Do clothes make the man.

Had an interesting day in work today the boss asked me to sit in with him while he held interviews.
Had some very qualified candidates but man some of them really need to buy a suit.
jeans to an interview is a big no no.
I was only there for show had no real input on his choice.
I may be old fashioned on this topic, but I still believe a guy should dress in a suite for an occasion.
God I have turned in to my Dad. LoL
He used to make me where a suit shine my shoes etc for interviews when I was young.
Don't get me wrong I am all for casual attire when I worked for HP where wearing a suite and tie was not the thing the do.
Even the top managers whore smart casual cloths.
Mabey I am out of touch. So what do you guys thing Do cloths make the man.?

Yes. So does "Yes Sir, No Ma'am"
Want to get a boost in pay? Do these.

People think more of you, and you think more of yourself as well.

If you are interviewing for a job at any kind of office enviornment then wearing a suit and tie is the smart thing to do.

I can't believe that someone came for an interview at your workplace marko wearing jeans! Was the person like 20 years old?

I guess it all depends on the business. As you say, suits in the IT world are rare an even considered a no-no for some people.

In personal life, no, clothing have the opposite effect on me. In my mind, if someone is making the effort to look sharp it's because they don't have anything else worth showing or saying.

Of course that's not true, but that's how I perceive the person wearing it.

Suits are weird in many IT jobs. I'd feel like I look ridiculous applying for the job I have wearing a suit.

When I worked for EDS years ago I had to wear a suit because that's what the client required. Try changing several color and black toner cartridges on printers while you're wearing a freaking suit and not get anything dirty. Fun times.

Why do so many people on the internet put cloths instead of clothes?

^ lol
However you clothe yourself in a job you already have, depends on the "dress code" there. IT startups probably do not need a suit, of course. Also, during a normal day without visits from other companies etc. dress as usual, but never shabby.
For an application, a suit is imho the way to go.

Wearing a loincloth to a job interview would be interesting.

Or Braise and hose, pointed to your doublet, complete with cod flap or cod piece...

How about a grass skirt and a coconut brazier.

I haven't seen a guy were a full suit and tie for an IT job in 20 years.

Someone's been playing a lot of Witcher games.

When I worked in IT, a tie was mandatory, not a suit, due to the fact that our office received a lot of customer visits. I changed toner and did lots of other maintenance tasks with a tie on as well. The bottom line is that I was part of the public face of my company, whether I liked it, or not.

And I certainly did wear a suit on job interviews. Using Ma'am and Sir, was largely due to the way I was raised. Failure to do so would quickly bring on the rath of my father, and that was not a pleasant experience.

I should add that we were expected to exercise good judgement if we were visiting a customer site. Depending on the site, I might go with khakis and polo shirt but the White House or similar location was always suit and tie. Nobody told you what to wear but it was generally understood.

I see a lot of guys wearing suits but they aren't tailored- this usually means the jacket and pants look at least one or two sizes too large. If someone goes through the trouble of buying a suit, it undoes the appearance when it doesn't fit.

I did a college internship in IBM on the early '90s. Everyone had to wear a tie, suit was optional. Only management wore a suit at all times.

I went back there for a short time 10 years later. A manager was wearing shorts (with a hole in them) and sandals. A young programmer had a collection of Mountain Dew cans on his office (floor to ceiling) and wore what looked like surfer clothes.

They were the norm at that time.

I felt so out of place, but it was what they needed to do to keep the "young talent".


Where I work now, it is required to wear business casual attire. But actually no one cares what anyone wears (as long as it is not something in where a customer will be involved). I just dress casual on Fridays.

No he was in his early thirty's and a very nice/smart guy.
IMO, He was the best candidate for the job.
He is on the short list for the vacancy.

