4 ms·

If one is using the ability to procure diamond rings as an evaluation of suitability as a partner, as opposed to an evaluation of whether they can afford a diam

If one is using the ability to procure diamond rings as an evaluation of suitability as a partner, as opposed to an evaluation of whether they can afford a diamond ring (which may well be a proxy for one of the criteria for partnership - wealth - but not sufficient), then it can and will be gamed. If you're using a diamond ring as a proxy for whether someone truly loves you, I'd suggest you're opening yourself up to be taken advantage of. If you're using a diamond ring as a criteria for evaluating the wealth of a potential partner, I suppose that's a bit better. I wasn't suggesting that humans were above signalling theory. Just questioning whether it had any real utility for complex evaluations like "is this person reliable and trustworthy" or "is this person going to make a good partner".

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
The ring is a symbol of commitment (sunk a month's pay into it) from a person whom you have already done a pretty good screening on. Its not the only criterion; disingenuous.
- kannanvijayan 12y ago
  Then a months worth of pay, given cash in hand to the partner, or given to a charity in the name of the partner, should be an equivalent signal. Once again, I question the utility of screening based on this, even screening out on the basis of "not giving a diamond ring".
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    No, that's the neat thing about Costly Signalling. Giving the partner a month's worth of pay in cash is not equivalent, because in Costly Signalling the resource is wasted on purpose to demonstrate how inconsequential that resource is to the signaler. Giving the partner cash or giving to charity both have utility. A ring has no utility. Thus a ring is the only one of the three which can be a costly signal. If you had a hundred billion dollars to your name, you wouldn't care an ounce about spending ten thousand on a diamond ring. Ten thousand dollars just doesn't matter. But a minimum wage worker cannot say the same. The ring is a socially established demonstration of this.
    - kannanvijayan 12y ago
      I am not sure I buy that reasoning. The ring certainly has utility from the perspective of the giver: the giver knows that it is going to elicit a positive response. A donation to charity cannot be worn, cannot be accessorized, cannot be shown off. I disagree with your assessment - in today's society, a ring has far more social value than a charitable donation. The ring is shiny, and pretty, and can be socially displayed to elicit the attention of others. The example you provide re-affirms my point. The evaluation criteria you are reverting to is wealth. And as a heuristic for wealth, the ability to purchase an expensive ring is a reasonable metric. As a heuristic for a good partner, it is next to useless. As a screening criteria for the complex quality of "goodness" in partner, it is likely less than useless. If you are evaluating partners purely on their wealth and willingness to waste that wealth to enter into a partnership with you, then a ring is a more reasonable criteria. For an assessment on more nuanced basis (e.g. does the potential partner truly love me?), it is not a very good indicator, and may even be a contra-indicator precisely because it can be gamed easily.
      - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        Again, its not any of those things. You've already decided they're a good partner. The ring is a social contract in addition to that.
      - sliverstorm 12y ago
        And as a heuristic for wealth, the ability to purchase an expensive ring is a reasonable metric. And that is what it is. As a heuristic for a good partner, it is next to useless. On its own? Certainly. But wealth is an aspect to a good partner. All else being equal, the wealthy one is better.
sliverstorm 12y ago
it can and will be gamed Yes, there is cubic zirconia and things like that. But notice how society reacts, and rejects cubic zirconia? It isn't because cubic zirconia is inferior. It is because it is not expensive, so it makes for a poor costly signal!
- kannanvijayan 12y ago
  Not gamed in that sense. Gamed in the sense that a diamond ring is purchased not as a show of commitment, but with the intent that it will be perceived as a show of commitment by the receiver. If the giver knows that the receiver is treating the ring as a sign of commitment, they can decide "well I'm not really committed to this person, but I can help convince them that I am by buying them a diamond ring." At that point, the metric has been gamed.
  - tomjen3 12y ago
    How much is a pawnshops spread, anyway? Because you could buy a suitable ring there (it will have an icky feeling to most people, so it will be cheaper than a "new" ring) and then sell it back when you now longer needed her to think you were committed.
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    Diamond ring is purchased as a show of both wealth and commitment. The recipient is left to judge- if the giver is very wealthy, it is clearly not a strong sign of commitment. If the giver is very poor, it is clearly a strong sign of commitment.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

The ring is a symbol of commitment (sunk a month's pay into it) from a person whom you have already done a pretty good screening on. Its not the only criterion; disingenuous.

kannanvijayan 12y ago
Then a months worth of pay, given cash in hand to the partner, or given to a charity in the name of the partner, should be an equivalent signal. Once again, I question the utility of screening based on this, even screening out on the basis of "not giving a diamond ring".
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  No, that's the neat thing about Costly Signalling. Giving the partner a month's worth of pay in cash is not equivalent, because in Costly Signalling the resource is wasted on purpose to demonstrate how inconsequential that resource is to the signaler. Giving the partner cash or giving to charity both have utility. A ring has no utility. Thus a ring is the only one of the three which can be a costly signal. If you had a hundred billion dollars to your name, you wouldn't care an ounce about spending ten thousand on a diamond ring. Ten thousand dollars just doesn't matter. But a minimum wage worker cannot say the same. The ring is a socially established demonstration of this.
  - kannanvijayan 12y ago
    I am not sure I buy that reasoning. The ring certainly has utility from the perspective of the giver: the giver knows that it is going to elicit a positive response. A donation to charity cannot be worn, cannot be accessorized, cannot be shown off. I disagree with your assessment - in today's society, a ring has far more social value than a charitable donation. The ring is shiny, and pretty, and can be socially displayed to elicit the attention of others. The example you provide re-affirms my point. The evaluation criteria you are reverting to is wealth. And as a heuristic for wealth, the ability to purchase an expensive ring is a reasonable metric. As a heuristic for a good partner, it is next to useless. As a screening criteria for the complex quality of "goodness" in partner, it is likely less than useless. If you are evaluating partners purely on their wealth and willingness to waste that wealth to enter into a partnership with you, then a ring is a more reasonable criteria. For an assessment on more nuanced basis (e.g. does the potential partner truly love me?), it is not a very good indicator, and may even be a contra-indicator precisely because it can be gamed easily.
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      Again, its not any of those things. You've already decided they're a good partner. The ring is a social contract in addition to that.
    - sliverstorm 12y ago
      And as a heuristic for wealth, the ability to purchase an expensive ring is a reasonable metric. And that is what it is. As a heuristic for a good partner, it is next to useless. On its own? Certainly. But wealth is an aspect to a good partner. All else being equal, the wealthy one is better.

sliverstorm 12y ago

it can and will be gamed Yes, there is cubic zirconia and things like that. But notice how society reacts, and rejects cubic zirconia? It isn't because cubic zirconia is inferior. It is because it is not expensive, so it makes for a poor costly signal!

kannanvijayan 12y ago
Not gamed in that sense. Gamed in the sense that a diamond ring is purchased not as a show of commitment, but with the intent that it will be perceived as a show of commitment by the receiver. If the giver knows that the receiver is treating the ring as a sign of commitment, they can decide "well I'm not really committed to this person, but I can help convince them that I am by buying them a diamond ring." At that point, the metric has been gamed.
- tomjen3 12y ago
  How much is a pawnshops spread, anyway? Because you could buy a suitable ring there (it will have an icky feeling to most people, so it will be cheaper than a "new" ring) and then sell it back when you now longer needed her to think you were committed.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  Diamond ring is purchased as a show of both wealth and commitment. The recipient is left to judge- if the giver is very wealthy, it is clearly not a strong sign of commitment. If the giver is very poor, it is clearly a strong sign of commitment.