Scepticism and fashion

[3point14]

I wasn't really sure where to put this, so if it needs moving, please do so.

Of course it may disappear off the bottom of the board too quickly for that.

Anyway…

Is it possible to be 'sceptical' with regards to clothing and fashion?

Do the choices you make with regard to how much we spend on clothing (and jewellery, timepieces etc.) reflect your sceptical nature?

Or is it possible to reconcile ones 'inner sceptic' with purchasing fashionable items when it seems that a great deal of the cost paid for the item reflects not the quality of the product, but the cost of marketing and the cost of purchasing a celebrity (or sporting) endorsement.

Or am I trying to connect two completely disparate things?

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I suppose skeptical does not always equal practical. Sure a pair of pants with a quarter-sized hole in the rear or a shirt with a large stain are likely just as good as brand new clothes, but most of us would replace them anyway.

We realize that how we look (right or wrong) has a major influence on how other people will treat us.




LLH

[Francesca R]

Or is it possible to reconcile ones 'inner sceptic' with purchasing fashionable items when it seems that a great deal of the cost paid for the item reflects not the quality of the product, but the cost of marketing and the cost of purchasing a celebrity (or sporting) endorsement.

Or am I trying to connect two completely disparate things?

Hmmm, rationalising a price ticket because it adequately covers the costs and a healthy profit margin seems to thoroughly remove critical analysis from the decision to me—it looks at things only from the seller's side and not from the buyer's. If another retailer spent even more on branding an identical article and wanted even more profit, then such thinking would lead you to happily cough up for that more expensive item too, and conclude it was "fair value".

You might not have meant me to interpret that that way . . . it wasn't clear to me.

Anyway—if the utility I get from some fashion item is higher than the cost, I think it's a rational decision. :)

[3point14]

Hmmm, rationalising a price ticket because it adequately covers the costs and a healthy profit margin seems to thoroughly remove critical analysis from the decision to me—it looks at things only from the seller's side and not from the buyer's. If another retailer spent even more on branding an identical article and wanted even more profit, then such thinking would lead you to happily cough up for that more expensive item too, and conclude it was "fair value".

You might not have meant me to interpret that that way . . . it wasn't clear to me.

Anyway—if the utility I get from some fashion item is higher than the cost, I think it's a rational decision. :)


Apologies if it's not clear - I'm not entirely certain I'm clear myself.

What I think I'm trying to ask is that if there are two shirts, made to precicely the same standard and one has the fashionable little logo on it and therefore costs 200% the price of the unbranded shirt, would it be a sceptical response to buy the cheaper product? Or can I not link this to a sceptical attitude?

[MortFurd]

Apologies if it's not clear - I'm not entirely certain I'm clear myself.

What I think I'm trying to ask is that if there are two shirts, made to precicely the same standard and one has the fashionable little logo on it and therefore costs 200% the price of the unbranded shirt, would it be a sceptical response to buy the cheaper product? Or can I not link this to a sceptical attitude?
I don't know about skeptical attitude, but it'd sure appeal to my "don't get ripped off" attitude.

I buy my clothes by quality and planned usage. I'd rather pay $50 for a good shirt that I'll wear for three years than buy a cheap shirt that I'll have to replace next month. The clothes I buy don't tend to have manufacturer or team logos on them. They tend to have a tag on the inside to remind you where you bought it 'cause you'll probably have forgotten by the time you wear one out.

Pants the same, except for blue jeans. Those are allowed to fade, and I but don't buy the expensive ones - they're for working and getting grubby in, so I don't invest a lot of money in them. I do tend to but Levi's, but that's mostly habit now from younger days when I was skinnier. Levi's boot cut blue jeans stayed up on my scrawny ass better.

I don't need somebody else's name blazoned across my chest or branded onto my back side to demonstrate my worth.

[Francesca R]

if there are two shirts, made to precicely the same standard and one has the fashionable little logo on it and therefore costs 200% the price of the unbranded shirt, would it be a sceptical response to buy the cheaper product? Or can I not link this to a sceptical attitude?Quite possibly you could get some considerable mileage from being critical of the justification made by an individual who values the logo that highly. I will throw out some straw-justifications so that you can have a try . . .

1) I get accepted in a certain social circle if I have the logo. This boosts my self-esteem and my welfare

2) I feel that wearing the logo results in more credibility with business associates and clients, which increases the revenue of my company. I can show you sales figures that prove this.