Tomorrow I have to try to check references for those short listed.
The issue with this is nobody will tell the full truth about a former employee because there have been cases were former employees have sued when informed they had received a bad reference.
So pretty much everybody will just confirm dates and qualifications they wont answer questions about attitude time keeping attendance you have to try to read between the lines I am not a HR guy no training/experience in this area at all
The HR dept consists of my boss. and know it seems me.

I always thought the guys in Richard Lester's 'Three Musketeers' dressed very impressively, particularly Oliver Reed's Athos. I'd like that style to come back. Them's some fancy duds.

I could then go about, calling knaves 'varlet' and the varlets 'dogsbody' without getting a second glance. And if one of the churls should bite his thumb at me, well, honor demands satisfaction.

I've found that generally, dressing well {as in tastefully and appropriate to the situation} makes a big difference in the way people respond to you.

I've had two good job offers develop from my shoes alone, when the would-be employer noticed that I had handcrafted footwear.

Female attention seems to be rather more forthcoming as well, so yeah, why not put a little more attention into your dress detail?

A guy once said to me if Jesus and Adolf Hitler tried to get in to a night club.
but only one gained entry who do you think it was and why.?
Obviously it was Hitler he always wore a shirt and tie.

It's funny that this topic comes up today, as I'm going to an interview tomorrow. And I'm most likely not going to wear a suit, tie, or even a proper shirt.

I do own some very nice tailor-made shirts that I wear when going out, but in IT I see it as being unauthentic. It's a job where people wear T-Shirts 364 days a year (maybe only not for the corporate christmas party) so dressing up for the interview to show a person you really aren't to me is fake. When I did interviews myself six, seven years ago I told the candidates to show up like they would come to a normal work day.

Like Wiley says above, some people in some jobs, if they show up all dressed, you end up wondering what they are trying to play over. For this company, the first interview was done on Skype, and both my potential teamleader as well as his manager were not wearing anything special.

But yeah, I guess it depends on the environment, and if you are facing clients obviously. However, I'm quite happy that I work in areas where looks aren't what gets you the position, rather it's your interaction and abilities. Worked too long for some asset management companies, saw too many people with a lot of suits but very little brains.

Everybody reacts to proper (or improper) attire. Most people do it unconsiously, and that's when your clothing style manages to influence their general attitude towards them. Others are aware of the effect and therefore able to separate one's looks from other personality traits. Clothing should both fit the audience and the occasion, and at the same time be authentic (if you apply for a job as a bouncer in a biker strip bar, a needle stripe suit is probably not a conducive attire.); everybody can learn to wear a suit and not feel out of place in one. Often enough however the "authenticy" argument is brought forward as a cover for an irrational dislike of ties and suits.


This reminds me of a converation I once had with a retired banker. He was active in the analog age - before today's credit score formulas and extensive backround checks - mostly for credit applications. He claimed never having had a single client defaulting on a credit that he had approved; however, they all had tp pass his five-points test:

Clothes
Shoes
Wristwatch
Hairdo
The ability to look straight, calm, and steady at his eyes

He said, pretty much all weirdos and fraudsters that apply for a credit usually manage to get at least half of these points right, but there would always be at least one detail that wouldn't fit. He probably sorted out a few people as "high risk" that might actually have been good business. But from his record it's evident that he also effectively filtered all the bad risks. That's not a bad outcome for a rather simple heuristic that can be applied within the first minute of an interview.

Not every interview is about money loans, of course. There may be occasions where you're looking for a shy and introvert type of personality who is really competent and tenacious and doesn't have to interact much with other people. But for about 80% of all interview type of situations interpersonal skills and the ability to present oneself favorably are an important, if not the decisive aspect. As the interviewer, it's important to be conscious about the effect of good presentation (and where it crosses the border to glibness). As the applicant (whatever it is that you're applying for) it never hurts to consider what kind of a first impression you're going to create.

dress right for the part

a suit means nothing if you're applying to be a grunt on an oil rig

a guy who shows up to an interview in jeans and a polo shirt probably knows that A) he's the best candidate for the job and if you don't hire him, some other better company will and B) a company that knows what it's doing in that field shouldn't care about attire because it's not relevant to its profit margins

You're in Software. You know it isn't, in IT

At my current company we engineers (including our managers) use the term "Whiteshirts" quite commonly. It means all those who run around in dress shirts, black dress pants and expensive leather shoes. Usually the kind of people who make our life miserable and have not too much clue about how the company actually operates because they rely on a highly filtered view based on incomplete statistics.

