×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Power of the Hoodie-Wearing C.E.O.

Unknown Lamer posted about 4 months ago | from the kilt-qualifies-me-to-lead-the-free-world dept.

Social Networks 75

New submitter silverjacket writes "New research (JSTOR sub required / paywalled) shows that we see nonconformity as a sign of both status and competence — under the right conditions. From the article: 'Next, the researchers asked students at American universities to imagine a professor who is clean-shaven and wears a tie, or one who is bearded and wears T-shirts. Students were slightly more inclined to judge the dapper professor as a better teacher and researcher. But some students were given another piece of information: that the professor works at a top-tier school, where the dress code is presumably more formal. For them, the slouchy scholar earned more points. Deviance can signal status, but only when there are clear norms from which to deviate.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

75 comments

this is why tattoos aren't taboo anymore... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45781697)

everyone rocks a neck tattoo now cuz it makes them look like a rich guy who doesn't need a job and just works for "self-actualization".

Re:this is why tattoos aren't taboo anymore... (2, Insightful)

alphatel (1450715) | about 4 months ago | (#45781765)

everyone rocks a neck tattoo now cuz it makes them look like a rich guy who doesn't need a job and just works for "self-actualization".

And like all symbols of perceived status, it is as useless as the hoodie or tie.

SpEEdoes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45782225)

When I pose for Forbes, I will make a point of wearing-out my speedoes, clearly showing "the bottom".

Re:this is why tattoos aren't taboo anymore... (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 4 months ago | (#45818719)

Why are hoodies useless? I'm going to assume it never goes below 65F where you live.

Students at American universities (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45781699)

I know why researchers at universities use students as test subjects -- like rats, they're all around and they're cheap. And for some studies, using students is perfectly fine.

But can we stop the practice, at least in news stories, of assuming that the attitudes of American university students apply to anyone other than American university students? Most students are stupid as rocks. They think a "slouchy scholar" is cooler? So what?

Re:Students at American universities (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 months ago | (#45781795)

It's a recognized problem (though, for the reasons you note, people prefer to ignore it whenever possible because college students will do any dumb survey you throw at them for peanuts), enough so that it has its own spiteful acronym.

They call such research subjects 'WEIRD': Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic. (Now, given the student debt numbers and all that neat stuff they didn't tell you about in civics class concerning how governments work, some scare quotes may be in order; but the general "asserting universal truths about human psychology based on American college students is only a few steps ahead of just introspecting and assuming that everyone thinks as you do" point is important...)

Re:Students at American universities (2)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 4 months ago | (#45781885)

More specifically, university students who are taking one of the psychology courses that requires then to enter in X number of studies to graduate.

No other university student has time for entering into studies.

Re:Students at American universities (1)

Roger W Moore (538166) | about 4 months ago | (#45782465)

They think a "slouchy scholar" is cooler? So what?

Well it makes sense that the non-conformist is better at their job. If they can still hold a job while violating the norms of the position then it probably means there is some other reason why s/he still has a job. Ironically though this is not necessarily true for university professors because we have tenure and, so long as we satisfy public decency laws, we can dress how we like and provided our teaching and research is up to standard there is not much that anyone can do about it.

Re:Students at American universities (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about 4 months ago | (#45784101)

yeah you want to ask a sample of VC's what they thought about a hoodie wearing CEO

Bunny-ears lawyer (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | about 4 months ago | (#45781707)

I haven't read all the featured articles because the kinds of institutions that have access to JSTOR are closed for weeks around Christmas. But what the article in The New Yorker calls the "red sneakers effect" is the same as what a popular literary analysis wiki calls the bunny-ears lawyer effect [tvtropes.org]. I guess the idea is that if someone can keep her job despite not conforming, she must be really good at it.

Re:Bunny-ears lawyer (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 4 months ago | (#45781867)

I've sometimes wondered how conformity might be measured. Personally - I'm a non-conformist in a number of ways. I'm rather proud of that fact. I do as I damned well please, I hold my own opinions, and just don't give a rat's arse what others think about it.

I do realize though, that I do conform to society's expectations in a number of ways.

Where do you go to get a conformity grade? On a bell curve, where would any of us be?

Re:Bunny-ears lawyer (3, Insightful)

lxs (131946) | about 4 months ago | (#45782015)

Actively examining relative levels of conformity of yourself and others is probably a strong indicator. Going out of your way to be scruffy, wacky or rebellious is playing a part as much as wearing a suit and tie.
Stop comparing yourself to others. Try to be kind, and if you can't be kind try to be polite.

