When it comes to appearance, the large majority of people look generic and unremarkable. In order to capture significant benefits from appearance, the main problem is to (a) be noticeable at all, and (b) not in a "wow that guy looks noticeably terrible" sort of way (like e.g. a hobo).
I personally have A Look. Waitstaff at restaurants recognize me the second time I go, and if I have a regular dish they remember it pretty quickly. People at conferences immediately recognize me, even if I don't wear a nametag and we haven't met in person before. Random passers-by on the street regularly compliment my outfit. People dress up as me for Halloween.
But more importantly than any of that, my clothes immediately communicate a vibe about what kind of social role I'm playing.
Almost everyones' clothes communicate that they're role-playing an NPC; they're wearing things which extras with no lines would wear in the background in a movie. The things I wear look like, at minimum, a named character. So people intuitively expect that I will act like a named character - that I will have crazy plans and sometimes even be able to pull them off, that I somehow know things ordinary mortals don't know or can do things ordinary mortals can't do, that I can get away with saying things most people wouldn't say, etc. So they're less likely to push back on that sort of stuff, and more likely to roll (role?) with it.
One thing this all means for you: you probably haven't tested an extreme enough intervention to notice significant results.
they're wearing things which extras with no lines would wear in the background in a movie. The things I wear look like, at minimum, a named character.
This is true.
The first time I mentioned "John Wentworth" to someone at Lighthaven, they asked me: "who's that?" I said, "you've seen him around, he's that guy who looks like The Blues Brothers." "Oh."
Though be aware that this comes with social costs. You get classified as weird, which means you lose out on a bunch of "normal" opportunities, but in exchange get to do a lot of stuff which "normal" people can't. Depending on your values, this is often a very favorable deal, just one you should know about.
I also have A Look (though much more on the hobo side of things than John), which grants me a "wise hermit" kind of vibe where people will ask me for information about the world and respect my ideas, but I'm viewed as low status by "corporate type people" (for lack of a better description) and am initially viewed as unattractive by women (this is later counteracted somewhat by the status effects of seeming wise).
I have a friend with an impressively massive beard, which he's frequently complimented for. However, two separate women have indicated to me in private that they find the beard unattractive. This, together with other personal experiences, leads me to believe that number of compliments can be a misleading metric for looking good.
Specifically, I think standing out will give me more compliments, pretty much independently of whether it improves my attractiveness, and it will be hard to tell if I'm actually becoming less attractive. I'm therefore focusing mostly on (b).
Do you have specific advice on how to develop or select said style? So far, I'm just wearing jeans and t-shirts most of the time and have been most of my life. After reading this I tried to find inspiration but after my (admittedly limited) search, most looked like a model wearing normal street clothes, a very WASPy outfit, or just weird in the wrong direction/not my style.
It will help get early dates, but it also sets a tone for what they should expect in the future.
I admire your desire to run experiments here, however I advise against it. I spent too many years not dressing well or worrying enough about my appearance because I thought it didn't matter.
I was wrong. It matters a lot. And not just for romance, but for almost all interactions. Everything you can do to look better is like a general stat buff. There is almost no trade-off to make here; there are only the upfront costs of learning to dress better, exercise, etc. and the relatively minor maintenance costs with looking good (can be as little as 2-3 hours a week).
How did you figure out that you were wrong?
What I gather is that you improved your appearance, and then you detected significantly better outcomes in social situations? In which situations was this change most apparent?
How strong did you find this "stat buff"? I have no doubt that buying some new t-shirts is a net good for me, and I'm essentially going in this general direction already because of the dating argument. However, after going from poor appearance to OK appearance, it is much less clear to me how far I should optimize. Should I stop wearing bike...
Gordon did write https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/kJoyRgDDPzMg4Fo3Z/nice-clothes-are-good-actually for more details.
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: being romantically desirable via being hot is not the be-all and end-all. If someone is mildly attracted to you, you'll have more pleasant interactions with them. I have felt this in both directions for myself.
Then those effects percolate outwards as "status" (in the generic rationalist description of the word). If third parties see you having positive interactions with other people, they'll think more highly of you.
And also, non-autistic individuals (I mean in the actual, clinical sense of autism; the effect I'm describing is actually one of the most interesting and unique features of autism as opposed to just social awkwardness) preferentially ally themselves with people they expect to be high-status. So if you're attractive, since people (on some level which is basically instinctual) will expect you to be have more social cache with others, they'll be nicer to you even if they're not attracted to you, nor have they seen you have a series of positive interactions with people who are.
P.S. I'm unclear from the information you've given whether you actually do have high variance in attractiveness over time. E.g. a "fresh" haircut is only good if the haircut looks good on you. For men it is (famously!) often the case that their freshly-cut hair is unattractively short. I usually find 2-10 weeks post-haircut to be optimal. For clothes, do they fit you well? Do the outfits go together and complement your overall style? The variance here comes from "5-year-old T-shirt and jeans" vs "well-fitting shirt and jacket" not vs "new T-shirt and jeans".
