Why American Workers Now Dress So Casually
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
It has been very interesting watching the norms shift over the last almost 40 years. Women and minorities filling the ranks, casual attire, smoking prohibitions (all very good things in my view).
One, funny interesting side story, if you will indulge this old timer. When I was in high school, my father was a budding attorney and of course had to wear a suit, tie and white shirt. My mother was a struggling artist. My father wanted her to wash and iron his shirts to save money and only have to pay for the dry cleaning of the shirts. My mother refused (an early feminist perhaps). They had a huge fight over it. In the end, my Mother relented and agreed to endure the task. However, in classic passive aggressive style, she "accidentally" got a red sock in the wash with the shirts turning them a slight shade of pink. Of course that made them, for that time, unusable ! So he had to toss them. After that he simply had them laundered. Ever since then our family calls this ruse "red-socking-it", which basically means intentionally fucking up to get out of doing something you don't want to do. I think we can all think of times when someone at work "red-socked-it".
When I worked at Best Buy years ago, they started making us wear earpieces. I hated trying to do my job with constant interruptions in my ear, but instead of telling management I hated it, I pretended to love it.
I started talking over the radio constantly, and I'd end every phrase by making a white-noise sound and saying over. Eventually the managers took my radio away, and they thought it was a punishment.
"[fake static noise] AWACS 1 AWACS 1 REQUEST NAPALM ACACIA AVENUE OVER."
I learned which biscuit colors corresponded to which flavors, picked the least-bad one intentionally, and proceeded to slowly savor it in front of everybody. After that, he retired the punishment.
My own dog will happily eat her own vomit.
They also only live 10-20 years, so ensuring they have a completely optimal diet is not quite as important as it is for a species that lives 80 years.
given the sensitivity of their nose, i don't think that's really true. Not having such sensitive taste&smell apparatus as dogs, we - humans - naturally learned to not eat wide categories of "carrion" while dogs can make more fine-grained decisions inside whose categories. Another example would be "dumpster divers" - given enough learning and practical training people also start making more fine-grained decisions inside such previously learned as untouchable category as the "food in the dumpster".
And from my experience, my Chihuahua is much more discerning with regard to food than any human i know.
>My own dog will happily eat her own vomit.
i wonder, do you feed dry food to her? Given the low nutritional content of typical dry food, a dog would stuff as much of it as physically possible and that would lead to vomit. Still being hungry, the dog wouldn't let the food go waste - and there is biologically nothing wrong with a food which has been partially processed by stomach acid as long as such partially processed food hasn't been outside long enough to start to rot and accumulate bacteria.
People, under various non-typical conditions, have also been known to eat the stuff which they would find unimaginable to eat otherwise.
>They also only live 10-20 years, so ensuring they have a completely optimal diet is not quite as important as it is for a species that lives 80 years.
i don't think you thought that well. I'm pretty sure that you do see a big difference between a dog's live of 10 years having various medical problems, like digestive, neuro, joints/skeletal, cancer, etc. vs. 15 years of healthy live.
The only reason I don't eat it as an adult is that I'm not sure it's good for me.
Also like everything else at Best Buy, your experience varied dramatically depending on your managers. At my store, managers expected you to be available over the radio, customer or not.
You could get away with taking it off very occasionally, but that was it.
I love that.
I don't really care either way on the subject of work attire, with one exception. I hate casual fridays. It matters or it doesn't quit with the bullshit.
Casual Friday means more flexibility at the end of the week if events earlier in the week mean I consume more clothing than expected, and also means I am more able to go straight from work to getting an early start on weekend activities.
Makes an interesting counterpoint to the usual nostalgia about Bell Labs. I'd have guessed the smoking, but probably not that the dress was quite so formal.
This was entirely normal for employers large and small at that time. It really was the first startup era (Microsoft/Apple) that eroded it, as the spearpoint of a wider de-formalisation of society.
A laboratory is the place where you work. From the latin 'laborare', roughly translated 'to work'. A CS grad student would work in a lab. As would a carpenter. The difference between an office and a laboratory is usually that there are specialized tools in a laboratory.
Apparently, the R&D lab was full of long-haired, cheesecloth-shirt-wearing, sandaled, 'hippy' types. One day the Managing Director walked in, called everyone together and announced in a stern voice that there was going to be a very important visitor on the premises the next day and so everyone needed to smarten themselves up because they looked very shabby and unprofessional.
The next day, the MD walked in to the lab with his visitor...to find that all the engineers in full wedding suits with top-hats, casually soldering, probing, pouring over circuit schematics etc. just like a 'normal' day..!
I don't recall what happened next!
I have naturally curly hair, which isn't unruly, it's just very curly. People with straight hair often seem to think that my hair could be 'neater' if I 'did something' with it. Case-in-point: One time the new head of the board was coming in, and HR specifically asked me to comb my hair. I told HR that was a terrible idea, yet they insisted.
So I come to work the next day with combed hair, and I look like the main character of Eraserhead[1]. My hair is a giant poofy frizzy mess. HR comes by, sees what my hair looks like, and freaks the hell out. They kept asking me to comb it better, or do whatever I could to fix it.
They were not amused when I told them that the only thing I could do to fix it was to take a shower and let it settle naturally. So I met the new director of our board with hair that looked like I stuck my hand in a electrical outlet, all because HR felt that curly hair on a guy wasn't normative enough or something.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eraserhead#/media/File:Eraserh...
Not to mention that there isn't actually that much difference between my hair and "ethnic hair." The hair product I use is actually in the "ethnic hair" section of the hair aisle, which just goes to show how stupid the actual classification is. I'm probably as far from "ethnic" as you could imagine. I'm not even Jewish, or some other white ethnicity known for having curly hair.
My only guess was that HR associated curly hair with "skate culture" or something, and thought that the appropriate way for a white person to style such hair was to slick it back like an 80's power broker.
The entire HR situation at that company was a mess though, and I'm really glad I no longer work there.
No idea how that's diagnosed, but presumably HR would back off if you had an actual doctor's note.
It's not at all unkempt though. It's a pain to take care of, but as long as I keep it up people seem to generally find it attractive/stylish.
That HR department really just hated everything that they couldn't control.
[1] Specifically, I have type IIB hair, as shown on the chart on this page: https://www.curls.biz/curly-hair-type-guide.html
In fact, I think the structure of that joke ("I'm doing what you said, too hard") is a better one than the structure of the joke you imply, though the joke loses something in the current environment of general unfamiliarity with morning dress...
I didn't take that job offer.
Why do you work at a university?
When I was in college, I worked at IBM one summer to earn
money. One day I wore a shirt that wasn't the right shade of
white. My coworkers informed me of my transgression and made
suggestions for improving matters. In great detail. That's
when I figured out that maybe the industrial experience was
not for me.My kids try this shit all the time - either fucking it up, or just doing the job so half-assed that it needs to be redone. Whenever I catch this I treat it as a "teaching moment". I make them redo it a few times until they do it perfectly. Seems to help, but I hate how much time it takes almost as much as they do.
A former boss had a gig with the LDS (Mormon) Church. First day he shows up in a suit and tie - but his shirt wasn't white. His boss pulled him aside and said, "I respect your courage, but not your wisdom."
Yeah, my boss wasn't happy staying in that environment (even though he was LDS).
I was recently reading the autobiography of the CEO and one of the founders of Sony, Akio Morita. Sony Japan has been famous for having uniforms, like many other Japanese companies (which Steve Jobs really liked and wanted to emulate, except the idea was shot down early on. He did apply the idea to himself though, which is where his famous look comes from).
Many people would ascribe this as Sony being a typical, paternalistic Asian company - however, the reality is a bit more subtle. Keep in mind that Sony was started right after World War 2, in a Tokyo ravaged by years of bombing:
"When we started the company, clothing was scarce and expensive on the black market. People came to work in an odd assortment of gear; returning soldiers wore bits of their uniform or old-fashioned suits that had been saved for many years. If a person was fortunate enough to have a good suit, he didn't want to wear it to the office where he might risk burning a hole in it with acid or soiling it. Some of our employees just didn't have the money to invest in a work jacket. So with company money we bought a jacket for everyone to wear in the office.