3) My SO loves the brand. I think it's probably poppycock but I wear it to make him happy because I don't seem to be able to talk him out of this fashion fixation.

4) The image presented by the maker of these branded clothes is very much more in line with my values than others. In particular they eschew using sweatship labour and environmentally damaging practices. They go to a lot of lengths to demonstrate this which increases their costs, but I'm happy to pay the premium.

Have at it!

[Carnivore]

It is possible to take a skeptical attitude to clothes. I am completely uninterested in fashion, and buy clothes based on comfort, utility and durability (I play airsoft and tramp in the hills.) In doing so, I encounter the various claims of sportswear and military kit manufacturers. Some of these claims are sound, some are definately not. A skeptical attitude is required to sort valid claims from invalid ones. A geardo who just has to have the latest ripstop go faster tactikool pair of pants for £200 because of the marketing hype isnt that different from someone who buys a magic charm to protect themself from burglars. It comes down to accepting an unsubstantiated claim because you want to believe.

When it comes to something more subjective like fashion, a skeptical attitude would be to evaluate the supposed benefit of the more expensive of two near identical items. If you are considering buying designer clothes because you think it could bring you an advantage (respect, acceptance or whatever) over identical non designer clothes, ask yourself how you could test whether that advantage really exists?

If you find that it does, and the benefit to you is worth the premium, go for it. If not, tell those worthless parasitic fashionazi scum where to get off, loathsome emotional blackmailers and pushers of the uniform of conformity that they are. (Sorry, I seem to have started raving. ;) )

[Overman]

:grouphug5

Other skeptics make nice accessories...

:beerflag:

[fishbait]

Or is it possible to reconcile ones 'inner sceptic' with purchasing fashionable items ...The problem seems to be that my 'inner sceptic' is three sizes smaller than my 'outer fat as$'.

[joelblanchette]

My rational, skeptical decision is to not make that choice. My wife is demonstrably much better suited to the task of selecting my clothing than I ever will be... :D

[3point14]

Quite possibly you could get some considerable mileage from being critical of the justification made by an individual who values the logo that highly. I will throw out some straw-justifications so that you can have a try . . .

1) I get accepted in a certain social circle if I have the logo. This boosts my self-esteem and my welfare

2) I feel that wearing the logo results in more credibility with business associates and clients, which increases the revenue of my company. I can show you sales figures that prove this.

3) My SO loves the brand. I think it's probably poppycock but I wear it to make him happy because I don't seem to be able to talk him out of this fashion fixation.

4) The image presented by the maker of these branded clothes is very much more in line with my values than others. In particular they eschew using sweatship labour and environmentally damaging practices. They go to a lot of lengths to demonstrate this which increases their costs, but I'm happy to pay the premium.

Have at it!


Thanks for that - I started a response, then realised it was pretty redundant.

I love the circularity of 1 & 2, another form of self perpetuating 'meme'?

I think the reason I started this thread is that, while we all (mostly) seem to be agreed that we need to be rid of irrationalities like religion, superstition and the like, I find that just as much wasted energy is pumped into 'keeping up with the Jones's' in all it's forms (Chasing the fashion dragon being the one that annoys me most as it seems the most pointless).

Also I was wondering if anyone would admit to being a fashion junkie and a critical thinker, and to find out if they could make a decent fist of justifying that stance.

[Francesca R]

I think the reason I started this thread is that, while we all (mostly) seem to be agreed that we need to be rid of irrationalities like religion, superstition and the like, I find that just as much wasted energy is pumped into 'keeping up with the Jones's' in all it's forms (Chasing the fashion dragon being the one that annoys me most as it seems the most pointless).Personally I see no need to rid anyone other than me of such things, but anyway . . .

Also I was wondering if anyone would admit to being a fashion junkie and a critical thinker, and to find out if they could make a decent fist of justifying that stance.

I trace fashion and suchlike all the way back to the Hegelian "struggle for recognition" and accept this as a human trait that is not economically rational but still rational and not to be extinguished per se.

I don't admit to being a fashion junkie. I freely admit that recognition from my fellows is a positive contributor to my well being though, and a rational pursuit. But fashion might be an inefficient way to do that. On the other hand, it works sometimes.

[Jocky]

Interesting discussion ... I'm in the same camp as Carnivore as far as clothes go. Designer labels leave me completely cold.

