# data[].attributes.body
Virginia Postrel's sensory theory, which contends that we purchase luxury products largely for their physical and aesthetic appeals rather than for prestige or deeper significance, is acknowledged by Paul Bloom, and he utilizes Miller’s take as sort of a response, “Though we are often unaware of it and might angrily deny it, we are driven to accumulate ostentatious goods to impress others. Evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller gives this theory an adaptationist twist, arguing that the hunger for these luxury goods is a modern expression of the evolved desire to signal attractive traits—such as intelligence, ambition, and power—to entice mates”(Bloom 3). Although Bloom acknowledges the importance of sensory appeal, he believes this justification is insufficient and contends that an object's perceived authenticity, nature, and story also contribute to our attraction to luxury. According to Bloom, consumers want high-end products not only because they are pleasurable but also because they are symbols of exclusivity, workmanship, or cultural relevance. By highlighting that the appeal of luxury is not solely based on experience but also on the more profound implications we assign to items, he builds on Postrel's perspective. He believes signaling is a helpful but frequently exaggerated justification for people's actions, especially in relation to consumerism and social standing. Although he acknowledges its function, he criticizes its stance, contending that it overgeneralizes complicated impulses that transcend status seeking. As people strive to impress others, even if they are unaware of it, Paul Bloom contends that the desire for luxury items is not only a personal preference but also an unconscious motivation ingrained in human nature. He emphasizes how fundamental psychological and evolutionary dynamics impact consumerism, turning status-driven purchasing into an instinct rather than a merely logical choice. (Bloom, Paul. “The Lure of Luxury.” Boston Review, 22 Oct 2015. https://www.bostonreview.net/forum/paul-bloom-lure-luxury/)

# data[].attributes.body
Bloom quotes evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller who introduced his perspective on the reasoning behind certain consumer behaviors called signaling. Signaling is essentially when consumers either consciously or subconsciously rack up valuable goods in an attempt to gain social recognition. Bloom argues that status is a “zero sum game”(Bloom 3) and due to this many purchases turn into positional goods that are deemed invaluable if they do not raise social status. (Bloom, Paul. “The Lure of Luxury.” Boston Review, 22 Oct 2015. https://www.bostonreview.net/forum/paul-bloom-lure-luxury/)

# data[].attributes.body
Paul Bloom’s central thesis in "The Lure of Luxury" revolves around his perspective on the intentions behind people owning and purchasing items they don’t necessarily need. “We want these things because of the pleasure we get from looking at and interacting with high-quality products—and there is nothing wrong with this”(Bloom 2). Bloom argues that objects retain values beyond the obvious, tying to outside principles such as history, status, and pleasure.

# data[].attributes.body
Paul Bloom examines how buying luxury things might turn them into positional goods, whose worth is determined by social status rather than fundamental merit. He talks about how this status-driven spending takes money away from other important bills and feeds what economist Robert H. Frank refers to as luxury fever, “If such purchases are motivated by status enhancement, they become positional goods: their value is determined by what other people possess. This inspires a powerful critique of consumerism. Status is a zero-sum game, and just as countries in a literal arms race have to strip away resources from domestic priorities, the figurative arms race that economist Robert H. Frank calls ‘luxury fever’ takes away from individual consumers money that would be better spent on more substantial goods, such as socializing and travel”(Bloom 3). According to Paul Bloom, status-driven consumerism produces a vicious cycle in which luxury things are only valuable in relation to what others possess, turning status into a zero-sum game. (Bloom, Paul. “The Lure of Luxury.” Boston Review, 22 Oct 2015. https://www.bostonreview.net/forum/paul-bloom-lure-luxury/)

# data[].attributes.body
Bloom argues that the history of an object can influence a consumer’s decision regarding whether or not to purchase it. He contends that buyers are driven to products with distinctive histories because they feel these histories give the items a special meaning, such as historical heirlooms, original works of art, or artifacts owned by celebrities.

# data[].attributes.body
Paul Bloom investigates how the past of an item, specifically who has handled it, affects customer demand. He highlights the psychological effects of physical contact and discusses how people are inclined to value products linked with celebrities or people who are appealing, “Thus the history of an object matters to the pleasure we get from it. And one intriguing sort of history concerns who has touched the object in the past. Consumers are more likely to buy something that has been touched or tried on by a physically attractive person. Celebrities, in particular, possess the “touch”—one reason why people want objects that have had some contact with them”(Bloom 6). This is a reflection of a larger human instinct for assigning tangible symbolic or even mystical meaning, which motivates consumer behaviors such as collecting celebrity memorabilia or favoring goods linked to high-status people. According to Bloom's analysis, buying decisions are influenced by psychological biases that are both irrational and deeply embedded. (Bloom, Paul. “The Lure of Luxury.” Boston Review, 22 Oct 2015. https://www.bostonreview.net/forum/paul-bloom-lure-luxury/)

# data[].attributes.body
Paul Bloom investigates how an item's perceived past affects its perceived worth in the marketplace. He draws attention to the fact that consumers who purchase celebrity-owned apparel like the things unaltered and value their relationship with the former owner more than their physical state, “Indeed, charities can make money by auctioning off clothes worn by actors. One such charity used to offer a dry cleaning option before sending off the garments but stopped because few buyers took them up on it. People wanted the clothes as they were when the actors wore them, sweat and all”(Bloom 6). Customers' preference for unwashed actor apparel points to a belief that the tangible residue of a famous individual, such as sweat, increases the item's appeal and authenticity. (Bloom, Paul. “The Lure of Luxury.” Boston Review, 22 Oct 2015. https://www.bostonreview.net/forum/paul-bloom-lure-luxury/)

# data[].attributes.headline
Connections Between Signaling and Object History

# data[].attributes.subject
Connections Between Signaling and Object History

# data[].attributes.body
Although the first viewpoint emphasizes signaling, in which individuals purchase luxury things in order to be recognized by others, the second viewpoint contends that buyers cherish historical items because they believe they have importance. These concepts are not wholly unrelated, though. Possessing a historically significant object, such a rare antique or a celebrity's attire, can also be a means of signaling since it gives the possessor status and acknowledgment. In this sense, both viewpoints show how the need for distinction. Whether it be through exclusivity, money, or affiliation with anything historically or culturally significant, many factors intersect when influencing consumer choices. The link is seen in the way that both expensive and historically significant items serve as status markers, enhancing a person's perceived worth and social identity.

# data[].attributes.headline
Disconnections Between Signaling and Object History

# data[].attributes.subject
Disconnections Between Signaling and Object History

# data[].attributes.body
The first viewpoint, which was influenced by Geoffrey Miller, emphasizes signaling and frames purchases as a competitive, zero-sum game in which customers pursue luxury products to elevate their social position. The second viewpoint, on the other hand, emphasizes emotional and symbolic attachment and contends that people love items for their perceived authenticity and distinctive history rather than for their capacity to raise social status. Although both viewpoints agree that consumer decisions go beyond simple utility, the first views status-seeking as the main motivator, while the second places more emphasis on connections and personal meaning. Whether purchases are made largely to outcompete competitors or to satisfy a deeper psychological need for a link to the past and renowned personalities is the crucial disconnect.