8 ms·

I don't think it's complete nonsense - buying something useless and expensive is a very strong signal (like the peacocks tail). Buying something useful for the

I don't think it's complete nonsense - buying something useless and expensive is a very strong signal (like the peacocks tail). Buying something useful for the money instead is not the same thing at all. So while the diamond thing was created through advertising, it persists because it has a real function. Maybe it could be replaced by something else, but that would probably be something just as useless to demonstrate commitment. Still, if you can get by without the investment, good for you.

dietrichepp 12y ago
> ...buying something useless and expensive is a very strong signal... I see this comment every time engagement rings come up on Hacker News. Yes, it's a strong signal. But we're a bit smarter than that, and we can select mates who are smarter than that too. Perhaps this kind of peacocking will die out. Perhaps nature will select for mates who are level-headed enough to look at salary figures rather than shiny rocks. There are going to be a lot of people who realize that a down payment on a house or money in the bank will make their relationship more successful than a shiny rock will. I'm willing to bet on those people living and reproducing.
- facepalm 12y ago
  Down payments and savings don't prove commitment. The point of signalling is to prove things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory If you change your spouse, your savings account remains the same. The ring you paid for is gone.
  - dietrichepp 12y ago
    Right... but humans have a much richer way of signaling than most animals. My point is that some humans will find ways to signal commitment without sinking three months of their salary into a worthless rock. Signalling theory is an explanation for observed behavior, not a guarantee that such behavior will persist if the organisms in question develop alternative strategies. I like to think humans are pretty good at developing alternative strategies. Besides, if you get divorced, you don't get your down payment back anyway.
    - facepalm 12y ago
      Sure, as I said in another comment, diamonds could probably be replaced. But it would probably be by something just as useless. Or maybe if you can find a way to mimic the effect, but make it useful, you have your hands on a very valuable startup idea. I guess it would be something like helping friends move, which is considered a good signal for true friendship. I don't know (not an expert on this), maybe if you find a way to "help your spouse move" for the equivalent worth of 3 months of your salary, you are good. Why don't you get your down payment back if you get divorced?
  - k__ 12y ago
    The money is gone right from the start. Even if your spouse is with you till you die.
    - facepalm 12y ago
      The point is, changing spouses is expensive if they all want a diamond ring. So that custom is a shield against heavy spouse changing. The whole marriage thing is also extremely expensive. I suspect for similar reasons - so that people think twice before throwing it away. In that case they also have angry friends and relatives who invested into expensive travel and presents and probably wouldn't be too happy if it was all for nothing.
      - lurkinggrue 12y ago
        I guess I should be happy that I'm gay and the state won't let me get married so I don't have to deal with this BS. But then I've also been with the same person for 19 years who also things the ring this is a scam.
- petercooper 12y ago
  and we can select mates who are smarter than that too. That's really what it comes down to. But clearly there are many people who are quite happy making the compromise.
  - kylebrown 12y ago
    There are only a few outliers, by definition. So most people have to make the compromise. Coordination games work by punishing you when you don't follow the crowd.
ArcticCelt 12y ago
>buying something useless and expensive is a very strong signal (like the peacocks tail) And how did it help the peacocks to feed itself or outrun a panther? You will say "but the ultimate goal was to transfer his genes and he did". Yeah OK, so the ring is a lie and probably first bad financial decision in a future long strike of bad ones that help dudes to get laid and then get trapped in the rat race pay check to pay check.
- facepalm 12y ago
  The point of signalling is to prove fitness - the peacock can afford to carry around a huge tail because he is fit enough. Women walking on high heels PROVE physical fitness. The point is to create a signal that is hard to fake. Putting money into a down payment for a house doesn't signal commitment or financial strength. You would have had to pay for housing anyway. Throwing away x times your monthly salary shows commitment and financial strength.
  - dasboth 12y ago
    Financial security is obviously important, and I might be in a minority here, but I'd like to think that financial strength isn't a good basis for choosing a partner. Depends what you want out of a relationship I guess.
    - cmdkeen 12y ago
      Financial issues ruin marriages, moreso even than infidelity. "Richer or poorer" is the bit of the vow that might seem easy when you're young, in love and likely to get richer, but if a financial crisis destroys your social circle, uproots your children and severly challenges your lifestyle then it becomes very hard to overlook.
      - jerf 12y ago
        I'd also observe that "ability to live within ones means" is not necessarily a "richer or poorer" thing. There are those who will always live within, say, 80% of their free income until you literally hit the bottom where you can no longer survive, and there are those who will always live within 125% of their income, even if you give them a 25% raise every single year of their life. The first of these is marriable, the second effectively isn't. (Note my complete lack mention of any gender whatsoever, or any other characteristics. Regardless of what the population statistics may be based on any traits a person may have, what matters is whether this person standing in front of you can live within their means, and anyone has the capacity to pass or fail this test.)
Gravityloss 12y ago
So how about donating to some charity? The wives can then talk about that... "My husband donated thirty thousand to a school in africa". Or is it harder to show than a diamond?
- tomp 12y ago
  It's not a "honest signal" - it's easier to fake.
- tormeh 12y ago
