upvote
>Unless you're Sherlock Holmes, or know the person and their wardrobe intimately, you literally cannot discern anything of value from a one-time viewing of them.

You'd be surprised. People discern things of value from a one-time viewing of another person constantly. It's evolutionary wiring. From a glance, people can tell whether they others are rich or poor or middle class, their power status within a situation (e.g. a social gathering), their sexual orientation (studies show the gaydar exists), whether they're a threat or crazy or rapey or neurodiverse or meek and many other things, whether they're lazy or dilligent, and lots of other things.

>Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes, as George Carlin pointed out, it's a big fat brown dick.

What black and white thinkers miss is this doesn't have to be accurate all the time to exist and be usable. Just a lot more often than random chance.

And it has nothing to do with the comical Holmes "he had a scratch mark on his phone, so he must be alcoholic" level inferences: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKQOk5UlQSc

reply
> you literally cannot discern anything of value from a one-time viewing of them.

You're conflating actual value with perceived value. It's well established that perceptions matter and people make decisions based on this all the time.

> The whole Julia Roberts trope resonates exactly because it happens in real life.

No, it resonates because it's a feel good story. I'm sure it happens, but most of the time signaling is perfectly accurate. If you don't believe me, exchange clothes with a homeless person and try to go shopping on Rodeo Drive.

reply
I remember wandering into Cartier's in NYC dressed in my shaggy jeans and t-shirt. They didn't throw me out, but a security guard followed me around, definitely edging into my personal space to make me uncomfortable. I laughed, said I get it, looked a bit more, and left.

I remember the days when you were expected to wear a suit on a jet, even the kids. These days, even the first class travelers wear track shorts. I kinda wish the airlines would have a dress code.

reply
> I kinda wish the airlines would have a dress code

I'd take a code of conduct before the dress code. Though, appropriately enough, I suppose the latter signals the former

reply
Decent people don't need a code of conduct.

There's been pressure on the D Language Foundation to have a CoC. I've consistently refused one. The only thing I demand is "professional conduct". Sometimes people ask me what professional conduct is. I reply with:

1. ask your mother

2. failing that, I recommend Emily Post's book on Business Etiquette.

And an amazing thing happened. Everyone in the D forums behaves professionally. Every once in a while someone new will test this, their posts get deleted, and then they leave or behave professionally.

reply
I meant for flights
reply
> I kinda wish the airlines would have a dress code

What? Why? Are you really that bothered by other people wearing stuff that you wouldn't personally want to wear? I can't even imagine going through life with strong feelings about how other people should dress; it legitimately sounds exhausting.

reply
Would you go to a wedding dressed like a slob? Would you go to an elegant restaurant in sweats? If you go to pick up your date, and she opens the door wearing track shorts and a worn t-shirt, how would you feel?

When I'd pick up my date, and she had obviously spent a lot of time on her appearance, it'd make me feel like a million bucks.

reply
> you literally cannot discern anything of value from a one-time viewing of them.

The goal is not to discern anything about a particular person from a one-time viewing of them, the goal is to discern something about a person a sufficiently high percentage of the time. Hence the evolutionary utility of using prior probabilities.

As history, and probably many people’s personal experiences, have shown, this trait also has drawbacks.

reply