[Citizen J]

Then I misunderstood your op/ed. I thought it had remained on a rather shallow level. The very existence of personality is probably to either promote and survive domination. Domination, of course, was originally meant to increase one's chances of procreation.

Yes, there are many ways social status may be determined, but it all boils down to one primal purpose. (I shall continue using the old term since I'm talking about all groups, not just one's standing within society)

To say that personality is sacrificed to consumerism is not really precise. I would claim that personality and consumerism are hand in glove. One uses both in order to secure dominance and procreation.

This is all speaking on the male side of things, of course. The female side of things are a bit different in methodology.

[Gnote]

I've heard the social status = more procreation before, and it surely holds some water, but there is a distinct point at which it falls apart: after one has already procreated.

The greated 'horders' of material wealth are those who are in their middle years and have already contributed to the gene pool. How then does the procreation theory explain their obsession with material wealth?

To me, this is another example of conventional wisdom. There was a time - perhaps when cavemen roamed the earth - where status = procreation = survival of the human race. That time has long past, yet we still cling to the basic premise of it.

[QatzelOk]

The greated 'horders' of material wealth are those who are in their middle years and have already contributed to the gene pool. How then does the procreation theory explain their obsession with material wealth?

Also, the great horders of material wealth - in Western countries - have the lowest birth rates. So it seems that the Consumer sacrifices real survivial-via-reproduction in favour of a media-provoked simulation of "survival" (shopping) THAT ACTUALLY REDUCES THEIR REAL CHANCES OF SURVIVIMG VIA THE INFINITE LIVES OF OFFSPRING.

There was a time - perhaps when cavemen roamed the earth - where status = procreation = survival of the human race.

Advertisers irritate many of our basic instincts with their repetitive embedded-in-our-minds-through-repetition mantras. How can we distinguish which parts of our social violence, racism, materialism, and general callousness are by-products of our "entertainment" culture?

Competition for material accumulation seems like a sort of violence against others when you look at its side effects.

[Citizen J]

I'll start with this

Competition for material accumulation seems like a sort of violence against others when you look at its side effects

I think it is, after it's own fashion. There's always the threat of deprivation.

And just because you've had a few children does not neccessarily mean the 'genes' or whatever is going to be turned off. I've read somewhere that Gengis Khan had over a thousand children.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/2/8/214236/6651

I don't think the drive ever really dies, for men at least.
But I do admit that evolutionary psychology can only go so far in it's attempts to explain things. One needs to keep checking it against observation.

[Verv]

At some point in your adult life, you realise you've sacrificed most of your personality in the name of economic considerations.

Qatzel, this seems like a gigantic assumption. I really cannot think of any way that I have sacrificed most of my personality...

I am not a very old adult, but nonetheless I am an adult at age 22; I have tattoos up and down my arms, and I do whatever I want. I have a decent job (US Army) and know that I can get a job teaching English providing I wear long sleeves while I am at work, and maintain a professional bearing.

The sacrifices of personality I make are basic kindness considerations at work and wearing a uniform. I do not think of this as much sacrifice of my personality.

Does it really effect others that much?

[Citizen J]

Your individuality is not in the question. What Q has noted is that personality and status symbols are linked. It seems that our personalities tend to take a back seat to our displays of "status symbols" whenever we can afford it. He called it the destruction of personality.

My postulate is that personality and the gathering of status symbols are linked by the sex drive. That personality is not destroyed, but it is overshadowed by extreme displays of status symbols. Sometimes severely overshadowed.

I remember a story I heard of a man who was married for about 10 years when he won the lottery. As he collected his winnings, he looked over to his wife and said "I can do better". He divorced her and went on a shopping spree. He bought fancy cars and homes and yachts. He lived the good life with who knows how many young women. Once the money was gone, he went right back to his wife who, as the story goes, actually took him back. (she was just as nuts as he, I suppose).
Once again, sex and consumerism inextricably linked together. He needed personality to get his wife, but he only needed to spend money to get a bunch of other women. But once he was out of money, he had to go back to the one woman who had loved him for his personality. I assume all those other women were gone once he ran out of money to spend on them.

