Bloom begins by exploring how Signaling Theory plays into the luxury goods buying frenzy, citing Veblen's theory of “conspicuous consumption” and Miller's evolutionary psychology perspective, which recognizes that status competition does indeed drive sales of expensive goods. “When people see products they think are 'cool,' areas of the brain associated with praise and social approval are activated.” . This highlights the neuroscientific mechanisms behind conspicuous consumption. However, Bloom also emphasizes that defining the value of luxury goods solely in terms of “status aggrandizement” does not explain why “John F. Kennedy's golf clubs sold at auction for $772,500.” The value of an ordinary golf club without a famous name is not explained. An ordinary golf club would never fetch such a high price without a famous person's background. So Signaling Theory does not fully explain the allure of luxury.

Bloom starts by looking at how Signaling Theory fits into the luxury goods buying spree, referring to Veblen's idea of “visible spending” and Miller's take on evolution, which notes that race for status does drive sales of pricey items. “When folks spot things they think are 'neat,' parts of the brain linked to praise and social thumbs-up are triggered.” . This points out the brainy ways behind visible spending. But, Bloom also points out that calling the worth of luxury items just in terms of “status lifting” doesn't clear up why “John F. Kennedy's golf clubs sold at auction for $772,500.” The worth of a normal golf club without a well-known name isn't cleared up. A normal golf club would never get such a high price without some famous person's story. So Signaling Theory doesn't completely clear up the pull of luxury.

Later in the segment, Bloom introduces the consideration of “deep attributes and history”. In particular, he cites “As literary scholar Judith Pascoe has described, after Shakespeare's death, fans cut down the trees around his house for lumber they claimed was sourced for their high-priced furniture. As literary scholar Judith Pascoe has described, after Shakespeare's death, fans cut down the trees around his house for lumber they claimed was sourced for their high-priced furniture.” Or the willingness to pay a high price for objects with an aura of celebrity. Similarly, “Foer’s unusual hobby illustrates powerfully how the most mundane objects accrue value through their histories”, illustrates how objects gain value because of unique experiences or interpersonal connections. In this way, luxury goods are sought after because of the stories behind them that are worthy of being traced, cherished, or have a strong identity attached to them. For Bloom, this is the key to the enduring passion for luxury.

Finally, Bloom also responds to ethical and policy challenges from various schools of thought. While moralists worry that “obsession with consumer products corrodes the soul” and economists worry that luxury consumption leads to waste of resources and social inequality, Bloom argues that if we only focus on “waste” in economic accounts, we miss the cultural and psychological fulfillment and identity that luxury brings. Bloom argues that if we only focus on the “waste” in the economic accounts, we neglect the satisfaction and identity that luxury brings in the cultural and psychological aspects. Just as art is not appreciated for practical reasons, many people's passion for luxury goods is also based on the multiple identities of aesthetics, history and identity. To sum up, Bloom has repeatedly explained his core idea through various arguments: the attraction of luxury lies in its close connection with the concept of “real value” in human psychology, not just simple show of wealth or sensual enjoyment.

“Signaling is a theory with broad scope—it has been applied to everything from self-mutilating behavior to the fact that the best private schools teach dead languages—but it is most blatant in the consumer world.”

The introduction is a straightforward indication of Paul's central argument in Part I: how Signaling Theory explains the lure of luxury.

“If pleasure is triggered by the physical properties of what we are looking at or touching, then it shouldn’t matter what we think it is.“

But Sensory Theory still can't explain the ultra-expensive premium, or added value, of luxury brands.

“He describes how customers would stroke the suits and how his daughter, originally skeptical, found herself entranced by the items.”

The sensory pleasure of luxury goods through touch is emphasized here. Consumers do not just want to display social status, but because the objects themselves provide a pleasurable sensory experience. Beauty does not come from the fact that touching the texture of the clothing represents power and wealth, but rather that it looks very pleasant and refined to the touch.

“Twitchell’s daughter is captivated ‘not so she can impress anyone else or feel affiliated with prestigious brands. She wants these luxuries because they are aesthetically appealing, because they are, in a word, beautiful.’”

Hanging in a window, illuminated by warm light, with pleasing music and enjoyable touch, this is the direct, aesthetic feeling from the senses that James Twitchelld's daughter enjoys, without other factors.

