It's important to dress the part when you want to achieve something working with others. Put on the mask and try to become that role.

It's also important to not get attached to the image that comes back as projection from others.

Dressing casually in all situations and all groups is a sign that you are fixated to some self-image, exactly the same way as always being Dapper Dan is. You will self-select yourself into a some group and role in it without knowing it. The role you are most comfortable in is not what you really are. It's just where you are most comfortable. Challenging that may be stressful.

There is no role that is 'real you'. What you 'really are', or finding your 'true self' is pop psychology. Being comfortable and constantly adjusting to situations and roles is the best we can do.

Swapping out a button-down shirt and khakis--assuming that's what you tended to wear in a business context a few years ago--for jeans and a more casual shirt to better look the part at a developer conference is every bit the same as putting on a suit for a different context.

This is very interesting. I have in the last year or so given up on ties or even tucking in my shirt. For me it there was a point where the discomfort of business attire wasn't worth the fun of playing that role. I liked it, on occasion, but the difference in comfort levels is enough that it distracts me if I am trying to do technical work.

While I agree with you, and I too actively avoid people or institutions where these sorts of status games have taken hold, it's important to understand how privileged it is to be able to opt out. Some people in precarious financial or social situations have to navigate this world to live, and understanding these biases is helpful to them. Obviously in the ideal world we would combat these biases or at least their ability to affect other people's wellbeing, but we're quite far from that world at the moment.

> Some people in precarious financial or social situations have to navigate this world to live, and understanding these biases is helpful to them.

I'm reminded of low income people I've known who struggled to save for a suit to wear to a job interview for yet another low paying job at a factory. Privilege indeed.

For their woes they get an extra 0 at the end of their payslip.

I am not really too concerned with those type of people.

I'm talking about people who might be one bad interaction away from unemployment, homelessness or losing their kids.

For such people, it's a lot more important to signal familiarity with bourgeois/middle-class values than economic status per se. So it's one instance where one's outfit might actually convey useful info to outsiders. But even then, they don't have to expend huge amounts of money/effort; they just have to not screw it up.

If you look at photos from many decades or even, say, a century ago, back when middle-class values were truly common across the socio-economic spectrum, you'll see it was a lot more common for even low-income folks to wear suits or at least semi-casual wear. The point was not to waste resources or signal wealth; everyone knew that these people were quite poor. It was all about values.

It shows that people subconsciously believe that better dressed people are more competent.

Well at least they pretend to have their marbles together to have a clean outfit.

I think it not thoroughly conscious choice how we dress, but a mix of how we see ourselves and how we want to be seen by others.

It's nice that you feel good, but that's not what this was about. Namely, how others perceive you.

I think the point of this study is that it wasnt predicated on the subjects. The results of the study are not that rich people judge people by their clothes, but that people judge people by their clothes.

You may not be quite as different as you think. Nerds often "wear" trendy frameworks and laptop stickers while patting themselves on the back for not caring about designer labels. In clothing and couture at least the superficiality is up front.

See also: $120+ hoodies, certain hiking & climbing wear. You can spot the tech folks pretty easily and with reasonably high confidence if you know what to look for. There's a uniform, a look, and that's even the ones who don't make it easy by wearing tech company or nerdy legible t-shirts.

Clothing signals who you are, period. There is a difference when you wear a suit or a hawaii shirt or a "Fuck Trump" t-shirt.

Why don't you think it's a factor of who you are? That thin fabric over your body completes a person. It's one of the no-brainer way for self expression.

And people do judge you by your clothes whether they admit or not.

People outside of HN and similar circles usually get impressed with shiny things. "Regular people", most often in business situations, or with business minded people. I run my own businesses and deal with a lot of this sort of situations, but also with some family and acquaintances, normal folks.

Like it or not, I've most likely been referred and/or gotten deals through due to my Omega Speedmaster, my Burberry winter coat, hade made expensive leather shoes, etc. That sort of clothes and accessories. Because it makes me look successful in the eyes of Others, and people wants to be friends and partners with other successful people.

Shiny things/expensive clothings/etc = Seen as I must be competent to earn that sort of cash.

My friends couldn't care less about what I wear, but they understand why I do it.

> Because it makes me look successful in the eyes of Others

This is going pop psychology pretty fast but do you think an explanation could be that it's you who believe that? "I have this expensive watch now 'cause I'm successful" and what others are picking up is your confidence that stems from this belief.

I totally agree that people want to do business with confident/successful people but I believe that you could have the same aura which would get the same results with a nice anonymous $50 watch spending all your money on other expensive things that you don't wear/display on your body.

Of course it is. It's part of the signaling equation. The same way that someone might put on a nice suit for an interview or a date when they're usually not wearing suits at all. "I have this suit now because I need the confidence it gives me (in addition to showing that I can dress appropriately)". One just have to be aware of it.