Pretty soon these jackets became a symbol of our company family. As the company prospered, we could have done away with the jackets - we used to have a summer jacket and a winter one - because we were all being paid and could afford our own, but everybody seemed to like the idea, and so we just decided to continue to provide them. In the beginning, we executives had a different colored name tag from the others, but we eventually adopted the same kind worn by everyone else.
Today these jackets and tags are being used everywhere, even where class distinctions made people hesitant to wear them at first. Many of us liked our blue jackets, and I still wear mine occasionally."
Akio Morita, Made in Japan
You'd think "sony company uniform" would be pretty easy for a search engine to search for.
Here's one picture of early days Sony where all employees appear to be wearing the same jacket:
https://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/CorporateInfo/History/SonyHist...
A friend worked for EVA Air in the back office, and besides having to wear a uniform similar to that of flight or gate staff, she said every morning at 9 am people would have to stand at their desks and do calisthenics that were broadcast over a loudspeaker. She said this was something the founder had picked up from visiting or interacting with Japanese companies in the 60s and 70s.
At one company I worked at, a television network, they issued male staff with blue blazers but we never had to wear them during the course of the business day. I think the idea was we could throw them on in case some big shot came to visit.
Maybe part of the problem with dress codes is that we (or most of us) aren't the self-employed white-collar professionals who have much to gain by looking successful to their customers. We're actually the blue-collar assembly-line factory workers. No one outside our immediate circle of co-workers has any reason to know or care what we look like.
So he wore slacks, a belt and a button up shirt on the first day; people seemed really nervous around him, like he was there to audit them.
So he meets the people he's going to work with: his "boss" is in a stained t-shirt, shorts, no shoes, super casual. I mean like 20 years ago he wouldn't have been able to buy a soda in a beach-town convenience store. Looks at my friend like he's from Mars.
A few weeks in and my friend still over-dresses. I mean, his shirt has a COLLAR for christsakes. It looks like it has been IRONED for the love-of-god. We'll see how long he lasts. Maybe when he gets more comfortable he'll start wearing ripped jeans and a pink floyd t-shirt. We'll see.
Honestly, I find dressing down from that involves more thinking about what I will/may have to do in the course of the day. Khakis and a collared shirt let me do pretty much anything that may come up without thinking about it.
I have like 15 of the shirt.
My colleague (the other development manager, same age as me - mid 30s) basically has a casual "uniform" - some band t-shirt and jeans. Every day. He even admits that he has 5 shirts and five pairs of jeans that are his work clothes. It works for him.
jeans are all over the spectrum, but unless they are obviously from a giant bin at a discount store, probably are at least $100, likely above $200 per pair. and there are plenty of $500 pairs of jeans out there...
my casual white dyed hemp rainbow sandals are $50, some of the special edition ones i've had over the years (braided leather, etc). are $100+. pretty expensive for basically a flat piece of rubber and a strap of material covered in cloth.
when someone shows up to work in truly cheap jeans/t-shirt/sandals, it doesn't look good, they look trashy and nothing fits properly.
it's just a signal of spending power / hipness on the more casual side of the scale. i've seen people dressed in "jeans and t-shirts" wearing vintage swiss watches. in wealthier areas where a tech company would be, a casual 'jeans and t-shirt' outfit could cost either $25 total or $1000 total.
what? levis are like 40 bucks on amazon
A place in Wisconsin makes my work shoes that in the long run are cheaper than imports.
The point of these anecdotes, is I am interested to consider as labor arbitrage and cost of oil and whatever else wipes out the price advantage of foreign imported clothes that used to exist for the last generation or two, if the surviving American clothing manufacturers being somewhat fancier and higher end will result in Americans "soon" wearing generally fancier clothes.
As a concrete example of my theory, currently New Balance Chinese made sneakers are the cheapest thing to slap on your feet. They look ultra casual, usually pretty dirty, and are engineered to fall apart extremely rapidly (for example they recently took the eyelets out of the lace holes to make the laces destroy the plastic fake leather faster). However... over the long term its already cheaper to buy Thorogood dress shoes made in Wisconsin because they last roughly forever and as a side effect look quite stylish in my opinion, and as economic trends continue, its conceivable that soon the cheapest shoes available to slap on your feet will be some rather formal looking Thorogoods, then for an extra $20 you can buy some New Balance from China that fall apart in four months of use. And my theory is we are very close to that tipping point with the result that at least in the short term "average folks who don't care about fashion" will be wearing much less casual, much more formal appearance clothing.
It seems a realistic hypothesis, easily testable, fits prevailing trends...
My wife buys me casual weekend clothes from Nordstroms or Von Maur or whatever and that casual weekend stuff costs more than the cheap generic polos I wear at work. Like a hugo boss shirt that looks nice for weekend wear but costs $100 vs yesterday I wore some generic Target polo to work because we "dress up" at this conservative employer. I've also noticed I can sometimes buy cheap dockers or dockers knockoffs on sale for less than what I pay for weekend wear jeans. So with respect to my hypothesis the future is already here, just unevenly distributed.
I'm old enough that I had to wear the suit and tie to the financial employer in the olden days. Its very comfortable if you spend enough money and suits were quite expensive. The field service techs I tangentially worked with would maliciously comply by purchasing the ugliest used clothes imaginable from Goodwill and throw the suit out at the end of a shift if it got ruined. Its interesting to see the tables turn and my clothes on the weekend cost more than work cloths unlike when I was young.
Darn Tough socks [0], which I discovered via Reddit's /r/buyitforlife, are some of the best socks I've ever owned. They come with a lifetime warranty - so if you get a hole in the sock you can send it in for a brand new pair. No questions asked. Made in Vermont, USA.
Downside: $15-22 for a single pair of socks. I used to pay that much for 20 pairs of cheap socks.
Upside: I only need to own 8 pairs of socks. One a day, one to wear on laundry day.
People who buy $300 hiking boots and wear 50 cent walmart socks in them resulting in blisters and fungus infections, just a big question mark.
I don't understand the economics of those businesses. The Chinese stuff wears out fast, intentionally, and has to be replaced in months so they have a twice per year (or more) revenue stream. Its nice that I can buy shoes from Wisconsin or socks from Colorado that have already lasted many years, or jeans from Mississippi that will probably last my entire lifetime, but I bought it all years ago, and what is their business plan today to stay in business? Yeah they cost a little more, but only a little. I mean, sure, if I had to replace my shoes I'd buy from the Wisconsin place again, but the whole point is I bought them because they don't wear out. And they don't. So how are they still in business for you folks to buy from them today?
In retrospect it would probably be a short term effect and on shore mfgrs would probably soon start to sell cheap products for a slightly cheaper price, but it might only take that year or two to kick of a change to somewhat more formal styles.
i'm pointing out the fact that you're guaranteed to look sloppy in t-shirt/jeans/sandles unless you buy the expensive stuff or are top 10% fit and attractive, and even then, there's no saving some really cheap stuff. those good looking 'casually dressed' people are spending real money to achieve that look.
Yeah I know, picking through used clothes has a horrible connotation and the signal to noise ratio can be quite small, but you can absolutely find what you need.
Not knowing what the dress code was, I showed up my first day in a suit, and headed up to the office, which had been moved the week prior. I'm wandering around looking for my boss, when the Commissioner's secretary (this is a .gov gig) spots me, and thinks I'm a salesman as they had an issue with salespeople crashing the place. Nobody can find my boss, and five minutes later, two policeman show up and escort me out of the building. Thankfully my boss was a smoker, and rescued me as the cops were kicking me out! :)
The particular division I was in had a pretty eclectic collection of dressers. The bigshots wore suits or sportsjackets, and most people did the business casual thing. Then there were the... others. One dude did leather pants and a massive cowboy hat, there was a male and female tracksuit contingent, and a few people wearing sweatpants of all things.