Re: Bunny-ears lawyer (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45782491)

Mod parent up. Explicit and overt non-conformity is a paradox.

Re: Bunny-ears lawyer (1)

morari (1080535) | about 4 months ago | (#45784083)

You can't be a non-conformist if you don't drink coffee!

Re: Bunny-ears lawyer (1)

losfromla (1294594) | about 4 months ago | (#45786067)

lol! good one! There is probably almost no other single activity that more loudly screams conformity, with the exception of probably eating donuts.

Re:Bunny-ears lawyer (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 4 months ago | (#45781895)

I guess the idea is that if someone can keep her job despite not conforming, she must be really good at it.

Then there's the talking heads on the Sunday television shows, who can be wrong as often as they please and not suffer the slightest risk of losing their jobs.

Or the investment advisors. IIRC someone tracked Cramer's buy/sell advice for a year and found that he had a 49% track record - you would have done slightly better by flipping a coin.

Re:Bunny-ears lawyer (2)

fermion (181285) | about 4 months ago | (#45782115)

I don't think this has to do with the implied quality of work. I think this has to do with relationships and the assumption of the power of youth. When a professor dresses up, that tends to mean that have achieved a level, the level is often a well funded lab or many graduate students, but from the point of view of the student such a person has been successful and needs the costume of success to relate to other successful people. If dressing up is a requirement, then the idea of success has gone away. Students will then prefer the person they can relate to, the person who dresses like them. Such a person is clearly more related to the culture because the 'low' dress is an authentic decision, not a desperate attempt to relate to the kids. I see this all the time in some people wearing jeans when the dress code does not really allow it. This has little to do with ability, and much to do with presentation. Even the hoodie wearing professor is about presentation,

As far as the more general hoodie wearing CEO, this is simply about the projection of youth and being successful, or trying to be successful, at a young age. This is the college drop out who has no clothes, has no interest in clothes or cars, and is putting his or her full life resources into the building of a firm. Investors are not going to be funding this persons lifestyle, only the growth of the startup. When a startup becomes successful, the hoodie becomes the costume because that was what got the person to the top. The presentation that the money is going to the firm, not the $10,000 Italian suit.

Re:Bunny-ears lawyer (1)

DogDude (805747) | about 4 months ago | (#45782823)

All of what you said could certainly be true. But the one big one you missed out on is that in some situations, the person honestly just doesn't give a shit how he/she "presents" to other people. It's rare, but it happens.

top-tier school != better researcher/teacher (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45781751)

An individual professor at a top-tier school isn't necessarily a better researcher than one at a less prestigious school, and ability to research well is almost certainly not an indicator of ability to teach well.

A hyper-well-dressed "professor" at a top tier school is likely to mean Harvard Business School or similar, and I put absolutely no weight in their ability to do anything except encourage a new generation of cunts - which anyone could do, if they lacked the scruples. Everyone at Oxford dressed pretty messily or outlandishly. It is perfectly plausible that people concerned about appearance are shallower than people not.

Re: top-tier school != better researcher/teacher (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45781813)

I wholeheartedly agree. The fact that dressing casually is seen as non-conformist is from the perspective of people who value appearance over substance.

Re: top-tier school != better researcher/teacher (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 4 months ago | (#45781921)

I wholeheartedly agree. The fact that dressing casually is seen as non-conformist is from the perspective of people who value appearance over substance.

When people ask whether I would cut my hair for a job I tell them "maybe so, but I wouldn't want to work for anyone who asked me to".

Context matters... (2)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | about 4 months ago | (#45781767)

... when making judgments. News at 11.

Seriously?

Based on the summary, this study seemingly shows little about competence. It shows that students will recognize that a teacher who dresses poorly probably cares less about teaching than about other things.

At a top university, those "other things" are likely to be research, or else the prof wouldn't be there. At a lesser college, the prof may just be a slacker in general.

I don't see how this has much to do with perceptions of "conformity" at all.

Re:Context matters... (3, Interesting)

Zakabog (603757) | about 4 months ago | (#45781857)

Exactly what part of teaching requires you to follow a dress code?

From the summary it sounds like the students feel the laid back teacher must be excellent at his job for the top tier school to keep him despite not following their dress code.

