6 ms·

While we are likely aligned with regards to advertising, I would like you to consider a counter argument. The rock is a rock, but its exaorbitant price serves

While we are likely aligned with regards to advertising, I would like you to consider a counter argument. The rock is a rock, but its exaorbitant price serves as a threshold for potential mate selection. We may consider it crass, but animal kingdom is full of examples of females considering males based on specific criteria.

kikokikokiko 3y ago
Yes, it's perfectly expected for females (on average) to give a lot of value to "useless" demonstrations of fitness when selecting a mate. The peacock exists. But it's also perfectly expected for a male, if he's aware of these innate traits, when selecting a female partner, if he's looking for more important things other than looks and physical attractiveness, to give more "points" to different traits. In my case, intelligence was factor number 1. If she reaaally needs that stupid ring, she's out. In the end I got myself a PhD girlfriend, that is way smarter than me, and with whom I can have conversations way into my 80s. Mission accomplished. Thank you DeBeers for creating a standardized test to put potential wives through.
- matisseverduyn 3y ago
  > But it's also perfectly expected for a male, if he's aware ... looking for more important things ... I wonder if any Bowerbirds have shared your revelation.
  - hfuyf65 3y ago
    This a fascinating wiki entry. Thank you for making HN a more interesting place for all. On a separate note, it seems the ornate courtship is offset with regular polygamy. I might be reading too much into it and try to extrapolate to human behavior, which is way more messy.
    - matisseverduyn 3y ago
      Thanks! I thought those who hadn't heard about Bowerbirds yet might find their habits interesting :) There are a few good documentaries as well.
- corethree 3y ago
  We like to tell ourselves intelligence is a factor. But really male attraction preferences are based on physical looks. Personality is a close second but males are very simple in this department too. Men just want someone chill and nice and not crazy. Intelligence and career come in next as mostly not considered at all. The young hot girl working at Starbucks does better than a older jaded PhD girl. Especially if that PhD girl is superficially fat. Good conversation isn't a factor here. This is how most men operate. There are clearly exceptions. But more than exceptions there are men who lie to themselves and claim their base nature is above that. Additionally I will say that intelligence doesn't wipe away a womens instinct. They still covet some sort of tribute from a romantic standpoint. Women can have high intelligence and still desire a ring. They can suppress this desire but this suppression isn't related to intelligence. Think about it, it doesn't take high IQ to understand what a blood diamond is. Anyway sometimes in rare cases a man is highly desirable and extremely high value. If a man has a bunch of options among hot young women to choose from that is the only situation where intelligence plays a big role. Why not? Every woman is hot and nice and the only differentiator is intelligence. Go for it. That's probably your case. I imagine you have a bunch of hot super model esque girls pining for you and you picked the one who didn't want a ring and had a PhD. Good for you! Seriously. But note you are the exception not the rule.
  - nwellinghoff 3y ago
    I don’t think this is the case for most men I know. If you are just looking for “hot” you can date almost indefinitely these days. Marriage is a partnership and with the cost of living these days it might not be wise to choose “hot works at starbucks” over “smart and can contribute to the family”
    - corethree 3y ago
      The majority of men place looks as the primary factor. Even for marriage. For millions of years women have contributed only child care and house work to the family unit. For millions of years it is only men and the capability to hunt, strategize, use their strength to build shelter and farm that was critical to the survival of the family unit. Feminism and equal occupations is only a very recent phenomenon. Therefore when it comes to marriage men are biologically inclined to not look at "capability" or intelligence as a big factor. Evolutionarily speaking men are driven primarily by the fertility of the woman and personality as a second factor. Make no mistake, It is fair and just to give women equal rights but our biology is not equipped to fully account for this new reality. This female dating match maker with years of experience illustrates the preferences for both men utterly clearly: https://youtu.be/pAF0Ebg48A0?si=SmECgNA0Tsv2Cu0c https://youtu.be/pAF0Ebg48A0?si=SmECgNA0Tsv2Cu0c Additionally most men cannot date "indefinitely". Statistics show among dating apps women are exclusively dating a small pool of high value men. The majority of men do not get very many matches. Most of this is evident to most men. There are a few cases where this isn't evident: 1. You are a woman. Women tend not to be aware. This is the most likely scenario. 2. You are a high value man. Therefore you have an abundance of choices. Your reality is therefore different from most men. 3. You are a man and an exception to the rule. You are low value but you still value intelligence over looks. This is the least likely scenario.
- rad_gruchalski 3y ago
  > In the end I got myself a PhD girlfriend Did you have them lined up and you picked one?
  - kikokikokiko 3y ago
    Pretty much. That's what dating apps are for.
Roark66 3y ago
>The rock is a rock, but its exaorbitant price serves as a threshold for potential mate selection. Indeed, but don't we already have much more practical things that serve the same purpose? For example a nice house/apartment or a car. Things we own, even what kind of furniture we have. All this communicates ones ability to provide for a family better than a rock. Gold itself is much better (preferably in bars or coins, not jewellery). The problem with diamonds isn't that they are only a token of value. The problem is that they are extremely overvalued during the first purchase in jewellery. If one could buy an engagement ring for $10k then 10 years later sell it and make profit with regards to inflation (like it was a gold coin/bar) I would have no problem with it.
- corethree 3y ago
  Those don't work. The sacrifice must have zero utility. It's unequivocally clear to a woman and to all other women who she shows the ring too that the ring was 100 percent a tribute to her and only to her and only for that purpose. Like peacocking the peacocks feather has zero utility. It is purely a mating ritual. A car or a house is not as clear because it has shared utility.
  - corethree 3y ago
    The keyword is "romance" any romantic gesture tends to have zero utility. Buying a car or a house for a woman is not romantic at all. in terms of "romance" women tend to be looking for a clear and unequivocal display of devotion.

