Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Why do geeks look like geeks?
Posts
How surprising. :roll:
To reiterate my points:
- I don't judge people entirely on how they look. The way they look only affects my initial judgment of them. What is it called? Oh wait, it's this thing called "first impression"!
- In terms of appearance, if a person starts out without my respect I don't make it any harder for them to change my impression of them, because it's only outside appearance and it doesn't necessarily say much about the person.
- Sandals and sweatpants are my pet peeve. I'm not as anal about other forms of lack-of-style and ridiculously horrible clothing.
Everything else you guys have said is basically a tremendous stretch/derailment/strawman of what I have said. And with that, I'm done here.
Hey now, there are many types of sweatpants. Like the tight ones that girls wear with things like "JUICY" and "HO BAG" written on the ass; those are completely fine. :wink:
Fair enough, although I should probably expand; I didn't mean to say that first impressions were always incorrect or those who acted on them shallow. I've interacted with these unwashed, trenchcoated, unkempt, beer-stinking folk and they regard those who will prejudge them based on looks as shallow cocks. I'm not suggesting it's a particularly mature view, but there you have it. I was really talking more about the "judgement" part rather than the "impression", and yes this was mostly prompted by the remarks of ege02, where words like 'despise' were being thrown around. I'll concede that I'm being terribly redundant! It's hard keeping up when you're posting on company time 8)
EDIT: clarity.
I don't see how that can't apply to clothes as well.
Oh I know - I wasn't being sarcastic, I've spend many hours poring over t-shirts at the local Vinnies to find some good vintage stuff and I have several pairs of jeans which are torn to pieces.
On the subject of pre-torn jeans, I'm cool with them. I prefer just the odd scuff mark and maybe worn edging to flat-out rips, but honestly, something with tears by design is going to look and feel a lot better than something which fell apart over the course of use. The only jeans I've worn enough to develop tears have either fallen apart around the feet (ugh, gross - tattered jeans are the worst) or just become like two gaping maws at the knee (kind of cool if you're really trying to ham it up, but certainly not for everyday wear).
Conversely I've had a pair of Gap jeans which were pre-torn for about a year and the rips have stayed as they were designed and look pretty cool. It's just another quirk of fashion, like colour schemes and different materials - harping on about how it's somehow backwards or useless never convinces me.
Believe it or not, there are people who don't think this way. I don't, and there are many environments in where visual pre-judgement is either de-emphasised or not present at all.
My high school had a uniform, then I went to university, where how people dressed never made a difference, during that time I socialised with people who didn't consider dress important. "Dressing well" is an affectation common to a lot of social groupings, but not all. If you mainly interact with one group, then have to interact with another with different social rules, there's bound to be some friction.
It's also important to realise that the rules that govern "dressing well" are pretty much arbitrary, so unless it's something to which you've had a fair amount of exposure, you will get it wrong. It's not as easy to figure out as a lot of people think, either, since "the rules" will be different depending who you ask.
Something which bothers me about the argument thus far: Say you meet our hypothetical sweatpants and t-shirt guy. The next time you meet him, do you remember that he was wearing sweatpants? What form does the negative impression take? How does it affect how you interact with the guy?
Personally, I struggle to remember what people I spoke to five minutes ago were wearing.
Lastly, I really wish people would stop conflating "doesn't dress well" with "has poor personal hygiene." They are two entirely different things.
the way people interpret that is what changes. If I see someone who couldn't care less at college I think "they just rolled out of bed and came to class". I'm fine with it. If I saw someone that way at a nice resturaunt, I'd think they didn't understand how society works.
you, however, might see sweatpants and a t-shirt, be aware that that person couldn't care less, and really appreciate that. It doesn't change the fact that no thought went into the outfit.
My problem is less with the defense of people who don't dress well, and more with the distaste towards those who do care what they look like. There's nothing wrong with doing this, and in fact, dare I say, giving off a good first opinion to as many people as possible is HIGHLY important. Most of time time, more so than being comfortable.
I think the distaste towards people who do dress well stems from two things:
The first is that people often use particular clothes to distinguish their social group or subculture (eg. Goths, Punks, Sports fans, Golfers, etc.), but, according to the stereotype, geeks don't. This creates a strange inversion where people who pay attention to what they wear are easily identifiable as different from the stereotype. On a forum as geek-heavy as this one, they're "not one of us," depending how strongly you subscribe to the stereotype as a social identifier.
The second is that people often view interests that they don't share with distaste. Look at how a large section of society views videogames. I'm sure all of us have come across people who view videogames as a waste of time and money because they don't see the appeal, or how someone would derive enjoyment from it.
In the same way, I don't understand how people derive enjoyment or satisfaction from spending time and money on their appearance. I'm not one to castigate people for (as I see it) wasting time and money on their interests, but it seems plenty of people on this forum are.
I fully understand that it is perfectly possible to not dress well and to have excellent hygiene, and to dress well but have poor hygiene, but I think the reason that many people associate the two is that a person who cares little about their cleanliness is also likely to care little about their appearance.
Certainly in my experience the people I know who have bad body hygiene also tend to wear slightly scruffy clothes; I have never personally known a person dressed in a sharp suit to smell. They're also more likely to have unkempt hair/facial hair.
I brought it up because people have been proposing hypothetical situations featuring someone who dresses well, and someone who doesn't dress well, who is also unwashed and smells. It doesn't make for a reasonable comparison when the debate is over the importance of dressing well. I don't dress well by a lot of people's definitions, but I damn sure shower. I don't like the implication, is all.
I've known a couple of people who spent hundreds of pounds a month on clothes, but rarely washed. I suppose I consider them different because the response to a persons dress is an acquired social one, but the reaction to the results of poor hygiene (especially smell) is more instinctive. A person is unlikely to feel physically sick from exposure to poor dress sense.
You could say I have a classic profile though...because of my Roman-esque nose. My brother though, man, his nose is fucking epic. Size of mine but like, it has a crazy crook in it, probably increases its mass by 50%.
Hey. My gay housemate dresses real cool, and does shower, BUT DOESNT WASH HIS CLOTHES. That's a whole new level of what!, I think.
I guess you could be an aristocrat of the relevant time period. Hmmm.
also omgnippleban
Yeah, when washing costs like 5 bucks a load at least, you tend to conserve water as much as possible.
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
Because it's easier to wear everything you own, and then take it all home.
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."