Re:Context matters... (4, Interesting)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | about 4 months ago | (#45781951)

Exactly what part of teaching requires you to follow a dress code?

Caring about your appearance used to be a marker of "attention to detail" in general (and still is in some circles). A person who wears the "appropriate" clothes is still seen to care enough to do the minimum for the job.

If a person is teaching at a top university, they presumably are already perceived to be competent, so not caring about clothes might be perceived as someone who is too busy doing high-profile research to care.

I've noticed a similar effect in email etiquette: sometimes you can command more respect from students at a high-profile university sometimes if you deliberately write abrupt emails with apparent typos. I had a colleague who did this deliberately. Taking care to write a careful, measured response with no typos means you have time to waste on email. If you have typos and a one line response, you might be too busy doing "things that matter."

But if you do this at a community college, you're likely to just be a poor teacher who doesn't give a crap.

Re:Context matters... (3, Insightful)

wolrahnaes (632574) | about 4 months ago | (#45782183)

Caring about your appearance used to be a marker of "attention to detail" in general (and still is in some circles). A person who wears the "appropriate" clothes is still seen to care enough to do the minimum for the job.

The question is why a "casual" appearance is seen as "not caring". To me, not caring about your appearance is what I did in college, showing up to class wearing whatever was convenient without having showered or only having done a quick shower without attention to hair and such.

If someone shows up to work clean and well kept, wearing clean clothes, why does something comfortable like a t-shirt and jeans strike so many as "unprofessional" compared to even khakis and a golf shirt? Why is it basically that the less comfortable the clothing, the more "professional" we consider the style?

Shouldn't people be encouraged to be comfortable while working, as that presumably will make them more effective at their actual job?

Re:Context matters... (2)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | about 4 months ago | (#45782287)

If someone shows up to work clean and well kept, wearing clean clothes, why does something comfortable like a t-shirt and jeans strike so many as "unprofessional" compared to even khakis and a golf shirt? Why is it basically that the less comfortable the clothing, the more "professional" we consider the style?

First, let me be clear that I don't care what people wear. If they're competent, and their clothing isn't actually disruptive in some way, why should I care?

However, I think you're missing a distinction here. It has nothing to do with discomfort, but rather care of the clothes. Proper upkeep of dress shirts, suits, wool pants, etc. requires careful washing, ironing, or (these days) generally dry cleaning. It also often requires more effort in tailoring, customizations, etc. to get appropriate fit. It thus actually requires significantly more effort and attention to detail to keep up a "nice" wardrobe compared to jeans and tee shirts. Even better quality khakis and golf shirts often require ironing, special washing or drying instructions, etc.

I'm not saying we should judge people's competence on this basis, but those clothes do require more care in relation to one's appearance, which could connote to some people that you actually care enough to dress "appropriately" in some contexts.

As for comfort, it's really a matter of preference. I like the feel of nice wool pants and a button-down shirt more than the rough cloth of denim in jeans, etc. There's nothing inherently uncomfortable for business casual clothing. I agree that some people find ties constricting to wear, but I think you're assumptions about what is "uncomfortable" is just your own perception. (A lot of people also don't pay the money to have good clothes properly tailored, and they might only wear them infrequently as their body size/shape changes, so that can also contribute to comfort level.)

Re:Context matters... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45782771)

Interesting observations you made there, I personally dont like suits at all, nothing comfortable or useful about them. I also dont see a distinct purpose for them. They dont shield me as well from the weather and at best only constrict me in my day to day job.

I wonder why people think having high maintenance equipment and forcing one to waste time on said process again and again is a sign of caring. If I would use the same thought process I would presume that said person has a distinct lack of caring for effectiveness and waste a lot of time on repetitive tasks that serve not greater purpose or can be replaced by a more effective process.

Oh well, each his own, hence I really dont care for judging people on cloth, I might like or dislike a piece of clothing but the wearing or lack thereof doesnt have any value from me, nor has it ever showed me any insights in someone's character.

Re:Context matters... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45782689)

Part of it is due to the fact that we expect our "authority" figures (for lack of a better word) to look appropriate and to take their job seriously. Even if someone dresses in clean, fitted graphic t-shirt and ripped jeans, it still looks like they just threw it in the morning.

