Thoughts on the Sartorialist



Spehsmonkey said:

Observational studies have their place, but observation alone does not equal experimentation, which is what you need to make/hint at a strong evidence-based causal claim in a wildly complex system. Epidemiological studies on smoking hit at some middle ground here, for example. But more importantly, observation of modern humans with social structures that are significantly more complex than those of animals is not observation of ancient human ancestors. Our "observation" of ancestors relies on extremely limited and fragmentary evidence that would not fly in another scientific discipline

Click to expand...

there's a threshold for evidence in science, you don't arrive at conclusions after one study/observation in most cases there are multiple studies pointing making the claim stronger

for example, I mentioned study that showed men blind for birth prefering low hip to waist ratio in women aka hourglass figure

this articule mentions 4 other studies with diffrent focus groups that find the same https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo.../men-s-preference-the-female-hourglass-figure

one covered 1036 figures of female escorts, other same for sex dolls, other researched western men preferences and another in some remote village The Papua New Guinea that plus study of blind men all show similiar results.

now even the author doesnt exclude cultutal preferences influencing results; so nobody is even claiming you are this beast that evolved in that way and it's the only thing that shapes you. EvoPsych recognizes that.

Note that in the last paragraph, I used the term near-universal. This recognizes the fact that cultural contexts can alter an evolved WHR preference. For example, in environments defined by a greater likelihood of caloric uncertainty, men's preferences shift toward a larger WHR. Hence, even in an instance where there is unequivocal evidence for an innate preference, culture still plays an important role in shaping the phenomenon in question.

Click to expand...

Also is this claim that men would prefer hourglass figure highly controversial? Or claim that men and women focus on diffrent partner qualities when looking for a partner? Does it go strongly against your life experience and say common knowledge?

the approach of humans being a 'blank state' at birth is widely rejected in scientific community now, it's commonly understood that humans are mix of nurture and nature. Humans are dimorphic species to and not expect diffrent evolved behaviours in humans dependant on sex but only diffrent ******** between the legs is quite puzzling to me.


PS.
this is interesting talk between Richard Dawkins and David Buss on EP first 10-20mins adress many cristicsm mentioned in this thread

[VIDEO][/VIDEO]

To take a risk and actually critique the example (photo) cited, it will be perceived as "ugly" by many because the elements are not in harmony. For example, the bag (not just male/female but also formality). Also, the eyebrows are very unnatural-looking, which generally overlaps with unattractive.

of course, "ugly" is an aesthetic unto itself.

double00 said:

of course, "ugly" is an aesthetic unto itself.

Click to expand...

Yes, but I don't think that this was the intended effect. The intended effect was "cute", and he achieved "cute and generic" - the queer equivalent of a cute college girl outfit. So... meh.

Had not the time to read through the whole 10 pages of comments (stopped at p4), but my opinion seems to deviate from the voice of majority here, and is more in line with the OP. The reasons are as follows:

1. Scott Schuman named his blog 'the Sartorialist', not 'Scott Schuman'. Yet the vast majority of his Instagram posts are irrelevant to the sartorial man (e.g. OP's example). Even worse, many of the already few posts that actually relate to what we discuss here (i.e. classic style, or at least I think) seem to suggest that Scott is in fact sartorially ignorant. Forgive me for the use of such a strong word, but please, take a look at the screenshot below, of his most recent post. Of all the photos of Giampaolo Alliata in tailored outfits, he picked this, a picture of Giampaolo wearing a very apparently ill-fitting jacket (likely the result of a weight gain) with a dreadful 'X' around the buttoning. In my very honest opinion, and again pardon my bluntness, Scott's admiration of this photo suggests a lack of sartorial education, and thus rendering the blog name 'sartorialist' inappropriate.



2. Scott's Instagram followers, as the OP pointed out and I believe we can all agree, is no different from the average Instagram mob. The comment section is all too often a giant echo chamber filled with troll-like responses (e.g. 'Love!' ''). And many those people will not hesitate to give thumbs-ups to anything you throw their way, without regard to just how ridiculous it might be. But of course, this cannot be blamed on Scott himself.

3. Well, I was going to write up a third point, but I spent too long drafting the above and fiddling with that screenshot that I forgot the subject...

Now, in defense of the people who joined the 10-page OP-bashing session, I have to admit that the OP did indeed act too aggressively with his replies. Some of his responses I simply could not bear to read - there's no mutual respect in them. But again, the lack of etiquette should not tarnish the validity of his view, and in the end I still agree with the OP that Scott Schuman's blog is, although scattered with the occasional gems, not befitting of the 'Sartorialist' name.

Seems like he just saw the guy, and took his photo, and didn't worry about having the guy look immaculate.



Dr Huh? said:

Seems like he just saw the guy, and took his photo, and didn't worry about having the guy look immaculate.

Click to expand...

Indeed this is likely. Though again, Dr. Huh, if I were running a blog with the word Sartor in its name, I would avoid publically admiring photos of ill-fitting suits. It has been mentioned multiple times on the forum that Scott's blog focus has shifted significantly in the years past, and I agree with them that a name change is indeed in place. (Sartorialist to Fashionista...)