Thomas’s theorem from sociology explains much of what doesn’t make sense to me with respect to sexual markets and seduction!

[Robertcw]

What causes it and who chooses?

This will be short, because it’s mostly just a way for me to organize my thoughts after a lightbulb moment.💡

The question is ‘social status’ and status symbols. With the chief paradox being: most status symbols are not best in class performing products. Why, then, do they afford status?

Que Thomas’ Theorem. The theorem states that “If [people] define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.”

Which is to say, if one dubs the existence and importance of some thing — regardless of factual basis or objective merit — such a thing carries power and consequences with respect to the group that regards it as such.

Example: money/currency. US Dollars are nothing more than paper with ink. That’s literally what they are, though they do contain hemp which may have inherent value of its own. Though, primarily they are just little rectangles of paper with ink.

These rectangles of paper take on value in terms of the worth of someone’s work and effort over a lifetime. How? Thomas’ Theorem.

This is analogy extends to sexuality and sex appeal.

For example, Corvette’s offer best in class performance, but car enthusiasts shun them in favor of things like BMW M cars. The M cars are objectively worse sports cars, yet they garner more social status. Why? Thomas’ Theorem.

Best commuter cars are probably Toyota Corollas, but Mercedes sedans afford more social status? Why? Thomas’ Theorem.

Designer clothing often is made of polyesters and infused with many artificial chemicals, yet it may garner more social status than pure cotton items. Why? Thomas’ Theorem.

High heels are are completely non functional, and they garner more status than the best utility driven daily shoe. Why? Thomas’ Theorem.

Any trendy product you can think of, it’s probably not the best performing product in its class. And yet, higher performing products are usually stigmatized for nerds and people who care too much about archaic utility over conforming and fitting into the group. Why?

Thomas’ Theorem.

Trendy music? Thomas’ Theorem.

Trendy haircut? Thomas’ Theorem.

Trendy clothing? Thomas’ Theorem.

Trendy car? Thomas’ Theorem.

Trendy phone? Thomas’ Theorem.

Sex appeal to women == being trendy (correct me if wrong) === having high social status.

Anyone care to provide insight to a person who is mostly a nerd why this happens? What is ‘cool’ about these products that aren’t best in class? How are things chosen to be the one golden ‘high status product?’ Why aren’t best in class products chosen to be high status products?

Who gets to determine what is ‘high status’ and what is not?

Very rarely I see status symbols which earn their reputation. For instance, Tesla Electric Vehicles. They deserve to be high status for two reasons: 1. They are best in class electric cars. 2. Their mission statement is to save the world by accelerating transition to sustainable transport.

Apple products also deserve status. Apple is making efforts to reduce carbon footprints in big business, as well as prioritize consumer privacy.

Most, however, are silly.

[0112358]

Well I think Thomas theorem applies. So you accept that it’s a factor. What confuses you is why a particular brand gains status. Why one brand and not another?

There are multiple possible reasons. Sometimes there is a genuine aesthetic element that triggers something (heels fall into this category). Sometimes it’s riding off the fact that it was historically best in class and the reputation lingers. Sometimes it reflects being best in a different class for a group who are seen as aspirational. Sometimes it’s fashion which often is linked to what specific trendsetters are doing.

Feel feee to ask for examples on any if unclear.

[Robertcw]

I am curious to know how one becomes a trendsetter. Because I think the world could use a trendsetter that chooses to make better products trendy, imho (not joking).

I think Apple has done a fairly good job at this, but they are just one.

[0112358]

I think you can look pretty obviously at things like apple and tesla and say they've at least had moments of cutting edge design. When the first iPhone showed up it was jaw dropping. Tesla is doing things nobody else was obviously doing with electric cars. That prestige filters down.

Rolex, if you're unaware, actually had a reputation for making tremendously durable and watertight cases for watches (as opposed to the internal mechanics). This made them popular for … you know rich adventurers. They're sport watches. And expensive and known to be 'good', so then … people want them as status symbols. People act like they're the best, Rolexes are actually shit compared to real high end watches, but the average person doesn't know about them.