Generally from what you've said I'd guess that you're not getting much natural variance in attractiveness.
If I understand you correctly, essentially you're saying that the practical effect in my daily life would be that everyone would treat me slightly better. So for example when I ask a friend or colleague to do something with me, they are 10% more likely to accept, which is significant over time, but hard to separate from natural variance. This seems plausible, but hard to verify.
Regarding natural variance I think the variance is significant, but in the downward direction.
Essentially some of my t-shirts are not particularly well designed, covered in sponsors...
Looking good is an initial filter type thing, which shows you put in the minimum required effort. It's a signal that you take care of yourself. Though as @Elizabeth notices, that also sets basic expectations.
You can get dates and high quality relationships without looking good, but you're playing with a large handicap, which you'll have to overcome with multiple years of high quality friendship or equivalent.
Also, don't trust your own judgment of whether your clothes look good (unless you have exceptional taste, which I doubt from how you're phrasing the question) - ask some <target gender> friends whether whatever you're wearing looks good on you. Even better - ask them to go shopping with you.
As a girl, it absolutely makes a difference. I'm more likely to get approached if I'm wearing contacts + dress than if I was wearing glasses + jeans and t-shirt. The variance in how people treat you is strongest with strangers (because they have no other information about you to go off of; for example, I would think someone who has a hole in their shirt as more likely to be low-conscientiousness). I stand and sit somewhat non-optimally but I haven't been able to correct this reliably.
Your description of old waterbottles etc. signals that you're frugal, practical, and don't care much about optics, and you probably want a wife with those traits. Seems reasonable for you to keep doing what you're doing if you don't care about her putting a ton of effort into her appearance.
Some more low-hanging fruit for improving your appearance: just don't have any holes in your clothes at all; toss anything with stains you can't get out, and anything with frayed and/or overstretched edges anywhere, and any faded clothes – they always fade more in some places than others.
You mention posture, and yes, good posture is very attractive, and people will respect you more, too. Also this is definitely one area where improving does help you "become a better person", or at least feel more confident and "agentic"; at least, that's how it's worked for me.
I think there are two categories of traits, the fungible and the nonfungible.
Fungible traits are money, height, BMI/weightlifting. Them being able to pull you is a proxy for their social status.
Nonfungible traits are your actual contributions, what type of person you are, what role you play in a friend group or room, etc. Includes kindness, humor, emotional intuitions, etc.
When girls realize that my nonfungible traits aren't quite their cup of tea, they say "well at least i scored 5'9" / 6 figures / can pick me up and carry me a dozen feet" and then dump me for someone who's 5'10" / 7 figures / can pick her up and carry her two dozen feet. But if my nonfungible traits are her cup of tea, fungible traits don't seem to do much of anything!
In other words, fungible traits are the fallback when a girl doesn't like you very much. They're literally only worth considering if you assume she doesn't like you as a premise.
I think the answer is that clothing is halfway between, or plays both roles. Clothing contributes a lot to the "my friends will think I pulled well if I bring you around them" factor, so they're like a fungible trait. But clothing is also a vector of self expression, and to many it's a conscientiousness proxy / proxy to how clean your room is which people are screening for in long term primary relationships.
So idk.
But if my nonfungible traits are her cup of tea, fungible traits don't seem to do much of anything!
In other words, fungible traits are the fallback when a girl doesn't like you very much. They're literally only worth considering if you assume she doesn't like you as a premise.
This seems very contrary to my experience and that of other women I know (and makes little sense in the abstract. Your "fungible" and "non-fungible" traits literally funge against one another in people's assessments; why wouldn't they?
E.g. I'm a married woman. My husband is my favorite person; I love his "nonfungible traits"; his creativity, his humor, his abiding commitment to making the world better, his refusal to give into motivated cognition, his unerring integrity.
If he were one standard deviation less attractive, I'd probably never feel physically attracted to him, having sex with him would disgust me, and he'd be one of a bunch of nerds I feel vaguely guilty I'd never consider dating because they're obviously great people.
Of course most women care about money and comfort and attractiveness (which affect your life in many ways other than social status!) while they also care about good character and humor and EQ... doesn't almost everyone? When you assess a job, doesn't comp and location trade off somewhat against the company culture and how much you expect to like the work?
I think the most important thing has not been mentioned yet:
How you dress and take care of yourself is the very first and often only impression of how much you have your shit together. Having your shit together - doing the things you need to do in time and doing them well - is the most important trait in a long-term partner.
I agree with others here that appearance is regrettably important in general.
