What not to wear Forum

[fl0w]

I always took classroom participation as the merit of the ideas the student expressed in classroom debates and the like. I guess I didn't think that wearing "appropriate" clothes would be a substitute for some level of actual intellectual participation when compared to an active but "ill-dressed" peer.

I very much operate in a philosophical world. It's the only thing that keeps me within a broad arm's length of sanity. I actually don't approve of a meritocracy myself, because I don't believe in free will from a determinist perspective, but do believe that a meritocracy based solely on idea and ideal is superior to needlessly clouding those mythical values in a thick layer of arbitrary social and (usually) ethnocentric values. Certainly some level of socialization is inescapable, but propagating and endorsing these arbitrary traits as a value-added component to any kind of meritocracy merely exacerbates the rigidity and intolerance of society, while diminishing its capacity to look rationally upon creative endeavors.

so i ran this through google translator and it gave me "i want to wear a sponge-bob t-shirt and daisy duke jean shorts to all of my job interviews because no matter what i wear, people should ignore it and [strike]think i'm great[/strike] base their judgment of me (positive or negative) on my ideas, speech, demonstration of knowledge, and history of academic/professional achievement". am i doing it right?

Fixed.

I was actually saying more than just that, but I'm fighting flippant with flippant.

i know this is a dangerous road I'm starting down but, for argument's sake, does your sponge-bob t-shirt not speak volumes about your ideas and knowledge (perhaps not about your history of achievement)? It clearly relays your idea that you do not agree with the paradigm within which the interviewer operates (and perhaps do not respect it, or respect the interviewer for respecting it). If it does not convey that idea, it conveys the fact that you lack the knowledge that the interviewer would have expected you dress "appropriately" for the occasion.

Thus it would be fair to judge you based on the sponge-bob t-shirt and daisy duke jean shorts as they do happen to reflect something about you.

Yeah?

[Fancy Pants]

i know this is a dangerous road I'm starting down but, for argument's sake, does your sponge-bob t-shirt not speak volumes about your ideas and knowledge (perhaps not about your history of achievement)? It clearly relays your idea that you do not agree with the paradigm within which the interviewer operates (and perhaps do not respect it, or respect the interviewer for respecting it). If it does not convey that idea, it conveys the fact that you lack the knowledge that the interviewer would have expected you dress "appropriately" for the occasion.

Thus it would be fair to judge you based on the sponge-bob t-shirt and daisy duke jean shorts as they do happen to reflect something about you.

Yeah?

--ImageRemoved--

[84Sunbird2000]

I always took classroom participation as the merit of the ideas the student expressed in classroom debates and the like. I guess I didn't think that wearing "appropriate" clothes would be a substitute for some level of actual intellectual participation when compared to an active but "ill-dressed" peer.

I very much operate in a philosophical world. It's the only thing that keeps me within a broad arm's length of sanity. I actually don't approve of a meritocracy myself, because I don't believe in free will from a determinist perspective, but do believe that a meritocracy based solely on idea and ideal is superior to needlessly clouding those mythical values in a thick layer of arbitrary social and (usually) ethnocentric values. Certainly some level of socialization is inescapable, but propagating and endorsing these arbitrary traits as a value-added component to any kind of meritocracy merely exacerbates the rigidity and intolerance of society, while diminishing its capacity to look rationally upon creative endeavors.

so i ran this through google translator and it gave me "i want to wear a sponge-bob t-shirt and daisy duke jean shorts to all of my job interviews because no matter what i wear, people should ignore it and [strike]think i'm great[/strike] base their judgment of me (positive or negative) on my ideas, speech, demonstration of knowledge, and history of academic/professional achievement". am i doing it right?

Fixed.

I was actually saying more than just that, but I'm fighting flippant with flippant.

i know this is a dangerous road I'm starting down but, for argument's sake, does your sponge-bob t-shirt not speak volumes about your ideas and knowledge (perhaps not about your history of achievement)? It clearly relays your idea that you do not agree with the paradigm within which the interviewer operates (and perhaps do not respect it, or respect the interviewer for respecting it). If it does not convey that idea, it conveys the fact that you lack the knowledge that the interviewer would have expected you dress "appropriately" for the occasion.

