3 ms·

> diamonds actually serve a real need: they enable signalling of commitment This statement is logically inconsistent with reality. If "signalling of commitment

by tomp 11y ago

> diamonds actually serve a real need: they enable signalling of commitment This statement is logically inconsistent with reality. If "signalling of commitment" was a real need, why would only one party need to provide this signal? And not just one party (random), but a specific party (predetermined) - the man. You're right, however, that in the broader context, diamonds are an honest signal of affluence - by buying expensive, but useless stuff (conspicuous consumption) we send a strong signal about how much we can afford and how rich(-er) we are.

hammock 11y ago
Why does the male peacock have a colorful tail and the female doesn't?
- tomp 11y ago
  I mean, if we're reducing people to animals, we might as well ask, why does a new alpha male kill offspring of previous alpha males? In the past, women had to have a dowry to get married. There was probably a reason for that (economic or market reason, I guess). It probably wasn't a very good reason, and likely isn't very relevant today.
  - infinite8s 11y ago
    Dowries are still required in many cultures today, particularly rural ones.
  - facepalm 11y ago
    What makes you think it wasn't a very good reason? I think most problems of that kind boil down to economic issues. In some cases traditions might live longer than necessary (original reason has ceased to exist), which is another problem.
    - tomp 11y ago
      > I think most problems of that kind boil down to economic issues. Probably, yes. But whatever "economic" reasons there are, the cultural reasons were probably much more powerful. Maybe men were more scarce in the past than women. Wars might have accounted for that, but on the other hand, men have longer "expiration date" (when it comes to mating). Also, if men were so much rarer, why didn't polygamy develop? You could claim that women are weaker, so they were less "useful" in the past (when most labor was manual) and hence less valuable. On the other hand, without a woman, there would be no next generation, so each man needed a woman to ensure his survival in old age. These are the most obvious justifications I could come up with, and they don't sound very convincing. Let me know if you can think of any more.
  - lotsofpulp 11y ago
    People are animals, and I agree with facepalm that in many instances, it does boil down to economics. However, with diamonds, it seems as though many people are (in my opinion of course) overvaluing the utility of having something shiny to show off one's purchasing power.
facepalm 11y ago
Short answer: because wombs are more valuable than sperm.
- huherto 11y ago
  As much as we want to have equality between the sexes. This explains why we always end up with double standards. It is an asymmetric relationship at the biological level.

by tomp 11y ago

hammock 11y ago

Why does the male peacock have a colorful tail and the female doesn't?

tomp 11y ago
I mean, if we're reducing people to animals, we might as well ask, why does a new alpha male kill offspring of previous alpha males? In the past, women had to have a dowry to get married. There was probably a reason for that (economic or market reason, I guess). It probably wasn't a very good reason, and likely isn't very relevant today.
- infinite8s 11y ago
  Dowries are still required in many cultures today, particularly rural ones.
- facepalm 11y ago
  What makes you think it wasn't a very good reason? I think most problems of that kind boil down to economic issues. In some cases traditions might live longer than necessary (original reason has ceased to exist), which is another problem.
  - tomp 11y ago
    > I think most problems of that kind boil down to economic issues. Probably, yes. But whatever "economic" reasons there are, the cultural reasons were probably much more powerful. Maybe men were more scarce in the past than women. Wars might have accounted for that, but on the other hand, men have longer "expiration date" (when it comes to mating). Also, if men were so much rarer, why didn't polygamy develop? You could claim that women are weaker, so they were less "useful" in the past (when most labor was manual) and hence less valuable. On the other hand, without a woman, there would be no next generation, so each man needed a woman to ensure his survival in old age. These are the most obvious justifications I could come up with, and they don't sound very convincing. Let me know if you can think of any more.
- lotsofpulp 11y ago
  People are animals, and I agree with facepalm that in many instances, it does boil down to economics. However, with diamonds, it seems as though many people are (in my opinion of course) overvaluing the utility of having something shiny to show off one's purchasing power.

facepalm 11y ago

Short answer: because wombs are more valuable than sperm.

huherto 11y ago
As much as we want to have equality between the sexes. This explains why we always end up with double standards. It is an asymmetric relationship at the biological level.