You ask about looking good for a romantic partner. I suggest you should additionally think about screening effects. Remember that, as a generalisation, the typical woman faces a different problem than the typical man when looking for a partner: the woman has to screen through a large number of offers, many/most of which are low-quality, to find a partner she wants. People in general respond to screening problems with shortcuts and heuristics. A person who knows you well will consider your appearance as one aspect of what they know about you; a person who has just met you is likely to make a snap judgement on your appearance. Your aim should be for an appearance good enough that it is not making most potential partners screen you out at the first step.
Your observations have a methodological flaw: people you know don't react better when you look nice because they know it's still you. Their reactions won't fluctuate with your daily appearance because they average their impression of you. Strangers' might; but some of it is also how you act differently based on how people treat you on-average, which makes appearance a subtle but longer term effect.
Speaking of which: how you act is more important. How you dress habitually does matter (but differently for different subcultures/ingroups). And good personal grooming (clean clothes and hair, haircut that fits your desired role) is easy, so you're shooting yourself in the foot if you don't bother with that.
There's a lot to it, but it's worth knowing the basics of how your habitual manner of interaction affects people and their reactions to you. (edit: Helen's) Making yourself small is very insightful for the basics of social interaction dynamics. Just becoming a little conscious of how you're interacting with people goes a long way. I know that's not what you're asking, but could fit your final "Or am I missing something?"
Thank you, corrected! I must've grabbed it from and misremembered from where Steve discussed it in his excellent Social status posts.
I found the post you linked interesting.
I agree with your point about my daily experiment being weak. It's frustrating that practically validating the importance of appearance for my individual case seems hard. Even in the extreme case, if I put in years of work and thousands of dollars into improving my appearance, I don't trust my evaluation of whether it was worth it to escape the sunk cost fallacy.
I hear you, but I'm not sure there's much tradeoff. even if appearance doesn't matter much for you outside of a romantic partner.
Doing small amounts of it is super easy. It doesn't require expensive clothes for instance, just cheap knockoffs of things people like or used versions. I guess being physically attractive in the important sense of physically fit is a large amount of effort, but that mostly pays dividends by improving your mood and energy levels in proportion to the effort. Hard to do and I struggle making it a habit, but in theory it's pretty likely a net win to spend a little time on exercise and a little discomfort and mental effort on not eating too much.
You're right that there are several small improvements I could make with relatively low upkeep. Things like buying less worn clothes, and that could also be cheap if bought used. I already work out regularly for health reasons, so I'm already doing decently in that department.
I think the long-term cost mainly comes from ending lots of unattractive habits that I've grown used to for practicality reasons. If appearances is as important as the answers to this post has made it sound, I definitely need to end these habits. Things like
I have ideas, as a fellow cheapskate!
Get a nice sun hat; Sun Day and Real Deal and Barmah all have snazzy looking widebrims (with the critical wire brim for shaping). I've been hat shopping for years even though I don't wear them much and still don't appear to be. These are barely more than the "practical" shapeless outdoor gear hats - and they work as well by most standards.
Black gaffers tape works better for most purposes than duct tape and hides instead of advertises your diy stylings.
The issue of looking like a cheapskate with repaired or worn gear and clothes is separate. Having near-new used gear and clothes instead of near-dead is only a little more expensive and does send a different message about your interest and ability to have money and take care of yourself.
Beanie in pocket is a dilemma I've faced. I unzip my jacket sometimes but that one I don't have a good solution for. Maybe in a bag? A snazzy or unique bag instead of a battered and dirty one is another cheap way to improve your curb appeal.
All in all I think you're doing great to just spend a bit of time thinking about this stuff. It's been useful for me to review it too. There low hanging fruit. It's not all or none.
Oh and I should emphasize that if you stay in shape most of physically attractive is handled. Nice work!
Some cultures and people care about fashionable fancy clothes and gear more than others. I like to avoid the ones that are most materialistic.
I was once in a situation much like yours considering the same question.
Arguments I considered at the time (when considering if I should "dress up" more in search of a romantic partner):
My very small data sample is that, I didn't change anything. Then, at a fancy dress party (where everyone was weirdly dressed and my costume had not been picked by me, but was part of a matching set with friends) I met someone and things went great. I don't know what to take from this, maybe fancy dress parties (or other settings with "non normal clothes", like a wedding) are good for people in your situation. At the very least, if your clothing choice is proving to be a barrier then events like this provide you with a good opportunity, to either solve the problem, or possibly help diagnose if you could benefit from different everyday clothes.
Of course, there is a strong chance the fancy dress aspect was coincidence.
A little bit. But the most important aspects for attraction are the energy and feelings you transmit. I can list so many situations of ugly or poor bad dressed guys dating nice ladies (both at uni and outside).
Also, if you work on your appearance too much you may end up with false positives that waste your time, costing you on the long run; some people focus on status (be partner's looks/money/position/etc...) and if you signal that you might not end up in a nice relationship.
