Hacker News Reader

Comment by dalbasal | Hacker News Reader

Tyler Cowen (in his typical counter-narrative style) suggests casual culture may anti-dynamism, particularly of the class mobility type.

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.

View on HN

These are the relevant links for the idea:

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.

> So you see this today with Mormons, at Mormon businesses

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.

Wow. The same as the Guilty Remnant.

And it's not just a Mormon thing! I spent two years in a high school with a uniform code, based on the same reasoning you describe here around reducing focus and effort invested in something that doesn't matter anyway. (Unlike what you describe, purity wasn't really a concern, which is as well considering this was a Catholic high school - not all the stories are true, but...)

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.

It sounds like the correlation is with dress codes, not necessarily with level of formality. I wonder if having t-shirt and shorts be an official uniform (the world is getting hotter, after all) would provide the same benefits.

>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.

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.

P speech?

in context, public speech

You're not getting a raise this year for failing your lingo test.

In that case I'm going to use my trump card: I'm not a native English speaker :D

What do you have to say then about the widea acceptability now in the US workplace of profanity?

I think it's pretty fuckin' great

I'd say a similar concept applies. There are certain words that aren't accepted (eg homophobic slurs, words rhyming with runt, etc) but others that are, and if you grew up in a different socioeconomic environment, you wouldn't innately know the difference.

That's not really an interesting thought. Tyler Cowen can be relied upon to suggest that literally anything about the more-conservative past might have a causal connection to economic dynamism. If he could get away with it, he'd claim economic dynamism was driven by indentured servitude, or by hanging crucifixes in the workplace. It's a shtick, not an idea.

He also brings up lsd as a culturally dynamic influence, and compares but to today's culture's preference for grass and opioids. I didn't get a particularly narrow vibe from the book.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com