Hacker News Reader

Comment by washadjeffmad | Hacker News Reader

I went through this not that many years ago buying a ring for my SO. My biggest mistake was including her in the decision.

She described what she wanted exactly– nothing gaudy or ostentatious, just a singular, tasteful stone on a plain band. Couldn't be simpler, could it?

Finding stones that met her criteria was easy. Some were natural diamonds, some lab grown, many moissanite. From the outset, she said the meaning of the ring was what was most important and that she didn't want to pick it out herself (after effectively picking it out herself). We'd talked about moissanite a lot over the years, and she'd approved of the idea, and the same with lab grown diamonds. We're college educated adults with backgrounds in the sciences, so we weren't on uneven footing with comprehension.

When I showed her what I'd picked out, it quickly devolved into a lot of uncharacteristic tears and shouting. It took a few more tries, and then she explained. Apparently a lab grown diamond meant my love for her was also artificial, a budgeted ersatz stand-in for the real thing, and me saying we could spend more on a larger stone or matching set further belied my ignorance. No, she wanted me to have picked out an allegory for our love: a "perfect" diamond. She then sent me the details of the stone she actually wanted.

After a little "wait, where's this coming from and why did you let me spend weeks searching if there was only one right answer", I ended up spending twice our decided budget on a "natural" diamond with the same characteristics as the lab grown (except the diamond's clarity was lower, because lab grown clarity is always perfect), which wasn't any object, but now the ring is marred by the memories of arguments, and she doesn't really love it. Lesson learned.

I don't know what kind of spell the diamond people cast on otherwise reasonable women to make them able to reduce the totality of a life and experiences shared together into a single crystalline bet, but they need to package it and sell it to the military.

View on HN

>I don't know what kind of spell the diamond people cast on otherwise reasonable women to make them able to reduce the totality of a life and experiences shared together into a single crystalline bet, but they need to package it and sell it to the military.

The militaries of the world invented it, it's business that bought it. Much of this diamond/marriage symbolism stems back to the late 1940s post WWII with DaBeer's engagement ring ad campaigns.

WWII involved a lot of R&D in psyops and effects of propoganda. Sure, these strategies always existed but it became part of scientific research, was refined and weaponized to manipulate perceptions of people using non-kinetic approaches to try and avoid or minimize kinetic warfare. After the war in the mid 40s ended, where do you think all that expertise in propoganda from military went? Business marketing and advertising sprouted from much of this expertise. Marketing and advertising always existed before then but there was a dramatic shift in how things were sold creating armies of refined snake oil salesmen.

In the late 40s, DaBeers ran a massive ad campaign employing such propoganda that shifted culture into associating diamond rings with marriage. There had been dowries and other exchanges of wealth and power in marriages before (it's often been a basis for marriage) that but DaBeers managed to shift that in culture in the west to the diamond ring. It's now so deeply ingrained in culture and people's perceptions that it can make otherwise rational people irrational.

Do not ever underestimate the power of propoganda in its various forms. Pyschogical manipulation runs rampant in business marketing and these are the effects. We've culturally accepted it for a variety of reasons. I question if we should continue to accept these practices in business.

This is partly a myth. More important was the non legal enforcement of engagements. Many couples in the past would start to have sex when engaged. If the engagement is not legally secure, the diamond basically serves as signal. That why 3-month salary make sense.

If I buy a 3-month salary worth diamond I'm probably not gone leave you after a month.

Its an easily portable high value item that also serves as signaling for the person wearing it. It makes more sense then livestock in the modern world.

Marketing had something to do with it, but its more complex then that.

> Its an easily portable high value item that also serves as signaling for the person wearing it. It makes more sense then livestock in the modern world.

Jewelry is not a great value store, unless you're fine with selling it at a significant loss. Diamonds specially, unless they're rare, seem to magically lose a lot of its value as soon as they print your receipt.

To be honest, I find the whole love-engagement-sex-wedding handling retrograde and inappropriate for the current times.

>Jewelry is not a great value store, unless you're fine with selling it at a significant loss

Neither is a car, but they're both still very strong signals of wealth (specifically, that you could afford to burn the money).

However, if you want jewelry as a value store, you deal in gold and silver (mainly that it can be melted down)

This is true but this happen partially over time and the more important function is the initial signal.

And displaying the wealth that is mobile is also an important signal.

Pure economics would suggest a small gold bar would make more sense if you want to signal commitment.

> To be honest, I find the whole love-engagement-sex-wedding handling retrograde and inappropriate for the current times.

Me to but that is not the discussion.

To the incredulous: the argument is that expensive engagement rings helped fill the cultural gaps left by the repeal of Breach of Promise to Marry laws. The supporting evidence is an apparently strong geographic correlation between repeal of these laws and increases in high-value diamond engagement rings, the latter beginning after the start of the repeal movement yet before the infamous De Beers marketing campaigns.

For the overview: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/the-str...

