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

311–320 of 774 posts

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#311

Post by YokoZar »

joeblau wrote: post #48

This article is interesting. I remember in Geology class when our teacher explained that you could make synthetic diamonds for a fraction of the price of a real diamond. He then asked all the women if they would rather have a natural diamond or a synthetic diamond, and almost all of them raised their hands. He then went on to explain that it was like the difference between natural ice and ice made in a freezer. He as…

Your teacher was asking the wrong question. Ask these same women if they'd rather have a larger diamond at what would be twice the cost were it not for technology, and they'd probably agree.

If we want to help fix this diamond bullshit, we've got to reframe the discussion. It's not about natural vs synthetic, it's about cultured diamonds vs blood diamonds.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#312

Post by salgernon »

charlieflowers wrote: post #291
bradleyland wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fro…

It's like believing in the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny, but for adults. What other manufactured fairy tales have huge quantities of humans swallowed hook line and sinker?

Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism etc.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#313

Post by khuey »

jlgreco wrote: post #275
mech4bg wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, inabi…

Even if you don't redefine mental illness that way the negative connotations are bullshit.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#314

Post by svachalek »

Skoofoo wrote: post #74

What are some cool alternatives to a diamond ring? I want to get a ring with a carbon nanotube "gem", but there doesn't seem to be a practical way to acquire that.

You can get rings cut from meteors (even two from the same meteor). There's a variety of looks depending on the type of meteor, they're rare, and they're "natural".

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#315

Post by eli »

bradleyland wrote: post #310
eli wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but part of the point of the article was that the "created" diamonds could be made that are literally indistinguishable from those found in the ground. Seems like that has the potential to disrupt the diamond cartel's stranglehold on supply.

In a practical sense, cubic zirconium stones are indistinguishable from diamonds as well. Unless someone breaks out a diamond tester, no one will be able to see the difference. Yet consumers continue to purchase real diamonds. If a much less expensive synthetic diamond were to enter the marketplace, it would have the same problem as a CZ. Anyone who purchases one would either have to be honest about their purchase, a…

Perhaps you're right. But I bet a lot more people would be willing to lie about how "real" their diamond is if there was no way anyone could prove otherwise.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#316

Post by rayiner »

stephengillie wrote: post #247
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.

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)?

> Do women still want a man who is financially secure? What about independent women?

Most of my female friends are professionals (graduate degrees, well-paying jobs, etc). The vast majority of them (literally 90%+) want a man who is financially secure. Part of it is attraction, but it's also part pragmatic. Most women will have kids at some point in their lives (the %-age of women who remain childless by 45 is actually trending down slightly after peaking around 20%), and even in 2013 the burden of child rearing still falls disproportionately on women. Women are still the ones that, disproportionately, compromise their careers to take care of children.[1] Given the statistics, even "independent" women have a rational reason to seek financially secure men.

[1] A longitudinal study of graduates of the UVA Law School class of 1990 found that while women and men went into private practice and to large law firms in similar proportions, after 20 years almost all the men were still working while half the women had either dropped out of practice entirely or were part-time.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#319

Post by Helianthus »

rayiner wrote: post #308
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) That is very obviously and intentionally not a response to what I asked. I barely, barely drive as it is. I commute to work, I'm within biking distance of my grocery store. Besides, transportation is sort of essential in the United States to commute and buy food. A diamond has none of that utility. None at all. The fact that you compare them, use it to justify any sort of exploitation is incredible. 2) I should've…

I'm not really trying to single "you" out, FWIW. I'm using a generic "you" at a website full of people who likely choose to drive around in the suburban wasteland that is Silicon Valley, who likely work in an industry that repopularized the sprawling suburban office park, and the hypocrisy of their complaining about how other peoples' lifestyle choices are hurting people in Africa.

Look, I don't care that you can assert that we're hypocritical. My honest response is "Duh."

I care that when the lens is focused on you, the only defense you have is that you're just as bad as the rest of us.

It's completely non-inspirational and devoid of the idea that we should try to be better.

It's as empty as the diamonds you're defending.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#320

Post by spindritf »

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.

> 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

"Wasting" resources is one of the ways to make sure that the signal (of fitness -- financial security for example) is honest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle

Post reply on HN