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

271–280 of 774 posts

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#271

Post by stephengillie »

eli wrote: post #258
stephengillie wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

How do you signal the value of your bank account besides using it to buy expensive things? (And this is certainly not a gender-specific problem: consider sports cars, gold chains, or bottle service at clubs)

You could signal directly, such as an ATM receipt.

I understand the point you're making -- the value of expensive things in signaling to someone you don't know. I can't see the point in marrying someone if I couldn't trust them with my bank account.

Edit: I'm realizing that this is entirely from my perspective. How does a woman without earning potential display her husband's wealth to her family and friends? She asks him to buy her an ornament to prove how much he values her. This puts the man above the woman, inequalizing them.

Is there any custom where a bride and groom exchange gifts of equal value?

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#272

Post by wutbrodo »

eli wrote: post #240
gnaritas wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What better way to prove you have lots of money than by buying something expensive that depreciates dramatically in value once you buy it? A balance statement would be a much better way.

It would look awkward tied to your finger, no? Diamonds are pretty and sparkly -- they are just radically too expensive at retail by any objective measure. Really, I don't think diamonds would be much of a problem at all if it were possible to sell them for anywhere close to what they cost.

Since when does any standard of evidence include "...tied to your finger"?

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#273

Post by YZF »

rayiner wrote: post #259
YZF wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pregnancy and childbirth is a barbaric process Seriously? I guess this just shows one aspect of how screwed up our modern society is.

Have you ever been pregnant or had a child? It's 9 months of misery punctuated by 12 hours of stress and agony, relieved only by the epidural. That's followed by weeks of pain and bleeding, and major bodily changes of various degrees of permanence (stretched out abdominal muscles, stretched out hips). Oh, and post-partum depression. And that's if you're lucky. Childbirth can last way longer than 12 hours, it can invo…

My wife really enjoyed the experience. We had a home birth. No epidural. Two kids.

It is a life changing experience for both wife and husband. It's part of life. Life isn't a video game. It's not a synthetic experience. Some people may prefer to be a brain in a jar hooked to some wires but then where would they put the diamond ring? :-)

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#274

Post by Apocryphon »

rayiner wrote: post #226
clicks wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For individuals, there are reasonable, cost-effective substitutes to reduce oil consumption. That may be true in Europe and the East coast but it is not true for large remote country areas etc. It's certainly not true for where I live -- there are no bus/train routes that can get me to my workplace from my home, and I cannot re-locate because of my financial position. I know of countless others in similarly tied posi…

Sure, but what about all those people who have a choice? Where is the Atlantic article excoriating Silicon Valley and companies like Facebook, Google, etc, for not moving out of the suburban wasteland to a place where it is possible to live a life that causes less violence to the environment?

The Atlantic Cities is all about charting urban geography and lifestyles. They've covered tech private buses many times.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/12/are-silicon... http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/01/silicon-val...

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#275

Post by jlgreco »

mech4bg wrote: post #222
jlgreco wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolute nonsense. Therapy is very useful to many people who are not mentally ill. I would venture to say that most people who see therapists are not mentally ill. If you think "mental illness" when somebody says "therapist", you probably need to do some reevaluation.

Out of genuine interest (it's hard to convey tone via comments sometimes), can you expand on this comment a bit? What do you consider mental illness to be? And what is therapy in your view? The term 'mentally ill' in my view has been stigmatized quite a bit, and being 'unwell' mentally does not mean you are crazy, but that you have issues you feel you need to deal with. Isn't that the point of seeing a therapist? An…

Reasons that you could see a thearapist, that would not traditionally be considered mental illness in casual conversation, can include: coping with occupational stress, coping with grief, preparing for anticipated grief, coming to terms with mortality, (often for children) learning what mortality is, coping with changes in lifestyle (including divorce, marriage, birth of a child, birth of a special needs child, inability to have a child, moves to unfamiliar locations, moves to unfamiliar cultures, loss of religion, loss of a job, release from prison, release from the service), (as mentioned by erikpukinskis) feelings of inadequacy or low self-esteem, ...