  The problem is that the husband in your example might have liked to donate to charity anyway. It would have to be something the husband doesn't give a shit about or even actively dislikes spending money on. Also it's harder to show off reliably. The ring is in many ways pretty good: It's always on your body, in direct view of your peers and it had absolutely no utility to the buyer except as a gift for the receiver.
  - Gravityloss 12y ago
    Maybe there's a market for "ethical rings" that work as a token / certificate of a donation. For example restaurants like to show all kinds of diplomas on the wall at least around here. So she should pick the charity. I'm sure it's easy to find ones which the husband would not have donated to on their own. Classification societies already by the way have established ways to do development aid verification. http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=8719 http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary... On the other hand, just withdrawing the amount in cash and setting it on fire might cause less harm to the world than a blood diamond. What a bachelorette party... :)
tomp 12y ago
But why not signal with something that has "real" value, e.g. a golden/platinum ring (that you can actually resell for it's weight in gold)? Same signalling, same expense, but better investment.
Nursie 12y ago
I think this is outdated and frankly quite sexist.
- facepalm 12y ago
  What do you mean?
  - Nursie 12y ago
    That you think most women need some sort of extravagant and useless signal of a man's commitment to them, and that this is in your mind a uni-directional thing. I think that's quite sexist, frankly.
imaginenore 12y ago
> buying something useless and expensive is a very strong signal Of stupidity. Or not caring about the efforts of the person who earned that money. Most of us are way above the peacocks, intellectually.
- facepalm 12y ago
  "Most of us are way above the peacocks, intellectually." Lol - not really. Lots of signalling going on among humans. I mentioned the high heels, but I think most womanly things are like that: long hair and long fingernails show not having to work (manually), so high status. Even drinking and smoking could be part of the game (showing off that you are healthy enough to cope with a little poison). Many, many things - signalling theory is essential to understanding our society.
anon4 12y ago
I would rather take out a few thousand dollars in cash and burn it in front of her than spend them on a diamond. That also has the added benefit of reducing inflation.
- slayed0 12y ago
  Sounds like you'll make a great husband some day
100timesthis 12y ago
how about sharing the combined wealth? that is the real commitment
- facepalm 12y ago
  Might work, but probably even more expensive than buying a ring.
fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
I thought expensive jewellery was meant as a sort of life insurance policy. ie the widow could sell it in the event of the husband's death and have enough to support her for a period of mourning. Or something like that.
- brazzy 12y ago
  Gold jewelry has that function in India. Which incidentially where most of the gold that is being mined goes to.
- chrisbennet 12y ago
  Diamonds are a very poor "investment". http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/304575/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you... Thanks goodness my wife isn't into "shiny things".
- cmdkeen 12y ago
  Historically it replaced suing the other party in a failed engagement for "breach of contract". The idea being that a woman who had a failed engagement was less able to find a good match. The engagement ring essentially acted as a good behaviour bond that the marriage would go ahead and especially to stop the "I promise I'll marry you, now let's have sex" cad.
gherthra 12y ago
What is useless about something that is beautiful? Many people purchase objects of beauty (just look at the art world!) which cost much more than a diamond!
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  But why is it beautiful? A CZ is indistinguishable from a diamond until you look at it with a microscope, yet maligned as an inferior piece of jewellery.
  - gherthra 12y ago
    Because a CZ can be easily damaged, whereas the hardness of a diamond makes it very resilient to scratches, damage etc. Also, the beauty of a ring doesn't solely exist in the diamond, the setting is a thing of beauty - the piece of jewelery itself.
  - Retric 12y ago
    There are a few quick tests that can quickly separate a CZ from a diamond. Exhale on a similar diamond and it clears up much faster because of diamonds high thermal conductivity. More importantly, CZ is far less though than diamonds so they don't keep their shape under abuse nearly as well. There cheap enough you could swap out the stone every year, but just keeping the same CZ in a ring does not work over a lifetime.
  - erroneousfunk 12y ago
    High quality diamonds look grayer/silvery under bright light, whereas CZ produces rainbows. I own both, and it's easy to tell the difference if you're, say, outdoors in the summer, or under full-spectrum lighting. Moissanite is closer, but moissanite still has more of a "rainbow" look, and is often yellowish. If a friend of mine was showing off her engagement ring and it was refracting a little rainbow on her finger in the sun (like this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/CZ_brilliant.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/CZ_brilli...) I obviously wouldn't say anything, but come on. Getting a CZ engagement ring is going to lead to an awkward situation at some point.
walls 12y ago
Some serious diamond astroturfing going on in here. I've never seen anything so obviously stupid defended so thoroughly on HN. > Still, if you can get by without the investment, good for you. I think you might be a little confused about the definition of 'investment'.
- facepalm 12y ago
  If it's so obviously stupid, then why do people do it? Maybe you haven't thought about it enough. Peacock tails seem pretty stupid, too - but they have a purpose.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- dang 12y ago
  > Some serious diamond astroturfing going on in here. Accusations of astroturfing aren't allowed on HN. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9180466 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9180466 and the links there for why. If you believe you see evidence of astroturfing on HN, please email it to us instead: hn@ycombinator.com.