The original research paper: Margaret F. Brinig, Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization Vol. 6, No. 1 (Spring, 1990), pp. 203-215 (13 pages), https://www.jstor.org/stable/764797

Wikipedia page on Breach of Promise to Marry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_promise

Correct story, but arguably the wrong war. The allies in WWI really invented much of modern propaganda, paving the way for Berneys, Lippmann et al. to refine those methods for marketing use. Hitler and Goebbels both wrote about the manipulative and underhanded use of propaganda by the allies as being the cause of Germany's defeat in WWI and seemingly carried a lot of resentment about it (while simultaneously trying to outdo them)

I brought my now-spouse along for ring shopping, on her own theory that she'd be wearing the thing and should therefore have some input. She was actually more opposed to mined diamonds than I was at the time. We talked about this extensively, and considered both lab gems and corundum gems (ruby/sapphire).

We went through over a dozen jewelry stores, each of them pushing mined diamonds so hard that it angered us. The eventual solution wasn't even that we found an amenable jewelry store. We ended up obtaining a ring via a private transfer from a family member. While the ring contains a mined diamond, it has quite a bit of sentimental value and didn't really put price pressure on the public market. It was a good solution for us, but obviously not scalable!

I was fortunate in this regard. My wife inherited her mother's wedding ring. When it came time for us to get married, we took that ring to a jeweler who mounted the diamond in a setting that my wife picked out. The ring has great sentimental value for my wife at a modest cost. We never had to have the conversation about a mined diamond vs a synthetic diamond.

>While the ring contains a mined diamond, it has quite a bit of sentimental value

If I said it once, I have said it a million times, if your SO insists on a diamond from the ground as opposed to a lab, say fine, but I am getting my shots flying to Africa and will mine it myself. It won't matter if you bring back a opaque brown rock, with 0 marketing your SO would wear it with pride and most others would be jealous when they hear the story behind it.

It goes hand in hand with your obtaining a stone from family and the sentiment of it. My Mom has 5 boys and my Dad gave her a ring with 5 diamonds, and she has made 1 available to each of us for an engagement ring, which she would replace with the birthstone of each son. As you say its not scalable, and no one ever marketed the idea, but the sentiment is extremely powerful.

for most people what you describe is even more expensive and impractical than buying a mined diamond

Impractical, sure. But the average cost of a 7 day trip to Freetown, Sierra Leone is less than 1/2 the average cost of an engagement ring. $2,500 compared to $5,500 on average.

Then there’s time cost, fitting cost, other materials cost, are you a jeweler? if not, jeweler cost…

> but I am getting my shots flying to Africa and will mine it myself. It won't matter if you bring back a opaque brown rock, with 0 marketing your SO would wear it with pride and most others would be jealous when they hear the story behind it.

That's a great idea, but I don't know of any place you could do that in real life. Diamonds can be very valuable depending on size, color, clarity etc. Diamond mines have heavy security around their miners to ensure a tiny little diamond doesn't go missing.

There is zero chance they'd let a tourist in.

Someone I know smuggled a diamond purchased in South Africa for their spouse and the diamond and story behind that were both well appreciated.

I love the idea of some valley-esque tech nerd turning up in a hellhole African diamond mine and getting merc'd by child laborers over his iPhone.

I see where you are going, but honestly the generalizations are pretty sad.

You might be surprised of the acceptance of an outsider showing a willingness to roll up their sleeves and experience something real not just sip drinks on a beach resort, even if it is for a day or two. Similarly if you met a child laborer or former child soldier outside those conditions, odds are you would have no idea of their personal experience.

I have met many child refugees that have more Worldly experience than most adults, yet if I did not represent them in asylum proceedings and meet them while they were detained, they would have simply appeared as children in my eyes. I have been part of law clinics that represented torture victims from some of the regimes you have in mind. The child soldiers, much less the child laborers, are not mercing people for their cell phones.

If you are a reader, I might suggest two books: 1) The Evolution of Deadly Conflict in Liberia; and 2) Storming the Court.

My experience was different. I ended up going to one of the Shane Company stores on the west coast and the salesperson didn't push diamonds at all. She showed me damn near every red/pink sapphire in the store until I found one I wanted to present. And when it turned out my wife didn't like the color as much as I thought they bought the old stone back at full-price and sold us a new one in a color she loves.

I would have immediately ended it right there, but that's probably why I'm single. Every time I was in a relationship long enough to discuss marriage, I made it clear that there is no way I would ever buy a diamond. Only one was actively on board with it, because she liked the idea of picking out an alternative gem.

Take the money and have a nice honeymoon, buy two $5 seashell necklace at the beach. There are so many ways to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars that are way better than investing them into small chunks of metal.

Agreed, but I was OK with spending the money, what really bothers me is how worthless diamonds are. Metals have a relatively free market, many uses, and are fungible, so the pricing is more in line with reality.

The gold in a typical engagement ring is worth something like $50-100. Not sure what you spent, but the same people peddling mined diamonds are also massively up-charging on the band.