> Like it or not, I've most likely been referred and/or gotten deals through due to my Omega Speedmaster, my Burberry winter coat, hade made expensive leather shoes

I hate to break it to you (or maybe you will consider it a good thing), but no one took the time to notice those minute details about you. Store bought leather shoes that are well-polished look virtually identical to handmade. Unless you hold your watch up to people their faces, few are gonna spot its an Omega, let alone that the make is a Speedmaster (cheers btw, I love the moonwatches).

People will spot that you take care of your appearance and try to go for a sophisticated style, but beyond that few will notice the minutia.

Hell, I can do you one better: one time when I was at my parents for an extended stay I decided to buzz most of my hair off whilst they were shopping. I had pretty long hair. When they came back I had a conversation for a full minute before my dad suddenly said 'wait.. what the hell did you do with your hair?!'

> Store bought leather shoes that are well-polished look virtually identical to handmade.

No, they're not. Shoes have a fairly broad spectrum of quality and style. Not everyone notices and not everyone can tell, but it is something that many evaluate.

Yes, it's a status signaling mechanism, but it is a part of culture whether you like or not.

These kinds of evaluations happen not just with executives in suits but also with youth and their ridiculous athletic shoes. Even gender-wise, women are apt to notice minute details of shoes.

> No, they're not. Shoes have a fairly broad spectrum of quality and style. Not everyone notices and not everyone can tell, but it is something that many evaluate.

Yes they are. Not in comfort or longevity, but as long as you don't completely cheap out on store bought you will get close. You're conflating quality and looks. They're related, but not synonymous.

> Yes, it's a status signaling mechanism, but it is a part of culture whether you like or not.

Which I never said. I merely pointed out that people look more to the style package than what logos you wear. Hell, if you for example buy high tier Polo Ralph Lauren the logo is often put on the inside of the collar.

> These kinds of evaluations happen not just with executives in suits but also with youth and their ridiculous athletic shoes. Even gender-wise, women are apt to notice minute details of shoes

Few 21-year old women will care if their date is wearing flashy DCs, flashy New Balance, or flashy Nike Air limited edition. You mentioned minute details: for the Nike, how many of them would even be aware of the difference between a limited edition, Nike ID or normal Laser Red batch? And dress shoes usually don't even have visible logos!

I think it can be more complicated than that.

- Expensive clothing often has nicer finish and fits better.

- They are often better made and therefore last longer.

- At least in leather there are definitely different quality levels. E.g. most fake leather, bonded leather, genuine leather, top/full grain leather.

> Expensive clothing often has nicer finish and fits better

Getting mid-tier clothing and getting it fitted will look better and be cheaper than just buying expensive clothing

> They are often better made and therefore last longer

I pointed that out by saying well-polished i.e. well taken care of

> At least in leather there are definitely different quality levels. E.g. most fake leather, bonded leather, genuine leather, top/full grain leather.

But you can go firmly under the price of handmade and still get good quality leather. The large part of the cost of handmade shoes is not the materials but the labor.

Agreed.

I think it's probably a matter of degree or "tiers" of clothing.

It is probably almost always in one's best interest to buy from a higher quality (but not necessarily luxury) brand.[1] For example buying Levi jeans rather than Wrangler or a store brand.

Some people will notice if you are wearing a particularly high end item, but once you reach that "high end tier" there is probably diminishing returns for getting the highest of the high end. For example, I have had people notice the Swiss watch that my father gave me. However, it is basically the entry tier model for Swiss watches and I doubt I would get much benefit from instead wearing a more expensive model. For men at least, I suspect that wearing a luxury brand is probably more effective for accessories and shoes since mens fashion tends to follow a strategy of conservative clothing with more flashy accessories.

I think there is also a lot to be said for having some specific style even if it isn't fancy. For example, G-Shock digital watches aren't particularly "fashionable" but they are known for being very high quality. If someone who cares about watches noticed you wearing one they might not consider it professional or fashionable but they would likely recognize that you cared about your appearance enough to buy quality.

[1] When I say "always" I'm meaning for a professional with a good income. I realize that for people with lower incomes fashionable clothing may not be the best priority.

For those playing along at home:

Machine made, decent leather from cows (not anything unusual), shoes, not boots: ~$200-600

Same, but handmade: ~$500-900 (usually the leather’s a little better too, though)

Then there’s custom fitted, probably $750 (Eastern Europe) and up.

Thank you for complementing my sales skills ;)

I hear you and agree to some extent.

The HN demographic(s) just has a different set of shiny things used for signaling value. I'd make a joke about hoodies and flip flops but I think that's a little out dated.

That said, I think you're over-estimating the signal difference between "being well dressed" and "wearing half a grand". The returns per dollar greatly diminish.

Folks were going nuts over $2000 “tech fashion” jackets in a thread yesterday.

And wearing half a grand is about the lowest you could possibly get away with to be in something tailored and not-obviously-cheap, and that’s probably still gonna require getting some of it second hand.

[edit] I mean a basic non-casual business outfit. Suit, shoes, shirt, tie. And by tailored I just mean a tailor’s made sure your off-the-rack clothes fit more or less OK.