If I see someone with a suit, clipboard and lanyard, I run the other way. Especially if they have good hair.
I had a packet of crap from HR, some goofy lanyard with a visitor badge and of course the suit! :)
They didn't bother to check on the whole "I'm here to start work, my boss is <T>" ?
I mean, if I were asked to escort a salesman out of the building, I'd immediately assume that they'll be trying to talk their way into staying, so I'd put my extra assertive face on.
One of the students was late, the busy receptionist assumed it was me, and rushed me to the student interview room.
Meanwhile, my manager is at reception, on time, wondering where I am, and who the stressed-looking 19 year old is.
Almost all of those are people who prey on the weak, the meek, and the pitiful.
hiss.
>Almost all of those are people who prey on the weak, the meek, and the pitiful.
Which one of those is the exception? Decent bosses?
Simple primate dominance stuff. My work clothes cost maybe $85 at target including the underwear (was that too much information?) because its just work and people don't care much. The point of a dude in a suit is I dropped $85 but he dropped $2K, maybe more. Even cheap off the rack he spent, I donno how much that costs anymore, $200?
Conspicuous consumption, same as the gold watch or womens jewelry or the expensive car. An extremely public display of I can spend money that you don't/can't.
is his boss, whether he dresses like a slob or not.
I got a hint that I might have overdressed when on the way to the Interview a passer-by asked me the way to the ivy ( a very exclusive restaurant)
And here I am today, sat in the UK offices of a Fortune 100 company (one of the big finance houses) wearing scuffed boots, black jeans and my old Megadeth t-shirt...
I am on the scruffier end of the spectrum, to be sure, but not the worst.
Very casual team, fairly casual office (of a few thousand people). No idea what anyone else here does outside of the five or six people I work with, though.
And everyone is in their 40s.
Which company?
It seems, from this example, that some future counter culture fashion could be rooted in traditional formal wear considering how uncomfortable it has made your friend's coworkers feel.
No wonder everyone's nervous around your friend. If he forms his opinions on whether or not his manager has authority based on his clothing that's going to be an inheriently uncomfortable experience. Why did you use scare quotes around boss? And would you do it if the guy had worn nicer clothing?
Does your friend feel that way?
If so, his new co-workers are right to be nervous. The fellow is seriously misaligned in understanding how his new workplace is structured. He can dress how he likes, but if he starts using clothing to measure respect in a modern workplace... that's a problem.
The argument (which is not fully formed, I think) is that signalling exists anyway. In a more formal envirnonment, you can signal seriousness or whatnot by dressing in a good suit to make a cerrtain impression. In a casual environment, you can't signal with your clothes but that means signals just become more subtle and nuanced.
I think Cowen is saying that casual culture means social signals are harder to fake. You might think "great! Meritocracy.*" But, merit is not a drop in replacement for formal social signals. Informal signals are. What actually replaces the suit, watch and shiny shoes is p speech, body language (or a google search revealing your prestigous keynote speech) that one is a member of a particular group. It's much harder for outsiders to tick the boxes and blend in.
Interesting thought.
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/05/tyler_cowen_on_1.ht... (about half-way down, search for "casualness")
> * But what I find striking is societies with a lot of upward mobility often tend to have strict dress codes. So you see this today with Mormons, at Mormon businesses. You see it in Japan in its heyday years--you know, the businessman or journeyman suit, they more or less all looked the same. There's something about upward mobility where actually clothing is not that casual and one is being more formal in trying to impress; and that is a [?]. But the thing about being casual is it actually makes it harder for people to prove themselves.*
And a follow-up: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/05/inf...
> When I [a correspondent, not Cowen] was a young associate at the biggest law firm in Rome, casual friday was the time when my Sicilian provincial middle-lower class background was most transparent. I didn’t have the money for smart but impressive casual clothing. But above all I didn’t have the cultural and social capital to know how to dress casual in the right way.
In general, social norms often play a substantial role as a level playing field. The people who benefit from their removal are those who can quickly understand and adapt to the unarticulated, informal rules that govern all human interaction. I'm happy I don't have to wear a suit and tie every day (and slightly sad that I never have, but that's a different discussion), but let's not pretend that "no dresscode" is actually to be taken literally if you have any intention of advancing in the hierarchy that we pretend isn't there.
As a Mormon, I thought it might be interesting to point out that to some degree that's actually part of our theology. Basically a dress code that's strict enough that everyone is equal, this de-emphasizing dress and clothing.
In a Mormon temple you're required to wear very simple all white clothing (plain white shirt, tie and pants for men, plain white dress for women, plain white socks and plain white shoes) - both as a sign of an attempt to be "pure" but also it's noted that everyone dresses exactly the same, causing for less focus on dress and external things.
No one had a problem with it; no one really cared, and even I, a transplant, ceased entirely to notice it after the first month or so, especially after I figured out how to get away with a clip-on tie. I've never since been able to take seriously those people who imagine it must be some kind of horrible imposition that some schools require their students to wear a uniform.
I wouldn't say "replaces"; the speech patterns, body language, and credentials are there whether you're in a suit or not.
As to class mobility: if the kind of people who get promoted in your workplace are the ones that, for example, have mutual friends from the same circles (and maybe the same college) as the boss, then wearing a suit isn't going help your career.
Interesting enough Obama said the exact same thing about his suit choices.
“You’ll see I wear only gray or blue suits,” [Obama] said. “I’m trying to pare down decisions. I don’t want to make decisions about what I’m eating or wearing. Because I have too many other decisions to make.”(1)
So decision fatigue doesn't need to go hand in hand with super casual.
(1) http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2012/10/michael-lewis-profile...
dude loves mom jeans as well.
Most likely he just doesn't enjoy fashion. Some people love fashion, shopping clothes, figuring out what do dress, and derive tremendous joy from them.
Zuckerberg and Obama aren't one of them. At least Obama is being more honest about the reasoning, while Zuckerberg is just spinning it.
As an example: Someone who doesn't particularly enjoy music could advocate that as a means to make fewer decisions and not waste time in non-adaptive behavior he doesn't listen to music. If the ingroup has similar tastes then it's converted into a "truth" and non-conformity prejudiced.
Overall I think that the intelligent thing is to dress according to what is expected/acceptable. A lot of people seems to think that the move to casual dress is some kind of new achieved freedom and that we're growing out of being biased against other's persons clothing. The reality, as posts here can attest, is that it was simply a change in dressing code. There is still a bias, now it's just placed in the more "formal" clothing.
I personally prefer tailored/formal clothing. But as casual dressers were discriminated in the 60s-70s so I would be in the current workplace if I dressed as I desired. The solution is simple: Dress as expected in work and as you like in your personal life. We as a species have not grown out of groupthink yet.
Would you though? Because tailored suits are a casual hipster staple nowadays too. You can meet a guy with huge victorian mustache and beard and a fine suit and they're a graphic designer or something....
He could. Low-brow fashion may be about keeping up with the latest trends, but fashion sense in the way they'd appreciate in say France or Italy is mainly about the personality shown in your attire -- and such a personal uniform would be totally acceptable (at worst viewed as eccentric in the good sense).
I work with lots of Italian and French people, and am a bit obsessed with the French culture and language. I observe that the opposite holds -- fashion-conscious Europeans sometimes let their personality be defined by their fashion choices. The personality, whatever that means, is secondary. Not to say that they are superficial at all, but rather that looks and presentation are so important to them (not a bad thing!) that it becomes a bigger part of who you are.
For example just today -- an Italian colleague struck up a conversation with me while we were grabbing coffee in the kitchen. He was wearing a blazer, nice dress pants and nice shoes. I was wearing jeans, hoodie, t-shirt. He asked me what cologne I like, and literally fanned the scent from his neck onto me, so I could smell his good taste in fragrance. His cologne did smell really good, but I was still jarred by the whole experience.
How is this not bad? I don't think the saying is "judge a book by its cover".
Wasting so much energy on superficial things has to take it from somewhere else.
In that it shows some effort and respect for the other's eyes, plus some sense of aesthetics (the looks as in "presentation", not as in being naturally good looking).