But that's more about corporate trendsetters, as opposed to -style- trendsetters. That tends to be coming out of certain cities, certain groups. Club kids, cutting edge musicians, edgy designers. And what they do does not directly hit the mainstream, but -some- of it gets picked up by more mainstream stars, who are looking for things that seem 'cool' and then some of those things take off as trends with their followers.

[Robertcw]

Hmm. Well, I guess what I’m saying is I’d like to have some say in what becomes trendy.

However, I’m a college student without much wealth.

I actually think it’s cool that Rolex earned its reputation via merit of building water resistant durable cases. I didn’t realize that and now respect the brand a lot more.

As an athlete, I might consider one for that reason. However, Apple watches are also water resistant and can detect abnormal heart patterns, monitor blood pressure and take ecg’s, so I guess traditional watches are dead unless they are cheaper than smart watches.

[0112358]

Well for watches as an aside, the key is that there are old mechanical watches, and there are electric watches (quartz). And of course most people dont' use a watch now, they have a phone on them at all times.

I still -like- mechanical watches, though I don't have the money to plow into expensive ones. But I accept that what they are now is small marvels of mechanical design. Electronic design is also something amazing, but … different.

I'd not -personally- be inclined to get a rolex, because it's a mechanical sports watch, something I dont' have much desire for. If i'm actually doing sports or boating or whatever, i'm gonna use a cheap watch. If I was going to buy a high end watch for dressing up … i'd want a -formal- watch not a sports watch. Diamond covered Rolexes bother me as much as diamond covered nike basketball shoes. They're a good basketball shoe, but slapping diamonds on it doesn't make it go with a suit.

In terms of what purely becomes fashionable, it's a constant cycle. There's some research on it, basically people want things that seem new and fresh, but not too new. So it's a constant riff on this year's fashion.

[Secretgardenblood]

Good take

[rjroy3]

It's all about things that are associated with being a winner. Even if something isn't the best, if only the "winners" (rich enough) people buy it and flaunt it. That thing is now associated with the rich guy/winner. It is therefore now a status symbol. Because they use it.

If a guy is successful with women and regularly getting laid. If he has particular things regarding his appearance, his job, his clothes, how he acts. Those all from outsiders now come across as symbols of status to some extent. Because you perceive those external things as things that matter. If a guy has a bushy beard and the girls love him, you'll feel inferior that your beard isn't as bushy as him. If a guy is getting laid who is hairless and slender like adam levine. You'll feel inferior because you're not as thin as that guy who the girls like so much. You associate those things with social value, because sex.

If a guy even looks like he is having sex you will attribute things about him as being of social value, even if they don't matter. The thing Apple did well was marketing. Their commercials? They have people in the commercial who are using these products who are happy/pretty/winners. They're putting their product in the hands of people you view as winners. And because they are winners you now thing what they do, how they dress, what brands they use actually matters. Apple is a lesser product. Doesn't matter. You feel like it's good. Why? Because those winners in the commercial are using it.

If you ever look up studies regarding marketing and things that sell. Most of the time it's images of people, images of people with the product, sex or good feelings. Best way to show "this is how good you will feel" in a commercial form is to show someone experience that thing. That's why those Newyork Mint Patty commercials are still rolling on TV after what 4 years? Where one person is eating a patty and basically having an orgasm on TV. That shit sells.

[Robertcw]

Hmm. I think you need to define ‘winners’ here for me to fully understand what you mean.

But it’s interesting what you said about marketing. I do see that on commercials all the time. However, what draws me to Apple products is actually their Unix based software written in a low level programming language (C based).

I also appreciate their wireless music protocol (AirPlay) and the high quality of their DAC’s and their adoption of an ‘objectivist’ stance in music quality. Which says there’s one correct and best audio output, and that’s a flat linear plateau frequency response curve with low harmonic distortion and no clipping. I dig that. I also dig that they use recycled aluminum.

