Is Style Correlated with Intelligence and/or Wealth?

[upnorth]

It certainly is. The correlation is 0.78263.

It's textbook. People who are richer can afford to buy better quality stuff. People who are intelligent don't dress like an idiot. The only reason you don't get a perfect correlation is because some people who are rich and smart are fat, ugly and/or short which ultimately qualifies them as unattractive and unstylish.

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by upnorth

It certainly is. The correlation is 0.78263.

It's textbook. People who are richer can afford to buy better quality stuff. People who are intelligent don't dress like an idiot. The only reason you don't get a perfect correlation is because some people who are rich and smart are fat, ugly and/or short which ultimately qualifies them as unattractive and unstylish.

I disagree, a lot of the interesting fashion trends originate in street/youth culture and they've usually not from the higher or even middle classes. Dressing is also quite instinctive and, providing you're not mentally deficient, is a possibility at various intelligence levels.

 

[Nicola]

Stylish tends to be visual.

Intelligent isn't always.

An engineer can be very intelligent [don't tell them]

But no matter how intelligent you wouldn't want them to design your new suit. It would end up with velcro and pocket protectors.

 

[newtrane]

a) IF style THEN intelligent: rather YES
b) IF style THEN wealthy: rather YES
c) IF intelligent THEN style: rather NO
d) IF wealthy THEN style: rather NO

 

[upnorth]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

I disagree, a lot of the interesting fashion trends originate in street/youth culture and they've usually not from the higher or even middle classes. Dressing is also quite instinctive and, providing you're not mentally deficient, is a possibility at various intelligence levels.

Perhaps that's because I do not consider many interesting fashion trends stylish nor classic. Then again, style is not something one can affix to himself/ herself but rather conferred.

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by upnorth

Perhaps that's because I do not consider many interesting fashion trends stylish nor classic. Then again, style is not something one can affix to himself/ herself but rather conferred.

Jeans?

 

[Trapp]

Originally Posted by TheDroog

But lots of smart people don't give care about style, which is their prerogative.

So basically ...

Wealth has no correlation to style.
A truly stylish person is likely intelligent, but the reverse is not always true.


Precisely.

It's probably hard to be stylish without being intelligent. But it's common and easy to be intelligent (this is not an exception but the rule) without being stylish. Besides, intelligent how? We all know accountants can be extremely adept with numbers but either clueless or careless about style. Ditto physicists, historians, brain surgeons...plenty of writers and artists...the list goes on. One of my neighbors is a small time landscaper who is gifted at gardening. She has remarkable feel and understanding of soil, sunlight, pH, root propogation, grafting, pruning, seasons, precipitation; all aspects of cultivation and a wonderful aesthetic sense to boot. I live in a major city. The only thing I have ever seen her wear, not just when she's gardening but when she's reading at cafe's or going out to eat, is either a pair of tan, men's carhart overalls four sizes too big, or a pair of huge green cordoroy pants with a hole in the back of one knee. You'll have to take my word on the fact that the overall impression isn't "stylish authenticity", or even a certain ironic anti-style. It's just sloppy. And yet she's brilliant.

I do like the question posed by the thread, but the main point seems obvious to me. The world's a big place. You can look for formulas (this means this, that equals that, this signifies the other) in an attempt to make people more readable. You can even generate interesting discussions by positing certain connections. In the end, it doesn't get you closer to the truth. This is a style forum. Imagine logging into an gardening forum and reading a thread in which people were seriously discussing whether it's possible to be truly intelligent without knowing a good deal about gardening.

(Given online forum trends, this discussion is probably taking place in a gardening forum as I write this.)

Of course there is a strong element of intuition. But it's often more a question of where you put your energies and priorities. The 'effortless' style that a lot of people on here carry off or pretend to carry off usually has a long lineage of time, effort, and expense that has brought them to a point where style is now 'effortless'.

There is nothing wrong with that. But let's not confuse interest and dedication to self-presentation as a pre-requisite for intelligence.

 

[TheDroog]

Originally Posted by Nicola

Stylish tends to be visual.

Intelligent isn't always.