I have no problem paying for craftsmanship, artistry, and service. The piece should be worth significantly more than it's raw materials. My problem is when the price of the raw material is being artificially controlled. While I'm sure there are shenanigans going on with all valuable materials, I can't think of any that are as blatantly a scam as diamonds.

Some wise older friends of ours literally wear hose clamps as wedding rings. Adjustable over the course of their lives.

I went to a wedding and the two friends tied a knot as per middle-age European tradition.

The knot was then packaged inside of a chest, as a reminder of the promise they made on their Wedding Day. And as far as I know, they still have that chest with them, and the Knot is still tied.

Look at it as a proof of work. What matters is you burned a certain chunk of your life for her.

This is the best and most succinct explanation.

But why wouldn't she want a larger fancier diamond for the same work?

Because it has to be mined.

Its crypto, but with carbon..

and most electricity going into mining crypto comes fron coal

From a status signaling point of view, it's the difference between a real van Gogh and a reproduction from Dafen Village.

That makes it worse.

Not really. If that's what that person values and you want that person, that's what you're gonna have to do. Being a relationship means doing things you don't agree with sometimes.

It's proof of capability. Sort of like peacock feathers. "Look, I can carry around this obscene tail and still not get eaten! How's them genetics?"

For humans, it's, "I have excess resources I can afford to burn according to the socially-accepted ritual or test, so when you bear my offspring, you can be sure I will also have excess capacity to provide for both you and your offspring."

A female may have second thoughts about choosing you as a mate if you appear to cheat at the test or don't do the test right.

The spell is called herd mentality. People don't like to be losers, so women wear shiny stones and men drive cool cars. Both want to send the message "I'm not a loser". Appeal to science has no bearing on the herd opinion. Your gf was basically terrified that her friends would laugh at her lab grown diamond and her weak scientific arguments won't raise her ingroup status. Edit: I'd add a snarky observation that a diamond is essentially a notarized letter of "love" where the shop gets paid as the notary and your gf gets the proof of your deposit. The stone itself isn't worth much.

IMHO that she is looking really hard for allegories, symbols, representations, of your love is a really good sign for a successful marriage, one that will hopefully really, without doubt or question, last "for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, forsaking all others, 'tell death do you part". So when the two of you get old and wrinkled, not see or hear so well, have joint pains, the children have moved away and you don't see the grandchildren often enough, you will still have your love for each other that you celebrate with the diamond, the accomplishments of your lifetime together, the stability of your marriage, your home, big times at Thanksgiving, the Holidays, your wedding anniversary, your birthdays, the birthdays of the kids and their graduations, accomplishments, marriages, births and children, the friends you have made all along, the memories in your home, etc.

Again, IMHO, one of the biggest problems in life is solving the problem of being alone, and for nearly everyone the best solution is a really good marriage.

Here is a secret scorecard:

You give knowledge of yourselves to each other, that is, keep your spouse well informed on your thoughts and feelings.

You really care about each other.

You respect and respond to each other.

Neither of you tries to manipulate, fool, or exploit your spouse.

You can trust each other.

IMHO, it is good to do well on this scorecard.

You generalize and project your own life preferences on others. Please don't tell what is best for me. There is no problem to solve whatever.

I avoided this by discussing the size of the diamonds in dead slaves rather than carets. Once I realized it didn't bother her to consider the dead slaves, I knew the "natural" diamond was what she wanted, so that's what she got. She may have genuinely believed it when she said the size of the stones didn't matter, but you can't deny how good she felt when other women fawned over it and were jealous that her stones were bigger/shinier.

It's all about status signaling. The whole concept of the ring is a literal status symbol, signaling you're off the market. We can get upset about this particular status signal all we want, but it's not as if it's any less moral than any other status signal we participate in. That new phone was made by slaves. The car was built by raw materials mined in awful ways, possibly with slave labor. We can't go down this rabbit hole with everything in our life. I recommend making small nudges when we can in our own lives, but try not to get too worked up over any of them, it's not good for your mental health.

Married about 12 years (together 16). I bought my then future-wife a ring for $200. She didn't care it was small or that it was a tiny fraction of my salary - we both wore our rings for everyone else for a year or so... My personal do-over would be to have purchased an even cheaper ring (or none at all) so we could buy more useful things, and she would agree.

In any case, the spell doesn't work on everyone.

Depending on how long ago this happened, you may either already know this or have since worked through it but this was probably not really just about the ring.

I think the comments attacking your partner may be assuming that this "uncharacteristic tears and shouting" was some sort of irrational hysteria rather than the boiling-over of simmering problems.

Maybe I'm the one reading too far into it though.

Nah, I don't think so. + it's not an irrational reaction, can't logic out of it.

Apparently a lab grown diamond meant my love for her was also artificial [...]

Why then a ring [with a diamond] at all? It's nothing special at all, just what everyone does. Almost the definition of replaceability and arbitrariness. There is no connection between the relationship and a random ring with a stone you buy at some random jewelry store. Why not something individual, specific to the relationship? Every $1 toy ring used as a wedding ring is more personal and telling than any thousands of dollars ring with a diamond.