In such environments a suit or even a tie might well mark you negatively.

Or C) he's checking a block so he can continue to draw benefits.



The point of dressing up for a job interview is:

1) To show you give a damn about getting the job and it's important to you, and
2) That typically a person will dress down from the interview on the actual job, and if you're showing up in jeans it can only get worse if hired.

It is industry to industry, though. If one shows up for an interview wearing an expensive watch and a high priced suit, one might actually get passed over because they'll think the salary negotiation is going to be rough and above what they're prepared to pay.

Then again, what do I know? When I worked "General Construction" as a young man I just showed up asking for day labor jobs, then I joined the Army, and then after I retired and stopped by the Security Guard company to pick up an application and they offered me a job after about five minutes of chit chat.

The world is phony, it operates on conscious pretense with children usually being the best example of the exception to the rule- since they haven't been conditioned to be phony in the adult world yet, haven't been socialized to repress or hide their feelings or thoughts, they are actually quite intuitive judges of character. Children naturally sense out confidence and pretense whereas adults tend to lose this ability over time, children speak their minds and act out with far less filters- which adults tend to correct and teach them not to do. But because of this, children have certain natural advantages in detecting the rotten boyfriends, teachers, or other adults because something doesn't seem right. Too artificial. When I was a kid, my pals and I thought the adult world was just absurd and adults did not make much sense. And then when you become an adult, you can have introspection as to how you get caught up in it. You learn to play by the same phony rules, because that's what people expect of you.

This all applies to everything- first impressions matter so much that once they're made, it can be quite difficult to change the impression that others have of the person, especially if the person is perceived as physically attractive or physically unattractive to begin with.

So all things that depend on first impressions- job interviews and first dates and things like this are showing a candidates' best first impression rather than what they look like everyday. This can be good and bad- while you don't want to necessarily see someone's poor habits (nose picking or other form of bad behavior), no one is actually making an informed buy, either, they're going to make decisions based on how a person holds up on first meetings, because that's where it's assumed that nervous people with something to hide might buckle and fold and show their cards. But there are people whose personality types tend to be withdrawn or nervous at interviews who just need time to warm up to people.

In the end, the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_effort

whether unconsciously or subconsciously directs a lot of human behavior, they simply go with what information appears to be the case as it is suggested to them with the least amount of effort.

Interview in a suit.

However, I will say, I own my company and I go to work nearly every day, unless I am meeting with clients or going to court, in either jeans in winter or else shorts and either a golf shirt or even t shirt in summer.

I was discussing something similar with a friend along these lines, certainly a person's dress can enhance their own sense of self worth, if it get them noticed and people respond accordingly, then it does in that sense. Like the chicken or the egg question, is confidence a cause or effect- is it a result of positive feedback, or is it naturally occurring in some individuals and elicits positive feedback? I guess it depends.

Personality can be flexible and doesn't necessarily stay fixed. So the same person in his or her great looking clothes might look and act completely different in different environments with different clothes.

