# data[].attributes.body
In “The Lure of Luxury,” Paul Bloom argues that designer items and expensive products can be used as a signaling tool towards the public eye, however, there is a deeper meaning to those purchases. Signaling theory can be applied to as a reason why people make these luxurious purchases, but that is not the entirety of it all. Though Bloom admits that people can make these expensive purchases as a means to flaunt their social status, he insisted people purchase designer goods for its historical value and artistic means. Bloom focuses on these product’s origins and the value for their authenticity rather than being desired for their quality. It is argued that people often place value onto products based on their history or who was associated in their histories, thus, “value” is subjective and the “expensive” aspect may not just apply to the quality of the item but rather its personal value. In addition to that, the role of authenticity is a large factor in his arguments. Bloom mentions multiples times in his article, and quotes other authors on their experiments regarding sensory and quality inspections, to which people respond differently when they assume something is more expensive. It is natural that people are put off by the idea of counterfeit goods, hence reactions are different when there are labels put on products to guide people. Overall, Bloom challenges that perception of luxury and what the general public assumes to be that the quality and sensory aspect of goods being the reason why people make these purchases. Instead of that, he claims our perception is the true reason why luxury goods are desired: from the historical values we place on products, the artistic means it took to create them, the talents who wore them, or the culture surrounding the products.

# data[].attributes.body
There are many times where duplicates of the same item look and feel like the real things. It could be inferred that people who purchase duplicates are the ones who are attempting to signal status and wealth to others, they're not genuinely appreciative of the arts behind the work of the item. Bloom is extremely critical of fake designer products as stated, "The inadequacy of the sham Rolex is an embarrassment to sensory theories, but it is also troubling for signaling explanations." (Bloom 3) Bloom argues that people who were originally attracted to higher quality goods were now being deceived by these knock off and it is dishonest. There's also a question to be considered, that is why people not just purchase counterfeit products if it is closely identical? That is because rather than the price value of things, many people appreciate the craftsmen ship and the artistic features that it took to get to the final product. Luxury products do not necessarily have to be extremely pricey, but about the meaning that are applied onto them by humans.

# data[].attributes.body
In a consumerist society, often, people assume purchasing luxurious goods would be a direct signal that you are wealthy. People, naturally, are attracted to products of higher quality, however, can an average person tell between real silk or artificial silk? Bloom raises a question worth thinking, "Would they react the same way if reaching into the discount rack at Marshalls offered the same sensory experience?" (Bloom 2) It allows us to rethink about the quality of products we touch. Counterfeits can provide the same sensory satisfaction as a high-quality designer product, but other than an expert in the field, it would be extremely hard to tell the difference between a real and fake. Thus, sensory theory cannot be applied towards the reason why people splurge on luxuries.

# data[].attributes.body
It's not about the actual worth of the product but rather the memories it holds, the significance of it to someone. To each person, they all have something of significance to them that they value a lot, despite the actual price value may not reflect it. These small, seemingly insignificant items hold meaning and history that we, humans apply onto them.

# data[].attributes.body
People who knowingly purchase fakes are being dishonest with themselves and are blinding themselves to truly appreciate the history behind these pieces. The existence of false products itself is a form of deception on the human senses. He uses the word "embarrassment" as a means describe the shame these people bring upon themselves as well as their image when purchasing fake duplicates. Rather than signaling wealth and knowledge, they're signaling their ignorance.

# data[].attributes.body
Bloom claims that signaling can be a part of the reason why people purchase luxury goods, but not the entirety. Fake products interrupts that signaling process and distorts the truth, therefore it's "troubling" as it allows people to signal something they are not.

# data[].attributes.body
Bloom claims that the value of goods is derived from the meaning and personal sentiment put into them, stating "Think about your wedding ring or your child’s baby shoes. Such objects serve no practical purpose, they need not be beautiful in any sensory way, and they are useless as signals." (Bloom 5) What we may think is the reason people purchase name brand items may not actually be the reason; it also doesn't have to be expensive. What someone finds endearing to them may not be applied the same way to everyone else, therefore it's an ignorant statement to say that luxury goods are solely used to signal wealth and status. Bloom mentions how they are "useless as signals," but that is only for those who do not know of the true sentimental value. To the family, it's an irreplaceable artifact and contains all their memories, it is the value humans place onto them.

# data[].attributes.body
It is well known that people collect all kinds of goods from celebrities, whether it is expensive or not. As Bloom showed through his experiment, many people would not pay the same price for something that was originally of value but later washed or altered, "When our subjects were told that the object would be thoroughly sterilized before it got to them, they dropped their offers by a third." (Bloom 4) Washing an item of historical value is indirectly deleting the history behind it because rather than the piece itself, what is important is the people who wore it. Though it is the same piece of clothing, the feelings attached to it all disappeared because it no longer had the "touch" of the original celebrity who physically interacted with it.

# data[].attributes.body
Rather than products already holding meaning, it is the beliefs that people put into them that make them what they are. Objects are only objects at the end of the day. A Rolex may mean nothing to that of a billionaire, but it would mean a whole difference to an average office worker who's worked months saving up for a Rolex watch of his dreams. The significance to each item depends on each person and their aspirations. The item of value may not mean that the cost is high, but it's valuable to the person in possession of it. There are many things that can be considered to be of significance, however, significance is subjective and to each person.

# data[].attributes.body
Our beliefs automatically change our senses, as per Bloom's example: "Protein bars taste worse if they are described as containing “soy protein,” ice cream tastes better when labeled “high fat,” and cola is rated higher when drunk from a cup with a brand logo." (Bloom 5) Though there are usually no difference between these everyday products, when people put labels on them, it's natural to compartmentalize them into categories. Healthier options usually associated with tasting bad, therefore if something is labeled "soy protein," subconsciously the brain has already sent out signals that the protein bar would not taste good. Thus, the exclusive labels that people put onto luxury goods may not necessarily always be the case.

# data[].attributes.body
Brand name goods are only luxurious because the people deemed them to be. They all hold some kind of value enough for people to pay that kind of money for them, therefore it is a way of signaling wealth but at the same time, displaying oneself as an intellectual who appreciates the crafts behind the works.

# data[].attributes.body
I thought this project was very interesting and unlike any other kinds of writing projects I’ve done in the past. It made an argument into very detailed pieces which was easier but also harder in a sense. It was easier to break the argument into very small bits for me to argue but it was also hard to link all the thoughts together. It definitely wasn’t my strongest area and I struggled a lot in the beginning to understand the project. It was very difficult at first to understand Paul Bloom’s article and what exactly he was arguing or using as supporting evidence. It was also really difficult to draft the original summary, which in my draft, I didn’t even have because I was so confused with the entire project. So far, Padlet was easy to use and understand so I didn’t struggle much with it, but it was kind of hard trying to come up with titles for each little section. What I really liked about the project was that there were no limitations on creativity, despite the fact that I wasn’t able to be as creative as I’d like for me to have. Had I not been extremely stressed and sick during this project, I wish I could have done more in terms of understanding the arguments more. Paul Bloom debunked sensory theory and the quality argument very well, I really wish I could have paid more attention to that part and focus on that as an argument instead of the parts where I said it’s the sentimental value people place on products that makes them valuable.

# data[].attributes.body
“The Lure of Luxury.” Boston Review, 24 June 2024, www.bostonreview.net/forum/paul-bloom-lure-luxury/.