[Verv]

Citizen J, I see your point, now.

But I think that it would be the same in any context, and that people would be just as vain and as shallow whether or not they had luxury.

People who are poor watch football on small TVs. People who re rich watch it on huge TVs. And people who do not have TVs play it in the dirt with an old ball.

People are the same everywhere and in pretty much every circumstance.

With or without luxury, it does not matter. The same core being exists.

[QatzelOk]

With or without luxury, it does not matter. The same core being exists.

The topic of this thread is NOT the existence of "core beings" or a single "core being."

It is the effect that these "core beings" have on each other and the world around them when their instincts are perverted by advertising to convince them that their objects require a "personality" of some sort.

The thread is also seeking to find out what is driving "core beings" to work themselves half to death (burnout in America) in order to purchase "branded" products - because it isn't rational to destroy yourself psychologically, socially or financially in the name of abstract notions like machine "pedigree."

[Mad_Michael]

At some point in your adult life, you realise you've sacrificed most of your personality in the name of economic considerations.

It's at this point in your lifestyle-and-career that you begin to need inanimate objects that seem to have "a personality" - just the thing you lost over the course of your Consumerist "life."

So I posit that the "need" for BMW, Prada, Disney and Haagen Dazz is created by people who've lost their soul in Consumerism, and are aggressively trying to buy it back.

Yes, a classical argument from Hegel (identification of the self through consumption) combined with Marx's idea of the 'fetishization of commodities'. The validity of these theories is often hard for many to accept, but at the same time, almost impossible to deny.

Sadly, I've never seen this succeed in satifactorily replacing the real personality that a consumer drone lost in himself. You can't buy back a lost soul. You can only stop being distracted and wait as it patiently grows back.

While this may be true, it may also be true that human beings are so naturally 'drone-like' that most of them never really had much of a personality anyway - perhaps they have only traded their 'peasant-drone' life for that of a 'consumer-drone' life. That in itself is not a bad thing (if one is a drone by nature), though perhaps equally sad.

Ultimately, there is still hope for those who choose not to participate in the game of identity by commodification, or at least, those who may be aware of it may choose to try to avoid it. Awareness is the first line of defence.

[QatzelOk]

While this may be true, it may also be true that human beings are so naturally 'drone-like' that most of them never really had much of a personality anyway...

Mad, I've known human beings all my life. They start out with personalities, and then have them bleached off in order to make more money for "status" items.

Just ask Goranhammer. He even thinks a university education should be geared towards the accumulation of "luxury" items.

[Mad_Michael]

Dueling anecdotal experiences? That's hardly persuasive.

Mad, I've known human beings all my life. They start out with personalities, and then have them bleached off in order to make more money for "status" items.

Just ask Goranhammer. He even thinks a university education should be geared towards the accumulation of "luxury" items.

Okay, I too have known human beings all my life. And I'll be damned if I could say I've ever seen a child with much of a personality to begin with - they are so easily influenced and changeable on a whim. Abundance of energy yes, character, not so much. One needs to actually possess a significant personality in order to have it "bleached off" later on.

Indeed, I shall invoke Ockham's Razor here to suggest that it is illogical to assume the existence of a theoretical state of 'personality' held in youth when little evidence exists for 'personality' existing in adulthood. It is more rational to assume that if there is none now, there was probably none there before hand.

As for university educations being geered towards the accumulation of "luxury" items, isn't that exactly what they do and the reason that university educations are generally popular? Actual desire for education for its own sake is apparently quite rare and has little to do with universities. Universities are excellent places for establishing one's credentials in the social hierarchy and for acquiring a mate of similar social status. Actual education is mostly irrelevant to these pursuits. Ultimately, the value that university educations impart that is valued and rewarded with 'luxury' items is conformity. That is ultimately what universities teach - how to conform. This is a useful skill in the private marketplace - one that is valued highly.