It is not a rational argument, result of some cultural indoctrination. Media, friends, peers... Everyone is susceptible to such influence to some degree but not aware. Still, must be sad to witness.

Yes, seeing an otherwise healthy, and free-thinking human being turn through their behaviour into almost a sub-sentient machine running pre-programmed scripts, would errode a bit of the soul in almost everyone. As some of their childhood naivete is forever extinguished. At least now they’ve gained through this experience a deeper perception of the true nature of reality.

I sincerely wish you good luck in your marriage, you’re going to need it.

That seems a little harsh? Even people in the best marriages sometimes have emotional, irrational disagreements

This is a particular telling one, however.

Many women won't directly tell their partner "I want you to spend a couple months' salary on a beautiful diamond" because it's tasteless to request and it removes all the meaning behind the man doing so, but they'd also be disappointed if the man didn't do so unprompted. People and their emotions are complex like that.

I don't think there's any glaring issue with either party above, but it's like you expect all women in your life to be like many people on HN — hyper-rational, utilitarian devs who would never want a mined diamond because a cheaper artificial one with better clarity exists. It's not wrong, but it's not right - there is no right answer here. Traditional ideas of romance are a powerful force.

It's like typical "I don't need anything for my birthday". Even the most rational people tend to get disappointed if they really get nothing.

I don't get disappointed. The best gift you can get me for my birthday is remove the obligation for me to get you one on yours. Saves so much mental energy and time.

Same, even though I've been bit by it.

After rationally agreeing not to get anything (because we were about to move overseas on a couple of luggages and didn't want extra stuff) my SO got me 3 (3!! usually it was one per event) gifts and I was empty handed.

And I had to resell / returns some of the items as we were moving anyway and we could just buy better quality stuff later on, without having to pay for the move.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gift_(essay)

I always liked the associated page for Gift Economy -- reading it is when I first realized there are multiple credit systems in play at any given moment, beyond raw currency.

I try to tell people I don't have a birthday anymore. Because if I tell people not to get me anything, sometimes they hear please get me something. Ugh.

> I try to tell people I don't have a birthday anymore.

Never thought of that. I'd imagine the ensuing conversation is even more problematic though? "What do you mean you don't have a birthday? That makes no sense!"

No, just respond with "I stopped caring".

Maybe could also tack on that you count winters to tell your age.

I mean it usually goes "No really? When's your birthday" "I don't have one, thanks" and usually dies off from there.

I mean, if I have to put it on a form, that's one thing, but like office people don't need to know when it is.

I normally just tell them "it was a few weeks back". This gives a full year for them to forget about it and has a sufficiently vague period of time that they can't nail you next year should they remember.

Nope. I dont want or need more shit.

Um, no, I've never gotten disappointed. I've been married for a decade and the hubby and I don't do material gifts, ever.

I'd be much more disappointed in some useless trinket I don't need and would feel obligated to keep.

Did you miss the part where she gas-lit him? She agreed with all the points about moissanite/etc and then got bent out of shape when he took her at her word. Clearly all that was a "test" that he was supposed to "pass". I rarely see happy marriages with that kind of behavior as a baseline. God forbid he get her Carnations and a nice dinner for Valentine's day, she'll likely ignore the dinner and focus on why he didn't get her roses instead.

It's also a weird interpretation. My response would have been something like "moissanite has better visual properties, is free of all slave/conflict concerns, and saves us money for the honeymoon, so our love shines brighter, is built on a pure foundation, and will give us experiences we'll never forget".

More over it's extremely materialistic. Someone who loves you is pledging their life to you. Assuming the ring in question is fundamentally tasteful, is it too much to ask to focus on the life pledge instead of the $$ value of the symbol?

But I guess I lucked out. My wife rarely takes off her vintage ring with syntehtic rubies and a couple of tiny real accent diamonds on yellow gold (because that's what it came with). I knew her aesthetic tastes and got her something that matched those tastes, and it's unique enough that it stands out amongst her sisters/friends. And it certainly wasn't two months' salary, which she well knows. We didn't have that amount in savings at the time.

I didn't view it as gaslighting, I viewed it in the way I said it: she may have not wanted to demand a 'genuine' diamond, so she left it open-ended. What woman wants to demand that when asked for preference? Demanding it would remove the sincerity and meaningfulness of the man's gesture.

On the note of carnations for Valentine's Day, I'd view it in much the same way. Unless she's told you how much she adores and prefers carnations on Valentine's Day, roses are the best bet.

My partner and past partners have always fit that type, and I don't think either is lucky or better or right. I personally enjoy the tradition and the unspoken symbolism in the gifts, and striving to make her happy without it being spelled out for me.

I'm happy you have someone who makes you feel lucky, and who matches your preferences for communication and a relationship — finding that is possibly the greatest feeling in life. I simply aim to point out that either are valid, normal preferences and dynamics, as opposed to one being gaslighting.