>I don't think the saying is "judge a book by its cover"
Well, that's deprecated advice. It hold true when it was created in 19th early 20th century, when books all had the same leather bound cover or bland design.
The last 30+ years books have tons of information on their cover, including awards the book has won, short reviews, recommendations, a summary, and even a small bio of the author in some cases. You are supposed to judge them by their cover -- that's how you pick them in the bookstore.
Which is closer to his point than yours :o)
As the sibling comment identifies, you read reviews of trusted people or the masses.
That might be, but I wasn't saying that they put personality first above appearance.
What I said is that appearance matters to them, but not in the "is he/she wearing the latest fashion items" sense, but that they (also) appreciate a deeper "does the attire reflect an aesthetic choice/strong personality" (as opposed to someone merely wearing whatever he threw on himself or whatever everybody wears).
In other words, that they might be for fashion, but they would respect opinionated attire -- such like Jobs.
If Italian and French people are not superficial, it looks an awful lot like it!
Zuckerberg is just as valid as Obama in why THEY choose to dress the way they do.
I'm a honey badger when it comes to clothes. I just wear free crap i get from conferences and buy jeans/shorts as needed. I don't spend any brain power on doing anything other than making sure i'm comfortable and fit the season(s). I spend money on quality - i don't want my clothing failing when mountaineering but "Fashion" is the last thing on my mind and i tend to get 10-15 years out of my REI / North face outdoor clothing
A focus on fashion or appearance in the scope of work is a distraction. Where whatever you want to wear but don't assume others have any interest or admiration of such.
I can't speak for Obama or Zuck, but I've been eating the same type of breakfast (cereal+milk) consistently [1]for the last 15 or so years (at age 27). Not mainly because of decision fatigue, but because I'm the polar opposite of a morning person, and the morning routine helps my drowzy morning self to leave home on time.
[1] Except when I'm traveling, because I'm certainly not taking a box of cereal with me. :)
Lots of people know from experience that they're staring in their wardrobe every day for tens of minutes to decide what to wear and hate it.
That doesn't change for them if some experts can't replicate the original findings of some "decision fatigue" paper. The burden of choosing every day is enough, even without fatigue.
I don't think that would be relevant. They still have to make 2000 other decisions and micro-decisions throughout the day anyway...
Simple solution: Wear what is at the top of the clothes stack in your wardrobe and add clothes that come from laundry to the bottom of the stacks in your wardrobe (for computer scientists: Make the clothing stacks in your wardrobe a FIFO queue).
I own 3 pairs of dark blue jeans (of the same style), half a dozen tshirts (dark blue, dark grey), 4 shirts (all vertically striped).
I just wear whatever is clean, I don't think I've spent more than an hour on clothing choices in the last year (and most of that hour would have been picking a suit out).
I do make sure everything is clean and ironed though, I like to look neat if not smart.
But it was fashionable to cite these studies for a while and to consciously adopt strategies based on them. That's a bit different—more like reorganizing your diet based on studies that perhaps eventually get overturned.
As if the best interests of the FB community are even in consideration...
I remember well when I did my military service and ha to wear a uniform. At first I hated it but when I "disarmed" and went back to my civil life, the daily "burden" to decide what to wear was a distraction. Sure I quickly re-adapted but anyhow
Such generic comments applying to an entire population should be best avoided.
I have worked in Italian, British, American and Spanish engineering companies and I have not noticed any significant differences in dressing code, with the UK probably being the more formal environment (we had "Casual Fridays", which meant that the rest of the week we had to wear shirts). In the rest I could get by with a polo shirt and jeans.
Of course people with more contact with the outside tend to dress more formally, but this has been true for every company I have been.
What an awkward way to force "Look what a good CEO I am" into the conversation.
Make up your mind, Internet.
He says it's a status thing: I have status (within the community I work with) and so can afford to not give a shit about my clothing. While service workers (not gardeners, but sales people, lawyers, doctors, janitors, finance people, waiters, etc) all have to wear a uniform of one sort or another.
I wonder if he's right because when I am in Japan or Europe I dress better and do dress up for dinner.
I heard an interesting explanation for SF's acceptance of a much wider norm of behavior: the claim was that it goes back to the gold rush: that crazy person might just have an ounce or two of gold in his or her pocket.
The causal dress counter-culture blurs the status lines that dress codes would otherwise draw. It reflects a mentality that people want leaders (or maybe even to be leaders) who are judged by the quality ideas, execution, and outcomes, versus their position in the org chart. Or the abolition of leaders entirely, holocratic style.
It's true that at some level, Zuckerberg has enough status to show up to Facebook offices in a hoodie, and he's rich enough that even if investors gave him the boot he'd be well off. But I don't imagine most programmers showing up to work in hoodies do to broadcast how important they are.
I mean shit Miami's winters are warmer than London's summers
I guess Europe would look very different without the Gulf Stream.
It's not only really hot, it's also humid..
I think the stereo-typical image of the "IT guy" wearing a hoodie or printed t-shirts isn't a good one, and stops us being taken as seriously as we should be. I want to be respected as a professional, not ostracized for dressing like a slob.
We can take lawyers, accountants and business people in suits seriously. But we're not on their level?
I guess I'd rather look ridiculous and out of place than look the opposite. If this field is so un-respected, maybe I should make an exit plan anyway.
Do we? The overall sentiment that I feel in tech (does not mean that I share it) is that these professions owe their prestige to existing power structures and not their own merits or usefulness to society. Developers look down on bankers because it's banker's job to look presentable - and developers think of themselves as actually doing something of essense as opposed to making a show of it.
Other professionals won't appreciate me for my code. A lot of their judgment will rest on my appearance - whether that's fair or not is irrelevant.
Also the implication that we're 'not on their level' due to not wearing a suit is absurd.
While I code every day I also part BA. I have a lot of contact with non-technical people - I am not just in a big office with other members of my profession.
Basically if I'm talking to people wearing suits/business casual, and I'm wearing a t-shirts and shorts, they will look down on me. You may decry the arbitrariness of social norms but they do exist and they do effect your interaction in a professional setting, whether people in silicon valley think they should or not.
I want to be respected and I want my field to be respected. If we dress much worse than other professionals, we send the message that we're not really on their level.
"the most radical shift in dress standards in human history"
Q. 'ow do you know he's a king?
A. 'e isn't covered with s$$t.
Seriously, today's business world has customs and status symbols that are just as rigid as yesterday's. They're just different.
http://putthison.com/post/144964888828/the-end-of-office-dre...
>Unless you work in a creative industry and live in a big city (read: basically NYC), you probably can’t wear anything too fashionable or avant-garde to work. We’re not talking about Rick Owens, but even somewhat tame designers such as Robert Geller and Stephan Schneider. And if everyone is wearing shorts and t-shirts, the sharpest you can look is in chinos. New, open office spaces still have dress codes – they’re just softly coded as social norms, not hard written into rulebooks.
>Dressing now follows subtle, in-group views – those who understand them know how to navigate the corporate world; those who don’t pay a price.
I previously worked a biz-cas place, and while everyone griped about the ambiguity, eventually you get the sense of the dos and donts and fall into line. Just takes more time.
My working pregnant wife would agree with you completely.
The female engineers I work with would not be what I consider casual. They wear dry clean only clothes, heals or boots. Usually clothes that are nicely fitted (As apposed to my square shirt that has arm holes sewed on. All this, +makup. (I shower, and wear deodorant, and get my hair cut weekly, but that's about it there). I could buy an entire 14 day work wardrobe for > $300.
I've wondered (perhaps worried) that is a reaction to not (or feeling) that they are not taken seriously. I can see when I walk around the halls at work that the women in my work place are putting in more effort than the guys but I don't have a cause for that.
I know that my wife likes to wear nice clothes to work. But I also know that on weekends she wears jeans and a hoody, or hoody and yoga pants. I also know that she enjoys looking at and buying clothes. I find it to be a chore, and try to do it all in about 2 hours for the whole year. I wear the same thing weather I'm doing the yard or writing code.
