I think one important caveat the post didn’t mention is that dressing in a clown suit is likely to be polarizing, and there’s a selection bias in that you’re likely to get positive feedback from the people who like it, while the people who are privately rolling their eyes at you will say little. Increasing the variance in how you’re received can often be a fine tradeoff to make, but you should be aware of the fact that you’re making it!
E.g., I used to routinely dress pretty weird and mostly only got positive compliments for it (including from random people on the street), which felt quite cool and good for my self-esteem. Then I happened to mention in one conversation that “yeah, I dress weird, but nobody seems to react negatively” and one person volunteered something like “actually, when I first saw you, I did assume there was something wrong with you and it affected my opinion of you negatively, though that did get corrected when I observed more of you”.
I think there’s a bit of a “no free lunch” element in status interactions, in that if something gets you points for being seen as unusual and courageous, typically the reason why it’s unusual and courageous is that some people will, in fact, deduct you points for it. Now you might still earn more points on average than you lose, but it’s something to keep in mind.
Somewhat relatedly, when I started growing my hair long, I got exclusively positive feedback about it. It would have been easy to take this as evidence that clearly this was a good decision and this is just the better hair style for me. But then again, personal feedback like this tends to be very strongly filtered. Firstly, as in your example, the vast majority of people who disagree will just say nothing rather than telling me “I think this looks worse than before”. Secondly, there were a few cases where people saw me after a longer time, said something like “Oh, your hair is longer!” and then after a brief pause added something like “Looks good!”—I suspect many of these cases were just the person realizing that pointing that out without giving a compliment would seem rude or awkward, so they quickly made sure to say something nice about it.
Oh yeah, that actually reminds me that after not cutting my hair for several years, I recently did cut it. That gave me the chance to notice that when I had long hair, various people told me it looked good—and then after I cut it, different people told me that I looked good for having cut it shorter. But at no point did anyone say “your hair looks bad now”. (Actually no wait, one person did say that my hair was “ruined” now that I cut it, but that person was also ten years old.)
+1 to this. Tying it back to coolness specifically: coolness will absolutely alienate some people. That is not just an unavoidable side effect, it’s load bearing for the game theory to work.
Trying to offend as few people as possible leaves one looking generic, or like a politician/middle manager.
As the opening of the post points out, nonconformity is a strict requirement for better-than-baseline epistemics. If one is trying to offend few people in general, then one’s epistemics are doomed to basically-baseline. So I don’t recommend that goal.
One could still argue that looking generic and inoffensive is fine, so long as one’s beliefs aren’t under lots of conformity pressure. But man, I sure would be very skeptical if someone claimed that were true of themselves.
There’s also the aspect of target audiences. There’s the baseline of looking like everybody else (though of course there isn’t any single baseline, and it changes over time, etc.). Any divergences from this will grant and deduct points from different groups. This should be fine as long as you’re gaining points from groups which you value, and losing points from groups which you don’t care about.
I think one important caveat the post didn’t mention is that dressing in a clown suit is likely to be polarizing, and there’s a selection bias in that you’re likely to get positive feedback from the people who like it, while the people who are privately rolling their eyes at you will say little. Increasing the variance in how you’re received can often be a fine tradeoff to make, but you should be aware of the fact that you’re making it!
E.g., I used to routinely dress pretty weird and mostly only got positive compliments for it (including from random people on the street), which felt quite cool and good for my self-esteem. Then I happened to mention in one conversation that “yeah, I dress weird, but nobody seems to react negatively” and one person volunteered something like “actually, when I first saw you, I did assume there was something wrong with you and it affected my opinion of you negatively, though that did get corrected when I observed more of you”.
I think there’s a bit of a “no free lunch” element in status interactions, in that if something gets you points for being seen as unusual and courageous, typically the reason why it’s unusual and courageous is that some people will, in fact, deduct you points for it. Now you might still earn more points on average than you lose, but it’s something to keep in mind.
Somewhat relatedly, when I started growing my hair long, I got exclusively positive feedback about it. It would have been easy to take this as evidence that clearly this was a good decision and this is just the better hair style for me. But then again, personal feedback like this tends to be very strongly filtered. Firstly, as in your example, the vast majority of people who disagree will just say nothing rather than telling me “I think this looks worse than before”. Secondly, there were a few cases where people saw me after a longer time, said something like “Oh, your hair is longer!” and then after a brief pause added something like “Looks good!”—I suspect many of these cases were just the person realizing that pointing that out without giving a compliment would seem rude or awkward, so they quickly made sure to say something nice about it.
Oh yeah, that actually reminds me that after not cutting my hair for several years, I recently did cut it. That gave me the chance to notice that when I had long hair, various people told me it looked good—and then after I cut it, different people told me that I looked good for having cut it shorter. But at no point did anyone say “your hair looks bad now”. (Actually no wait, one person did say that my hair was “ruined” now that I cut it, but that person was also ten years old.)
Fwiw., my hair grew longer and people often point that out, but never has anyone followed with “looks good”.
Then let me be the first one to (honestly) say that you do look good in long hair.
+1 to this. Tying it back to coolness specifically: coolness will absolutely alienate some people. That is not just an unavoidable side effect, it’s load bearing for the game theory to work.
Trying to offend as few people as possible leaves one looking generic, or like a politician/middle manager.
As the opening of the post points out, nonconformity is a strict requirement for better-than-baseline epistemics. If one is trying to offend few people in general, then one’s epistemics are doomed to basically-baseline. So I don’t recommend that goal.
One could still argue that looking generic and inoffensive is fine, so long as one’s beliefs aren’t under lots of conformity pressure. But man, I sure would be very skeptical if someone claimed that were true of themselves.
There’s also the aspect of target audiences. There’s the baseline of looking like everybody else (though of course there isn’t any single baseline, and it changes over time, etc.). Any divergences from this will grant and deduct points from different groups. This should be fine as long as you’re gaining points from groups which you value, and losing points from groups which you don’t care about.