7 ms·

So people do this to signal (both to their spouse and their friends) they are both financially capable and care enough about their spouse to burn a large amount

So people do this to signal (both to their spouse and their friends) they are both financially capable and care enough about their spouse to burn a large amount of money on a pyre. It's also a very useful signal that you are serious about the commitment and unlikely to back off of the marriage. I would prefer to replace it with a certificate that proves you have spent X thousand dollars on said certificate from Moche Silnorin Inc. A less personally-beneficial alternative would be some sort of modern dowery, the recipient of which is Moche Silnorin Inc, who holds on to the money until the culmination of the marriage, after which the dowery is given to the wife and so reunited with its giver once they share finances. If the engagement gets broken off, Moche Silnorin Inc keeps the money. However, this raises the possibility of bondsmen. Which isn't a possibility with diamonds, with their awful resale value. So perhaps just a non-refundable expense in exchange for proof you've given X thousand dollars to Moche Silnorin Inc would be ideal.

amelius 10y ago
Another alternative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich
digitaltrees 10y ago
Check out this article, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/how-an-ad-campaign-invented-the-diamond-engagement-ring/385376/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/how... It shows how the concept of diamond engagement rings were completely invented by a specific ad campaign; first in America and now expanding to the rest of the world. They were specifically trying to create social pressure to buy the most expensive ring possible; to reinforce the impression that a diamond ring demonstrated wealth and ability to take care of a spouse; and even set the three months salary purchase price target most people reference. If there's ever been a greater con so openly and deliberately imposed on society, I can't think of one off the top my head.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- lqdc13 10y ago
  Everyone knows about it and yet everyone does it. It is like getting a luxury brand car or a watch or living in a certain part of town. All aren't practical. When social pressure is already there, you are asking the female partner to break the norm which can be tough.
  - Fiahil 10y ago
    Come on, it's 2016, the female partner can take care of herself. Valiant knights are not needed anymore, she's slaying dragons too.
  - delecti 10y ago
    It's even worse than those. A luxury car will probably be high quality, and might have extra features not standard on more reasonably priced cars. Living in a certain part of town is probably safer. A fancy diamond is only expensive because people think it can be expensive.
ajkjk 10y ago
It's definitely not just that, because placing huge import on diamonds, and gushing over their (much agreed upon) beauty, and having preferences for stones and cuts etc., and showing them off at the office, and talking about their size and how much they must have cost, and equating some of those things with the size of someone's affection and worth as a person, are still ubiquitous in (at least) American society. As far as I can tell they're only on the way out with bleeding-edge progressives.
- Moshe_Silnorin 10y ago
  >As far as I can tell they're only on the way out with bleeding-edge progressives. A demographic known for their immunity to costly signalling behaviors.
  - ajkjk 10y ago
    Just trying to work in a jab against that group?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - hueving 10y ago
    Which is why the Tesla model S is so wildly unpopular in the bay area.
    - findjashua 10y ago
      Totally. It doesn't serve any purpose other than signaling status, can't imagine what else anyone could possibly like about it. /s
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
pessimizer 10y ago
How would she wear the certificate? Across her chest like a sash?
- Cyph0n 10y ago
  Why does it need to be flaunted? As long as the couple is happy, that's all that matters.
morgante 10y ago
Exactly this. The problem with every diamond critique I see is that their very first argument against diamonds is that they're expensive when that is, in fact, the entire point. Likewise, all the people who cry foul about the De Beers conspiracy are neglecting the fact that this does absolutely nothing to reduce their signal value. If I spend a large sum of money on something which I know to be worthless just to start my engagement, that's an even better commitment than spending a large sum of money on something which I think is worthless. People who are anti-diamond should really focus on coming up with alternative signals which has better social outcomes. I would personally prefer some sort of trust, where if the engagement is successful the money is donated to our preferred charity—but if it's not, it's donated to a politician I despise. If we're dead-set on continuing to use pretty rocks as signals, someone should establish a monopoly on a gem which is impossible to procure from exploiting conflicts. They should still make it extremely expensive, but have all the mining be ethical.
- Can_Not 10y ago
  > If we're dead-set on continuing to use pretty rocks as signals Why do we need signals? Why does the social contract of marriage need an expensive down payment on essentially nothing? These are things modern cultures should be distancing themselves from. The down payment should be for a house or apartment, or just anything useful.
  - morgante 10y ago
    > Why do we need signals? Signals are an essential aspect of human behavior. I don't think trying to eliminate signaling is a productive goal. You yourself brought up the "social contract" of marriage. A contract is not very powerful if there aren't consequences for breaking it. So that's one crucial signal: we are committed enough to this relationship to spend money on something which is only useful as a signal. There's also the signals of "my mate is wealthy enough to buy me an expensive diamond" and "he cares enough about me to spend a large sum of money on something which has no useful purpose besides signaling his love for me." Simply wishing that these signals didn't exist won't make them go away. Useful things make poor signals because you might buy them without any intention of signaling anything. That's why glasses are a worse signal than jewelry, even though they cost just as much: you might be spending money on glasses because you need to see, not because you have money to burn.
nitwit005 10y ago
De Beers specifically ran ads suggesting that you should spend 2 months salary on your ring, and people bought that idea: http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/304/media/images/74843000/jpg/_74843895_2-months.jpg http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/304/media/images/74843000/jpg/_... When you go to buy a ring they even ask you how much you make some of the time. It's not so much a signaling mechanism, as companies trying to bleed as much as you can possibly afford out of you.