I'm a med student, and once one of the attending physicians ripped into another student for not wearing a tie. Medicine is an old-fashioned profession, so everyone expects doctors to dress appropriately. I would still prefer a doctor in a shirt and tie, blouse, slacks, skirt, or a similar outfit anyway. If they didn't, patients would question whether he or she cares enough about themselves, much less their patients.

Re:Context matters... (3, Interesting)

davydagger (2566757) | about 4 months ago | (#45782451)

to be honest for me its the reverse. I see people with "proffesional" image as liars and tricksters, using image to trick people, and getting away with things normal people don't.

When someone shows up to work over-dressed, I immediately think he's compensating for lack of skill.

When I see you act "corporate polite", or act corporate proffesional, I immediately assume your trying to swindle me out of *something*.

I obviously also work in IT, and this attitude is pretty common.

I think the obvious message is, if people see someoe in authority of flouts social norms, it must be, because they are so talented, social norms don't apply.

Its a reflection from pop culture, where celebrities flaunt their deviance as signs of social prowess, a form of conspicious consumption, showing the world they are so high on the social latter, rules don't apply to them.

Re:Context matters... (3, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | about 4 months ago | (#45782795)


When someone shows up to work over-dressed, I immediately think he's compensating for lack of skill.

There is the "norm". Ie. people who are dressed appropriately to the norm.

This article is referring to people who are UNDER dressed relative to the norm and suggests that that in some circumstances this can confer additional 'status' onto them. Their primary examples appear to be harvard profs and facebook CEOs.

You are talking about people who are OVER dressed relative to the norm, which is sort of beside the point.

I think the obvious message is, if people see someoe in authority of flouts social norms, it must be, because they are so talented, social norms don't apply.

This is spot on. But the article is only looking at one side of the coin. I consider dressing to the norms in most environments to be a sign of respect to the other people -- so showing up under-dressed and being able to "get away with it" may be some sort of demonstration of status... but at the same time it's likely to lower my estimation of you. I dress very casually for work, but will dress up for certain meetings not because I need to but out of respect for the people I'm meeting with and the event.

So Zuckerberg showing up at something in a jeans and hoodie just reinforces my negative impression of him as someone who just doesn't respect anyone else around him. An impression that started with him hoovering student profiles into the initial facebook without their consent and that has only been solidified since then. So while I recognize that he can get away with it, it doesn't raise my estimation of him as a person in the least.

University profs ... I'm not really sure where that's coming from. That was the full range; from shorts and sandals with a beard to clean shaven suits. There was maybe some correlation with subject matter -- the business related electives I took (Economics, Organizational Behaviour and Psychology, etc) were more likely to be taught by suits than programming language and compiler design, but there really wasn't a correlation with tenure. The "norm" at university was that the profs generally wore whatever the hell they liked and were comfortable with. And the same went for the students. I certainly didn't dress up for lectures, and I didn't expect them to dress up for me.

Everyone was more or less beyond correlating image with competency. Maybe that was just my university experience. Maybe harvard is different.

Re:Context matters... (1)

davydagger (2566757) | about 4 months ago | (#45806523)

>So Zuckerberg showing up at something in a jeans and hoodie just reinforces my negative impression of him

and this why its a status symbol. Zuckerberg is flaunting the fact he is so powerful, he doesn't have to care what you think about him. not only does he have "fuck you money", he has "fuck you" social status.

He's making it clear he's the alpha, and he sets the rules. Zuckerberg doesn't need your favors, you would more likely need his.

>but will dress up for certain meetings not because I need to but out of respect for the people I'm meeting with and the event.

not "internet beta male"(which are really gammas and deltas), but actual beta male. your conforming to a position to seek favors. If your the one receiving and not giving the favors.

you could obviously say the same about me. I wear jeans, t-shirt, and sometimes the ubiquitous hoody to my IT job. The standard was set by someone else.

All social constructs are made up, and relevant, but I think you agree.

But I agree, the article is pseudo-scientific in nature, but might give some insights.

Re:Context matters... (1)

vux984 (928602) | about 4 months ago | (#45807529)

and this why its a status symbol. Zuckerberg is flaunting the fact he is so powerful, he doesn't have to care what you think about him. not only does he have "fuck you money", he has "fuck you" social status.

But when a prof shows up to teach in sandals and and shorts, its NOT a 'fuck you'.

your conforming to a position to seek favors. If your the one receiving and not giving the favors.

That's just it, I'm not receiving favors.An example would be simply meeting my father for lunch. I could show up in anything and it wouldn't make a difference, but its something that I would drop the T-shirt and hoody for and switch to a shirt and sports jacket.