I don't really know why, but I can see that it's happening.
Here's an example of how changes to your casual wardrobe can make a huge difference in how old you look: http://www.extrapetite.com/2010/05/reader-request-how-to-loo...
I'll add though, that guys do deal with these rules too (see article below) but they are pretty clearly laid out. Guys' fashion changes over decades, whereas womans' changes over seasons.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/goldman-sachs-elevator-guide-...
It's not just that dress codes have changed, more that what constitutes smart casual changed.
A suit says "I am an interchangeable cog." Normal clothing says that you're an individual with identity and tastes.
(Plus it is hopelessly uncool to be/work for squares).
--Frank Zappa
Certainly at my workplace I see all kinds dress styles.
Funny, I was going to say the same thing for the exact opposite reason.
The valley has quite a lot of non-conformist conformity. With slacks and a collared shirt, it's about "professionalism". With the bland demure dress that shows personality, without suggesting the person has a personality capable of producing thoughts that go against the group-think, it's about "culture fit."
Boy, this seems pretty surprising. Other folks at google or facebook decided that you looked out of place and then called security? What do executives at FB and google wear?
The only time I saw people in formal attire was at a masquerade-themed holiday party.
I wear suits to work because it is counter-culture, and they make me look like a programmer version of James Bond. People who don't like wearing suits clearly have never worn a tailored suit.
Since having been moved into a cubicle, however, where I am visible less than half the time, only seen when I go get a free drink from the fridge, use the bathroom, or take a walk outside, I have been dressing much more casually.
Decent shirt, but probably less than business casual, sometimes as casual as a Pink Floyd or a shirt that I got at a concert. Jeans. Sneakers. Summer=shorts. A lot of times, I'll just find a nice casual shirt and wear it for 3 or 4 days if its fairly clean. Clothing is just the last thing on my mind when it comes to getting dressed in the morning. I know I have to do it in order to go out into the world, but I don't really care what it is.
Of course, my supervisor does warn us if corporate is coming to visit for the day, for which everyone tends to be even more dressed up than usual. But that is just the way our office is. I've worked around the United States.. it seems like the East Coast and Midwest are slightly more strict in wanting people to dress business casual, and be clean-shaven, while the West Coast and Mountain areas are more lenient, and doesn't even seem to mind a mustache or beard, though either should be somewhat groomed.
East Coast/Midwest: tattoos should be covered. West Coast/Mountains: tattoos are okay as long as they are not offensive.
Just today, I walked into Walmart, and a guy who looked like the manager is loaded up to his neck in tattoos. I don't remember ever seeing that when I lived on the East coast.
California: Anything goes. I've seen people walking around barefoot in the office. I have yet to see anyone completely nude at work tho, though plenty on the streets of SF.
Putting rigid shoes on your feet is like stuffing your nose with cotton - you're completely blocking a very sensitive organ to the rest of the world.
All this just to say: people who walk barefoot every day are not worried of stepping on tacks :)
On the other hand, I've worn work boots since high school, and wouldn't give them up. (Literally! Uniform required penny loafers or better. I got chewed out more times...) Callused soles won't save you on sun-hot asphalt or gravel, and knowing what you're stepping on won't do you a lick of good when 120 pounds of server and handcart run over your toes.
As a manager, I wouldn't be worried about them being worried. I'd be worried about them suing the company if they injure their foot.
Unless they're encumbered with a 80-pound piece of furniture that they're carrying down the stairs.
Broken glass is far more common in modern times than it was on the savanna, so it's wise to dress accordingly. You don't have to wear Dr Martens, but a millimeter or two of Vibram can dramatically improve your quality of life.
From personal experience, it takes quite the sharps to cut through 10-12mm calluses.
As someone who walked barefoot in Chicago for much of a summer: why is this everyone's nightmare legal scenario? Sure, I could be barefoot and step on a tack, but why is that so much more of a nightmare than if I'm not looking and put my hand down on a tack on a desk? (Well, maybe because I put my hand down with less weight than my foot, but that's not the point.) There are plenty of ways to be injured in the workplace, and we are allowed to manage most of these risks ourselves; why is shoelessness so particularly terrifying?
(Incidentally, one of my favourite objections to my shoelessness was someone who claimed that it was unclean (for others, not for me). I wash my feet every day, but almost never my shoes, so which one of those results in more uncleanliness for the places that I walk through?)
The claim was that I was tracking in all the dirt from outside on my feet, and spreading it around where it would dirty up others. Since I'd be doing exactly the same (plus all the other dirt from years of wear) if I were wearing shoes, I agree with you that it makes no sense.
The difference might be that shoes aren't as good of a substrate for bacteria as a warm moist foot.
The athletic administration at my college required that I put my shoes back on when practicing soccer on the intramural fields. Their reasoning was that I could get a cut and develop an e coli infection.
Oh, good point. I hadn't considered that.
> The athletic administration at my college required that I put my shoes back on when practicing soccer on the intramural fields. Their reasoning was that I could get a cut and develop an e coli infection.
This is also a good point, but not the issue that was being raised, which was specifically about others' health, not my own.
I find wearing shoes for the whole day extremely uncomfortable.
But it's unlikely that you could sue anyone if you step on a tack either.
In NYC it's similar in winter -- people keep light flats or flip flops on their desk and trade snow boots for those during the day.
It's not the same for suit & tie jobs, they usually wear shoes. Or if there's a more formal party at someone's house.
I'm almost 40. It used to be visible tattoos and piercings meant you were unemployable in most "mainstream" jobs. Same with odd colored hair or other unconventional appearance. I remember the "rule of thumb" was it was ok to get tattoos on your sleeves because you could always cover them up for work.
Tattoos are mainstream now so not so they are much more accepted at the workplace now. I remember I was really surprised the first time I saw someone with a facial piercing working a customer service job, it was at CVS.
I have a theory that the mainstreaming of tattoos comes from the greatest generation. They were the generation who fought the Nazis and came back with markings showing their loyalty to their country and the people they served with.
I am the same age as you. I don't remember any boomer parents with tattoos. I wonder if our kids and grandkids will keep getting tattoos or if it will fall out of fashion
(That being said, I didn't grow up in Texas, I grew up in the Northeast)
Shorts are certainly more useful here in the summer (okay, they're basically mandatory if you don't want to be miserable some days) than in SF where it's usually sort of chilly.
Seems overly reductive.
Even the New York Yankees have to shave - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Yankees_appearance_po...
I left there 12 years ago and the women could wear pants policy was new then. So it was around 2003-04 when they first started allowing women to wear pants. By coincidence (or maybe not) this is also the time when laws banning smoking in public places (bars, restaurants) first started to be passed.
It was a conservative office. Customers were other business, not the public.
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2016/02/women...
Dress code varied --- rarely, but it did --- but rules about tattoos and facial hair did not. No client cared about ink or hair, even when they really wanted people wearing jackets and ties. The companies that cared about this stuff were all east coast financial, but mostly not Manhattan.
We also talked a lot about how I'd never have a boss who'd tolerate lateness. Cut to 20 years later: my co-workers saunter into the office at varying times, when they come in at all.
The world really has changed right from under the generation before mine. My father thought he was preparing me for a good life.
But he was wasting my time.
I'm 33, in the Atlanta area, and I've never even heard of a company with a policy against beards. I'd estimate somewhere close to half of the men here under 40 have beards.
The subway sucks in a suite in the summer in Tokyo. Also they have a mandate to reduce energy hardcore after the earthquake so the AC is set at 28C the offices.
I see what you did that.
I'm not sure if you meant that, though.
Source: I got used to Bangkok's climate in a month and happily worked with a fan only, without AC
My countersource is that I didn't get used to it at all (several years) and seemingly neither of my co workers have either. The days when AC is off in the office, well it's pretty much empty.
A lot. The 28-degree "standard" has in fact been in place since 2005, when introduced by now-Tokyo governor Yuriko Koike who spent her younger years in Egypt, and has spread from government offices to almost the entire nation. In winter there is no corresponding artificially-low indoor temperature; if anything, they tend to keep it at 25-26 or more.
