That's kind of missing the point. If diamonds were 5 bucks a piece, women would no longer be interested in receiving rings bejeweled by them.

A woman wants a man who is financially secure. If you can't afford a shiny rock, you can't afford what's coming after it either, so there's no point.

Women want diamonds not because of any symbolic reasons ("Diamonds are forever!") but because of reasons that are much more practical: they want to be able to show off the diamonds to their group of (female) and boost their social status among them. At the end of the day it is nothing more than a way of saying "I am better than you!"

This is why many women will accept, at the rational level, that diamonds are horrible and stupid and even evil (since they fuel all kinds of violence in Africa, where they are mined). But most of them will not be able to bring themselves to accept substitutes such as sapphires, rubies, or emeralds. Because that would make their female friends think that the guy does not value them as much (or that they weren't able to find a guy who finds them worthy enough for a diamond).

Social status. That's what it is all about.

I suspect that the demand for diamonds for both men and women has way less to do with that kind of forward thinking (or subconscious status weighing), and way more to do with what an incredibly expensive marketing juggernaut has hammered into their heads since they were children. A lot is made of status games and seeking evolutionarily fit mates, but it seems to me that "advertising works" is a perfectly adequate solution.

For a somewhat analogous perspective, consider soft drinks. Do people buy Coca-Cola rather than a cheaper store brand because they want to signal their high status? No, they buy it because a ton of money has been spent convincing them that it's superior. And sure, some of them really would prefer Coke in a vacuum. But it's almost certain that a very significant chunk would be either indifferent, or prefer the generic brand in a world without advertising.

Social Proof, Envy - You're 28. Many of your good friends are married or engaged by now. All of them got diamonds. Your mother got a diamond. Your sister got a diamond. All of your celebrity idols got diamonds. Surely, it's a normal thing. There's nothing wrong with you wanting one, too, right?

Doubt, Insecurity - You're dating the man of your dreams. You love him and want to spend the rest of your life with him. Marriage is a big step, and you want to know he's committed. Sure, diamonds are useless and overdone, but it's expected of him to get you one. And a big one, too, if he can. You know it. He knows it. So if he doesn't, surely it's a subtle way of him saying, "You aren't worth it."

Fear of Loss - You've been looking forward to this your entire life. By the time you were old enough to consider the possibility that diamond-giving is a dumb and arguably immoral tradition, you'd already spend 15 or 20 or 25 years wanting one. You'd already accepted that you would get one. The fear of loss is a powerful force, even when you're "losing" something you don't have yet.

Inconsistency Avoidance - Refusing to accept a diamond would undoubtedly and repeatedly put you in the position to explain yourself. In a way, it's a silent judgment of all those who do accept diamonds. You've never denounced them in the past. In fact, you were right there with all your friends joking about how big of a rock you'd get some day. So denouncing them today will seem inconsistent, and you don't want to be inconsistent. Nobody does. (If you doubt this this a major psychological factor capable of influencing behavior, read Cialdini's "Influence".)

Etc.

Advertising spend in and of itself isn't a reason people buy things. Nobody ever said, "I want a Coke because Coca-Cola spent $3B on marketing this year." Instead, people want things for primarily carnal and psychological reasons. Because it's hot outside and you know Coke is cold. Because you're craving stimulation and you know carbonation tickles your mouth. Because you know your friends with their big expensive rings will think less of your relationship if you don't get one, too.

Good marketers understand human psychology and play to its weaknesses.

1. Cognitive dissonance reduction: he spent so much, so to avoid cognitive dissonance he's going to tell himself she's worth it. Helps keep marriages together. It is the same reason that hazing ritual happen in college and why secret societies have all sorts of strange initiation rituals, often hazardous or difficult. - Easy way to test this would be RQ: Do couples with relatively more expensive wedding rings for their income level(s) stay together longer than those who spend less on their wedding ring (controlling for other initial ritual costs like the wedding, although I suspect similar effects and interactions there).