[Citizen J]

Well, Mad Michael, I offer as proof of refutation the fact that most poor people have personalities. In fact, most middle class people have personalities. Even the few rich people I've had the distinction of befriending have had personalities.

I refute Q's assertion that it's destroyed, but all I have to offer is more PE. So I imagine that's rather unproven, one way or another.

However, I do submit that my postulate would explain his observation - even if it does not actually confirm its veracity. And I'll admit; there's a lot of human behavior that does not fit into the postulate. I believe it's flawed because it's incomplete, rather than being wrong.

Perhaps it is I who lacks personality....

[QatzelOk]

Dueling anecdotal experiences? That's hardly persuasive.

Sometimes, anecdotal experience is the best kind.

Try to isolate hampsters in a maze and offer them lucrative positions in think tanks where they can buy all kinds of luxury items.

Give them a personality test before and after.

Indicate numerically if there has been any "significant deterioration in personality content in test samples."

How silly.

You have only demonstrated the limits of imperial science with your rejection of anecdotal evidence of this phenomenon.

[Mad_Michael]

You have only demonstrated the limits of imperial science with your rejection of anecdotal evidence of this phenomenon.

Who's posts are you replying to?

I only pointed out that anecdotal evidence is weak. And since you offered only anecdotal evidence, that's what I gave you in reply.

No need to bother to continue this discussion. I've decided that this site still has too many posters like you here. I thought some of the worst ones were gone now, but apparently I was mistaken.

[QatzelOk]

Mad_Michael, try to stay on subject.

The subject is "why people buy luxury brands."

Not "why people hate arguing with QatzelOk."

I realise it's never easy to find yourself surrounded on all seven sides by a superior argument. But darn it, try to ignore the feelings of inadequacy, and fight back with on-subject arguments, and let the debate continue.

We don't all fight clean in this big messy world.

[NYYS]

Because luxury brands are better. That is the answer to your question.

Why would I buy something that works worse and will break sooner when I can buy something that works better and will last longer?

[QatzelOk]

Wow, alasz. The answer was so simple all along.

Why didn't I just ask the brands themselves why they can fetch up to 300% of a non-branded similar product can. The brands would have given an answer similar to yours.

Versace underwear simply "perform" better than other non-luxury underwear brands, so it is rational to buy them.

[NYYS]

Wow, alasz. The answer was so simple all along.

Yes, it is simple. So stop overanalyzing it.

Versace underwear simply "perform" better than other non-luxury underwear brands, so it is rational to buy them.

Don't know that brand, but I'm guessing its made of more comfortable material and was put together better than some other generic brand.

If you don't think its worth it, don't buy it, and then the companies will adjust to make it worth it. However, it clearly is worth it to people to have nicer brands on the market, just like its worth it to people to have cheap brands on the market. I buy cheap stuff generally, when I can afford it I'll buy a nicer brand.

[QatzelOk]

I just bought generic crackers for 1.29.

The namebrand Mr. Christie-made Premium Plus are usually 2.29.

So I saved a dollar.

Also, the generic crackers are less cooked than the brand name. This is better because: it is more environmental (less cooking), it lets the flavour of cheese come through better than overcooked Premium Plus.

And we all know that life imitates crackers.

[Verv]

The topic of this thread is NOT the existence of "core beings" or a single "core being."

It is the effect that these "core beings" have on each other and the world around them when their instincts are perverted by advertising to convince them that their objects require a "personality" of some sort.

The thread is also seeking to find out what is driving "core beings" to work themselves half to death (burnout in America) in order to purchase "branded" products - because it isn't rational to destroy yourself psychologically, socially or financially in the name of abstract notions like machine "pedigree."

I fail to see how a person is perverted by luxury.

Are we really giving up our personality? Did our personality reach that deeply to begin with?

The notion that something gets ruined because you wear nice clothes, drink a more expensive beer with a smoother taste... That strikes me as ridiculous, liberal propaganda, by and large.

What have I done to destroy my personality?