When you look at A type alpha personalities, it's not the position or the appearance of the position that makes this personality dominant or confident, it's actually 'ignorance'. I argue that true alpha type personalities are that way because they actually don't know they are- there are people who learn to fake confidence or alpha type characteristics, and that may work well until you compare one against a 'true' alpha type character, which is actually quite childlike and ignorant without introspection and pretense as to their own states. Children naturally get which among them are the most 'true' alpha, you almost have to be childlike yourself to understand this, since those alpha type personalities simply speak their minds or do what they want almost completely ignorant to anything external- criticisms for example, self doubt and introspection doesn't enter into it. It's like when we were kids the things we did without regard for consequences, that's why alpha type characters can actually be losers rotting in prison or some dumb brute in some circumstances- they're like children in a sense that they aren't bothered with the same social conditioning that puts doubt in the minds of rational thinking adults and therefore appear to act independently and confidently.

I don't know how it is done these day, but it seemed like a ways back you would get a call for an interview with a HR person first. Most HR people think that cloths do make the man. I would wear a suit and tie for that. Then the HR person would set up a second interview, usually with the head of the department you would be working in. I would usually tone it down for that one (again non-management IT job). I would usually wear dress pants, dress shoes, and like an oxford button down shirt with no tie. The second interview was the tough one. Usually three or four guys all rapid firing technical questions at you. Now days it seems like most places don't even have a HR department. It seems like today a technical recruiter (usually an Indian guy whom you never meet) just sets up an interview with someone at the company.

I actually agree with Mechanus for once - good clothing can make you act more confident. Any more confidence on my part however would just be cheesy

LB4LB, most larger companies around here still have a HR guy, but they usually tend to stay in the background while you interview with the Tech Department.

For my interview tomorrow, I'm actually travelling a total of 7h per train and spending 70EUR on tickets. I figure even if I showed up in swimming trunks that effort should signal plenty of respect for the offer and the company, given that I'm gainfully employed and also managed to spontanously rip a vacation day out of my manager. Given that it's a motorbike company priding itself on performance maybe I should show up in my racing leathers?

Shame though the new guys won't be able to pay what I'm asking but it never hurts to make a first contact...

I must stop reading this thread. It is too distressing.

cloths can make a man but i don't recommend table cloths, they should be proper washcloths in order to retain the shape of a man.

I don't think showing up with a racing jacket over one's arm to a motorcycle company would hurt one little bit.

I like to wear my cloths in the matter to which they were meant to be worn - as a loin cloth.

On confidence and ignorance, I guess I'm guilty of it just a little. When presented with a challenge, my usual response is "sure, why not?"

The notion of ignorance is also a factor in how I think about failures versus successes. I rarely think about the times I failed at things but recall successes much better...and even in the failures think about how I overcame them to become successful rather than the failures themselves.

A bit of selective memory and a sense of exceptionalism can do wonders for self confidence.

Geography matters. I'm sure the west coast is
different than much of the rest of the world.
And of course the field is a considerable determinant.
If you are applying for a job in a tech field where
no one you see in the organization is ever wearing
anything approaching even business casual, you can
figure they won't be paying a lot of attention to dress.
I have done very few job interviews, and I would
typically wear a coarse fabric wool sports jacket,
because that's all I had in that whole range, and
I never got much chance to wear it otherwise. No tie,
ties are exceeding rare on the west coast anywhere.

I dress quite nice, much nicer than my income would hint at, but I like suits and I like to dress sharp. That said, I think I have plenty else worth showing and saying.

I don't have much in the way of fashion brands, most of my stuff is mid to high end outdoor oriented casualwear, The North Face, Arteryx, TAD Gear etc} since that's what works on the almost cartoonishly casual West Coast. If I lived elsewhere I'd dress accordingly.

Clothes don't "make the man" but can show professionalism in the right environment. Of course, there are plenty of low class people that think a suit can replace having real class, maturity and professionalism, which is NOT the case.

If there's a reason you couldn't show for an interview in at least pants shirt and tie, I'd share that reason to show you at least know better.
If you just didn't have time to get it together "come on in today" or it just didn't fit and you couldn't get a jacket in time, much less a suit that would need to be altered, just own it and acknowledge it. If they can't deal with that, then that's on them. Remember, in a job interview, you're also interviewing someone as a prospective employer, not just the other way around. Their attitude and understanding can tell you if this is someone you'd even WANT to work for, based on their reaction.