Total victory for the warm-blooded lizards and total misery for us hairy folk.
I was asked when interviewing (in a very serious tone) whether I could handle the dress code. It seemed obvious that they were aware it was a sticking point in recruiting.
Understandably. I don't even own enough clothing that would qualify to make it through a week.
This would most certainly be a deal-breaker for me unless the compensation was otherwise SPECTACULAR.
If it's the flopping around you object to, get a tie clip or consider a bow tie.
Why would I volunteer for that? Additionally, I think in terms of tech jobs, especially in California, you'd actually have to go looking for a place that makes you wear a tie.
I don't think I've interviewed anywhere in my adult life that had a dress code other than 'you have to wear some kind of pants in the office'.
The only time I can remember it being an issue was when one guy wanted to go barefoot at work. The eventual decision was that going barefoot was out, but flip-flops were acceptable.
I also wasn't about to drop $500 to buy formal office attire I would never wear outside of the 8-5. Also, requiring non-client facing devs to be in a 8am!? Ridiculous, and I'm a morning person!
After working 20 years in a large corporate environment where you could and I did accidentally literally brush shoulders in the hallway with a Fortune 500 executive this is utter nonsense. There are so many opportunities in a large company to improve productivity that people's attire would be near the bottom of that list.
I like working more in a startup culture where there is less ceremonial BS and more focus on delivering value.
I think a big factor with Americans dressing so casually is that how you dress is no longer a representation of your status in society.
As a thought experiment this might be happening with car ownership right now WRT the glowing gaslighting reports about the success of gig economy car services, and in theory there's no reason it won't happen with real estate. "Casual real estate prices" is an interesting meme to contemplate.
In the really old days, people used to say an ounce of gold is what a professionals suit should cost. It still does cost that much today, centuries later, its just professionals don't wear business suits as much anymore LOL. Or perhaps the era of LARPing is ending and non-professionals are no longer wearing professional suits...
The suit is really dead in the workplace (in Silicon Valley)
I usually just step it up a notch from whatever the regular office attire is there (either by asking my point of contact or having known the office). If it's full SV/hobo style I'll do a polo and nice jeans. Business casual and I'll wear a nicer shirt and some khakis. If I really have no clue I'll go slacks and a dress shirt.
In my own office (we're all remote) I still wear jeans and a polo most days. Usually just out of sheer laziness.
I've interviewed plenty of folks in the years since and they do pretty much the same. I'm not going to dock people because they approach an interview formally.
But the reality is that if you need to wear a suit to work, you're not working outdoors in the heat, you're working indoors in air conditioned comfort.
Lets just stick with seersucker is like 3-d silk but its actually very fine cotton. Its about as thin of a fabric as you can make that's not translucent.
Also traditional "real" seersucker suits were unlined although "fake" modern seersucker suits are lined.
Fitting a seersucker suit is non-trivial if done right because too tight and you'll roast and too baggy looks bad but there's this magic size where you get maximal cooling while still looking awesome. Being a cotton its so "fun" to deal with the shrinkage.
Its also not fun for the tailor/mfgr because they put a lot of work into faking thickness in the lapels. Here you are wearing something lighter than a polo shirt in total, but the lapels will be cut to appear 1/8 inch thick. Again, this was "real" seersucker and modern "fake" seersucker might be pretty warm without air conditioning.
It feels like wearing summer weight pajamas, its actually very comfortable while being stylish.
Also digital video/photo algorithms famously don't work well with the higher contrast seersucker colors.
In unranked order:
0. From a part of the US where how you dress a metric for how earnestly your intentions are; be it prayer, asking for a date, or (as mentioned above) interviewing for a job.
1. Military influences: Dad in Navy; lived and visited a big base quite often, knew many veterans (see 2, below). Uniforms in that context subsumed the above (0, above), and added how, for the military services (poster-children for "highly ordered & massively scaled"!) , uniforms matched their operations to a tee.
2. I worked for an airline for a decade-plus and got deep into air transport operations. From the day I was hired, until I resigned, I experienced or witnessed all the different ways uniforms rocked, with one or two counter-cases where the letter of the law was, let's say, liberally interpreted <frown>. Yet, overall, in real-world use, uniforms were clearly advantageous and I got the hang of it in no time.
3. I hope I'm not alone in this, but for me, donning a nice, fresh, crisp uniform - whatever style it might be - makes me feel more assured, more vigorous, more ... "I got this" 'tude than if I just wear whatever. (See 'Interview' block below.)
As for day-to-day, on-the-job; it's just fun to mix it up (time & laundry permitting).
Today was a blazer with a bow tie (MaxAccountantMode, heh), but to wear any tie is rare; maybe a blazer or sportcoat twice a week, at most, with the daily usual being a collared knit shirt (as made famous by Izod (!)) and intact darker dyed jeans, or industrial hiking khakis( which are my new favorites).
Finally: interviews. I wear a dark suit, shined shoes, pressed shirt (often new), proper socks, proper tie that's properly knotted. OMG ... I probably look like a salesman <see above>. But my batting average is pretty good, so I'm not sure I should change the recipe.
Cheers, /Acey
+1 thread
I have often thought that one of the hidden motives behind the recent trend of making casual dress near-mandatory is to prevent rank-and-file employees from feeling this sense of self-confidence and the unconscious additional respect they would get from people around them when they dress with some formality.
I know I felt it the first time I had a professional job interview when in college; the people around me looked at me and spoke to me in a slightly more respectful way than they would have if I had been wearing typical college-boy casual.
Ties are the most pointless piece of clothing and have no practical purpose. If you want some color get a nice colored shirt.
And for the practicality I find myself half freezing to death this time a year when I walk to work without a tie (around 45°F/8°C with brisk winds). Having a tie efficiently blocks the wind from entering the chest area through the button seams and around the neck without requiring me to bring a bulky scarf (which is very unpleasant in the afternoon when temperatures have risen to about 70°F/21°C.
That's why they invented this thing called a "jacket".
1. Companies under French management
2. Companies with a dress code.
I'm curious about this one, how come?
It mostly boils down to maddening bureaucracy.
Pointless meetings (when everything is decided in the hallways before the meeting starts, why have a meeting?).
An utterly bizarre obsession with certification over competence. You have a degree from this uni? You're hired! Even if you're as useless as they come. You're very skilled but don't have a degree from their favourite uni? Need not apply.
Simulating work is more important than working. You must be present from 9 to 5 at all cost.
Want something trivial done? Be prepared to submit it in writing (hard copy!) to management. You can expect a reply in about a month.
They would probably never work in their home country again. There are probably exceptions, but they both worked for big banks in Paris (not the same).
I interned at the French consulate one summer in college...
The bureocracy was madness, I'll tell you that. I think I got one single project completed in three months because of all the hoops and faxes and signatures and approvals required
One Friday I looked out of my office window near Liverpool Street Station and saw about a dozen smartly dressed gents in pinstripe suits with rolled umbrellas and bowler hats holding placards protesting against Casual Friday. I suspect it may well have been a stunt, but it was funny to watch.
I notice more academics having the same approach as well. I dress to match expectations, but generally I'm past the point where visually impressing someone would impact my upward mobility.
Wouldn't that be rather uncomfortable, especially when you try to sit in a chair with a back?
In a monolithic top-down hierarchical organization, employees are expected to conform. So attire rules reflects the culture where management and top-down decision making is common.
In a flat organization, decentralized decision making happens more often. So the culture might shift towards encouraging individual differences and more freedom in work style, including casual attire.
When I started working I had my own private office and wore a shirt and tie at least. Fridays were "casual" - no tie. I liked it better like that.
It is a music company though so that probably has a lot to do with it.
The trend was obviously coming to an end if we're already using terms like "last stronghold", regardless of what Silicon Valley might have done.
