On the outskirts

I remember being teenage age or maybe early college and hearing for the first time that homeless people aren't necessarily homeless because of some personal failings of theirs, but just that their particular society has excluded them out of necessity. The reasoning is that any society develops in largely arbitrary ways -- valuing certain attributes and devaluing others, having certain types of traditions or laws and rights or not. (Jonathan Haidt has done a lot of work on these different moral universes). If the entirety of humanity spans such a wide spectrum of variation, it's basically impossible to construct a society that could incorporate and use absolutely everyone's strengths. There will be winners and losers and any structure that you could come up with, but a lot of the selection of winners and losers is influenced by chance -- in obvious ways in our modern western society like owning property that turns out to have gold, being born to rich parents, being able to bilk naive natives out of their land by trading them worthless trinkets, etc. but also in less obvious ways like your culture being one in which ownership of land is recognized (or not) or in which gold is considered valuable (or not) or parental wealth is able to pass to children via inheritance laws and tradition. People are always going to slip through the cracks, even though it might have been just as likely that another society would have developed instead in which the losers and winners would have flipped flopped (I think of somewhat examples of this in the French Revolution and the Cultural Revolution and which cultural values, priorities, and legal entitlements were changed basically overnight).

I agree with the theory now, but I wonder if I would have come to the same conclusions by myself. I also wonder, do most normal people understand this to be true? That so much of our life successes and failures are determined by forces beyond our control? That the winners only get there by climbing over the backs of others? Or is it more difficult for them to step outside the structure of their cultural paradigms to see how precarious, unpredictable, random, and likely inequitable their status in society is. 

But this is what I thought about when I saw this somewhat recent comment:

Structure, society, uniformity, they serve a purpose. They aren't for everyone, and I think specifically work better for people who's fear sensors are in working order (over working even?) in order to give a sense of structure and stability, in a somewhat chaotic world. The problem with the structure is that it alienates otherwise good people who don't believe in the structure. Which I don't think there's anything wrong with believing (or not believing) in the structure. 

Is that what this is about?

(Not) Dressing the Part

The Wall Street Journal reports on recent findings about how what you wear affects people's view of you. That's not surprising. The finding that goes a little against (most people's) conventional wisdom is that dressing down or dressing eccentrically can often make you look like you are somebody important -- important enough to not have to dress like the rest of the crowd (sheep?). Think sweat pants in a luxury store. Under the headline "Success Outside the Dress Code":

One obvious way people signal what the researchers called "status" is through visible markers, like what they wear and what they buy. Previous research has largely examined why people buy or wear branded items.

Less work has focused on what others think of those who try to communicate that they are different or worthy of attention. Efforts to be different are interesting because humans are wired to conform and be part of a group.

In a series of studies published in the Journal of Consumer Research in February, Silvia Bellezza, a doctoral student, and two Harvard professors sought to examine what observers thought of individuals who deviated from the norm in the workplace and in a retail setting. Some of the work was conducted in the lab on students. Other studies took place in the community and involved passersby or attendees of a seminar. Most of the studies included about 150 participants. What they found was that being a little different can socially benefit people—in some situations.

"The problem is that conforming to norms is an easy and safe spot to be in," Ms. Bellezza said. "If you're willing to deviate, there are upsides." It's also long been known that people veer from what's expected after they've built up enough trust within a group. But, she says, acting differently risks losing the benefits that come with conforming, such as shared group identity and automatic group trust.

Interestingly, this nonconformity only works in particular contexts -- when it's obvious that the person has intentionally bucked the norms and where there are enough context clues for the observers to believe that you have high status (e.g. being in a luxury goods store or lecturing at a podium at a university). I often think that people underestimate the role of context in people's perceptions. I have only been treated like I could possibly been a celebrity maybe once, and it was while I was wearing a hat and sunglasses, but was in a particular boutique in a specific neighborhood known for that sort of thing. Similarly, although I know I am not remarkably attractive, I know that the context that I am in and the way I carry myself can make me very desirable to some (does anyone have a crush on Michelle Obama? Any Obama?).

Of course, it's not always desirable to be seen as someone who will buck trends (as rescinded job offers can attest). Sometimes the only thing you want to do is not be noticed or standout in any way.

(Video link if it doesn't show up embedded)


I especially liked the study that found that a professor wearing a t-shirt was rated more highly than the one wearing a tie. I remember when I was first going on the market for professorships, the advice given was to not actually wear a suit for interviews and mock teaching exercises, but rather something more like a tweed jacket and loafers and the equivalent for women. When I taught, I rarely wore actual suits to the point that when I actually did, a lot of my students assumed that I had just come from somewhere else (court, a conference, etc.). But, as I wrote in the book, I particularly pushed boundaries in situations where appearance and first impressions were even more dominant -- academic conferences where I was presenting my research. In those situations I never wore a suit. One time I wore a beautiful silk fitted summer dress with bold colors that my friend had chosen for me. Another time I wore torn jeans and cowboy boots with a masculine looking blazer. At the time I believed that the message I was conveying was that I didn't fit in, but not in a bad way. My research was not traditional and I wanted to portray the image of someone who was confident bucking trends. I attempted to portray this image in more ways than just my fashion choices. I would often portray various slightly outlandish social personas -- the aggressive feminist, the seductive charmer, the too willing acolyte -- all to fit whoever I was talking to. Of course there is such thing as going to far. One of my friends calls my going-too-far-in-social-situations persona "the Hulk", for its outsized social gestures. Of course at that point I just come off as creepy.But it's charming to see my intuitions backed up by research.

Some of the best advice from the article: "Don't talk a lot if you have high status. People will assume you're competent and when you talk, they will listen to you."