dietrichepp 12y ago

> ...buying something useless and expensive is a very strong signal... I see this comment every time engagement rings come up on Hacker News. Yes, it's a strong signal. But we're a bit smarter than that, and we can select mates who are smarter than that too. Perhaps this kind of peacocking will die out. Perhaps nature will select for mates who are level-headed enough to look at salary figures rather than shiny rocks. There are going to be a lot of people who realize that a down payment on a house or money in the bank will make their relationship more successful than a shiny rock will. I'm willing to bet on those people living and reproducing.

facepalm 12y ago
Down payments and savings don't prove commitment. The point of signalling is to prove things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory If you change your spouse, your savings account remains the same. The ring you paid for is gone.
- dietrichepp 12y ago
  Right... but humans have a much richer way of signaling than most animals. My point is that some humans will find ways to signal commitment without sinking three months of their salary into a worthless rock. Signalling theory is an explanation for observed behavior, not a guarantee that such behavior will persist if the organisms in question develop alternative strategies. I like to think humans are pretty good at developing alternative strategies. Besides, if you get divorced, you don't get your down payment back anyway.
  - facepalm 12y ago
    Sure, as I said in another comment, diamonds could probably be replaced. But it would probably be by something just as useless. Or maybe if you can find a way to mimic the effect, but make it useful, you have your hands on a very valuable startup idea. I guess it would be something like helping friends move, which is considered a good signal for true friendship. I don't know (not an expert on this), maybe if you find a way to "help your spouse move" for the equivalent worth of 3 months of your salary, you are good. Why don't you get your down payment back if you get divorced?
- k__ 12y ago
  The money is gone right from the start. Even if your spouse is with you till you die.
  - facepalm 12y ago
    The point is, changing spouses is expensive if they all want a diamond ring. So that custom is a shield against heavy spouse changing. The whole marriage thing is also extremely expensive. I suspect for similar reasons - so that people think twice before throwing it away. In that case they also have angry friends and relatives who invested into expensive travel and presents and probably wouldn't be too happy if it was all for nothing.
    - lurkinggrue 12y ago
      I guess I should be happy that I'm gay and the state won't let me get married so I don't have to deal with this BS. But then I've also been with the same person for 19 years who also things the ring this is a scam.
petercooper 12y ago
and we can select mates who are smarter than that too. That's really what it comes down to. But clearly there are many people who are quite happy making the compromise.
- kylebrown 12y ago
  There are only a few outliers, by definition. So most people have to make the compromise. Coordination games work by punishing you when you don't follow the crowd.

