Uniqueness, blingness and massiness

Here are a few inferences on the three things mentioned in the subject. These are based on my observations and experience at Mississippi. The inferences could overlap.

Those who rely only on their looks to muster any kind of attention but do not want to spend a lot will spend on the most ordinary, non-distinct but full-of-bling designs. Why? They want to be noticed but they do not want to stand out. Bling makes them noticeable and design doesn't make them stand out at all. If I go a little further, such people would unconsciously develop taste only for the most ordinary. For then, they can wear the same thing over and over again without inviting any kind of judgements. The last statement might not be true in reality but might reflect the thinking of such people.

Those who only want to talk and neither want attention nor want to spend a lot, will buy the most ordinary, non-dintinct and unblingy designs. For once, there might be no design. It might just be a placebo sort of jewelry.

Those who rely only on their looks to muster attention and do not mind spending will buy distinct and full-of-bling designs.

Those who are not bothered about deliberately garnering attention but are sufficiently careful about how they look, tend to choose unique or distinct designs, with or without bling. They might have a lot or only a limited amount to spend.

There are obvious questions here. I surmise that bling is relatively clear to understand. Uniqueness or distinctiveness is of course devoid of massiness. Let's say such stuff isn't commonly seen.

Any views?