Also, if you are going to wear a suit, don't wear an ill-fitted one. Get it tailored or altered to fit.

Unless you are looking for a job as Trump's Press Secretary

That is one of my biggest disappointments about Trump. The man wears Brioni suits, and those easily surpass $10K or $20K each. But it looks as if some throws it on him without doing any measuring. What the hell is up with that?

Or married to Theresa May.

Some people look goo in anything and some people can't do anything to look good.

well, that's understandable. Italian politics was a joke, but now, in comparison, looks notably moderate.

I feel there may be some similarity to the people who voted for the cheeto-hued buffoon in.

I believe he lives in Ticino. The armpit of Switzerland. wouldn't surprise me if they really did think so!

Money only buys fabric, not style or class.

I also find that class and style usually find a inverse relationship to intelligence (money as well :P )

So, just to clarify...you find that the less intelligence you have the more style and class you possess?

Its usually the contrary, in my experience.

Doesn't it depend how you define style and class?

If for you having style means conforming to some common reference of what style is, that in itself implies average. Highly intelligent people often act differently from the average. This is interpreted by some as social ineptness or non conformism. And hence as lack of style.

But on the other hand, you could say intelligent people have a greater ability to observe, to understand, and to act in a dignified way. But this is also something that can also come from education and from growing up in the right environment and does not necessarily require an extremely high intelligence.

"having style" is often a way for the middle class to differentiate themselves from the working class. Doing subtle things that the others are not even aware that express who is part of it and who isn't. Only they don't see that the upper class has similar codes that exclude the middle class. Saying somebody has class can thus reflect that you associate with their social class.

As evidenced by the cheeto-hued buffoon sitting in an oval office in Washington DC, you can do all of those things but still have very little intelligence.

Also, you can conform to fashion, not style. Style is individual and unique to each person, and you either have it or you don't. Fashion can be purchased with an Amex, and will help you achieve the common reference you refer to.

I think style and social class is also getting fuzzy..rich people wanting to appear modest, hobo fashion being so en vogue, travelling now happening only in dirty adventures and tree house hotels, etc. While not so rich people save up for lux holiday resorts so they could feel wealthy. It is all about personal definition and immunity to common trends, resilience to peer pressure. I find people writing their own code having their own style.They are also less likely to rush to attribute certain expected style to others. Nothing to do with cash or power.

Whether to judge a book by its cover...well, why?

__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H. Pestalozzi

“The only difference between a rut and a grave is a matter of depth.” S.P. Cadman

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." A. Einstein

Indeed.

It isn't the clothes per se, it is how you carry them. I know people who wear a boiler suit with more style than some people a tailored suit.

Perhaps not a forward-reverse correlation--and of course subjective.


But I generally question the intelligence of those who are 'rich' in class and style, those who are unintelligent---I see no direct tread of style and class.

On the other hand, Kim Kardashian is a style icon for many.

Forgive an old fart's question: This Kardashian fellow, is he one of those cads who doesn't have a butler to remove the label from his sleeve? I've seen a few such people... bounders to a man!

I recall a marketing psychographic from some seminar:

Those who are at the top are motivated by the desire to differentiate themselves from the pack. Those below the top are motivated by the desire to emulate those at the top.

Trump never really needed to strive for social acceptance in NYC. He can say all kind of dumb things, and people still sought him out. So he never really needed to rely on charm and appeal, and has not refined them. Contrast with Obama who needed charm and appeal to advance.

I personally am a bit suspicious of those with 'charm' 'appeal' 'confidence' etc. etc.


With enough of those, you really don't need any authenticity, or develop any if you have those skills throughout life.


I see many examples with motivational speakers, life coaches, pyramid scheme success stories, attractive people in general. And the new generation who's resume includes "Aspiring model, actor, photographer, CEO of a cupcake store".


Of course disclaimer, it is subjective, and of course there are many instances where this is not true.

And there iks the over-compensation thing.

Maybe for a black man to be electable he still needs to act whiter than white. A black man who talks and acts like a stereotypical black man probably wouldn't get elected. Even if he said exactly the same as Obama said, it's not just what you say but how you say it.

So basically Obama being elected was not a proof that racism and classism is overcome, but a proof that it still exists.

On the topic of gangsta rapping and break dancing presidents ...