ArcticCelt 12y ago

>buying something useless and expensive is a very strong signal (like the peacocks tail) And how did it help the peacocks to feed itself or outrun a panther? You will say "but the ultimate goal was to transfer his genes and he did". Yeah OK, so the ring is a lie and probably first bad financial decision in a future long strike of bad ones that help dudes to get laid and then get trapped in the rat race pay check to pay check.

facepalm 12y ago
The point of signalling is to prove fitness - the peacock can afford to carry around a huge tail because he is fit enough. Women walking on high heels PROVE physical fitness. The point is to create a signal that is hard to fake. Putting money into a down payment for a house doesn't signal commitment or financial strength. You would have had to pay for housing anyway. Throwing away x times your monthly salary shows commitment and financial strength.
- dasboth 12y ago
  Financial security is obviously important, and I might be in a minority here, but I'd like to think that financial strength isn't a good basis for choosing a partner. Depends what you want out of a relationship I guess.
  - cmdkeen 12y ago
    Financial issues ruin marriages, moreso even than infidelity. "Richer or poorer" is the bit of the vow that might seem easy when you're young, in love and likely to get richer, but if a financial crisis destroys your social circle, uproots your children and severly challenges your lifestyle then it becomes very hard to overlook.
    - jerf 12y ago
      I'd also observe that "ability to live within ones means" is not necessarily a "richer or poorer" thing. There are those who will always live within, say, 80% of their free income until you literally hit the bottom where you can no longer survive, and there are those who will always live within 125% of their income, even if you give them a 25% raise every single year of their life. The first of these is marriable, the second effectively isn't. (Note my complete lack mention of any gender whatsoever, or any other characteristics. Regardless of what the population statistics may be based on any traits a person may have, what matters is whether this person standing in front of you can live within their means, and anyone has the capacity to pass or fail this test.)

Gravityloss 12y ago

So how about donating to some charity? The wives can then talk about that... "My husband donated thirty thousand to a school in africa". Or is it harder to show than a diamond?

tomp 12y ago
It's not a "honest signal" - it's easier to fake.
tormeh 12y ago
The problem is that the husband in your example might have liked to donate to charity anyway. It would have to be something the husband doesn't give a shit about or even actively dislikes spending money on. Also it's harder to show off reliably. The ring is in many ways pretty good: It's always on your body, in direct view of your peers and it had absolutely no utility to the buyer except as a gift for the receiver.
- Gravityloss 12y ago
  Maybe there's a market for "ethical rings" that work as a token / certificate of a donation. For example restaurants like to show all kinds of diplomas on the wall at least around here. So she should pick the charity. I'm sure it's easy to find ones which the husband would not have donated to on their own. Classification societies already by the way have established ways to do development aid verification. http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=8719 http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary... On the other hand, just withdrawing the amount in cash and setting it on fire might cause less harm to the world than a blood diamond. What a bachelorette party... :)

tomp 12y ago

But why not signal with something that has "real" value, e.g. a golden/platinum ring (that you can actually resell for it's weight in gold)? Same signalling, same expense, but better investment.

