Diamonds Are Bullshit • Hacker News Board

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#321

Post by boyter » Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 2:42 AM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #304

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.

It doesn't have anything to do with financial security. Look, if your man is spending three months worth of salary on a piece of shiny rock, he is exercising poor financial judgment and that is a signal against future financial security. Women want diamonds not because of any symbolic reasons ("Diamonds are forever!") but because of reasons that are much more practical: they want to be able to show off the diamonds t…

The social status is changing I think. I commented on this in some other Diamond discussion thread but I have noticed an increase in people my age group (Gen Y) having engagement/wedding rings with other stones. Purely anecdotal but it seems to be a trend in my group of friends at least.

For example my wife has a Sapphire ring (yes I know Sapphires can be made at any size artificially) and so does my brothers. A close friends wife has a Ruby and I have seen Emerald ones.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#322

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 2:45 AM UTC

Helianthus wrote: post #319

rayiner wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#323

Post by sk5t » Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 2:49 AM UTC

overgryphon wrote: post #288

dclowd9901 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What makes you think women, as a whole entire gender of people, enjoy making other people feel inadequate? Perhaps if she's going to wear a ring for the rest of her life, she wants it to be a nice ring that is color neutral. Perhaps she doesn't want something cheap and easily replaceable acting as a symbol for your marriage.

It's a very common human vice, to want to feel competitively superior to one's peers. Fancy cars, jewelry, designer clothes, you name it--these industries depend on the urge to make others jealous.

Cubic zirconia or other gems might be cosmetically identical to a diamond. Wanting a $30K ring for its "color neutral" characteristics smacks of astroturfing.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#324

Post by blaireaug » Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 2:49 AM UTC

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?

Gilette. During WW2, they didn't have anyone to sell their products to, so they started marketing shaving to women. Before this, a woman shaving was akin to claiming yourself to be a prostitute. Now, it's a cultural norm for women to shave...all because of manufactured desire.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#325

Post by hollerith » Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 2:51 AM UTC

mattstreet wrote: post #309

mech4bg wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A diamond ring is a signal that is _always_ showing, unlike something like a house. It's a signal to the world that displays someone's wealth, commitment, etc. This doesn't make it right, but there are numerous human psychology reasons why this tradition endures and so many people take part in it. Writing off people who want or provide a diamond ring as mentally ill (as many people in this thread seem to be doing) is…

Commitment, really? How does it signal commitment? Are men that give big diamond rings less likely to cheat or get divorced?

It signals they're willing and able to spend a lot on their future wives, which is part of what most people consider commitment.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#326

Post by boyter » Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 2:51 AM UTC

uribs wrote: post #14

Isn't it much better to get very expensive gold jewelry instead of diamonds if one wants some? That's also shiny and should keep its value much better (since gold requires nuclear reaction to make).

Most of the value isn't in the gold but in the effort of making it and the markup that comes with that. You would be better of buying gold bars.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#327

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 2:51 AM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #322

Helianthus wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#328

Post by mattstreet » Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 2:53 AM UTC

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…

So childbirth is extremely dangerous but adopting a kid already out there looking for a home isn't an option for an educated couple...you'd rather your wife risk her health.

That's some useful education.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#329

Post by angersock » Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 2:53 AM UTC

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?

Ruby on Rails.

:)

(I kid, I kid... we're actually a Rails shop ourselves)

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#330

Post by blaireaug » Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 2:56 AM UTC

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.

It's a peacock's tail. In any environment where resources are abundant and there's no natural predators, species evolve to create lavish displays for sexual selection.

Buying a ring, having a fancy sports car, owning a nice house, coming from a prestigious university... these are signals for sexual reproduction. "Look at me, look at what I can afford to do!"

It does signal financial irresponsibility. Who can demonstrate such a thing? Those who are actually financially secure. But then it gets to be backwards, as those who can barely afford to live paycheck to paycheck seek out these red herrings, these peacock's tails, before actual wealth and stability.

Same thing with ties. Those used to be signals of wealth. They evolved from the cravate, used by nobility to protect their shirts whilst eating. Being wealthy, these embryonic ties, the cravates, would be made of expensive materials. When those who weren't so wealthy got ahold of them and started using them as a display, it became backwards.

We now take off our ties, or toss them over our shirts to protect from getting dirty when we eat, because they're often quite expensive!

So, yeah. Diamonds signal financial security by being financially irresponsible. We're a species evolved to pay attention to status, to these symbols more so than the real value behind such things.