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a style that's culturally relevant and signals some social fluency, they buy stuff that doesn't look irrelevant or out of date (or so they think).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

Best books I read in 2020

1. Atomic Habits by @JamesClear

“If you show up at the gym 5 days in a row—even for 2 minutes—you're casting votes for your new identity. You’re not worried about getting in shape. Youre focused on becoming the type of person who doesn’t miss workouts”


Good Reasons for Bad Feelings

https://t.co/KZDqte19nG

2. “social anxiety is overwhelmingly common. Natural selection shaped us to care enormously what other people think..We constantly monitor how much others value us..Low self-esteem is a signal to try harder to please others”


The True Believer by Eric Hoffer

https://t.co/uZT4kdhzvZ

“Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all unifying agents...Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without a believe in a devil.”


Grandstanding

https://t.co/4Of58AZUj8

"if politics becomes a morality pageant, then the contestants have an incentive to keep problems intact...politics becomes a forum to show off moral qualities...people will be dedicated to activism for its own sake, as a vehicle to preen"


Warriors and Worriers by Joyce Benenson

https://t.co/yLC4eGHEd4

“Across diverse cultures, a man who lives in the house with another man’s children is about 60 times more likely than the biological father to kill those children.”
@bellingcat's attempt in their new book, published by
@BloomsburyBooks, to coverup the @OPCW #Douma controversy, promote US and UK gov. war narratives, and whitewash fraudulent conduct within the OPCW, is an exercise in deception through omission. @BloomsburyPub @Tim_Hayward_


1) 2000 words are devoted to the OPCW controversy regarding the alleged chemical weapon attack in #Douma, Syria in 2018 but critical material is omitted from the book. Reading it, one would never know the following:

2) That the controversy started when the original interim report, drafted and agreed by Douma inspection team members, was secretly modified by an unknown OPCW person who had manipulated the findings to suggest an attack had occurred. https://t.co/QtAAyH9WyX… @RobertF40396660


3) This act of attempted deception was only derailed because an inspector discovered the secret changes. The manipulations were reported by @ClarkeMicah
and can be readily observed in documents now available https://t.co/2BUNlD8ZUv….

4) @bellingcat's book also makes no mention of the @couragefoundation panel, attended by the @opcw's first Director General, Jose Bustani, at which an OPCW official detailed key procedural irregularities and scientific flaws with the Final Douma Report:

You May Also Like