Just about anything people may have talked to priests about in the past they can now talk to therapists about.

Now, if you want to define mental illness such that it covers all of these things, and all the other reasons to see a therapist, that is fine. Words are just what you make of them; you can, of course, define them as you see fit.

However, if you redefine mental illness in such a way then I can see really no justification for using the negative connotations that mental illness normally holds to facilitate mock outrage ("Writing off people who want or provide a diamond ring as mentally ill (as many people in this thread seem to be doing) is silly.") Instead of criticizing erikpukinskis for "writing off those people as mentally ill", perhaps you should instead explain why you do not agree with his suggestion that low self-esteem could be a factor.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#276

Post by clicks »

rayiner wrote: post #255
clicks wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are a species where, thus far, the burdens of motherhood are associated with a single gender I agree with you here. I don't know why the HN crowd is refusing to see this point... an infant in its early months really needs the mother. But I disagree on the point that the role of motherhood inextricably falls down on a woman's turf for the years to come. As a male I can say that I would be happy to be a stay-at-home…

> But I disagree on the point that the role of motherhood inextricably falls down on a woman's turf for the years to come. As a practical matter, the latter follows the former, almost inexorably. Between the negative stigma of being pregnant at work to the negative stigma of taking maternity leave, to the negative stigma of having to be there for your young child when it is still in the "I need my mommy" stage (which…

Rayiner some of your other posts are showing up as dead. I suspect this may have something to do with your other posts receiving negative points (HN algo tripped up by that probably).

I'd recommend dropping a small note to info@ycombinator.com telling them to do something about this.

edit: I just did, let's see what they do about it. (and it was this post that is showing up as dead: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5404947)

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#277

Post by Apocryphon »

arbuge wrote: post #195
jpdoctor wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My wife wanted a ruby ring, not diamond, for our engagement. I consider this an amazing social signal: She is verifying that you have a proper amount of resources to burn, but does not want her girlfriends to easily calibrate how many you have. Therefore, she leaves them a little bit in the dark about what a great catch you are (because most women can't calibrate ruby pricing by just looking.) My compliments to you…

Good guess, but that's not the reason :-) She's from China and ruby is her birthstone.

It was either that or you're a Rails developer.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#278

Post by jlgreco »

whatusername wrote: post #231
jlgreco wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the Red Cross can start making some sort of low-cost jewelry (perhaps similar to those yellow rubber wristbands?) that, while cheap in material cost, signify that the wearer donated a very large sum of money to the organization (or someone did so in their name).

Are you aware of the historical precedent? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Iron_Jewellery

I was not aware of that. Very cool, thanks for the link!

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#279

Post by bradleyland »

eli wrote: post #264
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…

I remember reading this very good Wired article [1] ( "Armed with inexpensive, mass-produced gems, two startups are launching an assault on the De Beers cartel. Next up: the computing industry." ) and assuming we were on the verge of a major disruption. But that was 10 years ago. Anyone know why it didn't quite work out that way? [1] http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond.html

The psychology of diamonds only works if you pay a lot for the stone. I would posit that synthetic diamonds fail for the same reasons that knock-offs like cubic zirconiums fail. They don't deliver on the promise of the advertising. The advertising promises that your love can only be shown by spending a lot of money on this specific thing with these specific set of arbitrary selected attributes. E.g., it must come from the ground, and it must cost a lot of money, even if your only reward is that you can tell people you spent a lot on it and that it came from the ground.

It's not rational; it's an emotional. Society has a tremendous emotional investment in the concept of the diamond engagement ring.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#280

Post by mertd »

evmar wrote: post #68

Walmart recently ran a survey about expected costs of engagement rings and found Americans' expectations have been changing. http://news.walmart.com/news-archive/2013/02/04/walmart-surv... (Disclaimer: I work on the tool they used to conduct the survey, which is why I know about it.)

Was it done on Walmart shoppers? That would be a huge selection bias.
Post reply on HN