> Unless she's told you how much she adores and prefers carnations on Valentine's Day, roses are the best bet.

Um, she did say with regards to the gem, that's the confusing part.

A woman saying she doesn't mind carnations, and that she thinks carnations are fine, is not nearly the same as saying she adores them and prefers them for the occasion of Valentine's Day.

When the stakes are that high however, this is the definition of poor communication. No one's a mind reader, and how many other unspoken expectations are there?

This is basically obvious to the point of being a trope in our culture, so I'd argue it's actually not that hard. Sure, it's not perfect or well communicated, but it's not mindreader-level.

Do you have a newsletter? You seem knowledgeable.

That's really kind of you and has made my day! I've been thinking about one but haven't found the time; this definitely nudges me towards that so thank you.

If you ever want to chat about something though, feel free to reach me at the email in my profile. Always great to meet new people, especially in these times. :)

there's nothing rational about HN's brand of rationalism - which is really just materialist reductionism. In this thread alone are dozens of people completely blind to the concept of social signals, thinking instead about price, clarity and the vague notion of distant moral dilemmas. Beyond basic survival requirements, social signals are one of the most important concepts in human society! To exclude them from your considerations is deeply irrational in the unique way that developers often are.

Except this particular social signal was entirely made up by a corporation. Social signals that cost significant resources for something worthless are stupid.

> Except this particular social signal was entirely made up by a corporation.

They didn't make it up, they just made a display of wealth (and therefore social status) associated with their product. Brands do that all the time but the signal has always existed.

The advertising serves to put the association between the product and wealth into the common knowledge - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge_(logic). Or in other words, everybody knows that everybody knows that rings are expensive.

> Social signals that cost significant resources for something worthless are stupid.

No, you just don't understand social signals, which was my point. The "costing significant resources" part is the whole idea. Wedding rings and fresh kicks aren't expensive because they're valuable, they're valuable because they're expensive. If you want to understand the idea, check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory#Honest_signa.... It makes perfect sense (ie, it's rational).

It's equivalent to saying, "I am willing to burn all of this valuable money to prove that I value you".

If we only bought things that were of purely-material value, we'd stop at food, weather-protective but un-aesthetic clothing, and basic shelter. Everything beyond those is social (or hyperreal).

>> Social signals that cost significant resources for something worthless are stupid.

> No, you just don't understand social signals, which was my point.

I don't think OP denies the utility of signaling, only that as an intelligent human being, one must not feel absolutely helpless in accepting and perpetuating all instances of signaling that their peers do.

There are many different cultures with strong means of signaling one's devotion to a partner, without having to essentially burn a small fortune to enrich an exploitative industry. It doesn't even have to be non-materialistic. Many cultures have the gold ring/necklace. It's a signal of a fortune spent, and a retained safety net because gold is tradable.

I can understand disagreeing with social signalling, but this comment tree is rife with people dismissing social signals as irrational, or completely missing the plot by pointing out that you could get a synthetic diamond for much less money. It just speaks to ignorance rather than disagreement.

Yeah, I agree. I'd go even further and say that although the tech conversations on HN are substantive, the vast majority of non-tech conversations are devoid of social awareness (in the same way as a bunch of developers who don't get out much). For example, sometimes people here don't register deference as a prosocial aspect of cooperation. When you say "I'm no expert, but..." on HN, people take it literally.

If you want to get a ring for your significant other, the whole point is to buy something unnecessary as a symbol of the organic constance of your love. Nobody needs a diamond ring. If you tell a woman that her diamond came from a lab, you should accompany that fact with a better narrative than "this was the most economical rock available within your preference constraints."

She wants to love her ring, so give her a reason. Tell her that you wanted to buy her something big without feeling like it was an extravagant use of your shared nest egg. Explain why gem clarity is so important to you, because your vision of the future as a couple is unmarred by doubt. Talk about how lab-grown gems are a more ethical trade and symbolize a desire to avoid unnecessary conflict in your relationship. Remind her that even a diamond is not forever, so if she wants another ring next year you'd be happy to propose again with a superior gem.

> When you say "I'm no expert, but..." on HN, people take it literally.

I'm not understanding this. What other way to take this is there? "I'm no expert, but" is indicating that -- oh, I think I see what you mean by the non-literal meaning, maybe.

The literal meaning would be a disclaimer as to how much others should take one's perspective into account / how much others should trust/believe what one is saying,

whereas the non-literal meaning would be indicating that the situation is kind of sarcastic or something, either because one is well versed in the topic, and therefore should be considered credible, or because the thing being said is obvious and usually shouldn't even need to be said.

Is that right? Is this the distinction you meant?

edit : I'm sure I'm kind of serving as an example of your point by saying this, but, whatever, I don't regard that as a problem.

the non-literal form is showing humility. It's not sarcasm - even if you are a literal expert (as in SME) on the topic it's acknowledging that you are still aware of your own fallibility - as the parent said.

