angular face may be an important component in the look of a piece of clothing. Art also undeniably interacts with the personal character it's associated with. With most art, that's only in the creator, but I'd imagine that in fashion modeling, most of the spectators who care will perceive a piece of clothing and the character of a show by the composition of the personalities of the models in it. In high-fashion, anyways, where I'd imagine, like in the highest-level in any field, distinction is tuned down to subtle details that neophytes wouldn't even notice: it is crudely and fundamentally complementary to a fashion show or line to be shown off on somebody attractive; but when you get up there in talent, every detail, including the model, must be tuned to some creative harmony, and that value is not at all captured in the sexual attractiveness of a model by herself. [again, disclaimer: I actually have no idea what I'm talking about. I haven't opened a Maxim in 6 years, I've watched a few episodes of America's Next Top Model, and I'm otherwise a red-blooded Canadian heterosexual male nerd.]
  - jonny_noog 16y ago
    I can't claim to be an expert either, but for what it's worth I think you're pretty spot on there. In the realms of high fashion - along side the artistic considerations you describe - you're dealing primarily with the ideal of female beauty as it is seen from the perspective of certain kinds of women and gay men, as most fashion designers, commentators and other such interested parties are women or gay men. As opposed to the stereotypical, heterosexual male ideal that one might see on display in Maxim et al.
  - mkramlich 16y ago
    I have my own theory to explain the differences between the way that fashion models look (esp the "elite" NewYork/Paris ones) versus the sorts of models you see on the covers of men's magazines. My primary theory is that the former are chosen mostly by women and gay men. Whereas the latter are chosen mostly by straight men. Notice how much more boy-ish, angular and bulimic fashion models look compared to the women you see in Maxim or Playboy. The former are chosen more to show off clothing whereas the latter are chosen to show off themselves. So big differences both in purpose and in the controlling audience.
  - nandemo 16y ago
    Fashion models are frames for hanging art. A weird, angular face may be an important component in the look of a piece of clothing. This is rather insightful. I always knew that fashion-models were different from Playboy/Maxim-models, but I always chalked it up to a combination of weirdness and isolation of the high fashion world.

hugh3 16y ago

Is it that analogous to houses? Entire housing markets can be overvalued, but you never get individual houses getting significantly overvalued compared to others in the same area. This, incidentally, is what Coco Rocha looks like: http://fashionindie.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Coco+rocha+face.jpg http://fashionindie.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Coco+roch... I don't understand it either.

jewbacca 16y ago
I'm pulling this mostly out of my ass, but I'm pretty sure that to call a fashion model misvalued because of her facial attractiveness is misunderstanding fashion models. Fashion models are not Maxim models; I'd imagine they're actually actually fairly disconnected pools of talent. There is some conjunction (eg. Sports Illustrated), but there's an availability bias -- most of the fashion models you or I are aware of are the ones who are culturally relevant outside the fashion world (mostly for being really hot). The value of a Maxim model comes from how sexually attractive she is to men. They'll mostly be shorter, healthier and have bigger breasts. Maxim models are also subject to the cultural whims of their audience and their variable loci of attractiveness, not all of them defined by purely physical factors -- Danica Patrick or Hillary Duff, while I certainly wouldn't kick them out of bed, in a cultural vacuum of pure adolescent horniness, would not be in the same league as Miranda Kerr. Fashion models are frames for hanging art. A weird, angular face may be an important component in the look of a piece of clothing. Art also undeniably interacts with the personal character it's associated with. With most art, that's only in the creator, but I'd imagine that in fashion modeling, most of the spectators who care will perceive a piece of clothing and the character of a show by the composition of the personalities of the models in it. In high-fashion, anyways, where I'd imagine, like in the highest-level in any field, distinction is tuned down to subtle details that neophytes wouldn't even notice: it is crudely and fundamentally complementary to a fashion show or line to be shown off on somebody attractive; but when you get up there in talent, every detail, including the model, must be tuned to some creative harmony, and that value is not at all captured in the sexual attractiveness of a model by herself. [again, disclaimer: I actually have no idea what I'm talking about. I haven't opened a Maxim in 6 years, I've watched a few episodes of America's Next Top Model, and I'm otherwise a red-blooded Canadian heterosexual male nerd.]
- jonny_noog 16y ago
  I can't claim to be an expert either, but for what it's worth I think you're pretty spot on there. In the realms of high fashion - along side the artistic considerations you describe - you're dealing primarily with the ideal of female beauty as it is seen from the perspective of certain kinds of women and gay men, as most fashion designers, commentators and other such interested parties are women or gay men. As opposed to the stereotypical, heterosexual male ideal that one might see on display in Maxim et al.
- mkramlich 16y ago
  I have my own theory to explain the differences between the way that fashion models look (esp the "elite" NewYork/Paris ones) versus the sorts of models you see on the covers of men's magazines. My primary theory is that the former are chosen mostly by women and gay men. Whereas the latter are chosen mostly by straight men. Notice how much more boy-ish, angular and bulimic fashion models look compared to the women you see in Maxim or Playboy. The former are chosen more to show off clothing whereas the latter are chosen to show off themselves. So big differences both in purpose and in the controlling audience.
- nandemo 16y ago
  Fashion models are frames for hanging art. A weird, angular face may be an important component in the look of a piece of clothing. This is rather insightful. I always knew that fashion-models were different from Playboy/Maxim-models, but I always chalked it up to a combination of weirdness and isolation of the high fashion world.