The mechanism proposed by the authors actually explained an interesting pattern for me - why people destroy value to signal superiority. Having lots of value (p

The mechanism proposed by the authors actually explained an interesting pattern for me - why people destroy value to signal superiority. Having lots of value (possessions, money, social capital) is already a hard-to-falsify social signal. But destroying the value significantly amplifies this effect. You're demonstrating that you must have a lot of less-visible value to be able to afford to do this. And then the act of destruction removes any unwanted side effects or false incentives for other parties involved. I'm pretty sure this is a general pattern of interaction as it's been observed in tribal societies around the world - destroying or sacrificing valuable property and gifts to "service the purpose of buying peace" (Mauss). And I think the destructive aspect of this must contribute to some behaviours which are hard to explain economically - large corporate behaviour, personal conspicuous consumption, inefficient charity work.