Here's a side issue: it has been suggested above there may be a degree of irrationality in paying an excessively high price for an item simply because it bears a designer label (and of course I may be biased in putting forward that proposition, but that's another story). One might expect the corollary that habitual purchasers of designer clothing are more likely than average to buy other irrational goods and services.

Or to put it another way: is there a correlation between buying designer clothes and believing in woo?
:duck:

[3point14]

Personally I see no need to rid anyone other than me of such things, but anyway . . .

I have to say, I do, but I think that's a different discussion.





Or to put it another way: is there a correlation between buying designer clothes and believing in woo?
:duck:


Interesting thought, but we've all seen, heard of or read about people who have really first rate critical thinking skills that just allow their brains to switch off when encountering their own personal sacred cow. I know some pr3etty smart people who think it's really important to be dressed in something really expensive.

Not that it wouldn't be an interesting study.

[Francesca R]

I know some pr3etty smart people who think it's really important to be dressed in something really expensive.Have you asked them why they do that and can you invalidate their reasons? That was the point of my example "justifications"—it's a pity that you didn't take up the challenge since you do seem to have the view that it is not logical to buy fashion . . .

[3point14]

That was the point of my example "justifications"—it's a pity that you didn't take up the challenge since you do seem to have the view that it is not logical to buy fashion . . .

Hmm, perhaps I couldn't give you a decent rebuttal of all your reasons, I'll apply a little more thought to it and see what I can come up with.

Perhaps it does matter from an individual point of view, but if we all jacked it in tomorrow and had no more truck with the fashion houses, we'd all be wearing pretty much the same thing but paying less for it, it's just <insert appropriate celebrity/sportsman/team here> would not be getting their cut.

The same applies to some other things too, pay-per-view sporting events and the like. We'd all pay less, the event would still go ahead and those celebrities who get paid for endorsement would be a little less rich.

So perhaps it works on an individual basis, but as a whole, I can't see it achieves much.

I could be wrong, I often am.

[drkitten]

I love the circularity of 1 & 2, another form of self perpetuating 'meme'?

It's not circular, since it can be backed up with empirical evidence. (As acuity pointed out, there are sales figures if you need them.)

A piece of advice that I learned long long ago says something like "don't take diet advice from fat people." By the same token, I try not to take financial advice from people who aren't doing as well as I am, financially. If someone has enough "disposable" money to be able to buy good suits and such, that's a sign that they're managing their own money well -- which lends credibility. It's not a perfect sign, of course; I've known millionaires in ratty T-shirts and I've known people to spend their last few hundred on a good suit in a last desperate gasp for a job. But the fact that the guy who teaches the local "financial analysis" class here drives a Mercedes, while the rest of the faculty drive Hondas, suggests to me that maybe he does know something about the Market....

Clothes are a big part of your image. If the image you want to present is that of someone who is more concerned about price tags than logo, then buy the cheap shirt. But don't be surprised if someone infers a (negative) reason for that concern....

[Francesca R]

Perhaps it does matter from an individual point of view, but if we all jacked it in tomorrow and had no more truck with the fashion houses, we'd all be wearing pretty much the same thing but paying less for it, it's just <insert appropriate celebrity/sportsman/team here> would not be getting their cut.

The same applies to some other things too, pay-per-view sporting events and the like. We'd all pay less, the event would still go ahead and those celebrities who get paid for endorsement would be a little less rich.I don't follow the relevance. If we all changed our minds about wanting to maximise profit from investment and about demanding a real return for postponing consumption from today to tommorrow, then everything would be free and there would be no interest rates. But what does that have to do with the question at hand?

The default condition is that sellers want profits on what they produce and buyers want utility (value) from things that they hand over cash for. Now what? Why is paying more for a branded item of clothing irrational? Can you refute all claims of value-added beyond the anonymous product as woo?

[3point14]

It's not circular, since it can be backed up with empirical evidence. (As acuity pointed out, there are sales figures if you need them.)

Perhaps circular is the wrong word, just if everyone ignored it, it wouldn't matter.

Perhaps I mena that if it wasn't there, we wouldn't notice, but I realise that could be said about a whole lot of things that are tremendously useful.


And I don't mean the 'cheap shirt'. I just mean the equally well made shirt, just without the little designer label on the front - same cut, same cloth, same stitching, just missing the logo.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Is it possible to be 'sceptical' with regards to clothing and fashion?
I'm skeptical about the entire fashion industry and haut couture in general. Heck, I'm skeptical about people's reasons for dressing up.