Another example would be when visiting religious sites as tourist. Now some of them have full on security enforcing a dress code (covered arms and legs etc for example), but most do not. Nonetheless I would respect the dress code and even go beyond the absolute minimums... even if I could have gotten in my bathing suit (and there is ALWAYS a few people obliviously doing just that).

Re:Context matters... (1)

davydagger (2566757) | about 4 months ago | (#45839593)

>But when a prof shows up to teach in sandals and and shorts, its NOT a 'fuck you'.

but it is, its inferring he has the social status to flaunt rules. Students, especially in our pop culture driven society of social vultures see this, and flock to it.

True Alpha males(not internet alpha males) distinguish themselves but setting the rules, not following them.

This whole concept of conformity as "respect" has to do with hiearchy. This concept you miss.

Also, in no culture that has hiearchy, has there ever been universal rules that apply to both the top and bottom equally. Rules are only enforcable against the bottom, from the top, and sometimes, from a peer, to another peer, either as means of attempting to establish domenience.

your concept of dressing formally, is that you are trying to set the tone, be the alpha, and expect others to follow your lead. The demand people respect *your* invidual tastes is nothing more than an imposition of hierarchy.

Re:Context matters... (1)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | about 4 months ago | (#45781897)

By the way, I agree that some of the examples in TFA seem to show a perception of confidence in non-conformists. But most of them -- and the example in the summary -- indicate that such confidence will only exist if the non-conformist has some sort of status already. Profs at top universities, MIT students giving presentations, people invited to dinners with fancy dress codes, etc. can score points for ignoring the standards. But if the person isn't actually competent already (which is obviously the reason the researchers used these extra facts), I highly doubt non-conformists would generally be viewed so positively.

Re:Context matters... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45782435)

I think it relates in that outward appearance non-conformity means the individual "must" be bringing some value in to a point where they can non-conform and still be a member of the group. I participated in a study that looked at this 20 years ago. I never really heard about the results but I've been curious. In other words, not just anybody can get away from being a non-conformist - only a talent individual can get away with such "quirks."

Research Topic: Why I don't have to dress for work (1)

eric31415927 (861917) | about 4 months ago | (#45781791)

In a similar vein, I knew a prof who researched "Methods of getting out of having to do research" (I used quotes but this is really a paraphrase.)

I don't find anything wrong with such researchers. They are playing a game and earning a living.

My question is: How does such seemingly-ridiculous research get approved for funding? Can we not spend that money on greater good?

Re:Research Topic: Why I don't have to dress for w (2)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 4 months ago | (#45781893)

My question is: How does such seemingly-ridiculous research get approved for funding? Can we not spend that money on greater good?

For the same reason we have "zero tolerance policies" in schools... We do not trust the people making decisions to make them well. So we set up an arbitrary set of standards that can be gamed, and remove the capability of intervention from the people we do not trust, but decide to give the job anyway...

This is the "reply to comment" field but I didn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45783645)

"zero tolerance policies" in schools

I think this is more a cover-your-ass policy. Rather than have an educator make an emotional judgement about a student she barely understands, the educator must avoid all risk and responsibility with a one-size-fits-all policy providing automatic judgement.

Hmm... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 months ago | (#45781851)

I don't have access to TFA; but it strikes me that it might be slightly more complex than the 'deviance can signal status if there are norms from which to deviate' thesis provided by TFS.

There are 'norms' for basically every situation a human might find itself in. You might no know them (which can be awkward), and the 'norm' may be along the lines of 'maximize the probability that you won't be dressed even slightly like anybody else, or naked+LEDs'; but they are there.

I'd (purely off the cuff, of course, this is the comments section), be inclined to hypothesize that norm-compliance (while many extremely competent people also do it, either because they approve of the norm or just don't much care and are in the habit, or recognize the value of being perceived in a certain way) would be most valuable to relatively mediocre people, both in-organization(if I'm not overtly worth firing; but definitely replaceable, do I really want to upset the boss over office dress code?) and when interacting with people outside of it (you wouldn't recognize me personally; but you can tell that I 'look professional' or 'professorial' or whatever).