2. Symbolic Interactionism This suggests that the initiation rites are there precisely to bind people together socially. It's a social-level theory explanation for all of the rites of passage rituals which are common in mating-couple pairing cultures in humans (and probably other primates, for that matter). A big token like this is a constant reminder of the commitment, and the meaning ascribed to this again helps with the ongoing project. If course this is entirely consistent with the marketing phenomenon, as it's more of an anthropological descriptive approach.

3. and oh... Shiny!

That happened thirty years ago and we are still happily married with three kids, two of them in college right now and one in high school.

Advertising does one thing, and one thing only: create symbolic associations. (Well, I guess web ads are a departure, since the goal is a click).

What does Coke's advertising budget actually pay for? Images of people having fun and drinking Coke, which are then distributed through every media known to man. Three billion just for Coke = fun, popular. Think about that for a minute, and you'll recognize it's almost impossible to comprehend how intimate symbols really are, how they turn something intangible into something real that you can buy.

Now let's look at the diamond. In my opinion there is only one association that actually drives the purchase. Diamond = marriage. And not just marriage. The loving side of marriage, the tender and personal one as opposed to the banal legal one symbolized by a certificate or the familial one symbolized by the ceremony.

You can come up with a story as to why you don't have one, but there always must be a story. The diamond needs no story, because it's already a symbol. I'd love to see some examples of the early advertising campaign the article discusses.

'Blood is thicker than water' when referring to family over people you encounter.

Beyond the shared experiences and the irrational bond (I use the phrase as devil's advocate whilst being happily irrationally bonded with my family), there's not a lot to prescribing value to familial relationships over other ones.

We prescribe irrational value to diamonds, because offering a big rock to a bride in front of our family imbues value beyond the intrinsic worth of the rock.

Imagine instead buying a plastic ring for your beloved which would have engraved the account number and sum total of your engagement 401k you bought for the love of your life.

Diamonds are a sign of social status in large part because De Beers marketing has convinced them (and their friends) that it is a sign of social status.

The connection between diamonds and social status in this case is supporting evidence for the assertion that "advertising works".

This is, sadly, so very very true.

When I was proposing I wanted to get an alternative precious stone that would be actually rate - or, at least, a man-made diamond. I told my SO everything about how they're not rare, the price-fixing, the conflict diamonds - but she barely budged because of what her friends would think of it. I managed to sell the idea of a man-made diamond, but eventually had to settle for a natural one which wasn't sourced from Africa because of just how rare they are and how difficult it was to ship them to my country.

Because Africa is all one big war zone. Because any money sent to Africa funds violence.

Seriously? Why is it so much better to buy from Russia than South Africa or Botswana? (the money's all going to De Beers -- which was originally a South African company -- or a similar multinational anyway).

The top four diamond-producing countries in Africa (the top two are actually not African: Russia and Canada) are Botswana, Angola, South Africa and Namibia. All of these countries are poor, sure. They all have some political problems, sure. But they are all democracies with somewhat functional governments; none of them are at war (the Angolan civil war ended in 2002).

Multinational mineral companies aren't always the best thing for locals, but the idea that the only money sent to Africa should arrive on a UN food truck is far worse.

Hmm, actually, they aren't perfectly fungible. 100 one-carat diamonds aren't worth the same as one 100-carat diamond, and even diamonds of the same weight aren't substitutable. But with respect to country of origin, yeah.

Canadian ice diamonds, on the other hand, are all laser-engraved with a serial number, making it possible to verify each diamond's authenticity and source. According to the jeweller I spoke to, the only guarantee she could make is 'Canadian' or 'not Canadian'; she couldn't even guarantee me African, Russian, etc.

She did, of course, offer to sell me a ring with 'who knows' diamonds and then remove them and put Canadian diamonds in, but at that point I'm paying for 'who knows' and Canadian diamonds, which seemed a little idiotic.

Wanting superficial respect based on material things is sad.