It's complimentary. To the degree it makes the man is endlessly up to debate and you can always find examples and counterexamples.

There is a reason why the armed forces and other uniformed organizations take pride in their clothing- there's not a particular necessity even for BDUs to be pressed with tight creases other than for presentation purposes. There's a reason why kings and their majesties look regal- through dress, presentation and appearance. The king looks regal because it looks like he's used to regal treatment, it shows in his body language and in his wardrobe and whatnot. It works. Someone used to and expects regal treatment will probably show some care in the 'uniform', if not, it puts doubt in the perception of others. Taking pride in appearance can reflect an attitude that someone has, and that in turn can have a self reflexive effect. Of course it wouldn't work if I were to throw on gang colors and blend in with a street gang- I don't have the right attitude to play the part to simply dress like them. But, in other circumstances, pea-cocking probably does do something to one's own self perception.

As I understand it, there was a row the other day where Prince William was publicly kind of kneeling down telling his children to wave and look at the crowd- and Queen Elizabeth scolded him, telling him to stand up before his subjects rather than kneeling down like that. So it is complimentary in the way it works, that is to say, appearances- even it is just show (take away the crown and the king is still king, but he's not a 'king' in the sense we're used to thinking of kings- it's part of the image)

Of course, you can throw all that on someone who doesn't fit the part, and it may all fall apart. But I say at the very least it compliments the man. When the emperor wears no clothes, someone other than a kid will realize that and say there is something not right with it.

Having said all that, it's also looked down to overdress for the occasion. Wearing too much flair or too much jewelry or looking over decorating looks like effort- that' what's bad for some situations. So you wouldn't per se want to wear a suit for a job at McDonald's, unless it was maybe for a regional manager position or something like that. Overdressing does look like compensating, but hey- some hiring managers might be impressed with some young go getter who can pull it off applying for a job as a line cook with the right attitude.

Somehow it all has to come together to look as natural as possible. We are kind of wired in such a way to appreciate social conventions and applied to make them look like they aren't forced on us- when it looks like we arrive at conclusions naturally about appearances without coercion, like we arrive at these conclusions on our own, that's when it seems more natural.

In broad cultural scenes, watch how fashion trends ebb and flow. Men used to wear more formal looking clothing when they left the house, then that was too much effort, then the trend receded, and then a more casual appearance took hold, then that was everywhere, and then more formal looks would come back in, and then a more casual formal blend would take hold.

You look at movies from the Forties, and men just wore a jacket and tie a lot whenever they went to town (even the thugs and low lives still had the same presentation in dress, usually); then that stopped, you had fashion trends where looking more unkempt was in- all still a uniform, regardless, all still a reflection of people's attitudes, beliefs and identities. So in other words, if we left the house naked, we'd feel naked, we would not feel comfortable. There is something to be said about our clothing making us feel right.

Returning to this question and to be more summary:



In a sense, yes. Not always in the deepest existential sense, but yes in the sense that if you join the band, you wear what the band wears, that's an expectation of what makes the person accepted and gives him identity within that sphere. Yes in the sense that what you may think of yourself is reflected in your dress and vice versa. It's not always clear which comes first, but it's not automatically a distinct thing.

If your clothes make you a man, then you aren't a man IMO.
That's great that the military wears uniforms, but that's about uniform as a group. It's utilitarian.

Go up to a farmer or rancher, up before dawn and going in long after dark that he's not a man because he isn't wearing a suit. Tell your garbage man he's nothing because he stinks and wears a dirty jump suit. Tell a nurse or EMT they don't count because they wear genderless scrubs. Tell these people they aren't worth as much as the used car salesman who wears a suit more expensive than he can really afford, because he likes to look like **money**.

Our country could possibly do better without the people who wear suits every day far more easily than the people who never wear one.