I don't think I've ever met anybody in real life that interacted the way HNers do. I always assumed it was a social affect where everybody pretends to be a robot because that's the culture of the site, in the same way people form pun chains on reddit. Is this an American thing, or maybe just a software engineer thing? I mean, I work in the software industry as a developer (granted, in the UK) so I figured I would've run into it by now if it were industry specific.

Thanks for the clarification. I don't know that I've seen experts in a topic say that they aren't experts in the topic as figurative speech for humility. That sounds like it would be confusing?

Well, I believe I've seen experts saying that they aren't an expect in the particular sub-topic in question, even if they are an expert in (another sub-topic of) the same general topic. Like, saying that there are people with more expertise than them in the specific sub-topic at hand. And maybe they might phrase this as "I'm not an expert" without specifying the specific subtopic, before commenting on a question of the specific sub-topic. This doesn't strike me as figurative though. Perhaps I've just been misinterpreting though, and they mean "I'm not an expert" figuratively, rather than literally meaning "I'm not an expert in this specific sub-topic"?

I think the "everyone pretends to be a robot" is, partially a software engineer thing? (Or, rather, correlated with the sort of person who would enjoy programming-ish stuff. ) Not literally pretending to be a robot. Rather, a combination of naturally acting in a certain way that could be described as analogous in some ways to a robot, and an imitation (and sometimes exaggeration) of behaviors which one has seen in oneself and in others who one kinda "identifies with", or aspiring towards an ideal or idea which has been constructed around those kinda of behaviors (possibly with this idea including things that aren't really naturally part of the behaviors, but by accidents of chance and misunderstanding, became part of a cultural idea ).

I've previously told someone that I don't really ever "feel like a robot", but I do often "feel like the sort of person who would sometimes 'feel like a robot' " .

> In this thread alone are dozens of people completely blind to the concept of social signals, thinking instead about price, clarity and the vague notion of distant moral dilemmas.

> Yeah, I agree. I'd go even further and say that although the tech conversations on HN are substantive, the vast majority of non-tech conversations are devoid of social awareness

Social signaling and status symbols come up frequently on HN, and in this thread no less. Truly, in ordinary circles these concepts don’t come up and people aren’t even aware that what they’re doing is a concept that’s studied.

> Beyond basic survival requirements, social signals are one of the most important concepts in human society!

These social signals are a core human survival mechanisms since at least the birth of agriculture. When the climate turned for the worse or food was scarce, nomadic tribes just migrated to an environment with better conditions. In an agricultural society, clans had to develop a different mechanism that took advantage of agriculture's strength: large surpluses around harvest time that couldn't easily be stored through the winter. This is where the concept of banquets was born and there's archaeological evidence of hunter-gatherers and farmers participating in them together in the Early Neolithic, when agriculture just getting started.

Instead of moving to find food, humans adapted to create strong social bonds between clans by elaborate social signals. Banquets, parties, and feasts were fundamentally saying "we've got a surplus now and we'll share it with you with the understanding that you'll share your surplus when you have one." Dowries and marriages were just a formalization of that unspoken social contract. Today someone might throw a big wedding or party as a show of status but back then, they were grand events because all of the best food spoiled quickly and it served zero purpose to hoard it.

That said, what the diamond ring industry has evolved into is something quite new.

> This is where the concept of banquets was born

Good post which I don't mean to detract from, but this is certainly not true.

Even before sapiens, erectus and neanderthalensis were big game hunters. Sapiens in particular developed the tools for mass killings of migratory herds of large animals, and the ability to set fish traps for harvesting spawning runs.

Both of these left early hunter gatherers with abundant surpluses of meat at certain times of year, so much that preservation was the limiting factor in getting those calories into bodies. We know the response of the Tlingit people to this bounty from very recent history: they would throw huge banquets called potlatches.

Is this an American thing? I'm polish and this whole discussion is just mind boggling. I don't know anybody who would had such high (monetary wise) demands

Yes it is American. Getting down on your knees to propose, the engagement ring, the bachelor/ette party, the white wedding dress, the bridesmaids in matching outfits and flowers, the handwritten invitation cards, the tiered wedding cake, the wedding photographer, the reception dinner. It's the cultural script that little girls and boys learn to follow. .

I believe it is more of an English speaking world thing. The tropes of the white wedding come from people emulating English nobility.

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

Yep, to a large degree, at least. American thinking is thoroughly colonized by powerful corporations. In the absence of a real culture, you are left with consumerist zombies. So when Washington comes knocking at your door to "liberate you" and "spread freedom", just know that this is a large part of what they mean.

It seems it is, I'm Dutch and also don't recognise this at all (but not married yet, so who knows). It does remind me, again, how many HN and Reddit discussions so often are by default seem US-centric, until stated otherwise. I am very much willing to accept though that the fact that this annoys me a bit is my own problem.