When you say a winner does something and everyone else wants to replicate— can’t say I relate to this feeling. I always defer to merit and always wondered why everyone else bought into marketing hype of inferior products.

For example, in high school I wanted a fast car and I was working $11/hour in 2011. Which was enough for me to save up around $5,000 for a car.

Lots of people were out buying WRX’s, VW golf’s and Mustang GT’s, But all those platforms are dead ends power wise without spending huge amounts. So I bought a 4th gen Camaro z28. It was putting out 300hp stock and responds to small inexpensive mods easily. And it was fast. Perfect for what I wanted — except for one thing. All my car people friends hated it.

I couldn’t understand it. It was faster than all their cars, and cheaper. But it was ‘uncool.’

It blows my mind.

[Robertcw]

One thing I found was that in the car scene, guys will slow cars that were trendy got girls, but women in the scene really hated my car.

I guess it has something to do with what you said about the ‘winners’ thing.

[Robertcw]

Thing is, even though I was winning all the races no one wanted to follow me and be all like ‘wow Camaro’s are the best.’

It was more like: ‘GTFO.’

[rjroy3]

"Winner" in the sense that you're dominant. You're "the guy". Like a Michael Phelps, a David Beckham, a Cristiano Ronaldo, a Lebron James, a Donald Trump before he decided to run for President. Someone whose reputation is a dominant, successful winner at what they do. Who embodies that most varies across cultures, but they always exist in a variety of forms. Athletes are the ones that come to mind most commonly, but famous artists and popular celebrities can be this as well for a lot of people. Because they are successful "winners"

[Robertcw]

Hmm. So you’re saying that the same person’s preferences and beliefs before winning a high profile competition will be adopted and influential to the average person after winning some competition like that?

All it takes is to win at something competitive?

[rjroy3]

Can't just win. You have to have the reputation of a winner. It's like a superbowl championship team is cool, but The Patriots are the most winning championship team of all. Therefore they are viewed as "the guys"

[Robertcw]

Jesus. That sounds like too much work.

[rjroy3]

To some extent. You have to give a damn about something lol

[Robertcw]

Only thing I care that much about is health and fitness. I considered makibg a career out of beibg a personal trainer.

I would legit love doing that enough to dedicate my life to it.

But in general, I hate tge idea of spending huge amounts of time on something for public recognition of that one thing.

Just think about all the other things I could be doing in that time outside the public eye instead? There's so much to see, why waste all your time vying for social acceptance?

[rjroy3]

"But in general, I hate tge idea of spending huge amounts of time on something for public recognition of that one thing. "

If you're using it for business purposes, then that's not really a relevant concern. You're using social media for business purposes lol. Outside of interacting with your audience, doing a live stream and typing up the caption. Posting a photo/vid takes all of one second on instagram, then you close it and move on. Then you dedicate timeframe for you to check what your audience is responding to.

"Just think about all the other things I could be doing in that time outside the public eye instead? There's so much to see, why waste all your time vying for social acceptance?"

Yea, you could be using your social media to make money. Instagram is the one platform that can be an entire business platform by itself. Get a business account, link it to a website where you sell a product or service (like personal training) and boom. Business. There are entire programs to learn how to best do that now. If that's something you really want to do. You can save up your money and pay for the program to get started asap.

[rjroy3]

I'm against people holding themselves back, because of some esoteric view of what social media is and the state of society today. Sure, some people are addicted to social media and a lot of people use it to get social acceptance. But it's also used to get attention, which ultimately is something you need in business. Someone's attention. If they don't see you they can't buy from you.

[Spawnface]

It's probably because these types of formulas are treated one dimensionally. They are true in linited context but fail to encompass every facet related to a totality subject. (Not in school, I dont have the best vocabulary and terminology) So, if it is treated in a reductionist way, it will produce reductionist results. While the world has many other variables and systems at play.