Well, if you left the house in the buff or wearing a clown suit everyday, that would do something to your mental state. You would perceive yourself differently than you would in the clothes you feel are right for you. You would behave differently, and people would behave differently towards you. So it does make the man in that sense, it informs your behavior and everyone else around you. If you don't believe that's true, go ahead and try it. Shouldn't be a problem, right?

It's the same thing why prisoners actually wear their prison uniforms as a badge of honor and some prison officials actually try to change the uniform in order to squelch the attitude that goes with it.

In other words, clothing does have an effect on your own self image and the perception of others. They're not inseparable per se.

The whole point of the uniforms you explained about EMTs and nurses and so forth is that they help to establish uniform standards- both for themselves and the perceptions of the public. If you went to the hospital and all the staff and medial professionals were dressed up like the Joker, certainly that would change things despite their own expertise behind the mask, at least until you got accustomed and used to the new Joker look, and then you would accept that as normal.

There's a good book about the subconscious mind written by a physicist named Leonard Mlodinow:

https://www.amazon.com/Subliminal-Your-U...eonard+mlodinow

on the subject of the subconscious mind, he explains how it rules your behavior more than the conscious mind. From human sexuality to the effects of group think on individual behavior, we are all social products, not just merely individuals.

He explains in some chapters how people perceive themselves and their preference for other like individuals in their own 'in groups', perceiving others from 'out groups' as more uniform and homogenous than their own in group preference, and everyone does this. Everyone tends to looks at other groups they don't belong to as more unsophisticated, unlike their own.

There is an interesting chapter how he explains how signs on college campuses warning students that binge drinking behavior is on the rise actually contributes to more binge drinking, or warnings in national parks not to damage the sites actually contributes or encourages such behavior because if other people are doing it, statistically, the odds are likely more people will sense it is normal to do it, and they will do it too. The warnings are lost, what they take instead is the message of what the normal thing to do is.

You cannot separate yourself entirely from the norms and conventions of society, through rote impression and perhaps through own evolutionary patterns as social animals, we are not individuals simply unaffected from the outside.

Clothing (and by writing "clothing" I mean the full spectrum of one's appearance) cannot substitute personality. But it can enhance it, modify it, or create an opposite first impression (which usually isn't a good thing once that others realize the difference).

It's not a matter of "being a man" or not. It's about creating an authentic expression of yourself (to the extent that the opportunity gives you the freedom to choose your clothing style, which is often not the case on the job where functional considerations are often the top priority). Even if we don't want to judge the fellow man by the way he looks, it requires a conscious effort not to do so. People with reduced alertness or disinterested in self-observation will more easily be swayed by looks. That's not to say that a good-looking suit will make up for that sawed-off shotgun in your hands and the ski mask on your face. But it's proven that looking good improves self-esteem and bolsters confidence to a certain degree, particularly in socially awkward situations (and job interviews tend to be quite awkward).

Right. I can't quantify in certain terms or give a precise figure as to how it works, but it does play a part and it does figure into everything, just as other appearances do- for example skin color, eye color, a nice head of hair and so forth.

Study after study confirms this, or else advertisers haven't a clue as to what they're doing. Advertisers routinely use attractive models, including female models to sell men products which have nothing to do with women- the interesting thing is they don't use male models to sell females products, that should tell us something. They certainly know what they're doing, for me to second guess the research and experience they have would be an uphill battle on my part.

I think the only way appearances can be completely sliced from the individual are just in the rare cases when a man is totally separate from society- marooned on an island maybe, in which case he is a different animal altogether. When not living in a social group it's not really coherent to speak of him in the same terms anymore, such as a moral agent, he has no obligations or duties or rights or claims against anyone else.

To be fair, they also use good looking women to sell stuff to women. I guess men think "If a use X product I'll get some of that honey" and women think "if I use X product I'll look like that and get men".