In Sweden, it is more customary (at least for mixed-gender couples) to buy matching gold bands for the engagement, then a fancy wedding band for the female spouse (and optionally another plain gold band for the male). They typically have the names and dates of the engagement/wedding engraved on the inside, as well.

Both times I got engaged (only got married once, though), I brought my partner to the jewellery store to pick out rings we both liked, as it would be something we'd be wearing for a non-determined time and I'd say that being happy with that trumps the whole "propose with a ring out of nowhere in public".

It's more of a white people that watch movies thing I think. So yeah mostly American but you see pockets of it on different cultures, one of the common threads that I find is that people that like this also like their houses to look as if they were designed for the set of a romantic comedy.

Nah, there's rings from my ancestors that predates movies and we're from appalachia. It ain't much but an expensive valuable is a tradition that predates movies by a mile

It’s an American consumer culture thing.

When looking for a mate, animals often engage in so called "irrational" behavior to signal to the other party of their readiness and seriousness for mating. This is how, for example, peacocks get their ridiculous plumage.

And thus, when somebody "irrationally" buys a "worthless" ring for a hefty amount, it signals to some extent that one is serious, committed and financially capable of the proposed marriage.

It's often not that the partner wants the expensive thing, but more that they want a proof that the marriage is worth more than that expensive and useless thing, which they want precisely because it's useless objectively and the purchase is "irrational".

It's basically a trolley problem of "do I value my partner more, or my hard earned $XXXX more?" The forced irrational choice makes the game rational on a meta level. I don't disagree that the game kind of sucks, and there are other ways to build trust and understanding regarding the level of commitment between partners, but I consider the ring thing to be the "easy" way to do it. (which is why it's de-facto standard in many cultures)

I think the hatred against capitalism and marketing is slightly off the mark here, since capitalism is merely supplying these expensive things to satisfy the somewhat "biological" demand in our mating rituals. Capitalists might be unscrupulous, but somebody had to do it.

(Disclaimer in case it matters - I'm male, happily married to my wife, and bought a non-diamond ring as an engagement ring. I don't think this necessarily applies to any gender in any specific case, but generally speaking so far as humans are animals, the biological aspect dominates)

If we’re talking about the animal kingdom POV, then an expensive diamond is physical proof of the male’s resourcefulness and ability to provide for young. I would argue that if the diamond was displaced as this proof then it would shift to another physical object that’s publicly displayed such as a house or car.

I agree, but at the same time, we're much more intelligent than penguins, so it's a shame that we also signal commitment with a fancy rock. Something like a work of art or rare book would serve the same purpose but would have more personal meaning.

I wanted to say you've committed the naturalistic fallacy, but actually, you've also misrepresented the meaning of mating behaviors in essential ways and made a few tacit and unwarranted jumps in between.

Humans are rational animals. Yes, obviously we have natural inclinations (they aren't irrational, btw; they have a purpose and only when the inclination is disordered, deficient, excessive, or we behave in ways opposed to the good when moved by the inclination can we speak of irrationality). However, we can make errors in judgement when interpreting signs and relating these signs to our inclinations. Marketing is often actively engaged in confusing people when it comes to what things mean. And when we get the meanings of signs wrong, we relate things erroneously to our natural inclinations. So this very recent practice of buying extravagant diamond rings beyond our means is the product of psychological manipulation and deceit that exploits vice and inclination by effectively lying about what an overpriced diamond ring signals.

It would be an error to assume that a woman from a culture that values thrift would react positively to such a gift, much less demand it. She might be left thinking that the man is financially irresponsible. Most cultures do not make spending obscene amounts of money on a ring a common practice. The engagement ring has historically been a symbolic gesture, not a demonstration of irresponsibility, immodesty, profligacy, and vanity.

In the case of peacocks, they ARE their plumage. Their plumage is not a sign of seriousness, but a sign of fitness and health and shaped by inherent traits and female selection (her interpretation or recognition that the better the plumage, the better the health), not male initiative. The peacock also isn't willing his plumage.

You can just as easily construe the ring as a test of your potential wife's character. If she refuses to marry you because you haven't spent a fourth or more of your salary on a ring, then good riddance. Who wants to be saddled with a fraudulent, vain, and vapid creature like that. She would make a terrible mother.

Different cultures uses different displays to convey status. In cultures which do not place similar importance on a diamond ring, they may place equal importance on other displays, such as a large wedding banquet or purchase of a residence. Regardless of the specific expression of status in various cultures, I would think that they exist as a constant across all cultures.

In many cultures, marriage was traditionally a more convoluted affair, involving both families and there's a strong preference to marriage with a family that your family knows and trusts. The socio-economic status of prospective mates and their families are considered. There's a solemn ritual in a religious setting where all members of the community are invited to witness an oath. And thus the expensive shiny thing isn't _as_ necessary, although often expensive gifts are exchanged anyway.

These days people get married with somebody they met on Tinder for a month because "true love". The weight of a promise from a person you met for a couple weeks and from a family you've known for decades is different, which accounts for the modern inventions you despise as compensation.

