Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Diamonds Are Bullshit

blog.priceonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 774 posts

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#241

Post by erikpukinskis »

rayiner wrote: post #228
erikpukinskis wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Okay how do you distribute child-bearing according to participant interest? Adoption. > How do you distribute child-rearing according to participant interest, bearing in mind that an infant just wants to suck on a breast and doesn't care about your views on gender roles. There are some limits to what can be shared. I advocate going right up to that line. A woman who wants to raise a baby at some point has to make t…

> Adoption. The IQ of children is highly correlated with the IQ of parents. Adoption is not, for educated couples, an alternative to having their own children. > A woman who wants to raise a baby at some point has to make tough choices about formula, breast pumping, bonding, and her other priorities in life. You can make things as equal as possible, but no more. My wife and I have almost identical educational backgro…

Ignoring whether that's true or relevant to family planning, I never said you can divide up roles randomly without ever making tradeoffs. Just that it's coercive to adhere slavishly to distributions of labor which are 1) monolithic and 2) bound to gender.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#242

Post by Helianthus »

rayiner wrote: post #200
guylhem wrote: post #178

I see people talking about various things like the (1) (2) (3) arguments for a women to evaluate a man : (1) is the ability to provide; 2) is the willingness to forgo other things (opportunity costs to talk economics) (3) "is demonstrating to the woman's peers her husband's social standing." (signalling) Raynier posted this deep down in a reply which might be lost to you if you don't read all the comments. It would b…

Its' really hard to live life stepping on eggshells worrying about injustices to other people. At the end of the day, I bet most people on this thread drive, and there is very little else that humans do that does more violence to the environment and to other humans than the use of fossil fuels. It goes far beyond that. If you're an American, your comfortable life exists because of the American government's willingnes…

Hard things shouldn't remain undone, nor should they be forgotten.

You're trying to handwave over the fact that you're accepting something instead of dealing with it temporarily.

And if you're doing that, you've already lost, you just haven't admitted it to yourself.

Don't you get it? Here, right here and right now, is where we're having a conversation about what we want to value. And you're on the side that says we should still value it, and trying to excuse yourself by saying we're not having all of the other conversations.

But we are. Just not here.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#243

Post by sliverstorm »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #204
sliverstorm wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I updated my original comment a bit. Does that explain things better?

Yeah, it seems even more useless or irrational though.

No less useless than a peacock's plumage or an elephant seal's beach combat.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#244

Post by super-serial »

Zimahl wrote: post #134
jamesaguilar wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Karma be damned but women as a whole are swayed more by marketing then men are To make a claim like this, I'd normally expect data, not a bunch of anecdotes. Men I know are highly swayed by marketing as well. They want expensive cars, tools, games, alcohol, and other toys. It is hard to reason about the degree to which each is influenced solely from the products that are marketed to them. It is quite a stretch for…

Think of how men are marketed to and you'll see the difference. It's not a name brand or a lifestyle, almost everything marketed to men has some sort of pragmatic function to it. Be it the big F-150 that can tow a ton, to the comfortable (yet fuel efficient!) 4-door sedan. Sport cars might be an exception for most men (although not for me). As much as you don't need it, a $2000 60" HDTV is still more functional than…

"Sexism" has become a dirty word. There's nothing wrong with thinking women and men are wired differently.

There have been studies on chimpanzees showing that female chimps choose girly toys (dolls etc), and male chimps choose male toys (weapons, trucks etc) without any outside influence. Yet people act like the human species is different. They believe people only become who they are because of indoctrination into their respective gender roles.

Then when you call BS on that... you're called a sexist. Then when you say "YES I AM A SEXIST" you're called a misogynist. I don't see how treating women differently (better in many cases) leads to "hating women."

As for marketing - I think women do choose products differently than men. It's because they're wired differently. They are more likely to choose products based on sentimental or perceived social value. If you look at the majority of Meyers-Briggs personality types among women, there aren't as many INTP,INTJ or other engineering types. Even if you don't agree with Meyers-Briggs... that there exists such a strong difference between the male and female population that an INTP (my type) is 4 times as likely to be a male, it should prove there are major differences.

The end result of these differences is that you should buy the woman you want to marry a diamond. As an INTP I know it's illogical - but I can accept it since I believe women and men are wired differently. I feel sorry for the men on HN who believe otherwise and are going to argue against diamonds with their future wife. (good luck with that - unless she's an INTP)

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#245

Post by stephengillie »

michaelt wrote: post #128
clicks wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to delete this post in 30 minutes, but man, I'm just screaming to say... it is so peculiar that he consistently kept making that mistake (along with a bunch of other ones). It looks like the guy is a graduate from Stanford's business school... and is the co-founder of Pricenomics. What the heck. Edit: heh, I guess I won't delete it now (to preserve continuity of extant conversation). Sorry.

It looks like the guy is a graduate from Stanford's business school... and is the co-founder of Pricenomics. What the heck. I used to make that mistake - or what I assume was the mistake, which now seems to have been corrected. Many guides to using apostrophes [1,2,3,4] say they can be used for contractions (the dog's outside) and to indicate possession (the dog's ball) - Why shouldn't something possessed by "it" use…

I hadn't heard that grouping, which actually makes a lot of sense.