And to drive the point home: those diamonds you see in rings have a non-negligible chance of coming from child slaves, who have been torn from their families in civil war and will probably be setting off land mines once the diamond mines run out. I actively disrespect the choice to purchase them.

> What differentiates "superficial" respect from genuine respect?

This question is quite telling.

There is an interesting couple of articles on the subject here:

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/01/what_would_you_do_if_...

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/02/what_would_you_do_if_...

I found it quite hard to extract anything from those articles. I think what it's trying to say is that if the ring becomes an issue then the relationship may be far from perfect anyway.

But then, I don't see how she'll be satisfied with any ring. Surely if a guy could sacrifice this much he could sacrifice just a bit more - so she may not be that valuable to him. I don't even want to start thinking about a guy who can afford a bigger rock suddenly showing up :D

Basically, the moral of the story, for me, was: 1) Avoid women who don't know their worth and require external confirmations; 2) Develop your own sense of self-worth by doing something worthwhile, then finding a like-minded woman would be easier.

I think.

I think my SO would be happy with an alternative stone (or perhaps no stone at all!) and that's because her and my friends largely aren't the type to ogle a ring, a watch, or a car. Friends that do fancy material things are able to recognize it and laugh at their own materialistic tendencies because they are the outliers in our circles. Watches are cool but experiences are cooler (plus my g-shock from '98 happily survives the abuse travel and hobbies give it).

Now, we aren't a couple that will settle for tying human hair around our fingers and calling it a wedding band, but I sure as hell won't be spending 20 grand on a rock. And my friends will happily accept the free rounds that savings can cover over the next xx years.

Now, rather than bragging about how big and expensive the stone is, my wife happily shows off her ring and tells her girlfriends how I made it for her, and how beautiful and special it is.

My wife is the most awesome woman ever! (Source: Personal experience and careful study and observation).

The rest of the ring I'm including fragments from a martian meteorite, a lunar meteorite, and a deep space iron meteorite...... and then other gems from every continent. :)

That is AWESOME that you made your ring. I'm having this one made... as I just... seriously lack the artistic skill to create what I want. :)

Here's the obligatory xkcd comic: http://xkcd.com/260/ It's about glass, but the resulting piece is very cool because of the story.

She and I love traveling and travel a lot-- I wanted her ring to represent every place mankind has gone/will go to in our lifetime.... I bet there are few objects in the world that have been combined with pieces from so many distant origins.

That's true. But why do diamonds have high social status? Because they are expensive. They are a reliable signal of the wealth of the man. Social status is a proxy for actual wealth and power, and thus the probability of wealth and power for the woman's potential offspring.

Unfortunately they have become such a strong signal that people without wealth to spare feel compelled to over-spend on them. Like a peacock's tail.

Spending a hundred bucks on something useful is not a signal showing wealth; but lighting a cigar with a hundred dollar bill is such a signal.

Being seen with, say, an expensive computer is less powerful wealth signal than being seen with an exactly equally expensive ring; the computer might be (even if it isn't) practical, but the ring states "hey, I can afford to waste money, so if you don't then obviously I'm of a higher social status/pecking order than you".

Basically came down to some variation on "I don't ask for a lot (she doesn't), but I want the diamond ring."

As some one newly married, I have observed the following.

    1. See <something>. Demand for it.
    2. When rationally explained why we can't buy it.
    3. Simply state.. "I don't ask for a lot, but I want the <something>."
    4. I buy it.

"Great idea, I never thought about it, we really need <something>! Problem is, this particular model of <something> is not the best and will not do <something that something is supposed to do> very well. In fact I remember reading bad reviews about this. But fear not! We'll go home, spend some time reading review sites and will find a really good version of <something>."

This will buy you some time, and might even look that YOU want it, which might even make it less appealing to your other half. Now, find a really expensive model of something, but at such price point that the rationality wins, even in someone who usually does not listen to your arguments (step 2). YMMV, but sometimes this tactic works out quite well.

There are a lot of girls out there you haven't met yet. Go find one who gets you.