If, on the other hand, you are just a total fucking rockstar, your ability to buck even theoretically binding institutional conventions is maximized (see also: 'what would it take to get the school's star quarterback expelled?') and your need to obtain validation by identifying yourself with a uniform and institution(either an actual, issued, uniform as with a cop, soldier, etc. or a given profession/status' normally expected attire) is weaker because you have greater access to validation on your own.

Obviously, this doesn't exclude people who are fucking rockstars; but still dress absolutely as would be expected of the unpromising-junior-guy in their position, either out of habit, because they don't have some overriding preference, or because they positively identify with what they are dressing as, nor does it exclude unimpressive candidates who affect rockstardom (nonconformity, itself, is a fairly well developed role. There are even specialist retailers to assist you with all your nonconformist lifestyle requirements!) and either through luck, through successful mimicry, or just because nobody cares nearly as much as expected about the dress code, if it even exists.

Does that mean I can legally shoot them now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45781861)

Considering all the damage CEOs have been putting on their fellow countryman, their customers and the environment, I think I have a legal case for standing my ground. I get raped every time I have to pay my AT&T and Comcast bills. Thugs wear hoodies and CEOs are thugs. It only makes sense they start looking ghetto.

Re:Does that mean I can legally shoot them now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45781877)

Considering all the damage CEOs have been putting on their fellow countryman, their customers and the environment, I think I have a legal case for standing my ground.

Your ownership of a toxic chemical containing computer has not been authorized by me.

Please report to your nearest euthanasia center, jackass.

What A Load of Scheisse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45781967)

If you want some REAL insight, study

+ Admiral Hyman Rickover, Chief of Naval Reactors
+ General der Nachrichtentruppe Fellgiebel
+ Ferdinand von Piech, longtime VW CEO
+ General Groves, US Army Corps of Engineers
+ Wernher von Braun, inventor of large-scale rockets, SS and NASA leader
+ Billy Mitchell, US Army Air Corps
+ Steve Jobs of California (all the cynical idiots now shut up, please)
+ Haratio Nelson, Royal Navy
+ William Friedman, born in Chisinau, Moldavia, chief cryptologist of U.S.G. until the 1950s.
+ Hebert Yardley, Cryptologist and manager, Whistleblower
+ Gauss, Mathematician
+ Leibniz
+ Newton, Mathematician, physicist
+ Kepler, Mathematician, astronom
+ William Hewlett, electronic warfare specialist, industrialist
+ David Packard, electronics engineer, founder, electronic warfare business-man, industrialist, dept. secretary of defense of the U.S.

All these people had a proper education, were intelligent, daring and told all the fools around them to fuck off (well, most did). All of them invented something on a massive scale or transformed their organisation to greatness. Nelson's education was better than the McSchools they have in the United Kingdom these days.

Now, happy Christmas even to the Social Science Fools who run the show. May the Saint of Idiots be your guide in the fog !

Ehudi Barakobaddie (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45782205)

Ja, you forgot to list MORDECHAI VANUNU,
all-time-whistleblower-in-chief.....

Harvardashery, Yaleing-Wall, Princess`stown, and any other poisoned-Ivy-leaguers, not to mention the hypo-MITochondriacal lunatickles, seriously though,

current trends in Wall St. and City-of-London CEO`s, CEE`s, CFO`s and whomever else fits the nondescript job of shitting on a board looks whiter-than-white, hoody or no hoody. But in reality it is not so clearly whitish. Statistics of the next generation of City-and-Wall-St-thugs might be better broken-down into hoods of three-colours ,1 white hoods, 2 grey hoods, and 3 black hoods

The white hood represents the historical WASP board-member, enevitably affiliated with slavery and KrispyKellogsKruppe. Kinda white.

The grey hood represents the athiestically-escapistcatholic-cryptojew, and straight-up jewish board member, enevitably lukewarm and mediocre, although disproportionately active in current statistical models.

The black hood represents a proportionate cross-section of graduates from business schools, ivy-league and non-ivy-league, regardless of ethnicity, loyalties, colour and creed.