Thus it would be fair to judge you based on the sponge-bob t-shirt and daisy duke jean shorts as they do happen to reflect something about you.

Yeah?

How could an inanimate object speak volumes about something? I'm not trying to be overly literal here, but would not the interviewer have the capacity to ask, straightforwardly, any and every pertinent question they wanted to the interviewee, including (in this instance) queries about their clothes? It may relay to the interviewer that this person does not agree with the normative social paradigm, but said interviewer COULD request clarification on the reasoning by which the person disagrees. Also, it seems to me that what you have written is a far more blatant "disrespect" of both the interviewee and the (looser) paradigm he/she operates within than any perceived disrespect the interviewer could draw from the interviewee's clothing.

Moreover, you've just asserted that the interviewer's standard of "appropriateness" has some validity and authority, while the interviewee's does not. Would this not indicate a rigidity of thinking on the part of the interviewer and/or you? Would the entire notion of firmly judging someone without asking for an explanation when they COULD request an explanation not showcase a lack of critical thinking skills and analysis? How does clothing differ from dialect? This person would likely be ill-suited to hiring or representing persons with cultural norms different than theirs. They'd likely frown upon persons who speak with an accent or word choice derived from their region, ethnicity, or the fact that English is their second language. Would this interviewer, if a Republican, not hire a Democrat, even if the job at hand was not pertinent to applied politics?

If you are looking for a typing secretary, don't dismiss the 90wpm girl wearing a goth shirt and makeup, dismiss the well-dressed man because he only has one hand. Haha, hammer-handed example, but it just popped into my head.

Social standards of clothing are deeply ingrained into our society, and because of that we don't look at them with the same distance and critical eye as we do a lot of equally frivolous and unimportant characteristics. We, as society, take these arbitrary standards and elevate them to a stature of symbolic meaning they clearly do not deserve.

[fl0w]

How could an inanimate object speak volumes about something? I'm not trying to be overly literal here, but would not the interviewer have the capacity to ask, straightforwardly, any and every pertinent question they wanted to the interviewee, including (in this instance) queries about their clothes? It may relay to the interviewer that this person does not agree with the normative social paradigm, but said interviewer COULD request clarification on the reasoning by which the person disagrees.

Yes, they could ask, but would the answer matter? The damage is done at this point. I'll concede that if the answer is REALLY GOOD it could convince the interviewer to overlook the non-professional (as defined by society's ingrained standard) clothing. But in this scenario, it was the interviewee's choice to wear this clothing, so the answer likely would not provide any comfort.

Also, it seems to me that what you have written is a far more blatant "disrespect" of both the interviewee and the (looser) paradigm he/she operates within than any perceived disrespect the interviewer could draw from the interviewee's clothing.

Not really sure from where this statement draws its support. I wrote that someone chose to wear a certain set of clothing in a hypothetical and how that clothing and choice would be interpreted by the majority of interviewers. While I would agree with the interviewer, I don't think that shows "blatant disrespect" for the interviewee, it just shows that I would certainly judge this person by their choice to wear this clothing to this interview.

Moreover, you've just asserted that the interviewer's standard of "appropriateness" has some validity and authority, while the interviewee's does not. Would this not indicate a rigidity of thinking on the part of the interviewer and/or you?

Yes, that's the paradigm within which we live. When dealing with someone operating within a paradigm, unless the interviewee can shatter the interviewer's world-view and convince them to see everything in new light within the 45 minutes that the interview will probably last... yes, the standard of appropriateness dictated by this paradigm (the interviewer's) DOES have validity and authority in this scenario. I would think that not playing by the interviewer's rules significantly decreases the interviewees chances of being accepted.

Would the entire notion of firmly judging someone without asking for an explanation when they COULD request an explanation not showcase a lack of critical thinking skills and analysis?

No. Just because people make snap judgments does not mean they lack critical thinking skills. EVERYONE makes them. Conscious or un/subconscious. They are actually critical to helping the human brain process so much information.

