Notably hilarious scientific paper, “The hipster effect: When anticonformists all look the same”




Did reading this cause anyone else to realize that “Pauli Exclusion Principle” would be a fairly viable name for a band that I’m into and you haven’t heard of?


Is this really a math puzzle? It’s just an example of how the “opposite” of something is closely related to the thing itself, like how Satanism is all about Christianity, and modern conservatism is often formulated in Marxist terms (like “capitalism”).


Although, skimming the paper (which is about modelling the delay with which trends are communicated), it might be applicable to the problem of determining which places have a real scene and which are just me-too regional backwaters.


That one second from right!
He’s EVERYWHERE in Soho!


This just reminds me of how there really is a uniform for being a punk even though the culture is supposed to be about non-conformity. The truth is humans crave belonging, even those who want to be different and unique. There will always be subsets that are readily identifiable because of this fundamental need to belong. Let’s be different together!


I have been known to exhibit a degree of self-similarity.


So many opportunities to say “wait, are you saying Poly Exclusion Principle? because it’s Pauli Exclusion Principle, have you even heard their unreleased B-sides?”


Nobody puts Pauli in the corner!

@traci, don’t forget the “Black Flag of Anarchy”.


This does not reflect my experience. I was involved in an East coast punk scene during the late 80s-early90s and there was really no coherent look or style. Statistically, it could be seen as a continuum from between some examples which exemplified subcultural traditions and/or what you might see in the media, through to people who either looked “normal”, or who simply affected different styles. People who were trying to adopt a punk appearance were gently dismissed as “monkey suits”. It was all very DIY and baroque without much similarity.


I’m waiting for an analysis of the whiteness of hipsterdom. Seriously. (And yes, I know, #notallhipstersarewhite.)


Yeah, I think it’s worth considering the difference, painful as it is to admit, between true early adopters of an alternate style, and those who crave the look and feel of “alternate-ness” but need the trail to be blazed a bit before they venture in. I don’t think there’s as much pride to be gained from the role of the reluctant trailblazer as said tralblazers want there to be, but there does seem to be a recognizable difference in motivation.

My theory (we’ll take your statistical findings as given, I certainly tend to agree) would be that being in a large, powerful majority puts members in a position of having safe, idle time for superficial acts of identity expression. Combine this with a nagging sense of alienation from individual identity. Though offering powerful in-group status, there is nothing “cool” in an individual sense about being in the majority (though the other benefits are legion). Individual authenticity is swallowed when a dominant culture becomes so hegemonous and dispersed that it becomes difficult to achieve a feeling of real connectedness with the roots of cultural tradition. Americans, at least, also have strange dueling desires for individualistic / underdog status, while also taking great pride in being dominant and victorious, which leads to strange expressive combinations that I could see being related to the seemingly inherent contradiction of “anticonformist movement” .


Ah crap. This is what I’ve been struggling with. That is why dressing as a ‘non’ hipster can be now considered ‘hipster’, therefore making the whole thing cancel itself out. OR when I questioned that ‘anti-cool’ is the new ‘cool’. Therefore NOT dressing like a hipster, is actually ‘cooler’, but because of this, you would need to go a step further, and dress like a hipster as it is not cool, therefore making it cool, which is secretly going against hipsters and non hipsters at the same time. Ah crap, I am going crosseyed!!!


15 years ago while I was at University and had grand ideas about music and bands I struck upon the same sort of concept - Punks, Ravers, Goths, Emo Kids etc etc etc… It’s not like this is a new phenomenon attributed purely to Hipsters.

I had the brief idea of a band/album name of “Conforming with non-conformity” - somewhat inspired by the band Corrosion of Conformity.


It is the concept of ‘anti-anti’ which is just totally mind boggling me.


The phrase we used growing up was;

I wanna be different, just like Johnny…


Flappers, Zoot suits, Greasers, Beatniks, Jocks, Hippies, Punks, Valley/Prep, New Wave, Hip Hop, Ravers, Goths, Emo,…The fields of study are endless.


Didn’t read the paper: did they mention the 1950’s, when there was a virtual uniform for youth rebelling against their parents’ generation? Or are they sticking with only the most recent embodiment of “hipster”?


James Dean Rides Again!


The sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, wastoids, dweebies, dickheads - they all adore him.

They think he’s a righteous dude.