I mean, I'm not saying this expensive ring thing is a desirable game to play, and I don't disagree that there are vain people out there, but the ring serves a particular purpose in the mating game of modern society, not just to satisfy some people's vanity.

(btw, if you think about it, an engagement ring isn't inherently that great for showing off. Most people put it away in a little box and wear a less conspicuous ring anyway.)

I don’t see what’s so hard to understand. The entire point of buying a ring is that you’re showing her how much you care by spending a bunch of money on something special. Instead, you decided to save money and get something that’s not as special, and that hurt her feelings.

The point is that its fucking stupid and a corporate mind game that is trivial to see through.

So, tell her that. You didn't need to be in a relationship anyway.

Yep, exactly what I did

Just chiming in to say that you can in fact be up front with your SO about your opinions on pretty rocks as a symbol of your relationship, and continue to have a happy, healthy relationship.

> showing her how much you care by spending a bunch of money on something special

If this is what the other person expects out of a relationship it's time to jump ship ASAP.

You conveniently left out the part where they discussed it and she said that it didn't need to be 'natural'.

There's nothing wrong with wanting a 'natural' diamond. But to mislead your partner as part of some sick test, and then make them feel like dirt for not having passed?

> But to mislead your partner as part of some sick test, and then make them feel like dirt for not having passed?

Women do this all the time. I agree it’s not a good behavior.

>When I showed her what I'd picked out, it quickly devolved into a lot of uncharacteristic tears and shouting. It took a few more tries, and then she explained. Apparently a lab grown diamond meant my love for her was also artificial, a budgeted ersatz stand-in for the real thing

I'm wondering how, if you picked it out, she even knew the diamond was lab grown? Did she start grilling you immediately? Or did she get the microscope out? Maybe I'm a total moron but I can't tell the difference by just looking at it.

Funny you noticed. (Natural) diamonds have certificates of authenticity, ostensibly for appraisal and insurance. When I told her I could print one up with the specs is when the arguments started.

Now try a "used" diamond.

shudders

Haha. Could you imagine the horror of a USED DIAMOND!

It reminds me of the scene in Lord of War about the atrocity of a “used gun”.

> Now try a "used" diamond.

The right “used” diamonds are often received better than fresh natural diamonds by recipients. But that depends a lot on the “origin story”.

Well, if you ever want an example of advertising working... (I realise it plays enormously on preexisting traditional cultural notions of value, but still, as mentioned, de Beers did quite the job). I had similar conversations pre-engagement, but felt forced into a real diamond once the time actually came.

"Real diamond" as opposed to zirconia, or did you mean natural diamond (as opposed to a real artificial diamond)?

Natural, as in what would commonly be referred to as a real diamond (yes, I realise they're they're chemically and structurally the same).

Edit: As I said in another reply, there's nothing illogical about it. If value is placed culturally and socially on natural diamonds, then they are valuable, regardless of if that value is "artificially" created via advertising of whatever. Lots of stuff is quite stupid if you look at it objectively, out of context. Doesn't mean it isn't true in context.

I truly mean this to be thoughtful and not antagonistic, and your notion of value being subjective is accurate. But I think I can somewhat snarkily summarize a lot of the doubt some HNers are feeling (I'm not saying I agree or disagree): it's basically saying diamonds are like NFTs.

EDIT: Just did a ctrl-f for NFT and I guess I wasn't the first to say that, although those comments are much lower on the page.

Oh, sure, not to going to disagree! I don't think it's being sarky to compare the two (although NFTs have slightly different cultural precursors), no offence taken. I also think that in this case many commenters [being human] have equally subjective notions of value (edit: which are also correct in context, I'm not just having a pop) but would just like to pretend that they do not, that they are being "rational".

> I don't know what kind of spell the diamond people cast on otherwise reasonable women to make them able to reduce the totality of a life and experiences shared together into a single crystalline bet, but they need to package it and sell it to the military.

If we can grow a perfect diamond, of seemingly any size, then finding a large, clear natural diamond is more special than buying a manufactured diamond. Then there’s the time involved, The natural process taking much more time. It’s hard for me to see why people think they are equivalent. Approaching an emotional subject with a logical mind won’t work. Yes they are the same but really they’re not.

Your mistake was not knowing enough about evolutionary biology. I suggest you read about Signaling Theory.

> My biggest mistake was including her in the decision. > When I showed her what I'd picked out, it quickly devolved into a lot of uncharacteristic tears and shouting.

I do not think you would have had a better experience if you did not include her.

There’s something about the fact that the stone on the ring spent millions of years being made and lying in the ground before being found.

Spouse was the same way.

There is a right answer. She absolutely will not tell it to you.

If you guess wrong that means you don’t love her.

It's from birth at this point. Generational indoctrination.

Its amazing how much society can make people believe such stupid illogical things

Where do you draw the line between marketing vs flat out lies? There's a conflict of interest between consumer and sales person.

I just tire of the subterfuge.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com