~~ Paul

[3point14]

The default condition is that sellers want profits on what they produce and buyers want utility (value) from things that they hand over cash for. Now what? Why is paying more for a branded item of clothing irrational? Can you refute all claims of value-added beyond the anonymous product as woo?

Okay, so two items of clothing, one without branding, one with, otherwise identical.

The branded item costs twice as much as the non branded one, due marketing and associated costs.

I personally would view it as irrational to buy the more expensive item, yes, but I can see how others would want the more expensive one, but only so they could make sure the world knew (from the logo on the front) that they were wearing an expensive shirt.

Maybe if you move in circles different to mine this is important, I don't know, I don't move in those circles, but it seems a little daft to me, I can't see that the logo adds that much value, if any.

[drkitten]

The branded item costs twice as much as the non branded one, due marketing and associated costs.

I personally would view it as irrational to buy the more expensive item, yes, but I can see how others would want the more expensive one,[...]

You're contradicting yourself here. If you can see why others would (rationally) want it, then it's not irrational to buy. You're really saying that you have a different assessment of the value of the little alligator logo (or whatever), but that doesn't make people who disagree with you irrational.

In some senses, it works out to the question "how much do you value the image of wealth and social status?" If your job simply involves crunching code in the back room of an office where no one ever sees you, then you have no professional reasons to cultivate a physical appearance of credibility. On the other hand, if you're a spokesman or a salesman, credibility may be the single most important characteristic you bring to the job.

Just because I'd never spend $1500 on football tickets doesn't mean that football fans are irrational....

[Francesca R]

Er, . . . ah . . . I was gonna say more-or-less the same as drkitten

[3point14]

You're contradicting yourself here. If you can see why others would (rationally) want it, then it's not irrational to buy. You're really saying that you have a different assessment of the value of the little alligator logo (or whatever), but that doesn't make people who disagree with you irrational.

Hang on, quote the whole sentence. You missed the 'only if...' bit, which referred to an action (letting everyone know how much your shirt cost) which I think is irrational, so I don't think I'm contradicting myself. At least, not too much.



In some senses, it works out to the question "how much do you value the image of wealth and social status?" If your job simply involves crunching code in the back room of an office where no one ever sees you, then you have no professional reasons to cultivate a physical appearance of credibility. On the other hand, if you're a spokesman or a salesman, credibility may be the single most important characteristic you bring to the job.


And what I think I'm saying is that it is irrational of society to place such a premium on these thing. An individual placing value on these things may be just a rational reaction to an irrational society.

But I don't think it's impossible to be well turned out or credible without wearing 'labels', which appears to be what you're implying? A well cut suit is a well cut suit (or shirt or slacks or whatever) and the label on the pocket makes no difference at all to how smart one looks, apart from people can see that what you're wearing is expensive.

[drkitten]

And what I think I'm saying is that it is irrational of society to place such a premium on these thing.

"Society" doesn't place a premium on anything. In case you hadn't noticed, "society" is an abstraction, and can no more hold values than the colour red can.

An individual placing value on these things may be just a rational reaction to an irrational society.

Might be. But since the "society" has no mind, the idea of an "irrational society" is inherently ludicrous. What other insanities are you going to attribute to abstractions -- "paranoiac redness"? "schizoid inertia"? "catatonic Deism"?

Remove the word "irrational" since it has no place in the sentence, and you have a much better and more accurate phrasing.

"An individual placing value on these things may be just a rational reaction to society."

[Cuddles]

An important question is why is the one with the logo more expensive? Most designer clothes are expensive because over the years they have gained a reputation for being worth it. Of course, fashion companies are in it for the money and realise that once people are willing to pay for a logo there is no reason to spend as much on the quality of the clothes, since people will still think they are getting better clothes. I think this is what you may be missing, it is entirely rational to pay more for a logo if you assume that the company selling it is the same as the company that was selling it 50 years ago when they built their reputation.

I think there is also a bit of a straw man involved here Okay, so two items of clothing, one without branding, one with, otherwise identical.
Is this ever really the case? In general, a suit that costs £500 is better quality than one that costs £50. I have a t-shirt with an Animal logo that cost £15 and a plain one that cost £2, that both look the same apart from the logo. The plain one had holes after a few months while the one with the logo is still going strong. Of course there are times when companies do just charge for the logo, but most of the time you genuinely do get what you pay for.