How does clothing differ from dialect? This person would likely be ill-suited to hiring or representing persons with cultural norms different than theirs. They'd likely frown upon persons who speak with an accent or word choice derived from their region, ethnicity, or the fact that English is their second language. Would this interviewer, if a Republican, not hire a Democrat, even if the job at hand was not pertinent to applied politics?

You're reaching here. These are assumptions / conjecture in the sense that these statements have not been disproven, not in the sense that they seem correct to me.

If you are looking for a typing secretary, don't dismiss the 90wpm girl wearing a goth shirt and makeup, dismiss the well-dressed man because he only has one hand. Haha, hammer-handed example, but it just popped into my head.

If all I'm looking for is a typing secretary, I would have subjected someone to a test to see how many wpm they can type and written in their offer letter that they have to adhere to the dress code.

Social standards of clothing are deeply ingrained into our society, and because of that we don't look at them with the same distance and critical eye as we do a lot of equally frivolous and unimportant characteristics. We, as society, take these arbitrary standards and elevate them to a stature of symbolic meaning they clearly do not deserve.

I almost agree with this. Standards of clothing are certainly deeply ingrained. We don't analyze the use of judging one's clothing critically; it is deemed acceptable. But, put simply, people like it when things "look nice". What looks nice is defined culturally. it can and will change over time. I think that looking nice (in the context of this hypothetical interview) does deserve an elevation because it shows that someone wanted to make an effort to be presentable in every aspect that they could control. But hey, if everyone does it, nobody gets a realized gain. So all the interviewee needs to do in order to avoid disadvantage is put some clothes on.

Can you tell I'm having a slow day at work today?

[84Sunbird2000]

I wanted to re-rebut, in quoted form, but it's already too long.

First off, you believe in "choice"? I'm constantly flabbergasted by our world's most dangerous and widely-held assertion: that we have free will. Our will can't be free, because we don't act independently of a chain of causation. However, that's probably something best reserved for the philosophy thread.

I used the "blatant disrespect" line as a response to your earlier assertion that the interviewer could perceive disrespect towards both the interviewer and his/her worldview by not conforming to it. In other words, if the interviewer is correct, and being disrespected (directly or by proxy), then it would be fair to conclude that the interviewee's wordlview and person is being as much or more disrespected by the interviewer.

I've had people suggest I have Aspergers because I'm so poor at discerning and absorbing social conventions. I view them as an outsider, kind of like a cornerback attempting to follow a wide receiver's route. Every once in a while, I stay close enough to adjust and get the interception. So, I guess I don't understand how or why it's unreasonable to expect people to set aside as much of their personal and cultural biases as possible. Clearly, academic discussion depends upon both clarity of first assumptions and the cogent communication of those assumptions, and I don't see why professional disciplines generally helmed by highly educated persons shouldn't be held to the highest standards.

I was drawing parallels with the dialect/culture/accent/Republican/Democrat questions. These are questions and contrasts that fall into the same principles as clothing=judgment. They are equally irrelevant to the person's ability, at least as far as the interviewer could rationally determine those abilities in the course of an interview.

Now, in response to the "typist" quandary, I have to ask "Why?". In this case, we are no longer talking about a hypothetical person or their justification, but your personal view. You would actually ask a person whose job is likely just to type to adhere to some kind of clothing standard? I know I have extreme social (but not economic) libertarian positions, certainly bordering on anarchism, but I just don't see how you can admit that social standards are cultural/ethnic/changing and still embrace them consciously as if they have value AND impose them on others. Like I said, earlier, I am fully willing to take this to the logical extreme of nudity if the person so desires.

Also, you assume several things when you say that "if everybody does it, nobody gets a realized gain". Not everyone can purchase the same clothes (tailored suits v. off-the-rack discount store). Moreover, you are assuming that no portion of a person's being is invested in their principled rejection of clothing standards (mine is specifically because it promotes a social order), and that they aren't being disadvantaged by being forced to conform in order to have fair chance at job/academic success.

I'm unemployed (not because of clothing choices btw), so every day is slow .

[Fancy Pants]

First off, you believe in "choice"? I'm constantly flabbergasted by our world's most dangerous and widely-held assertion: that we have free will.

This thread has officially reached an unparalleled level of stupidity. It's time to intervene:

--ImageRemoved--

[YCrevolution]

..