|
MisterMuscaria



Registered: 05/13/08
Posts: 27,646
Loc:
|
Re: Extreme high end designer clothing. [Re: TheCreampie]
#14439221 - 05/12/11 09:06 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Most of my thoughts on the matter have been summed up already(mainly by dipoloid). I think if you have a problem with someone wearing nice clothes that's your problem and not them and you are giving them power over you.
What I noticed was no one addressed the benefits of wearing designer clothing though. Here is an article from the Economist I found interesting;
Quote:
I've got you labelled Mar 31st 2011 From The Economist print edition
Clothes may make the man, but it is the label that really counts
What more could a boy want?
DESIGNERS of fancy apparel would like their customers to believe that wearing their creations lends an air of wealth, sophistication and high status. And it does—but not, perhaps, for the reason those designers might like to believe, namely their inherent creative genius. A new piece of research confirms what many, not least in the marketing departments of fashion houses, will long have suspected: that it is not the design itself that counts, but the label.
Rob Nelissen and Marijn Meijers of Tilburg University in the Netherlands examined people’s reactions to experimental stooges who were wearing clothes made by Lacoste and Tommy Hilfiger, two well-known brands that sell what they are pleased to refer to as designer clothing. As the two researchers show in a paper about to be published in Evolution and Human Behavior, such clothes do bring the benefits promised: co-operation from others, job recommendations and even the ability to collect more money when soliciting for charity. But they work only when the origin of the clothes in question is obvious.
In the first experiment, volunteers were shown pictures of a man wearing a polo shirt. The photo was digitally altered to include no logo, a designer logo (Lacoste or Hilfiger) or a logo generally regarded as non-luxury, Slazenger. When the designer logo appeared, the man in the picture was rated as of higher status (3.5 for Lacoste and 3.47 for Hilfiger, on a five-point scale, compared with 2.91 for no logo and 2.84 for Slazenger), and wealthier (3.4 and 3.94 versus 2.78 and 2.8, respectively).
To see if this perception had an effect on actual behaviour, the researchers did a number of other experiments. For instance, one of their female assistants asked people in a shopping mall to stop and answer survey questions. One day she wore a sweater with a designer logo; the next, an identical sweater with no logo. Some 52% of people agreed to take the survey when faced with the Tommy Hilfiger label, compared with only 13% who saw no logo.
In another experiment, volunteers watched one of two videos of the same man being interviewed for a job. In one, his shirt had a logo; in the other, it did not. The logo led observers to rate the man as more suitable for the job, and even earned him a 9% higher salary recommendation.
Charitable impulses were affected, too. When two of the team’s women went collecting for charity on four consecutive evenings, switching between designer and non-designer shirts, they found that wearing shirts with logos brought in nearly twice as much—an average per answered door of 34 euro cents (48 American ones) compared with 19 euro cents when logo-less. It seems, then, that labels count. The question is, why?
The answer, Dr Nelissen and Dr Meijers suspect, is the same as why the peacock with the best tail gets all the girls. People react to designer labels as signals of underlying quality. Only the best can afford them. To test that idea, they checked how people responded to a logo they knew had cost the wearer nothing. To do this, they asked their volunteers to play a social-dilemma game, in which both sides can benefit from co-operating, but only at the risk of being taken advantage of.
Each volunteer was given €2 in 10 cent coins and told he (or she) could transfer as much as desired to an unseen partner, and that any amount transferred would be doubled. If both partners transferred all of their money, each would end up with €4. But because there was no guarantee that the unseen partner would give back any money at all, players tended to hedge their bets, and transfer only some money.
When shown a picture of their purported partner wearing a designer shirt, volunteers transferred 36% more than when the same person was shown with no logo (95 cents, as opposed to 70 cents). But when told that the partner was wearing a shirt given by the experimenters, the logo had no effect on transfers. The shirt no longer represented an honest signal.
This study confirms a wider phenomenon. A work of art’s value, for example, can change radically, depending on who is believed to have created it, even though the artwork itself is unchanged. And people will willingly buy counterfeit goods, knowing they are knock-offs, if they bear the right label. What is interesting is that the label is so persuasive. In the case of the peacock, the tail works precisely because it cannot be faked. An unhealthy bird’s feathers will never sparkle. But humans often fail to see beyond the superficial. For humans, then, the status-assessment mechanism is going wrong.
Presumably what is happening is that a mechanism which evolved to assess biology cannot easily cope with artefacts. If the only thing you have to assess is the quality of a tail, evolution will tend to make you quite good at it. Artefacts, though, are so variable that mental shortcuts are likely to be involved. If everyone agrees something has high status, then it does. But that agreement often transfers the status from the thing to the label. Maybe a further million years or so of evolution will eliminate this failing. In the meantime, marketers can open another bottle of champagne.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs



Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
a doctor does something benificial by saving lives, thats totally different than being arrogant come on now haha.
My point was that you can't possibly know when someone is being arrogant or not, since arrogance has to do with one's specific intention and feelings and thoughts that come with it; and if you don't know what someone's real feelings are, then you're just assuming and most likely projecting. In the same fashion you did with assuming that, since doctors save lives, they can't possibly be arrogant about their knowledge and skills. And, by the way, who ever said that saving lives in better than wearing nice expensive clothing? And please don't give me that crap that human life is special, unless you're also willing to demonstrate in what this specialness resides.
Quote:
We were only talking about people with money and clothes showing off n stuff which is why i've only said that has bothered me and plus it does indeed only bother me due to my past experiences with money trouble and my own mental and emotional inadiquicies BUT alot of the population has the same view about rich people and them showing off do they not?
Congratulations! Through this, not only that you admitted that this problem isn't on the rich people's end, but you have also realized that a good part of other individuals share the same neurosis. Now, perhaps you could also agree that it is very possible that you're only imaging them to be arrogant.
--------------------
   All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
MarkostheGnostic
Elder


Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 3 years, 3 days
|
Re: Extreme high end designer clothing. [Re: TheCreampie]
#14452168 - 05/14/11 04:19 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
TheCreampie said: Such an investment spending thousands of dollars on rags to gain the greed of others. This form of materialistic over-indulgence has no limits, but it sure does help boost those greedy bastard's egos. It makes people believe their socioeconomic status is what defines them as beings above everyone else.
You either identify your Real Self as the core of a metaphorical 'onion,' or you identify with the surface. This is to say, one has a primarily spiritual identity or a primarily material identity, eternal or a temporal, ontological or existential. We are however, BOTH, and the Middle Way which Realizes this, must necessarily move to the middle of the extremes - naked ascetic or designer clothes. As long as I can manage it, I'll wear jeans from Shepler's Western Wear in Kansas, and cotton shirts. Rarely need outer wear in Miami. I dress to manifest the unimportance of the whole money-social status-fashion conscious-personal worth game in a style that probably harkens back to the cowboy shows of my early childhood, and the 'cosmic cowboy' look of the late 60s. It is what Robert DeRopp called the 'Hog-in-Trough game.' http://www.livereal.com/spiritual_arena/spiritual_members/master_game.htm So, my life is more about the development and expansion of consciousness, than it is about using my energies to manifest the dense, contractive nature of materiality. I can appreciate a 2011 Ferrari 458 Italia, and if my life was about acquiring the money to possess such a vehicle for the associated status, and because I wanted a lure for gold diggers, strippers, and hookers, then this kind of vehicle would be the kind of shell that my psychospiritually undeveloped, but finely attired self would want to be ensconced in.
The Real Self is expansive. It is the Void. The various psychological, social and physical 'skins' that enclose and clothe our naked Self all constitute various level of ego, or identity. We can choose to identify with these levels to the extent that we are conscious beings. The A Harvard educated lawyer in a 2 thousand dollar business suit does not want to diminish his egoic-identity which is grounded in social-physical levels of Reality. He is not going to be ecstatic at the realization that at the core, we do not exist as individual egos; that we are not even perceptible to the senses. This is of course abhorrent to a dyed-in-the-wool materialist, because existence, form in its myriad manifestations, of which he can reflect on his relative rarity in a given location, is what inflates that brand of ego. However, inflation of the ego is the opposite of expanded mind - mind is unlimited, ego is embodied and limited.
" A tolerably unanimous opinion ranges the different selves of which a man nay be 'seized and possessed,' and the consequent different orders of his self-regard, in an hierarchical scale with the bodily self at the bottom, the spiritual self at top, and the extracorporeal material selves and the various social selves between." - William James
-------------------- γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself
|
mushiepussy

Registered: 02/06/11
Posts: 1,198
Loc:
|
|
I would not have a problem with people flaunting nice clothes if society didn't respect them for doing so. The masses seem to be very confused about what is important in life, and democracy is controlled by majority.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
Re: Extreme high end designer clothing. [Re: mushiepussy] 1
#14454872 - 05/15/11 04:52 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
most designer clothing is crappy glitzy & competitive self destructing garbage - in the same way as most of the stuff we plebes buy from big box stores.
however there is some stuff under the radar stuff hand made simple elegant stuff that fits amazingly - no glitz
leathers that become part of your body, hemps that look like you inherited them, silvers that almost predict where you will put your hand. It is very nice to dress in these things, even if nobody ever sees you. Students who know will save up for a bag, a ring or pair of M.A+ boots or maybe a leather hoodie or super comfy pants or maybe Guidi boots with a zip up the back (maybe extravagant, but you should see the heels when you are on mushrooms, actually you don't need to be on anything they look like that anyway). I would much rather have these things than an SUV, or a swimming pool or a cottage. and if I had a good job, I would have only hand made clothes of quality fabrics from these extreme high end under the radar designers. you can't tell by looking unless you know what to look for. no glitz. just elegance and resonance. http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=ma%2B%20jacket&gs_sm=c&gs_upl=871l4711l0l4l4l0l0l0l0l191l553l1.3&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1296&bih=707
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
helix
Idealist Thinker Musician Lover


Registered: 09/13/10
Posts: 409
|
Re: Extreme high end designer clothing. [Re: Diploid]
#14459325 - 05/15/11 09:47 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Diploid said: Why does what someone does with their money concern you in any way?
Sweatshops. Poor treatment of workers. Meaning fellow human beings being hurt so that some dude can look snazzy in his culturally acceptable way
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
Re: Extreme high end designer clothing. [Re: helix]
#14459947 - 05/15/11 11:41 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
those are reasons to go to artisnal hi end design which is never made in sweatshops while almost all cheap stuff is made in sweatshops
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
mushiepussy

Registered: 02/06/11
Posts: 1,198
Loc:
|
Re: Extreme high end designer clothing. [Re: redgreenvines]
#14460345 - 05/16/11 01:45 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: those are reasons to go to artisnal hi end design which is never made in sweatshops while almost all cheap stuff is made in sweatshops
soaked with the blood from childrens nimble little fingers, just the way I like it. Seriously.
|
|