[3point14]

"Society" doesn't place a premium on anything. In case you hadn't noticed, "society" is an abstraction, and can no more hold values than the colour red can.



Might be. But since the "society" has no mind, the idea of an "irrational society" is inherently ludicrous. What other insanities are you going to attribute to abstractions -- "paranoiac redness"? "schizoid inertia"? "catatonic Deism"?

Remove the word "irrational" since it has no place in the sentence, and you have a much better and more accurate phrasing.

"An individual placing value on these things may be just a rational reaction to society."

I think perhaps you're just debating semantics for the hell of it now.

I think I can apply the term 'irrational' to a society, as it is composed of thinking beings (the colour red and inertia aren't) and reacts to input and influences. You can step back from society and look at how it is reacting and label it 'rational' or 'irrational. I have no problem with doing that.

(NB - now unable to reply till tomorrow, so if you reduce my argument to so many shards on the floor, I'll eat humble pie tomorrow, not tonight.)

[Francesca R]

I think there is also a bit of a straw man involved here [ . . . ] In general, a suit that costs £500 is better quality than one that costs £50. True. Although companies would dearly like to make an identical suit and put a logo on and be able to charge ten times as much! Much marketing is expended to convince you that it is better and it has an incentive to overstate the improvement—hence the resorting to intangibles like celebrity endorsement and "customer experience" and "image".

In case you hadn't noticed, "society" is an abstraction, and can no more hold values than the colour red can.I don't see this. Society is a collective noun and can hold values as much as "that group of people over there" can. In speaking of society's values the reference is to the dominant or prevailing values of the group. [/sidetrack]

[ChristineR]

1) Clothing is a form of communication. The little alligator communicates something. Not to mention the whole "I look hot" part and "I look rich."

2) Fashion is fun. I'd rather have a $1500 dress than those $1500 football tickets.

3) I'd rather have my money go to a small entrepreneur working in a garage in New York than a big box retailer shopping third world countries for the cheapest slave labor.

4) In practice, the "same quality + little logo = higher price" equation usually doesn't apply. The high end brands truly are better made, as the bigger retailers are all involved in a race to the bottom (see (3)).

5) A lot of fashionable stuff is too specialized to have much economy of scale. You buy your $1500 dress and accessorize it with a blouse from J. Crew and shoes from Naturalizer, which do fall into the "more value in the long run because they last longer" category.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

2) Fashion is fun. I'd rather have a $1500 dress than those $1500 football tickets.
I'd rather just have the $1500. Dressing up isn't fun, it's work.

~~ Paul

[ChristineR]

I'd rather just have the $1500. Dressing up isn't fun, it's work.

~~ Paul

My dad would agree with you, then turn around and invest the $1500 in risky stocks. :D

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Or a classic car?

~~ Paul

[3point14]

Lots to think about, but I don't think I've changed my mind yet.

I think my attitude is just a reflection of my annoyance that so many parts of society seem to be governed and assessed on image, rather than substance. That's probably just a reflection of the free market economy, and I'm pretty certain that's not going to change in a hurry. (if at all)

[Francesca R]

It's not so much to do with a market economy as to do with the fact that people value image—partly because image is often evidence of substance (and people don't always have time to test exhaustively for substance).

That may not always be true but I think a rationale has been advanced here that you haven't refuted.

[3point14]

That may not always be true but I think a rationale has been advanced here that you haven't refuted.

I think you're right, I'm not going to deny it, and I hope to come back to this thread when I've thought a little more about it. I'm not about to jump into an argument I can't support - I've seen what happens to people who do this around here, and it's sometimes not pretty.

Also, I tend to come here with ideas that I have only half formed so that I can see them battered around a bit and find out what happens. I'm not refusing to believe that I'm wrong yet, but I'm not sure I'm not right either.

[ChristineR]

I'd like to draw a line between image and fashion. Everyone has an image, which they cultivate and present. Fashion also has a number of meanings, but I take it here to mean something like "expensive clothes."

It's possible to be very socially conforming and image-conscious without spending a lot of money or time on your clothes. I don't see that someone wearing jeans and a T-shirt is less guilty of that than someone wearing an expensive suit. Indeed, the expensive suit may be the nonconformist option. One notable case is "conformist non-conformist" looks, like goth punk or hippy.

So even the people who claim to be going for comfort and value are actually conforming to some very specific social norms. I happen to care a lot about my place in this hierarchy, many are content to accept a place right in the middle of their peers. But I don't think there are any truly neutral choices.