I think the next generation of statistics will clearly show that Barack Obama is only "Black" because his father is from Kenya, and the Black-Hoods should most certainly be prevalent in the emerging legions of capitalism; if the whIte(ish) and grey hoods are still at the top, you can be sure that the "capitalistic (ethnic/capital) status quo", anti-trust regulatory framework, and simple proportionality are flawed.

free vanunu, free the bandwidth, and free debeers

signed, the unnaturalised anglo-amerikan

Re:What A Load of Scheisse (1)

k6mfw (1182893) | about 4 months ago | (#45783705)

+ Admiral Hyman Rickover, Chief of Naval Reactors

daring and told all the fools around them to f

heh, I heard from someone who served in the sub service that in the early years of nuclear subs, Rickover personally interviewed all prospective sub officers. One candidate he said "go inside the closet and close the door." Hours later, Rickover opens the door, "why in the hell are you still in this closet?" Another candidate Rickover said, "piss me off." So the candidate takes a model ship on Rickover's desk and tosses it out the window. I'm sure Rickover had more insightful questions for potential sub officers but these two stories sound like good ones and just had to post, maybe for some laughs this holiday season.

Interesting listing of people, all have interesting stories.

Guess these people never heard... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45781991)

Guess these people never heard "don't judge a book by its cover"... I wouldn't have made any judgments until I saw them perform.

paywalled? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45782173)

o yea.. that's right. the feds helped take care of that little problem which would have freed research papers and journals or at least forced publishers into making them significantly less expensive.

LibelAri or Library? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45782251)

Yea, Ari Fletcher "shyd"/"shied" away from confronting the issues of freedom of information as lobbied by Aaron Shwartz and Mordechai Vanunu, both of whom have been MARTYRED

CEOs? Professors? (1)

PPH (736903) | about 4 months ago | (#45782283)

There aren't many people in a position to fire a CEO. More or less the same is true for a tenured professor. So lets conduct this survey in some Fortune 500 companies and see if this phenomenon holds true.

I'd also like to see this study conducted across a number of companies with differing reputations of competence in their field. I'm guessing that the acceptance of deviance is probably related to the reputation of the organization as much as that of the individuals.

Is wearing a hoodie in Silicon Valley deviant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45782623)

... or is it conformist? It seems to me a suit would be deviant.

Totalitarianism comes in ALL forms of hirsuteness. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45782733)

Clean shaven tyranny from the Ivy League, Toothbrush mustache tyranny from the beer halls, Push-broom mustache tyranny from the seminary, genetic alcohol dehydrogenase lacking baby-faced tyranny from the peasant farms, scuzzy bearded tyranny from the tropical forests, it all harms liberty.

Trust them with your money? (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | about 4 months ago | (#45782831)

The headline says CEOs but the study was about a different topic.

The more interesting question is whoch one would you (or a venture capitalist) be more willing to lend $10 mil to, if they both submitted the same proposal and had the same business track record. Non-conformity might be trendy in academia, where all the students think they're special and unique - just like everyone else does [ thanks despair.com ] but I'd be more willing to trust my life savings to someone who was predictable and appeared "solid" than a non-conformist with possibly "alternative" ideas about diligence, fiscal responsibility and commercial success. Whether that transltaes to a specific dress-code is an interesting question - but not one answered by the study.

Re:Trust them with your money? (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 4 months ago | (#45783263)

Ahhhh, but which VC would you want to work with - the one who feels he needs a suit to project his power, or the same billionaire who is confident enough that he'll come to key meetings in jeans and a hoodie?

Re:Trust them with your money? (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 4 months ago | (#45784203)

The study indicates that jeans and a hoodie are a tool to project even more power than a suit. Draw your own conclusion.

Re:Trust them with your money? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45783483)

The headline says CEOs but the study was about a different topic.

RTFA. The article starts out talking about Zuckerberg, Brin, Jobs, etc. There were several studies, including one in which they manipulated the question slightly to get the answers they wanted.

But what they're really saying is that the unwritten dress code in one context (university, high tech company, etc.) is different than the written or unwritten dress code in another context (bank, law firm, etc.)

hoodies are the norm now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45783163)

Suits no longer represent comformity. Thrbsuit wearer stands out almost anywhere today, now; not the t shirt or hoodie wearer.

Not universal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45783305)

Ha! This is hilarious! and a bit sad too.
I'm so happy I live in Europe. We have serious, respected professors/researchers looking like goths straight from a club, mohawks and everything. A hoodie won't even turn anyone's head. In a civilized country what you do is what matters.

