What's the difference between these 3 images? Why is one the ubiquitous example of great style, another the joke everyone wants to avoid becoming, and the last what your typical guy looks like?

I'll explain.

Great style consists of two things - positive aesthetics and cultural relevance.

Positive aesthetics simply means it has to look good - it should follow the rules of proportion and symmetry, the colors should be flattering, etc.
Positive aesthetics are why we love period pieces and classic old style.

The clothing visuals we love are those that are pleasing to the eye and give us a sense of satisfaction while looking at them.
But positive aesthetics aren't enough.

You can't throw on a toga, or a kilt, or a 19th-century 3-piece suit and walk around in it today because, as beautiful as the aesthetics are, there's no cultural relevance.
This is the biggest mistake the gentledorks make - all aesthetics, no relevance and it's actually why most of the guys you see doing period dress are culturally insignificant guys with no social status or standing.
On the other hand though, there are plenty of situations in which cultural relevance becomes critical - and then overplays its hand.

This is where most trends come in.

Aesthetics are thrown out the window and a goofy, exaggerated version of relevance takes shape.
This is also why we don't look back on trends fondly but cringe when we see them.

Once they've been stripped of their relevance, it becomes even more obvious that there was no inherent beauty or aesthetic to them and we wonder how we could ever have thought it looked good.
Trends don't look good. They look high status.

So great style is a combination of both.

You have to both understand aesthetics well enough to make your clothing look good, and your culture well enough to make your clothing relevant.
So why do most guys go this route?
Because they don't know how to do either and the risks of trying and failing are too great.

So, rather than play to win, they simply attempt to not lose.

Rather than choosing clothing that's beautiful, they get stuff that isn't ugly.
Instead of having a style that's culturally relevant and signals some social fluency, they buy stuff that doesn't look irrelevant or out of date (or so they think).

Rather than risk standing out in a bad way, they do their best to simply fade into the background and simply exist
The principles of great style aren't that hard - combine solid aesthetics with cultural relevance.

And even the execution isn't that difficult once you know what to look for and how to make it happen.
If you want help with that, and are sicking of merely playing not to lose, let's talk.

https://t.co/Zpi0nIu8sg

More from Culture

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x

You May Also Like

The YouTube algorithm that I helped build in 2011 still recommends the flat earth theory by the *hundreds of millions*. This investigation by @RawStory shows some of the real-life consequences of this badly designed AI.


This spring at SxSW, @SusanWojcicki promised "Wikipedia snippets" on debated videos. But they didn't put them on flat earth videos, and instead @YouTube is promoting merchandising such as "NASA lies - Never Trust a Snake". 2/


A few example of flat earth videos that were promoted by YouTube #today:
https://t.co/TumQiX2tlj 3/

https://t.co/uAORIJ5BYX 4/

https://t.co/yOGZ0pLfHG 5/
Trump is gonna let the Mueller investigation end all on it's own. It's obvious. All the hysteria of the past 2 weeks about his supposed impending firing of Mueller was a distraction. He was never going to fire Mueller and he's not going to


Mueller's officially end his investigation all on his own and he's gonna say he found no evidence of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election.

Democrats & DNC Media are going to LITERALLY have nothing coherent to say in response to that.

Mueller's team was 100% partisan.

That's why it's brilliant. NOBODY will be able to claim this team of partisan Democrats didn't go the EXTRA 20 MILES looking for ANY evidence they could find of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election

They looked high.

They looked low.

They looked underneath every rock, behind every tree, into every bush.

And they found...NOTHING.

Those saying Mueller will file obstruction charges against Trump: laughable.

What documents did Trump tell the Mueller team it couldn't have? What witnesses were withheld and never interviewed?

THERE WEREN'T ANY.

Mueller got full 100% cooperation as the record will show.