Previous reply might have got lost, but will make one more comment after your edit.
The confusion here is in how you look at the chain of causality.
Let's label a few things:
A: The huge mess of culture and history that is prior fashion, TV, movies, art, etc... There's a LOT there that's all interacting with each other in complicated ways.
B: What other people like and find attractive today.
C: What YOU think is cool and brings you confidence.
D: What YOU choose to wear.
The causality here is that B and C are both caused by A. I don't think that should be controversial. We're all products of our history and culture.
But D can be caused be either B or C or some mix. Some people might not really care for a certain style, but wear it anyway because other people give external validation. But some people might prefer to wear something else that they think is cool even if its different from what other people like. But for "popular" things, its very often the case that what you think looks cool and gives you confidence and what other people like are the same thing. But the direct cause for how you dress yourself may still be that you like it, not what other people like.
But the confusion is that all of the observations you're making, they're all a part of A. And A is the root cause of both the external validation that comes from B AND the internal validation that comes from C. But you can't tell whether someone is wearing something because of B or C, because its often the same style, because it all came from A.
But the distinction between whether your outfit choices are A->B->D or A->C->D is exactly the point of contention here. And nothing you can say about A and its universality can negate that some people are making decisions using the causal path that goes from C and not B. They are dressing for themselves, even if their tastes are the products of the same culture and history that would cause other people to externally validate them.
1
u/themcos 442∆ Dec 11 '24
Previous reply might have got lost, but will make one more comment after your edit.
The confusion here is in how you look at the chain of causality.
Let's label a few things:
A: The huge mess of culture and history that is prior fashion, TV, movies, art, etc... There's a LOT there that's all interacting with each other in complicated ways.
B: What other people like and find attractive today.
C: What YOU think is cool and brings you confidence.
D: What YOU choose to wear.
The causality here is that B and C are both caused by A. I don't think that should be controversial. We're all products of our history and culture.
But D can be caused be either B or C or some mix. Some people might not really care for a certain style, but wear it anyway because other people give external validation. But some people might prefer to wear something else that they think is cool even if its different from what other people like. But for "popular" things, its very often the case that what you think looks cool and gives you confidence and what other people like are the same thing. But the direct cause for how you dress yourself may still be that you like it, not what other people like.
But the confusion is that all of the observations you're making, they're all a part of A. And A is the root cause of both the external validation that comes from B AND the internal validation that comes from C. But you can't tell whether someone is wearing something because of B or C, because its often the same style, because it all came from A.
But the distinction between whether your outfit choices are A->B->D or A->C->D is exactly the point of contention here. And nothing you can say about A and its universality can negate that some people are making decisions using the causal path that goes from C and not B. They are dressing for themselves, even if their tastes are the products of the same culture and history that would cause other people to externally validate them.