A teacher taught me a simpler rule: "It's" normally has an apostrophe, while most words don't. So instead of adding a apostrophe to show possession, we remove it.

Basically we're toggling the apostrophe state. Or..."it's" always results in a NOT output when compared to other outputs.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#246

Post by YZF »

rayiner wrote: post #115
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #17

Maybe I'm spoiled as a nerdy (and interested in nerdy) gay guy, but I pity those in this thread saying that their fiancee wouldn't listen to reason about this. It slays me that "tradition" is so important to people that they will waste such vast amounts of money and prop up such a gross, violent industry in the face of reason.

It irks me a little bit that the issue is painted as one of "reason" versus lack thereof. There is a rationality in adhering to social convention. My wife is a diamond nerd, as well as one of the most rational people you'll ever meet, and she'd explain it this way: the diamond is a test that serves various useful purposes from the perspective of the woman: 1) It demonstrates the man's ability to provide; 2) It demons…

> Pregnancy and childbirth is a barbaric process

Seriously?

I guess this just shows one aspect of how screwed up our modern society is.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#247

Post by stephengillie »

maratd wrote: post #166
kyrra wrote: post #132

(person I know) worked for GE (General Electric) on their industrial diamond production process back in the 90's, and I got to hear lots of fun stories from this. Diamonds that are man-made[1] are stronger (fewer imperfections) than those that are mined from the earth. Because of this, industrial diamonds tend to be man-made. (for reference, industrial diamonds when cutting hard materials, such as metals). While work…

> so they just leave De Beers to run around gouging consumers That's kind of missing the point. If diamonds were 5 bucks a piece, women would no longer be interested in receiving rings bejeweled by them. A woman wants a man who is financially secure. If you can't afford a shiny rock, you can't afford what's coming after it either, so there's no point.

Women can't use another proxy to signal financial security, like the dollar amount in a bank account, or a house down-payment, or a secure job?

Women can't talk for themselves? Do women still want a man who is financially secure? What about independent women? How many women have posted in this thread (compared to HN's overall male-female posting ratio)?

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#248

Post by wutbrodo »

rayiner wrote: post #200
guylhem wrote: post #178

I see people talking about various things like the (1) (2) (3) arguments for a women to evaluate a man : (1) is the ability to provide; 2) is the willingness to forgo other things (opportunity costs to talk economics) (3) "is demonstrating to the woman's peers her husband's social standing." (signalling) Raynier posted this deep down in a reply which might be lost to you if you don't read all the comments. It would b…

Its' really hard to live life stepping on eggshells worrying about injustices to other people. At the end of the day, I bet most people on this thread drive, and there is very little else that humans do that does more violence to the environment and to other humans than the use of fossil fuels. It goes far beyond that. If you're an American, your comfortable life exists because of the American government's willingnes…

Just look at this thread for a litany of other examples for why buying diamonds is a bad idea, independently of the moral issues. It doesn't seem like much of a stretch to point to the low-hanging fruit first (i.e. the stuff that is worth changing on its own merits), when talking about actions with moral implications. "Stop being an American" or "Stop using oil, or any oil product/by-product [I don't own a car but I'm under no illusions that a massive amount of my day-to-day depends on oil]" are a hell of a lot harder to do than "Stop buying diamonds, which by the way makes sense for any of a number of other relatively selfish reasons".

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#249

Post by dclowd9901 »

wutbrodo wrote: post #223
maratd wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so they just leave De Beers to run around gouging consumers That's kind of missing the point. If diamonds were 5 bucks a piece, women would no longer be interested in receiving rings bejeweled by them. A woman wants a man who is financially secure. If you can't afford a shiny rock, you can't afford what's coming after it either, so there's no point.

I doubt the point is to demonstrate financial security: Spending three months' salary on a single ring would seem to indicate financial irresponsibility more than financial security (unless it's like a rebate and you sell the ring once you're married? /s). I'm inclined to agree that you're right about the price being the point. I think it has more to do with "You're worth it to me". I still think it's utter bollocks.

Diamonds aren't popular because they have any real value. No one actually believes they do. They cost a lot and are an easily worn, thus making them perfect for their favorite hobby: making other women feel inadequate. Even women who are positively liberal on such matters are drawn to the idea of forcing their husbands to show such monetary devotion.

The issue here isn't the scarcity of diamonds. It's the scarcity if women.

I realize how chauvinistic this rant sounds, but truly, I would rather give equivalent money to my fiancee's charity of choice than to these diamond shilling scumbags.

Charities, if you're listening, here's an idea: create uniquely identified jewelry (bracelets, necklaces) marketed as devotional donations, charge $5000 for them, and at least give men an option in the matter.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#250

Post by [deleted] »

wutbrodo wrote: post #223
maratd wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so they just leave De Beers to run around gouging consumers That's kind of missing the point. If diamonds were 5 bucks a piece, women would no longer be interested in receiving rings bejeweled by them. A woman wants a man who is financially secure. If you can't afford a shiny rock, you can't afford what's coming after it either, so there's no point.

I doubt the point is to demonstrate financial security: Spending three months' salary on a single ring would seem to indicate financial irresponsibility more than financial security (unless it's like a rebate and you sell the ring once you're married? /s). I'm inclined to agree that you're right about the price being the point. I think it has more to do with "You're worth it to me". I still think it's utter bollocks.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN