Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ilow
Well, it's not so much out of context as hyperbole, exaggeration for effect. My point was that I felt Will was being irresponsible by not qualifying his statement that anyone who does not wear a watch appears poor. I like Will, and I know he can take a bit of critique.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martian
This isn't entirely true. What a watch (or lack of one) communicates is entirely dependent on how it fits in with the rest of the man's outfit. If, for example, I'm wearing torn jeans and an oil-stained shirt, the message is 'I'm working at something that gets me dirty.' This message does not necessarily reflect on an individual's economic status (although some might interpret it as such). Similarly, an expensive silk shirt and some nice chinos or slacks might communicate 'I am wealthy/successful' without a need for accessories.
I would argue that a cheap Casio communicates 'I'm poor/obstinate' far more effectively than no watch at all does.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I'll buy that.
|
|
I qualified it, and he agreed. Or did you miss that part?
He's not wrong. Appearance dictates reaction. The type and nature of accessories is included in that. In the right context, lack of a watch can communicate either poor finances or a lack of attention to details.
Everything you wear says something about you. Sometimes the things you don't wear say something about you too. This is a very simple truth of social interaction.