I like dressing up for work, because it shows you care about what you're doing. Nowadays, it seems every silicon valley company tests in production (Facebook, Google Docs, Even some parts of Android) because they just don't care about quality or user experience.
I miss the days of getting a release ready and patched, having very high confidence we worked the bugs out of everything before shipping it to the customer, with a list of features we added or things we fixed. It built up a lot of excitement too, customers would anticipate and ask for updates, eager to deploy them or test them out.
Maybe it's the background I worked in (it's been medical software or insurance claims processing)... so it actually matters if things work correctly the first time.
And maybe find some shirts that aren't the "T" variety.
Are actual colors coming back? Black seems to be as popular as ever. Most people don't want to stand out, at work or anywhere else, but fashion is generally so drab, I have always thought there would be a flower-like backlash of color that became popular eventually. Then you would only stand out if you were too dull.
Not really. In software we have a de facto range of attire from jeans and t-shirts to khakis and sport shirts. We're a pretty conformist bunch. I expect the range of choices is about as broad as our parents had a generation ago, through the center has moved way way casual-ward.
I used to wear the same as everyone else (shorts and t-shirt), but I really enjoy the separation between work and home that nice clothes bring. When I get home I remove my shirt and hang it up. I put my shoe trees in my shoes. On the weekend I dress casually. It feels good. If you always dress casually then you never dress casually.
On Sundays I polish my shoes to a mirror shine. When my shirts are dirty I wash and iron them carefully. It's a discipline that gives meaning to my life.
I view my morning routine, with the special clothes, special shoes, special bag, and even my "special" commuter car (that I don't drive on weekends) as a sort of liturgical practice. I wake up, I shower, I groom, I put the clothes on a certain way, I gather my things in the same order, I get one of only a handful of breakfast options, make coffee, and leave for work. I even kiss my wife and kids in the same order (youngest to oldest, oldest of course being my wife).
This seems boring and repetitive to a lot of people, but it's actually incredibly freeing for me. Because it is all so routine, I usually spend my mornings thinking about the book I was reading the night before, or the news, or some other topic. I don't have to pay attention to what I am doing because it just happens without "me" really being part of it. It allows me to focus on ideas that matter to me instead of menial activities.
For me, this liturgy would be interrupted without those special clothes and special shoes. I would likely find myself making choices and decisions I really don't have a desire to make.
In contrast to this, my mornings are a total chaos: kids. They obey rules if they arr funny. So I have to be funny, which means I just can't be that rigid.
So we just have fun every morning, which makes my work time also pleasant and light. An of course, very casual.
EDIT: I did not said that the person is autistic. Just the way it feels. There is a fine distinction. Of course there is nothing wrong with a structured life and such a person is perfectly healthy. Just to be fair, changed the word.
What I'd say is that we're all driven by habit more than we realize. It sounds like the parent poster has cultivated a habit that's healthy and productive for them. They actually enjoy it and it brings a positive structure to their life.
Someone who dresses down every day is also guided by a habit. It may be deliberate, or it may not be. I'm not being judgemental - I happen to mostly wear t shirts and jeans these days, though ones I really enjoy.
Finding a habit that makes your life better can be freeing. It automates something you have to do every day anyway, and the alternative of making a choice every day to do something unique could actually be a negative - it burns up valuable mental resources that culminate in decision making fatigue, which can really mess with your willpower by the end of the day.
In a sense we all rigidly follow habits, or a script. But mindfully shaping them can be a powerful tool.
Meet George Jetson!
I do like dressing up to go out, but all the ironing and caretaking involved... too much work for every day.
There's nothing wrong with it. These days it just might backfire though. "Hay--what's fancy boy trying to hide? Ability?"
I got used to dressing for work, and occasions. I still tuck my shirts in. I would never wear a hoodie to work, or even cringe saying hoodie.
I always refused to wear the noose for men--the Tie.
I wish that adornment was relegated to The Smithsonian.
Never saw the need. It was always in my way. Never liked the feeling of them around my neck. Plus--I'm color blind, so matching always enticed small talk, "That's a in--teresting Tie?"
I am so glad the younger generation toned down the business garb. I got to hand it to Zuckerburg. Keep those tees, and jeans. I hope he's 80, and still dressing down.
I'm at the point now, where I question the ability of the fashion plate at work. And that goes for both genders.
From my days wearing suits every work day. "If you always dress formal you never dress formal". It ruined the experience of dressing up for me.
If allowing fashion to be a reflection of yourself is dangerous then I would argue that the music you listen to while coding, the background on your desktop, and the decorations on your desk are also dangerous.
Of course, if you're Mr. Spock or Mark Zuckerberg, maybe these are all inefficiencies in your life and you've successfully minimal-ized your life into an exact replica of an IKEA catalog.
The specific types of sweatshirts/T-shirts you haven't removed from your closet. The specific keyboard and how you position it on your otherwise bare desk.
It may be minimal, but it's still just as much an expression of who the designer is regardless of their intentions.
When I'm not doing work for my job, I'm doing work for side projects, non-profits I volunteer for, local activism, or work in my garden or on the fixer upper next door my partner and I own. I dress much the same every day -- casually as appropriate for the weather. In the winter that means corduroys, flannel shirts, and several wool sweaters. In the summer it means as little as possible - no shirt and thai fisherman pants are not uncommon. I'll put on a shirt if I have to jump on video.
This life style works really well for me. I've been at it for 5 years now and I really love it. And I'm very productive. To each their own shrug.
Sometimes I'll go to a coworking space or a cafe when I need that sort of kick in the butt change of environment. But for the most part, I need as comfortable and familiar an environment as possible in order to get in the zone.
It might be different for sales, but for problem-solving, stability and familiarity in the environment (clothing) are most important.
"You mean your jeans aren't continuously reporting biometrics to your phone? How do you make it through your day?!"
I can't go naked to work
Holy cow, I follow exactly that principle but never realized it until you put it into words. My office is super casual, but I'm always wearing at least neat jeans and usually a button-down shirt. It feels right even though it's not necessary -- and you finally put my finger on why, that dressing up for work creates separation and room to dress down when not at work.
I go back to my casual look on the weekend, but I'm glad I started dressing up a bit more.
>sports jacket
>"well dressed"
pick two
People would do well to read up on trauma informed care and Adverse Childhood Experiences.
I sat there until the school day was over.
To this very day, despite having had some tasty ones, I still have an aversion to omelettes. Even the name makes me recall the gross taste.
So, that's some light trauma, I guess. But it's just a shitty-tasting omelette, same as a shitty-tasting dog biscuit. It's not fucking child abuse.
Or maybe there was a lot of other abuse in your upbringing and this was normal to you.
But overall, being forced to eat something you don't want to eat is a normal part of growing up - kids are fickle and don't realize that some things gotta be done because they're good for you.
Being forced to eat dog biscuits is obviously all-punishment-and-no-broccoli, and serving me a shitty omelette was clearly memorable enough to turn me off of them for life, but if I were to make a things I'd work on to improve myself, dealing with the psychological trauma of poorly cooked eggs is waaay down on the list by any objective measure.
How far do we dig? You basically suggested I get therapy because I don't like omelettes. I later on admitted a lot of stuff that would probably adversely affect people, but I seem to be coping with it fine. Do we recommend that everyone undergo therapy because they had to eat broccoli? Because a dog bit them? Because they didn't get that pony for their birthday?
We're human beings with human being brains that can cope pretty decently with varying levels of unhappiness, and get through it.
If your dad beat you with an electrical cable, please get therapy. If your dad made you mow the lawn in 95 degree weather, then you might need therapy to cope for it - depending on your individual mental state - but it's not an absolute indicator that you're suffering and need medical assistance.
ConceptJunkie pointed out about society swinging in a lenient direction. I don't think I agree with him specifically, but I do agree that some people can overcorrect and see abuse where there isn't none, and think someone needs help when they might not.
Children who are subjected to trauma, their brains develop differently! This isn't a coping mechanism of the brain! It just plain doesn't develop correctly.
http://wellcommons.com/groups/aces/2011/jul/22/this-is-a-bra...
