Hacker News Reader

Comment by arbuge | Hacker News Reader

"So here is a modest proposal: Let’s agree that diamonds are bullshit and reject their role in the marriage process. Let’s admit that as a society we got tricked for about century into coveting sparkling pieces of carbon, but it’s time to end the nonsense."

Hear hear, but good luck convincing zillions of single women that they'll be the first generation in living memory to miss out on their carbon.

View on HN

The carbon is a proxy (which is missed in the article, among other things.)

It's social signaling. Or to put it another way: How many $$ can your man throw away without incurring pauperhood?

So this becomes a social competition to see who can waste the most resources?

It sounds like it has barbaric roots -- who can provide the most food / kill the biggest animal / lift the heaviest rock / travel the fastest / find the rarest material / pay someone else the most money to do so.

You'll never find an end to the people who are willing to provide the same product for a higher price.

> So this becomes a social competition to see who can waste the most resources?

Slightly more subtle than that: Waste the resources without incurring financial hardship. That last part is important.

> It sounds like it has barbaric roots

Not unlike the mating ritual itself.

> You'll never find an end to the people who are willing to provide the same product for a higher price.

Again, it's more subtle: The social signal includes being able to discern and choose well among the competing alternatives.

De Beers enjoyed a monopoly on the market for a long time, so the prices were pretty much standardized across the entire marketplace. Yes, you could obviously find someone willing to sell you diamonds for more than what De Beers charged, but nobody would believe that you willingly paid more than "market rate". "Market rate" in this context refers to De Beers' monopolistic pricing, not actual market rate, which is actually peanuts because diamonds are in fact very common.

Like coloured feathers on a bird. Could you imagine if the story was just slightly changed:

"Let's admit that women buying sports cars for their fiancé-to-be is bullshit."

Hmmmm... Now I want a Z4 Zagato.

But in all seriousness this would have ended in the 70s when feminist protests started.

70s? Don't forget the Suffragettes!

> But in all seriousness this would have ended in the 70s when feminist protests started.

I started dating in the 70s: I thought it was a period of bizarre contrasts.

But then as time went by, I realized dating has been bizarre since the time we were all living in caves.

Let's just all agree that we can send a man to the moon but there will never be an algorithm that can help you figure out even 1% of the female psyche.

> Let's just all agree that we can send a man to the moon but there will never be an algorithm that can help you figure out even 1% of the female psyche.

This was the comment that convinced me that you are a sexist.

s/female/human/g

Considering the readership of this site will be predominantly male anyways..

(And for the love of pascal would you please stop bandying about the "sexism" label? It is literally nothing more than a personal attack that adds nothing to any conversation)

I meant it as a personal attack for the reprehensible views he has expressed in this thread.

How are they reprehensible? What exactly makes them reprehensible? I don't recall him saying anything an adult internet user should find offensive.

The man is expressing his opinion and if you're bothered by that, perhaps you should consider turning off your computer and not participating in internet discussions. There are plenty of places in this world where people won't offend your delicate sensibilities.

> expressing his opinion

He expressed his opinion that women are inscrutable and more susceptible to irrational impulses, but failed to provide any rational evidence of the same. This is sexist. The fact that it's "his opinion" and "his right to express it" buys him nothing in my book.

> consider turning off your computer

I'm fine where I am, thanks.

You're proving his point with your overreaction.

What point am I proving?

This was the comment that convinced me that you are a sexist.

I can honestly say that you are being over-sensitive here. It was a tongue-in-cheek comment. You should remove the stick.

Here's a link for the equivalent evolutionary theory: http://octavia.zoology.washington.edu/handicap_old/handicap_...

I agree with this. My wife wanted a ruby ring, not diamond, for our engagement. The expectation clearly was that it would still be expensive though!

The marketing campaigns by jewelers have first and foremost been successful at setting an expectation of big spending. The stone type itself might be somewhat negotiable.

> 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 sir. Simultaneously, my condolences to your bank balance.

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

:) My wife (also a PhD) accuses me of being able to formulate a theory for any data.

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

Even the stone too is pushed by tradition and marketing - birthstones have been standardised and adjusted at points by industry associations. :|

> How many $$ can your man throw away without incurring pauperhood?

Which tells me the woman is stupid, and not a keeper.

I'd rather have someone convince zillions of single women that they'll be the first generation in living memory not to get duped by JP Morgan in 1938.

I'm of the opinion that it's easier to lead people toward something better, rather than away from something bad. So instead of overpriced compressed carbon, how about paying for unique designs with rationally priced materials instead?

How about rings that convey some actual benefit to their bearer, like perhaps the ability to procure books and other supplies related to a child's education at no cost? Why make it a fashion statement, when you could make it something useful?

I thought part of the point is that it is conspicuous and expensive and, yeah, kinda wasteful. What better way to prove you have lots of money than by buying something expensive that depreciates dramatically in value once you buy it?

> 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"?

I'm not quite following you. A diamond ring communicates to your peers and acquaintances that you have money. A bank statement only does that if you go around showing it to people.

A big diamond ring communicates to your intelligent peers that you're stupid, shallow, insecure, and require peer approval to feel good about yourself. It says you wasted money on a worthless rock so your shallow friends will envy you; it's sad.

Technically speaking, marriage is as ridiculous as the diamond that symbolizes it. If you want to hang on to the symbol that marriage represents, why not include the symbolic diamond as part of that? Sure, it is just worthless carbon, but it doesn't need to be anything more.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com