Why hipsters all look alike (2014)

My grievance with this article was glossed over in one paragraph:

"In real life, there are a million ways to be nonconformist. You can be goth; you can be preppy; you can be grunge... "The brain is more complex than the model I looked at, and of course hipsters are more complex," he said."

Yes, there are a lot of ways to not be a thing. That's kind of important to note when you're making sweeping generalizations about a group of people who aren't like you. The title of this article is completely bogus.

Humorous intent aside, I think the fundamental error here is the author(s) conflating a trend with the counter culture of yore. The hipsters of today do not follow from the counter culture of the 60s nor the punk movement that followed. They're not non-conformist nor do they have an internal set of political beliefs. They're just people dressing a certain way -- often combined with an excessively groomed beard in the case of men. The only sense that they're a group or movement is that they may share socio-economic status, cf. the yuppies of the 80s.

Though the beards do crack me up, I don't think this group deserves any more derision than any collection of (young) people struggling to find Heideggerian authenticity. Growing up I saw the same struggle in arguably more authentic subcultures like punk and skateboarding.

Cargo cult. Especially these ridiculous beards..

BTW, hipsterism per se is a role-playing, role-governed behavior. Cosplay if you wish.

It is a way of looking "smart and nonconforming" instead of actually being, because being is much more difficult that following some style.

The difference is like between guys like Alan Kay, Marvin Minsky, Peter Norvig, David Moon, to name a few, versus hipster blogrammers.

Why is being a hipster seen as wanting to "oppose trends"?

I would think all of thing things we associate with being a hipster. Those things are what attract these people and we later just called them hipsters to categorize.

Hipsters aren't non conformists. They are conformists. The whole culture is the act in conforming to be like other hipsters.

This is certainly interesting mathematically; might even have some truths to it for people.

But I found motive to be a glaring oversight, when approached from a human level. It took a very black & white approach of conformist/nonconformist and why someone might or might not wear something. Among them:

1) Some people don't care

2) Some people wear what other people buy them

3) Some people wear what they can afford

4) Some people wear what they can find

5) Some people have different looks/outfits

Also, I feel you could say the same thing about goths/punks/skaters or any other subculture.

I'm not trying to discredit the math, or the authors intentions. It's a fun thing to ponder, with real implications to be had. But if you were hoping to REALLY understand why all hipsters look alike, this simply does not go far enough to truly answer that. But as a foundation for a mathematical model, it's relevant and enjoyable.

Hipsters are a phenomenon which I find intriguing, and possibly concerning. The article does propose a credible explanation as an emergent property. Reminds me of the day Alternative officially became a music genre.