In the long term you need to focus on values, direction in life, and self-confidence. Hitting the gym, having basic grooms is important, but just keep good health and good manners.
In my opinion.
P.S.
I think by the end of the day dating is a bit random.
During uni I had lots of pimples on my face, low self-confidence, but somehow I was attracting beautiful ladies that my friends, well-dressed and behaved, did not.
I heard of normal people having just a high-school degree with PhD girlfriends.
etc....
P.P.S.
Another thing. Focus one person by one person. You really need to be present in the situation. I heard so many people talking about how dating multiple ladies improve relaxation and confidence. But here is the thing. You, and the lady, need to be present in the moment. Like, there is no one else on Earth. Basic steps.
P.P.P.S.
Last thought. In the past, I had ladies rejecting me and changing their minds some time after. So, if you get rejected embrace it and have courage :)
P.P.P.P.S.
If you really have trouble/want alternative ways of meeting people, getting introduced is one of the best ways actually. So, through friends of friends/acquaintances, hobby groups.
You could also use Apps, I have several friends that met their girlfriends there, and the general advice is to show your activities. But I really think real life is the best and most organic way for finding a lady, statistically speaking.
This aligns fairly well with my current model. While I don't worry much about how I appear, I do care about my health (hence why I'm reasonably fit), and I have high self-esteem which I think translates to some confidence-flavored energy.
I'm an adult man, and I've never cared much about how I appear to others. This allows me to dress for comfort and practicality, and saves me a lot of money. However, I'm basically ignoring the common wisdom that appearances matter more than you'd think. So I'm naturally wondering if I'm making a mistake. I suspect several LessWrongers find themselves in similar situations.
Roughly, the model I'm following is as follows: My situation (work, social circle, self-image) is such that nobody cares much about how I look. There is little to gain beyond a low bar, where the low bar consists of things like getting a haircut every 3 months, don't smell bad and don't have holes in your clothes that show skin.
My main evidence in support of this picture comes from my own uncontrolled daily experiment: There is a high natural variance in how good I look. Sometimes I recently had a haircut and I'm wearing nice clothes, and sometimes I'm due a haircut and wearing particularly worn clothes. So if looks mattered significantly, I should observe positive outcomes significantly correlated with appearance. However, I essentially don't. I conclude that the effect of appearances in my daily life can't be that strong.
However, I've recently started looking into the possibility of acquiring a romantic partner. And for this purpose, looks matter a lot. A life partner can be a large factor in my overall life happiness and satisfaction. So now I'm wondering if the general advice that everyone should care about appearances, is primarily motivated by this single use-case?
Here are some examples of my choosing practicality and saving money over looking good:
I am however relatively tall and fit, which might offset some of my choices above. Furthermore, I do adhere to some low bar, such as cutting my hair every ~3 months and throwing away clothes with visible holes.
There are some commonly quoted reasons for why one should care about looks:
In summary, I seem to be doing fine with my current unoptimized looks, and I see little evidence that better looks would yield better outcomes for me.
There is only one clear exception: looking good for the benefit of a romantic partner.
Dating is highly attraction-based. We evolved to select good partners, and physical attraction is one of the primary heuristics. Even after dating, a romantic partner might gain significant overall life satisfaction from me optimizing my appearance, even if I don't care myself.
I get the impression that I'm not "supposed" to care about appearances only for the sake of a romantic partner. My mother didn't sell it like that. The vibe I get is that you should do it "to become a better person" or "do it for yourself". If I'm going to change my habits and spend much more money on clothing and accessories, I would expect better responses from declaring that I'm doing these things to "better myself" than saying I'm doing them to "attract and satisfy a romantic partner".
My hypothesis is that people who internalize the belief that they care about appearances "to become a better person" on average perform better than people who explicitly optimize to attract romantic partners. Focusing directly on the goal of satisfying a romantic partner could have many pitfalls. For example, you might conclude that your romantic partner is already locked in, so you can stop trying (which would then hurt the partner). Or you might over-optimize to appear attractive to one particular partner (who seems like the one at the time), but then break up with them and be left stranded. The general advice of caring about appearances seems generally more robust than the direct policy of optimizing for partner attraction and satisfaction.
I'm interested in ways to detect the significance of my appearance outside of dating. Maybe a social experiment I could run in my daily life. It's not hard to seek out situations which highlight the importance of looks: I could partake in political debates or do stage performances. However, I'm looking for reasons to look good in my daily life, not just in contrived circumstances.
I'm aware that my circumstance is unusual in the general population. If I was a famous personality or did in person marketing, appearances would clearly matter. However, I assume that here on LessWrong there are others in similar situations to mine, where the standard justifications seem weak, for reasons described above. What do you think? Does my appearance primarily matter for romantic partners? Or am I missing something?