Of course if she wants it, it's useless.

I've always wondered how other diamond rings get recycled or removed from the market. Diamonds are forever, after all, so why doesn't the price collapse from being awash in used stones from three or four generations of dead women?

After a certain age is reached though, the stigma seems to go away somewhat. We got a 'vintage' ring (about 100 years old) in the end - but they're hard to find; you won't find them in most chain jewelry stores.

Incidentally, the reason you don't see many used bands is different; the metals are worth so much now that it's more cost effective to melt them down than to resell them at the depressed price the market demands for used jewelry compared to new.

Bear in mind that it is in the jeweller's interest to perpetuate such superstitions as it means they can persuade many customers to buy a new ring instead.

Buying a diamonds as a romantic gesture, the buyer is vulnerable for two reasons:

1) They're unlikely to have much experience of buying jewellery; for many, this is the only occasion.

2) They probably feel very strongly about the gesture; it's very important that they get it right. Overspending pales beside the risk of offending the love of their life and/or subjecting them to negative judgement by their peers.

As a result, it is all too easy for jewellers to intimidate the buyer by telling them exactly what is 'expected' and charging absurd prices for it.

Still, 'real' superstition or manufactured one, we didn't fall for it. I suspect many do though. A web search for "used engagement ring back luck" reveals the superstition is pretty widespread.

[Edit: Not that I mean that many people actually _believe_ that the used status of the ring will affect their marriage - I suspect they're more concerned on how their partner and, perhaps more so, their peers will judge their decision]

De Beers marketing worked on you. It is not that hard to destroy diamonds. Google "burning diamonds" for examples.

I don't get it. Why would you even want to be engaged with women so stupid to want a shiny rock no matter what. If anything I'd want a man-made diamond, because it's cooler. I never even heard of the rule that you have to get a diamond ring for engagement, guess that's a USA thing. Well, my BF still bought me a good monitor, which is much more useful.

For example my wife has a Sapphire ring (yes I know Sapphires can be made at any size artificially) and so does my brothers. A close friends wife has a Ruby and I have seen Emerald ones.

EDIT: And to avoid misrepresenting my wife, I should add it was not a diamond ring (it's a pearl). My wife worked in African before we got married and would have nothing to do with diamonds.

  | It doesn't have anything to do with financial
  | security. Look, if your man is spending three
  | months worth of salary on a piece of shiny
  | rock, he is exercising poor financial judgment
  | and that is a signal against future financial
  | security.

Besides, depending on the cost of the ring, and the length of the marriage, it would make you more likely to terminate the marriage over time as the cost of the ring gets amortized over the length of the marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engagement_ring#Legal_ownership

Since you'll have to decline one of these proposals, one of them gets their ring back. Which one are you more likely to accept? All things equal, the 20k resale ring.

An article similar to this came up six months ago, at about the same time I was getting ready to propose to my fiancee. It sparked this comment thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4536010

patio11 suggested that I wasn't "selling" her correctly. Women want the story, the status, the "Facebook status". So that's exactly what I did.

I bought her a white gold ring with a purple sapphire. It took me over a month to find the right gemstone. While it may not be as expensive as an equivalent weight/quality diamond, it is incredibly hard to replace, since they're so rare.

I also made sure that the white gold was made with palladium instead of nickel + rhodium-plating, since I was concerned about skin irritations. I had it completely custom-made, with the design done in CAD and 3D printed. As an engineer, this was awesome. My fiancee didn't quite appreciate that as much as I did, admittedly, but she did say it was cool.

Having done all that, I still spent a lot less money on the actual ring than if I had bought a diamond ring. So with the remaining money, I booked a flight to Rome for a 24 hour trip, to catch her by surprise on her last day of her Europe vacation she was on with her sister. I surprised her in a spot I had coordinated, and I hired a local photographer to take engagement pictures of us throughout Rome.

So I didn't buy a diamond, but I did end up spending about the same amount of money. However, I was able to "sell" my fiancee on the rarity and authenticity of the ring, and the story of the proposal. To this day, she looks back on the ring, the pictures, and remembers it all fondly.