Right. Women care more for what they and other women look like than what men look like. Other than that, the shiny, nicely packaged product itself is probably the next important category. Where men enter into it, it's further down on the list.

This is why I explain to men, who are more 'visual' that they often think women view them the same way. I'm attractive, she's attractive, it works the same way, we like each other the same way. Not really. With women, they respect another woman's opinion much more than a man's on the topic of female attractiveness, they are the best experts on the subject, the harshest critics, and the competition to beat out. Men's attention is easy and therefore not worth as much.

No, I'm saying that for well adjusted people clothing is more function than form. They don't wear scrubs because it's a uniform but because it's easy to care for, easy to see if you need to change, cheap to have many sets of and blood etc won't ruin your nicer clothes. A welder wears leather for safety purposes, not because "leather is in this year". Most jobs land in the vague business casual style, devoid of any uniform and wide ranging in what you'll find people wearing. In my experience, there will usually be some office douche that over dresses but under performs. Clothes don't make the man, he isn't fooling anyone.

Well, it's kind of a figure of speech, not do clothes literally make the man at the molecular or genetic level. That's not what's meant. Nor does it mean it's the only thing as if you either have clothes or you don't, so you exist or don't exist.

Do careers and professions make the man? What does make the man? We can probably say that no one thing does that. Put a man in prison for 20 years, he comes out, no matter what you throw on him, or what job you assign to him, psychologically he's still profoundly influenced by that experience than just about anything else. In fact, he'd probably still wear the prison uniform comfortably as a measure of his own psyche and self image better than a different type of outfit.

What's meant is probably can clothing make or break a situation? Yes. From there, it can gather momentum. Once the positive feeback starts coming in, that changes or 'makes' a person. Women who are attractive will tend to show that they know it in their attitude and accordingly will be treated as such. There is a very direct correlation with attractiveness and narcissism, especially in women since physical attractiveness is placed so highly as a desireable trait, therefore, it preoccupies them so much and they get treated as such.

Women just tend to experience it more. Almost their entire identity is going be how attractive their physical appearance is first, if not, they resort to something else, they have to exercise a plan B or C.

With men it kind of works a little more subtle- physical looks matter but as it tends to perhaps build confidence, because perhaps he's used to being treated well (because if he looks good, people tend to project onto him positive qualities- smart, trustworthy, kind, fun, healthy, etc.), so the confidence and attitude are a result of that. So the looks are a means to an end (attractive appearance + positive feedback ---> confidence) If not, an unattractive man can learn to 'fake it til you make it,' that is, stuff his feelings of self worth and fake his confidence. And that can work- I can tell it when I see it, when you see some guy and you wonder how in the world he is with some very attractive girl, what's usually going in most cases is that he's really stuffing his insecurity as best as he can (the fake jerk routine for example), in a few cases, the guy may be a sociopath with little self-reflection and very self confident to a fault, again a true A type personality.

Clothes don't make the man, but they do affect mood and personality (as already stated).

My sister's husband is a Master Electrician and Plumber (and does well), wears crappy clothes to play with sewer lines and such. But when he cleans up for the evening/weekend, he dresses very sharply (I'm guessing my sister helps a little with that). You can tell that when he's done playing with toilets and is going out that he *wants* to look sharp.

When a woman is becoming smaller and fitter, over time she might go from wearing sweatpants and t-shirts to bed, to $10.00 Walmart nighties, to $40.00+ VS babydolls (I guess the next step would be pure silk). Confidence comes mostly from effort and results, but the clothes you put on your body help with that, I think.

I'm going through this myself. Once I achieve that 32" waist and I'm truly happy with my body (for the first time as an adult) I've decided not to waste my efforts on Men's Wearhouse or JoS. A. Bank. I probably won't buy an Armani but I'm going to buy a couple of suits priced somewhere in the middle. And I normally don't care for dressing up (jeans and t-shirt are my speed) but then my favorite evening is a sushi dinner followed by a rock concert. However, *occasionally* I like to act civilized (and my age) and even pretend to be cultured, wear a suit (at least a coat and tie) and see a ballet or a symphony, or even enjoy borderline 4-star dinning.