amelius 10y ago

Another alternative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich

digitaltrees 10y ago

Check out this article, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/how-an-ad-campaign-invented-the-diamond-engagement-ring/385376/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/how... It shows how the concept of diamond engagement rings were completely invented by a specific ad campaign; first in America and now expanding to the rest of the world. They were specifically trying to create social pressure to buy the most expensive ring possible; to reinforce the impression that a diamond ring demonstrated wealth and ability to take care of a spouse; and even set the three months salary purchase price target most people reference. If there's ever been a greater con so openly and deliberately imposed on society, I can't think of one off the top my head.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
lqdc13 10y ago
Everyone knows about it and yet everyone does it. It is like getting a luxury brand car or a watch or living in a certain part of town. All aren't practical. When social pressure is already there, you are asking the female partner to break the norm which can be tough.
- Fiahil 10y ago
  Come on, it's 2016, the female partner can take care of herself. Valiant knights are not needed anymore, she's slaying dragons too.
- delecti 10y ago
  It's even worse than those. A luxury car will probably be high quality, and might have extra features not standard on more reasonably priced cars. Living in a certain part of town is probably safer. A fancy diamond is only expensive because people think it can be expensive.

ajkjk 10y ago

It's definitely not just that, because placing huge import on diamonds, and gushing over their (much agreed upon) beauty, and having preferences for stones and cuts etc., and showing them off at the office, and talking about their size and how much they must have cost, and equating some of those things with the size of someone's affection and worth as a person, are still ubiquitous in (at least) American society. As far as I can tell they're only on the way out with bleeding-edge progressives.

Moshe_Silnorin 10y ago
>As far as I can tell they're only on the way out with bleeding-edge progressives. A demographic known for their immunity to costly signalling behaviors.
- ajkjk 10y ago
  Just trying to work in a jab against that group?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- hueving 10y ago
  Which is why the Tesla model S is so wildly unpopular in the bay area.
  - findjashua 10y ago
    Totally. It doesn't serve any purpose other than signaling status, can't imagine what else anyone could possibly like about it. /s
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

pessimizer 10y ago

How would she wear the certificate? Across her chest like a sash?

Cyph0n 10y ago
Why does it need to be flaunted? As long as the couple is happy, that's all that matters.

morgante 10y ago

Exactly this. The problem with every diamond critique I see is that their very first argument against diamonds is that they're expensive when that is, in fact, the entire point. Likewise, all the people who cry foul about the De Beers conspiracy are neglecting the fact that this does absolutely nothing to reduce their signal value. If I spend a large sum of money on something which I know to be worthless just to start my engagement, that's an even better commitment than spending a large sum of money on something which I think is worthless. People who are anti-diamond should really focus on coming up with alternative signals which has better social outcomes. I would personally prefer some sort of trust, where if the engagement is successful the money is donated to our preferred charity—but if it's not, it's donated to a politician I despise. If we're dead-set on continuing to use pretty rocks as signals, someone should establish a monopoly on a gem which is impossible to procure from exploiting conflicts. They should still make it extremely expensive, but have all the mining be ethical.

Can_Not 10y ago
> If we're dead-set on continuing to use pretty rocks as signals Why do we need signals? Why does the social contract of marriage need an expensive down payment on essentially nothing? These are things modern cultures should be distancing themselves from. The down payment should be for a house or apartment, or just anything useful.
- morgante 10y ago
  > Why do we need signals? Signals are an essential aspect of human behavior. I don't think trying to eliminate signaling is a productive goal. You yourself brought up the "social contract" of marriage. A contract is not very powerful if there aren't consequences for breaking it. So that's one crucial signal: we are committed enough to this relationship to spend money on something which is only useful as a signal. There's also the signals of "my mate is wealthy enough to buy me an expensive diamond" and "he cares enough about me to spend a large sum of money on something which has no useful purpose besides signaling his love for me." Simply wishing that these signals didn't exist won't make them go away. Useful things make poor signals because you might buy them without any intention of signaling anything. That's why glasses are a worse signal than jewelry, even though they cost just as much: you might be spending money on glasses because you need to see, not because you have money to burn.

nitwit005 10y ago

De Beers specifically ran ads suggesting that you should spend 2 months salary on your ring, and people bought that idea: http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/304/media/images/74843000/jpg/_74843895_2-months.jpg http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/304/media/images/74843000/jpg/_... When you go to buy a ring they even ask you how much you make some of the time. It's not so much a signaling mechanism, as companies trying to bleed as much as you can possibly afford out of you.