War for example. It can be explained as a realistist, or rationalist type of motivation, I mean people may say that it's to gather resource and it produces great wealth for a certain cost but not only is this usually false but it overlooks every other rational for war. As with war and consumerism, there's other factors at play that dont fit into the narrowed formula as the one you provided as example. Many of those are essentially psycho-phenenomal and as such even death can suicide can be highly prized possessions. Only through a oversimplified outlook could one assume that people on mass only want what seems absolutely rational. Just as what was said, "If people define situations as real, they are real in their consequences" etc. People may very well treat any subconscious element or conscious element as real and want it over anything else.

Like, in the mind of a narcissist. Everything that doesn't feed the alter ego developed equals death. The narcissist survives by constructing a false identity and feels the same feelings of immiment death when confronted with anything that diminishes the narcissistic alter ego. Therefore, anything, no matter how irrational it may appear, can seem vitally important to a narcissist if it either endangers the alter ego or feeds into it.

Its because of a clingy attachement to humanist ideals of freethinking, freewilled intellectualism

[Spawnface]

that people forget that our base needs are of psychological origins, not rational. We are a brain and a beast within a mans body. This brain is usually existing in total rejection and of its own free will in opposition to the consciousness. When it comes to mass psychosises, in war, our primitive sides are evoked and we cease to become men. We become frenzied humanoid beasts enacting rituals of bloodlust and abuses. These events, mass genocides, are more rewarding to the primitive brain, than any amount of wealth that can be accumiliated.

[Spawnface]

And often, contrary to supposed realist outlook, war never favours the winner. There are almost never any motions of progress made. The economic losses outweigh the gains, and it overall is completely redundant. It is performed, for the greater reason of fulfilling our psychotic needs. These needs are often the fear of progress itself. Just like how an addict will relapse. The addict will gain something called a fear of success, as will most people. This fear is what perpetuates war. It is sourced in the essence of trauma and it pervades mosts aspects of life. Yet, like war, suicide is more important than rationality when it comes to confronting the terrors within our mind.

[Spawnface]

Oh but as to be a little more direct in an answer... Like I said, you can't assume people to want or think rationally, instead its correct to think the opposite.

So fear trumps just about any other form of interest. Thats perhaps one motive. For instance, people generally dont like change. Instead, the worship dictactors because dictators, of any stripe, represent the authority that confines their desired imprisonment. In truth, dictactors domt oppress anybody and are relatively powerless. People want to be dominated and keep others dominated.

So in a regressive mind, oil based cars may seem more auspicious because it reinforces the tyranny that keeps their system of order in check. While electric a cars may be seen as more auspices to a proggresive mind. That is only to include minds conditioned by certain pathological traits, not to infer politics into this.

Womens attraction to status may not be for the sake of wealth, it may be a attraction to torment. A masochistic type of fetishizing. Status can represent the tyranny that embodies the conditions needed to preserve a certain psychological setting.

[Spawnface]

Ill add to while I am going off. The dictator, he is only hated when he is weak. He is beloved when he is strong. The dictactor, though representing the torment of our lives, is the epitome of social status. Oftenly, the leaders we choose to follow, are not sought for our liberation, they are sought for our oppression. It is the power to oppress people that make the masses hand over all power to the dictactor. If one can only look through a humanist veneer, they will fail to make sense out of peoples desires. Though people may say they want liberation, their fears keep them confined. Their fears subjugate and dictate their behaviours. Social status may be seen as rated by our values, but these values are almost never benevolent and usually beyond our recognition.

[Bananaman177]

Most people are wandering through life in a stupor, and they can barely form a coherent thought about anything.

Whoever comes out with a narrative about what's going on will tend to be believed by the average person because they'll agree with anything that seems to shine a light in a world of fog.

The biggest mistake smart people make is not realizing how STUPID most people really are. How low-functioning they really are. Barely aware, barely thinking, they don't have an inner voice constructing a narrative about the world, it's just silence until some outside noise occurs, that's why most of them can never be without their music. They can't imagine music in their head, they have to actually hear it or else there's nothing there. They can't fill up their own silence.

[Robertcw]

Damn dude. Good to know I guess.