He lists what they share: “a waterproof, shock-resistant Swiss ETA 25-jewel movement, a micro-laser-etched crown on the dial, a quad-wrapped 18k gold forged case, a scratchproof sapphire crystal, a 2.5x date magnifying viewer, unique serial and model numbers between the lugs, Luminox hour markers, a black Triplock O-ring seal on the winding crown tube, and a Rolex brand hologram sticker.”

It's a demanding check list of imitations. That is to say, the difference between the physical aspects of the genuine and the imitation has been completely eliminated, and the only difference between the two watches is the fact that it came from the Internet and the other from a Rolex counter.

Sensory Theory cannot explain the fact that consumers still favor authentic products.

Next, all the arguments will be centered on the history of the item.

“Is anyone impressed by the fact that I own the original baby shoes of my two sons? World’s worst positional good!”

My son's shoes are put to the point where they are no longer wearable, and a worn pair of shoes should feel and look old and dirty and have no practical or aesthetic value. At the same time, Paul's son's shoes could not be flaunted to others to demonstrate economic status. He left the shoes because he wanted to honor his son for what he once was, a history left behind by an emotional attitude.

”Children experience the same boost in value in their attachments to teddy bears and security blankets. Psychologist Bruce Hood and I tested this by presenting children with a machine we described as a duplicating device. We then fooled the children into believing that we had made perfect copies of their attachment objects and asked them which they wanted to take home, the original or the duplicate. They tended to want the original."

For children, they don't do as well as adults who can do so much to understand and care about the economic or power position displayed by a doll bear. At the same time, replica teddy bears and authentic teddy bears should be identical in a child's conception, so they give the same sensory and aesthetic value.

Yet children still choose authentic teddy bears more often. This is because children are emotionally attached to their teddy bears and have a deep sense of dependence or security, and replicas cannot carry these emotions. It is the historical nature of the item that explains the reasoning.

In the end, Paul is able to extend and correlate the core argument of his thesis by taking into account the strengths and weaknesses of signaling theory: that the history of an object is a central element of its appeal.

“Your neighbors gasp as your car drives by; the attractive stranger in a bar is aroused by your choice of beer; your spouse and children love you because you bought the right brand of frozen pizza. Consistent with this, neuroscience studies reveal that when people look at products they judge to be “cool,” brain areas associated with praise and social approval are activated.”

Close proximity strengthens the reader's sense of agency and understanding. Readers will follow Paul's examples and put themselves in the shoes of themselves and others as they hold a different price of beer or buy a frozen pizza. Rich, easy-to-imagine, lifelike examples trivialize the impersonal subject matter of more specialized fields and clearly better explain the neuroscientifically active cortical component of praise.

The same excellent example occurs for women's colorful burkas and nails. Paul is making a very pungent and even vulgar statement of a subsidiary argument of Signaling Theory, namely, that luxury goods represent and display human wealth or political status. One's desire for variety in ordinary adornment falls within the realm of aesthetics, but the wrapping of a seat in expensive whale skin must be signaling.

“A crimson burka? Aesthetics. A $30,000 watch? Signaling.”

These two sentences are self-questioning, and self-questioning is first and foremost a way to further stimulate the reader's thinking, allowing the reader to follow along with the author's thoughts and engage with the author's ideas in depth. The first is to stimulate the reader's thinking further, allowing him or her to follow the author's lead and engage deeply with his or her ideas. Secondly, the contrast between “burka” and “$30,000 watch” is made clearer and stronger in two very brief comparative examples, emphasizing and clarifying the difference between aesthetic and signaling meanings.

Both the arms race and the luxury mania are “zero-sum game, and just as countries in a literal arms race have to strip away resources from domestic priorities”, in which one party's gains imply the other's losses. Through this analogy, the author reinforces the central thesis that “luxury is about status competition and competition for scarcity”. The metaphorical nature of the example makes the reader realize that the consumption of luxury goods is not just a personal choice, but can also have a negative impact on the overall welfare of society. The description of an arms race provides a logical basis for the author's subsequent policy recommendations, such as raising taxes on luxury goods. As the arms race requires the intervention of the international community, the “luxury mania” may also need to be regulated by the government.