My stupid omelette is not one of those things.
I did suggest that you learn about developmental trauma because I think it's empowering to understand in a deeper way how we are affected by our experiences, and how others are by theirs.
Just because we are fine and don't need therapy doesn't mean we can't benefit from more understanding.
A little bit of hardship builds character, but it can be a fine line between "good" hardship and abusive hardship.
Society has swung too far in the lenient direction and we have a generation (or two) of entitled snowflakes who often can't deal with the simplest aspects of life.
I call bullshit.
You're generalizing a whole generation, a generation that's growing up during a time of rapid change and upheaval. I could easily counter that Baby Boomers are the snowflakes who grew up coddled, but I actually don't think this is the simple truth, either.
Just because it's easy to share stories online of people who need Safe Spaces from their professors giving them a B+ doesn't mean the whole generation is emotionally crippled because their parents didn't give them enough chores to do.
1) Humiliating a child is trauma. HN can disagree all they want, but HN is wrong. It is trauma. Trauma in children have physical effects. Their brains develop differently. This is proven. Emotional trauma is one of the most impactful forms of trauma, but also one of the least ... recognized (for lack of a better word).
2) Being overly lenient on your child or giving everyone a trophy or just not discussing with your child that sometimes you're gonna lose or fail is setting them up for a very hard life and this parental behavior is wrong. When they become adults they don't have the tools to understand how to handle failure. This can lead to all sorts of psychological issues.
No, being hauled in front of the class as a target of humiliation is trauma; the dog biscuit is an incidental part of the mechanism.
> Holy hell you people must have had some privileged childhoods.
Having had far worse experiences in my own childhood does not prevent me from recognizing that public humiliation of this kind is traumatic.
Doubtlessly effective, but is a culture of collective punishment, where we all beat the shit out of Tim for the next 15 minutes, really something you want to inculcate?
To be clear, I find nothing wrong with Tim himself not getting recess. Individual punishment doesn't necessarily entail humiliation (which I think is the inference you're making).
(Aside, consistently rewarding good behavior is not a great way to modify behavior either, as behavior reverts shortly after rewards stop. Inconsistent rewards are better; encouraging self-motivation is best.)
Offering up choices is good. "You cannot have another yogurt, but you can either read a book or go play outside." Children need to have some control over their lives and when they feel they don't have it, they act up.
Not to mention if I had a child and someone force fed him anything I'd be filing charges.
Privileged childhood? Nah, I was subjected to public humiliation a few times too. Though I was lucky to have a mother who both recognized the injustice in such and knew what strings to pull to get those responsible held accountable.
Imagine you fucked up at your job; brought down the production server or something. And at the next team meeting, your boss brings out a dog bowl with moist dog food in it and tells you to get on the ground and eat it. And if you don't, you'll get demoted.
That's fucked up, right? No different than forcing a kid to eat a dog biscuit because he chatted too much.
Modern disciplinary theory promotes the idea of "natural consequences". If someone were chatty in my classroom, the natural consequence is to separate them from whomever they're chatting. It's both a punishment (can't sit near friends any longer) and solves the problem (not near those kid wants to chat to). Alternatively, if the kid just speaks out a lot and ignores material, start asking them to recap for the class what we just went over. Again, both a punishment (has to do extra work) and solves the problem (forces better attention, redirects attention-seeking behavior). No humiliation needed beyond simply getting called out by the teacher for the disruption – again, a natural consequence.
Public humiliation is especially insidious in multicultural classrooms. While western students may take public humiliation in stride (as me and my co-conspirators did), students from some backgrounds (e.g. east Asian) take public humiliation, especially from an authority figure, extremely harshly, making such disciplinary actions a very poor idea.
We live in a civilized society with lots of behavioral research. No need to resort to arbitrary public humiliation to enforce discipline.
Except that you intentionally changed a lot of details to make it seem even less pleasant? So yeah, it would seem that even in your mind it's different. I'm all for NOT doing this in a classroom. I'm not saying it's remotely a good idea, or appropriate. Although I'd also wager that the overwhlmling majority of the research you refer to has been published after the incident took place. I got physically beaten in school, and that also doesn't happen. But that and this are pretty low on the scale to be considered abuse and trauma. Another comment even said that the dog biscuit has nothing to do with it being abuse, but that it's the humiliation aspect. If being called to the front of the class for being too chatty is traumatic abuse, you are in for some serious problem in life and you need to get that settled sooner rather than later. If you consider this abuse, more serious abuse will be taken even less seriously by even more people. If you were made to eat a biscuit and are haunted by the horrific memory, you need to get over it and focus a lot more on what other people are going through.
Or am I misunderstanding and there is some stronger word that I'm not aware of for getting beaten up, forgotten, abused etc?
Otherwise I feel we are mixing basically privileged kids like
1.) myself (poor parents, no tv, mostly didn't get to play football with the boys at my age until I was approaching teenage)
with kids who
2.) has been beaten or otherwise abused, suffered food deprivation either as punishment or because no food was available etc.
While I sometimes foolishly could wish I was accepted in childhood I really don't want to pretend I suffered a lot.
I even think that it would just make me weaker.
But I think everyone here can remember a time they were forced to do something humiliating by one's peers. That's a basic form of bullying, which studies have shown has lasting effects into adulthood. [1] Great distress + psychological injury = emotional trauma. ("Great" and "injury" are again broad terms so we could keep going here…)
Being forced to do something humiliating by an authority figure – even as a punishment – is not really much different from being forced by a peer. It's arguably worse, since the authority figure models to the child's peers that humiliating this child is OK. It's not really excusable when there are plenty of other disciplinary options available. (Certainly I've never taught at or attended a school that found it necessary to keep a supply of dog biscuits at hand.)
Yes, being beaten or denied food are much worse – the stronger word I would use there is "child abuse". Doesn't mean that denigration by an authority figure isn't traumatic.
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/long-term-effects-o...
It is pretty awful role modelling too. I do not want my children to grow up and abuse power like that - no matter what job they will have.
Still can't find much about how humiliating it is to be punished for disrupting class, though.
o/~
Goggles.
You love your goggles.
They will keep.
Your.
Eyes.
From.
Burning up!
So wear your goggles,
Upon your eyeballs.
If you don't,
You.
Must.
Sing! (+repeat ad nauseam) -OR- Stay out!
o/~
Not to lionize enduring abuse as a badge of honor, but I grew up in the rural American South several decades ago. School paddlings were common in my religious school, as were mouth-washing with soap (for cursing), and forced prayer.
Aside from giving me a distaste for authority and organized religion, I wouldn't regard these things as traumatic.
My Polish friend grew up putting bread-bags in his disintegrating shoes, so that his feet wouldn't freeze. My Salvadoran friend's father was basically scalped alive by drug dealers because he wouldn't serve them in his restaurant.
The upper end of the trauma scale goes far beyond dog biscuits.
It sure does. And change starts with the next generation. Society advances through normalizing more civilized behavior in youth.
In all seriousness, people who had a little hardship when young are much better equipped to handle real hardship when it comes along. And even if real hardship never comes along, they are better equipped to sacrifice to improve themselves. We've made a huge mistake in making it too easy on our kids, and I'm saying this as a parent who's done the same thing, to a large extent.
Also, generations that grew up during bad times (like war) had higher criminality rates then later happier generations. People from bad socioeconomic situation had worst results then spoiled middle class kids. While you are not serving your children well by spoiling them, too much hardship has worst statistically measurable consequences.
Yet also, I remember some humiliating experiences that ended with me not willing to try activity that lead to experience - ever. Or at least not when someone is looking.
Amazing what it does for your grades to have a dorm prefect recognize that you're smart but lazy, and encourage improved diligence by combination of a razor strop, on the one hand, and access to his extremely well stocked personal PC/ham radio lab, on the other. I owe that man a great deal.
Honest question: your mother didn't bother to work anywhere, why couldn't she help him?
And I like this "he had to toss them", as they lived apart, and it wasn't a family's loss.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14406978 and marked it off-topic.