Salesmen wears suits too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45783559)

This is such a basic concept I can't believe we are even discussing it. A suit costs about $100, anyone can buy and wear one. Same with shaving and getting a traditional standard hair cut.
Salesmen wears suits too. That does not make them a better or more trustworthy salesman. It plays to peoples perception that a clean shaven person in a suit is more trustworthy and knowledgeable. People that actually believe that and judge a book by its cover are the ones that stand the chance of being fooled. I personally don't care at all about what the people are wearing, their sex, their race, if they are clean cut and shaved, or even if their grammar or use of words is a little off or even if they swear, now if they smell, that I do notice but does not change if they are honest or trustworthy. I judge by the results and the presentation I am given. How I feel after talking and/or listening to them. I may not know much about what someone is presenting like concrete or a specific car or some backup software but if I ask a few questions. I see how they respond, are they fumbling, repeating themselves, avoiding my questions, quick with well flowing answers or "reading" from a script, are they willing to explain or are they taking the stance I should just accept their pitch because they think they know what I want and need better then I do.

first impressions and titles but it is the person (1)

k6mfw (1182893) | about 4 months ago | (#45783661)

First impressions when you first see someone can have an effect on how you perceive them. There is titles, i.e. professor at Caltech but many are bankrupt these days, i.e. there's lots of presidents of one man companies that are struggling or account executive (salesman). It seems it all comes down to the person. Some people when you hear the name or see them, you pay attention to what they say or write. And others are regarded as gasbags. It gets difficult at times, someone dressed like a slob but you may want to listen when they talk (you may learn something you cannot find in a book). Others dressed impeccably but are basically dufus. Then it can be the other way around. Or they may appear fantastically brilliant (or idiot) but has time goes on you may learn they are not that smart (or on the verge of innovative breakthrough).

Walking while hippie... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45783923)

In 1975-8, when I was and looked like a hippy, I hung around Poo-Bah's record shop in Pasadena, CA. To paraphrase Zaphod Beebelbrax, it was so cool you could store a side of beef in there for a month.
In 1981, I sauntered back in one day, wearing men's business attire, slacks, short sleeve dress shirt and a tie.
I instantly felt hostility from some of the workers and fellow customers. Bleah.

The suit is a disguise (1)

Windwraith (932426) | about 4 months ago | (#45784103)

That's why you always see politicians, CEOs and such wearing suits. Nobody would take them seriously without those.
(There are very few politicians that look normal even by its country's standards, without the suit they usually look chubby, weak, unkept, and at times downright ugly. No one would trust them like that.)

Reminds me of Jonathan Schwartz of Sun (1)

yuhong (1378501) | about 4 months ago | (#45786099)

It is sad that Jonathan Schwartz of Sun had problems too, as they were the one that pushed SEC to allow blogging material information for example.

No surprise (2)

ChromeAeonium (1026952) | about 4 months ago | (#45786551)

There's an old saying: 'The rich are eccentric, the poor are crazy.' This is just another variant of that trope. How oddity is perceived is dependent not on the attributes of the oddity, but on the attributes of the person displaying it.

Ties? Who wears ties anymore? (1)

glowend (1214646) | about 4 months ago | (#45788565)

I'm surprised that "tie wearing" is trotted out as one of the key dividing lines in these articles. At least in the software industry, "tie wearing" hasn't been required at any level for about 15 years. For example, I was a software engineer for 18 years and and then switched to being a patent lawyer. I basically wear the same t-shirt and jeans outfit. Maybe it's my West Coast bias, but I haven't met with anyone on the business or tech side of things who wears a tie. Frankly, if I has been enough of a "rock star" programmer, maybe I would have worn a suit and tie to work just to be the sort of iconoclast that hoodie-wearing CEO's deign to be,

Do Better (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45791695)

Aaron Swartz is dead and /. is posting links to paywalled JSTOR articles instead of links to the article itself.

This doesn't mean all you kids should run out and (1)

oscrivellodds (1124383) | about 4 months ago | (#45798085)

get pierced and tattooed. The freedom to deviate from "norms" is earned. Any idiot can go get pierced and tatted like a 19th century sailor, but keeping/finding a job while being pierced and tatted is a different story. Once you've established your brilliance you are sometimes granted more freedom. Here's the thing a lot of you will find hard to accept: not many of you are ever going to be so good at what you do that you'll be granted the freedom to look like a sideshow attraction, and that if you look like one before you've demonstrated your value, you may never be given the chance to do so. Get over it. As brilliant as you are, I am certain that you can come up with ways to express your in-duh-viduality without body modifications. I have great confidence in your abilities. Now get out there and express yourselves without turning your bodies into something that resembles every box-car that passes through south-central LA!
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...