Nursie 12y ago

I think this is outdated and frankly quite sexist.

facepalm 12y ago
What do you mean?
- Nursie 12y ago
  That you think most women need some sort of extravagant and useless signal of a man's commitment to them, and that this is in your mind a uni-directional thing. I think that's quite sexist, frankly.

imaginenore 12y ago

> buying something useless and expensive is a very strong signal Of stupidity. Or not caring about the efforts of the person who earned that money. Most of us are way above the peacocks, intellectually.

facepalm 12y ago
"Most of us are way above the peacocks, intellectually." Lol - not really. Lots of signalling going on among humans. I mentioned the high heels, but I think most womanly things are like that: long hair and long fingernails show not having to work (manually), so high status. Even drinking and smoking could be part of the game (showing off that you are healthy enough to cope with a little poison). Many, many things - signalling theory is essential to understanding our society.

anon4 12y ago

I would rather take out a few thousand dollars in cash and burn it in front of her than spend them on a diamond. That also has the added benefit of reducing inflation.

slayed0 12y ago
Sounds like you'll make a great husband some day

100timesthis 12y ago

how about sharing the combined wealth? that is the real commitment

facepalm 12y ago
Might work, but probably even more expensive than buying a ring.

fnordfnordfnord 12y ago

I thought expensive jewellery was meant as a sort of life insurance policy. ie the widow could sell it in the event of the husband's death and have enough to support her for a period of mourning. Or something like that.

brazzy 12y ago
Gold jewelry has that function in India. Which incidentially where most of the gold that is being mined goes to.
chrisbennet 12y ago
Diamonds are a very poor "investment". http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/304575/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you... Thanks goodness my wife isn't into "shiny things".
cmdkeen 12y ago
Historically it replaced suing the other party in a failed engagement for "breach of contract". The idea being that a woman who had a failed engagement was less able to find a good match. The engagement ring essentially acted as a good behaviour bond that the marriage would go ahead and especially to stop the "I promise I'll marry you, now let's have sex" cad.

gherthra 12y ago

What is useless about something that is beautiful? Many people purchase objects of beauty (just look at the art world!) which cost much more than a diamond!

fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
But why is it beautiful? A CZ is indistinguishable from a diamond until you look at it with a microscope, yet maligned as an inferior piece of jewellery.
- gherthra 12y ago
  Because a CZ can be easily damaged, whereas the hardness of a diamond makes it very resilient to scratches, damage etc. Also, the beauty of a ring doesn't solely exist in the diamond, the setting is a thing of beauty - the piece of jewelery itself.
- Retric 12y ago
  There are a few quick tests that can quickly separate a CZ from a diamond. Exhale on a similar diamond and it clears up much faster because of diamonds high thermal conductivity. More importantly, CZ is far less though than diamonds so they don't keep their shape under abuse nearly as well. There cheap enough you could swap out the stone every year, but just keeping the same CZ in a ring does not work over a lifetime.
- erroneousfunk 12y ago
  High quality diamonds look grayer/silvery under bright light, whereas CZ produces rainbows. I own both, and it's easy to tell the difference if you're, say, outdoors in the summer, or under full-spectrum lighting. Moissanite is closer, but moissanite still has more of a "rainbow" look, and is often yellowish. If a friend of mine was showing off her engagement ring and it was refracting a little rainbow on her finger in the sun (like this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/CZ_brilliant.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/CZ_brilli...) I obviously wouldn't say anything, but come on. Getting a CZ engagement ring is going to lead to an awkward situation at some point.

walls 12y ago

Some serious diamond astroturfing going on in here. I've never seen anything so obviously stupid defended so thoroughly on HN. > Still, if you can get by without the investment, good for you. I think you might be a little confused about the definition of 'investment'.

facepalm 12y ago
If it's so obviously stupid, then why do people do it? Maybe you haven't thought about it enough. Peacock tails seem pretty stupid, too - but they have a purpose.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
dang 12y ago
> Some serious diamond astroturfing going on in here. Accusations of astroturfing aren't allowed on HN. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9180466 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9180466 and the links there for why. If you believe you see evidence of astroturfing on HN, please email it to us instead: hn@ycombinator.com.