Random Fashion Thoughts (Part 3: Style farmer strikes back) - our general discussion thread

[Parker]

and army green with pop of hot pink

 

[sipang]

And the mocs!

 

[Parker]

oooh I didn't even notice those

 

[DoubleDouble]

But youth (what brought us here) surely must be universal, especially from the point of view of female beauty. That does have good biological reasons to be that way. And I mean what people considers physical beauty, not some romanticized version of beauty.

Agree to a degree, but "aesthetic pleasantness " and "sexual attractiveness" can occur disjointly.

If you're interested in the latter and how it replicates across cultures, this podcast episode is pretty good (but it won't improve your fits!).

 

[elongatedskull]

But youth (what brought us here) surely must be universal, especially from the point of view of female beauty. That does have good biological reasons to be that way. And I mean what people considers physical beauty, not some romanticized version of beauty.

This is so nonsensical I'm not even sure where to begin! What's the point in discussing beauty at all if you're going to limit it to physical beauty, decry 'romanticisation' and also say 'youth' is the universality of beauty, which certainly is more romantic than any sort of speculative exercise, which is what you must mean by 'romanticisation'?
Surely it actually stands to reason that something can not be beautiful on the outside if it is not first beautiful on the inside, if this were not the case virtue would not be virtue.

 

[dieworkwear]

If you're interested in the latter and how it replicates across cultures, this podcast episode is pretty good (but it won't improve your fits!).

Just finished this podcast episode, and while it was interesting, I feel like I keep running into the same issues when I hear anything about evolutionary psychology. I don't understand how they tease out or test causal relationships.

 

[DoubleDouble]

Just finished this podcast episode, and while it was interesting, I feel like I keep running into the same issues when I hear anything about evolutionary psychology. I don't understand how they tease out or test causal relationships.

You and me both.

What was most interesting to me was how some things replicated across cultures while others didn't, despite there being prejudices about both.

 

[Superb0bo]

how can I dye/color natural rubber crepe soles black? Shoe cream?

 

[MickeyPunch]

My last post re. beauty: all this started with the photos of the older guy (I don’t like some of those fits but I’m all for guys his age not giving a f*ck and having fun FWIW, I have every intention of doing the same when -if- I reach his age), then zissou mentioned the fashion industry has molded out current perception of beauty.

I admit I thought of beauty (human beauty, implicit in zissou’s post) as physical attractiveness. But when the section “human beauty” of the Wikipedia article links to “physical attractiveness” as main article, I think it’s not too far fetched.

That entry about physical attractiveness goes on to mention youth as a general trait, by the way. But references are from evolutionary biolologists and psychologists so some people here might disagree with it.

And yes not everything is explained by evolutionary biology because we haven’t been apes in trees for some time now, but sure a lot of human behaviour is. If we talk about beauty strictly in the sense of physical attractiveness and we assume the whole idea behind it (and many other things) is to procreate/continuation of the species, as long as biology doesn’t evolve to have fertile 70 year old women, youth will always be a trait for men to look for in women, and it’s not Gucci or Zara dictating that.

I won’t post more about this topic though as I fully admit it’s not something I’ve read lots about, among other things I don’t find it such an interesting topic.

Ps: Not related to this topic at all but since it’s got “beauty” in its title and I just watched it for the nth time this week as it’s one of my favourite movies, I recommend watching “The Great Beauty” by Sorrentino. Funnily enough he’s algo got another movie called Youth with Michael Caine, Harvey Keitel, Rachel Weisz and Paul Deno, but I didn’t enjoy that one as much.

 

[gs77]

Ps: Not related to this topic at all but since it’s got “beauty” in its title and I just watched it for the nth time this week as it’s one of my favourite movies, I recommend watching “The Great Beauty” by Sorrentino.

Oh, it's very related. It's a profoundly beautiful movie. It shows that beauty is not really all about who you want to mate with.
The title could also have been "La Dolce Vita After 50 Years"

I recommend the book "The History of Beauty" and "On Uglyness" by Umberto Eco.

 

[FlyingMonkey]

It’s hard. First step is to be aware.

if you’ve never done it, the Harvart IAT is a great tool. It’s enlightening, a little frightening maybe.

Take a Test

implicit.harvard.edu

It's also very problematic in the way it is constructed (and the assumptions - or, ahem, biases - it contains) and has been widely criticized within the social sciences. Use with caution.

 

[FlyingMonkey]

Just finished this podcast episode, and while it was interesting, I feel like I keep running into the same issues when I hear anything about evolutionary psychology. I don't understand how they tease out or test causal relationships.

They generally don't, and they don't want to. I have personal research experience here, trying to work with evo-psych folks at my previous university – these are the ones who did the ridiculous work 'explaining' why women like the colour, pink – where I collaborated with a psych methodologist and suggested to the evo-psych group that they work with me to test alternative explanations (from sociology, social psych and politics as well as evo-psych) for their findings. They refused. Beyond even the well-known 'replication crisis', evo-psych, I have concluded, is a load of just-so stories, where 'evolution' has to be the explanation for any finding, which leads to some really bizarre claims. Evo-neuro-psych is even worse, and the problem is that economics and business, particularly marketing just buy into this ****.

 

[VitaTimH]

And the mocs!


View attachment 1746017

Brought to mind Midorikawa FW21. Delightfully grotesque.

 

[gdl203]

E

It's also very problematic in the way it is constructed (and the assumptions - or, ahem, biases - it contains) and has been widely criticized within the social sciences. Use with caution.

Possibly. I have no academic knowledge or training in this, so it's very possible that there are better tests (and I'd love to try them if you can share) but I do know that IAT is the most widely used tool to start or lay the foundation of most bias trainings/workshops I've encountered. It seems to have become a standard like Myers-Briggs for personality

 

[#dadcore]

Some of y’all spend so much time wondering if an old man can have good looks you’ve forgotten about The Man in the Good Book.