Let's Agree to Disagree 

It started with a passing conversation, the kind you almost forget, until you don’t.

“Juniors dress up to impress seniors. Seniors don’t bother, they don’t have to,” he said.

At first, I found myself disagreeing, almost instinctively.

“It’s not about impressing,” I said. “It’s about showing up in a way that reflects respect, for the space, the people, and yourself. If someone doesn’t dress the part, that’s their call. Not on those who still care enough to.”

“You just don’t like the word ‘impress,’ he pressed.

Maybe. But maybe not in the way he meant.

’Cause do you brush your teeth to impress people with your breath? No. But because it's basic self-care and hygiene. You don’t want a cavity or dread sitting in a dentist's chair just cause ‘you didn’t take enough care of your teeth.’

Same with dressing. It’s not always about others. Sometimes, it’s about telling yourself you’re ready. That you care and respect yourself. That you're about to step into matters. So if you take yourself seriously, people around you subconsciously will.

Of course, he had a point too.

The higher up people go, CEOs, creatives, thinkers, the less they seem to care about appearances. Worn sneakers, faded jeans, plain shirts. It’s like once they’ve proved themselves, the pressure to present vanishes. Like Robert Herjavetch took an example of Mark Cuban saying “beware of the man in the t-shirt not the man in the suit”

And maybe that’s fair. Maybe when your name speaks for itself, your clothes don’t have to.

Some people spend their lives trying to look the part. Some stop trying once they’ve reached the part. Some never cared about either. Who’s right?

That made me think. Maybe that’s the point where outer markers of success become irrelevant. Like how a basic Toyota can get you to the same destination as a Ferrari would. Or how a Titan watch tells the same time as a Patek Philippe.

‘Cause, does a Patek tell time better than a Titan? Functionally? No.

and tbh, to not flex is the ultimate flex. But we still want the Ferrari. We still crave for the Patek. Why?

So maybe it’s not about function. It’s about signal.

But who are we signaling to? And why?

This reminded me of something from a course I took, 'The Science of WellBeing'. One of its takeaways was that 'money can buy happiness', but it depends how you spend it. And that “how/on what” is personal. Tricky. And sometimes, confusing.

There’s this Hindi line by Ghalib that I love:
“Puri zindagi aaina saaf karte rahe, magar dhool toh chehre pe thi.”
(Spent our whole life cleaning the mirror, but the dust was on our face.)

But plot twist
What if:
“Puri zindagi chehra saaf karte rahe, magar dhool toh aaine pe thi.”
(We kept fixing ourselves, but the problem was never us, the mirror was dirty.)

That thought stayed with me, cause I believe that judgment works the same way. We all judge,  but it depends on what we base our judgments. Because how we judge others, or even ourselves, says more about the lens we’re using than the subject itself.

Do we admire someone’s watch? Or their punctuality?
Their clothes? Or their clarity?

Neither is wrong. Neither is fully right.

So I said, “Let’s agree to disagree.”

- Monisha Vyas 

what'd u think? :-)