I miss that about cruise ships. You get pampered being waited on with luxury accommodations and fine dinning plus entertainment, just enough to give you the illusion that for a long weekend or a week, you're living the good life, but for so little coinage (a cruise is dirt cheap when you break it down and you're smart about it). And knowing it's not real makes me comfortable when I forget which fork or spoon to use throughout my dinner. BTW, I've stayed at swank hotels and have experienced true fine dining (on someone else's dime) so I at least have an idea how they compare.

No, the clothes don't make the man (or woman) but they can help set a mood and even make you feel better about yourself.

++++++++++

If my ISP wasn't running at only 10% I'd post a YT clip of Nicholas Cage in "Family Man", saying something to the effect of, "This suit just makes me feel like a better person."

I'd also post ZZ Top's "Sharp Dressed Man."

I'm not a gambler and I'm a very light social drinker so those two aspects right there make cruises a very cheap option for me! I'd say the vast majority of the money I spend on cruises goes to excursions.

Meh, I've seen enough third world hellholes, the last couple of cruises I stayed on the ship at port. The Virgin Islands were nice, though.

About booze, I kinda cheated the system with my own large bottle of Crown (forget what comes after a fifth) that I'd hit before leaving my stateroom, but then I'd also buy a few drinks at the bar, especially on Disco night. On one cruise I won a drink card for 12 freebies.

My last cruise (2009 - first pic in "Name with a Face" thread) I did very little drinking and almost all healthy eating. My sister introduced me to sushi and Mongolian BBQ on that cruise, yum. Better than all the fried/sugary crap I engorged on the previous cruises.

I am going to bring in another book into this, I view it as one of the most important books ever written as it concerns us here. It's a groundbreaking book on communication theory by Marshall McCluhan

https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Med...rstanding+media

Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man

I began to apply these kinds of principles socially, although I was doing this independently of this book until I encountered and read it, that is to say, I already had some sense of how to do this on an intuitive level (because as a kid I was a bit of a loner but I could objectively watch people and see how it works, furthermore, I became absorbed with certain character traits in literature and film), I didn't make the connection with it on an intellectual level and I could never have explained it this way until I came across ideas in this book.

What McCluhan says is the medium is the message, I'm not going to get into all the details here, but I'll summarize as best as I can with an example that McCluhan provides. He points to a lightbulb as an example of an information conveying medium, but it's empty of content. The lighbulb has no content in its 'message', nevertheless, it is a source of light and provides a social utility in darkness by its mere presence. The medium is the message, the lightbulb is the message.

So this is what men are who dress to impress and have the natural confidence to go with it, either as result, or the confidence comes with, it doesn't matter which. But the man behaves as the light in the dark- at this point, his role is now like the woman, that is, women's mere presence is a social draw. Just by being and existing, she draws attention to herself.

So man flips the script by being the same way as he breaks the typical understanding that men's value comes from what they do rather than what they are, unlike women, who do nothing but exist and attract attention.

I've noticed for example when at train stations or darkly lit rooms in places where no one else is hanging out. Just by being the one guy who is by himself and looks comfortable being there, it has a natural magnet effect and starts drawing people into the area as well, like a light in the dark- even if I didn't want them to join and crowd me, they did.

This his how men gain advantages by basically mimicking the 'female role' in a way, by being the attractive male who occupies the space- he is the medium, he is the message. This works on an intuitive social level, whether people recognize it or not. The guy who stands out in 'the dark' so to speak, through his dress, body language, comfort levels, he looks natural and comfortable- the medium is the message.

To each their own of course but I can never see myself being on a ship 24/7 for an entire week. And besides, on my last cruise all of the island stops were very nice. I never had any issues.