This is true, and it's why people are throwing around the "style is innate" argument. Certain people have a natural knack at putting together pleasing color combinations, patterns, articles of clothing; their brains process visual information very well.

Other people aren't visual at all, and achieving a personal style is a hopeless endeavor.

In between is everyone else. This middle group can learn which colors and patterns work well over time, usually by poring over the pages of GQ or reading about it on SF. Style won't come to them as easily as the first group, but they're still better off than the third. (FYI: This last group is also responsible for all the "Do brown shoes go with a black suit?" threads.)

 

[teddieriley]

Originally Posted by voxsartoria

Sad, really. I blame this guy:

You might know him: he posts here and elsewhere as "iammatt."

- B

Funny. So this morning I'm getting ready for work, have my suit on (no tie) and messing around with the GF, unbutton the top 4 buttons and ask her if it was sexy. She said gross, and that I look like a Rico Suave. I asked, not like Tom Ford, huh? She said maybe if I had hair (my chest is as smooth as a baby's ass). I looked completely ridiculous.

 

[Mr. Moo]

Style and intelligence are both highly subjective things, so one may have both and be seen for having neither.

 

[JaPo]

Style does not correlate with intelligence, nor with wealth.

Very few people on this site have incredible natural style, as they think so much about what they're wearing and seek recognition from others. The entire principle of such a forum makes this inevitable. Many, however, have achieved sartorial excellence - a rather different thing. Intelligence and wealth both help on this road.

Real style, something I certainly don't possess, knows no bounds of wealth nor fear of social conformity. Some people are simply born with it. Very few go throughout their lives without serious blunders, mind.

Generally the really intelligent people acknowledge the futility of obsessing over presentation. I don't necessarily agree with this, but it's fair enough. True natural style is quite effortless, in my opinion. It is always unique to the person. Not everyone looks good in the same outfit.

We could all reel out a million examples to prove your theories wrong, OP. An entirely thrifted, well composed outfit can obviously look a hundred times better than a poorly chosen, ill-fitted high fashion ensemble. Just ask Billy G.

 

[texas_jack]

Originally Posted by JaPo

Style does not correlate with intelligence, nor with wealth.

Very few people on this site have incredible natural style, as they think so much about what they're wearing and seek recognition from others. The entire principle of such a forum makes this inevitable. Many, however, have achieved sartorial excellence - a rather different thing. Intelligence and wealth both help on this road.

Real style, something I certainly don't possess, knows no bounds of wealth nor fear of social conformity. Some people are simply born with it. Very few go throughout their lives without serious blunders, mind.

Generally the really intelligent people acknowledge the futility of obsessing over presentation. I don't necessarily agree with this, but it's fair enough. True natural style is quite effortless, in my opinion. It is always unique to the person. Not everyone looks good in the same outfit.

We could all reel out a million examples to prove your theories wrong, OP. An entirely thrifted, well composed outfit can obviously look a hundred times better than a poorly chosen, ill-fitted high fashion ensemble. Just ask Billy G.

Nailed it. Especially this part, " Many, however, have achieved sartorial excellence - a rather different thing. " Many people have learned from this site to look very good and there is nothing wrong with that but don't confuse it with innate style.

 

[voxsartoria]

You guys are doing a great job ferreting out this issue.

1. Since IQ peaks between the ages of 12 to 14, is age 13 the peak of style?

2. Since wealthy people often die at the peak of their wealth, are they most stylish in a coffin or urn?

3. To the extent that intelligence or wealth might be a positive correlation with style, how much should posting on StyleForum be a negative correlation? In other words, is every ten posts, say, equivalent to losing $1k of income or net worth, or ten IQ points?

Thank you.


- B

 

[eg1]

My relative innumeracy notwithstanding, I propose that as "style" cannot be meaningfully measured, it cannot be correlated with anything.

Wealth (financial) can be measured; the jury may still be out on intelligence.

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by eg1

My relative innumeracy notwithstanding, I propose that as "style" cannot be meaningfully measured, it cannot be correlated with anything.

Wealth (financial) can be measured; the jury may still be out on intelligence.

Style is like cool, it's a social currency of vague value and highly positional.