kikokikokiko 3y ago

Yes, it's perfectly expected for females (on average) to give a lot of value to "useless" demonstrations of fitness when selecting a mate. The peacock exists. But it's also perfectly expected for a male, if he's aware of these innate traits, when selecting a female partner, if he's looking for more important things other than looks and physical attractiveness, to give more "points" to different traits. In my case, intelligence was factor number 1. If she reaaally needs that stupid ring, she's out. In the end I got myself a PhD girlfriend, that is way smarter than me, and with whom I can have conversations way into my 80s. Mission accomplished. Thank you DeBeers for creating a standardized test to put potential wives through.

matisseverduyn 3y ago
> But it's also perfectly expected for a male, if he's aware ... looking for more important things ... I wonder if any Bowerbirds have shared your revelation.
- hfuyf65 3y ago
  This a fascinating wiki entry. Thank you for making HN a more interesting place for all. On a separate note, it seems the ornate courtship is offset with regular polygamy. I might be reading too much into it and try to extrapolate to human behavior, which is way more messy.
  - matisseverduyn 3y ago
    Thanks! I thought those who hadn't heard about Bowerbirds yet might find their habits interesting :) There are a few good documentaries as well.
corethree 3y ago
We like to tell ourselves intelligence is a factor. But really male attraction preferences are based on physical looks. Personality is a close second but males are very simple in this department too. Men just want someone chill and nice and not crazy. Intelligence and career come in next as mostly not considered at all. The young hot girl working at Starbucks does better than a older jaded PhD girl. Especially if that PhD girl is superficially fat. Good conversation isn't a factor here. This is how most men operate. There are clearly exceptions. But more than exceptions there are men who lie to themselves and claim their base nature is above that. Additionally I will say that intelligence doesn't wipe away a womens instinct. They still covet some sort of tribute from a romantic standpoint. Women can have high intelligence and still desire a ring. They can suppress this desire but this suppression isn't related to intelligence. Think about it, it doesn't take high IQ to understand what a blood diamond is. Anyway sometimes in rare cases a man is highly desirable and extremely high value. If a man has a bunch of options among hot young women to choose from that is the only situation where intelligence plays a big role. Why not? Every woman is hot and nice and the only differentiator is intelligence. Go for it. That's probably your case. I imagine you have a bunch of hot super model esque girls pining for you and you picked the one who didn't want a ring and had a PhD. Good for you! Seriously. But note you are the exception not the rule.
- nwellinghoff 3y ago
  I don’t think this is the case for most men I know. If you are just looking for “hot” you can date almost indefinitely these days. Marriage is a partnership and with the cost of living these days it might not be wise to choose “hot works at starbucks” over “smart and can contribute to the family”
  - corethree 3y ago
    The majority of men place looks as the primary factor. Even for marriage. For millions of years women have contributed only child care and house work to the family unit. For millions of years it is only men and the capability to hunt, strategize, use their strength to build shelter and farm that was critical to the survival of the family unit. Feminism and equal occupations is only a very recent phenomenon. Therefore when it comes to marriage men are biologically inclined to not look at "capability" or intelligence as a big factor. Evolutionarily speaking men are driven primarily by the fertility of the woman and personality as a second factor. Make no mistake, It is fair and just to give women equal rights but our biology is not equipped to fully account for this new reality. This female dating match maker with years of experience illustrates the preferences for both men utterly clearly: https://youtu.be/pAF0Ebg48A0?si=SmECgNA0Tsv2Cu0c https://youtu.be/pAF0Ebg48A0?si=SmECgNA0Tsv2Cu0c Additionally most men cannot date "indefinitely". Statistics show among dating apps women are exclusively dating a small pool of high value men. The majority of men do not get very many matches. Most of this is evident to most men. There are a few cases where this isn't evident: 1. You are a woman. Women tend not to be aware. This is the most likely scenario. 2. You are a high value man. Therefore you have an abundance of choices. Your reality is therefore different from most men. 3. You are a man and an exception to the rule. You are low value but you still value intelligence over looks. This is the least likely scenario.
rad_gruchalski 3y ago
> In the end I got myself a PhD girlfriend Did you have them lined up and you picked one?
- kikokikokiko 3y ago
  Pretty much. That's what dating apps are for.

Roark66 3y ago

>The rock is a rock, but its exaorbitant price serves as a threshold for potential mate selection. Indeed, but don't we already have much more practical things that serve the same purpose? For example a nice house/apartment or a car. Things we own, even what kind of furniture we have. All this communicates ones ability to provide for a family better than a rock. Gold itself is much better (preferably in bars or coins, not jewellery). The problem with diamonds isn't that they are only a token of value. The problem is that they are extremely overvalued during the first purchase in jewellery. If one could buy an engagement ring for $10k then 10 years later sell it and make profit with regards to inflation (like it was a gold coin/bar) I would have no problem with it.

corethree 3y ago
Those don't work. The sacrifice must have zero utility. It's unequivocally clear to a woman and to all other women who she shows the ring too that the ring was 100 percent a tribute to her and only to her and only for that purpose. Like peacocking the peacocks feather has zero utility. It is purely a mating ritual. A car or a house is not as clear because it has shared utility.
- corethree 3y ago
  The keyword is "romance" any romantic gesture tends to have zero utility. Buying a car or a house for a woman is not romantic at all. in terms of "romance" women tend to be looking for a clear and unequivocal display of devotion.