So diamonds may be bullshit, but the story and memories aren't.

Man am I lucky I got married right at the end of college and we purchased the engagement ring and wedding bands together to negotiate the price down, for far less money. I can't ever imagine my wife wearing rings like that. When we bought them, the sales lady told us we "can always upgrade the stone later" and we both laughed at the idea. We're still laughing, actually.

I spent quite a chunk of change on an engagement ring for my fiancée, but it was closer to a week's salary. I think if I'd spent three months salary on it the rock would be so big she wouldn't be able to lift her hand.

I'm making good money, but we're not exactly talking Fortune-500 CEO levels here.

If you goto a diamond store (that houses tons onsite) and just go for eye appeal rather than rating. You can get a '15-20k$' mall diamond for a third or less.

[0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_Jewelers

I'd be kinda tempted buying one that big for a woman because, you know, if we're going to go for a vulgar display of wealth, then let's make it really f*cking vulgar :)

(I still have better things to do with the money...)

While they are young, status is the deal they want because of pressures from social circles.

The Mating Mind, Geoffrey Miller

Have some extra you want to keep for harder times? Convert it to gold and hang it on your wife's ears. Many other things we take for granted now are storage: cheese, wine, ham, jam are all efficient ways to store food.

So giving a diamond to your wife is just a supplemental reserve of wealth. Read only two books about people of the past, you'll see many stories of ladies selling their earrings when in trouble and getting through by this mean.

You may be interested in signalling theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory

A bit over 23 years ago I had a wedding which - including wedding bands - was under $200. I'm still married to her. We're both glad we didn't go into debt to get married...

So is divorce. I did the math, and it came up wanting.

I've been happily married for 10 years and paid about the same for our wedding and bands. It was a registry office and cheap rings.

It was about the marriage and not the wedding.

I think people forget this these days.

With inflation it would be a bit more today.

The funny thing is that diamonds are one of the most unstable minerals when taken out of the conditions they were formed. Although, it would still take thousands of years for them to turn into graphite.

It would just have to be shiny, small, expensive, and easily seen.

The need for displays of status are common to many animals, humans included. There is a fundamental need there that will be filled if you devalue the predecessor.

Why pick on diamonds anyway? The fashion industry is just as bad - thousands of dollars for garments that cost a fraction of that to produce - and all because people wish to show social status by the clothes they are wearing.

A diamond is no worse than an expensive holiday, a new car, a new suit - whatever. At least a diamond is very durable and can be with the wearer for a lifetime if they so choose.

I'm inclined to agree that you're right about the price being the point. I think it has more to do with "You're worth it to me". I still think it's utter bollocks.

The issue here isn't the scarcity of diamonds. It's the scarcity if women.

I realize how chauvinistic this rant sounds, but truly, I would rather give equivalent money to my fiancee's charity of choice than to these diamond shilling scumbags.

Charities, if you're listening, here's an idea: create uniquely identified jewelry (bracelets, necklaces) marketed as devotional donations, charge $5000 for them, and at least give men an option in the matter.

Perhaps if she's going to wear a ring for the rest of her life, she wants it to be a nice ring that is color neutral. Perhaps she doesn't want something cheap and easily replaceable acting as a symbol for your marriage.

Cubic zirconia or other gems might be cosmetically identical to a diamond. Wanting a $30K ring for its "color neutral" characteristics smacks of astroturfing.

And to be clear, it's not exactly as if women are the only ones who have this vice. Women are just the ones likely to receive engagement rings.

It's because social status by definition is a zero-sum game. For status symbols, the absolute value is irrelevant; but what matters is the value relative to your peers.

So CZ then? That saves money for the point below.

> Perhaps she doesn't want something cheap and easily replaceable acting as a symbol for your marriage.

You mean like having kids?

i.e. she cares more about symbols than about the real thing.

My only point is that not ALL women are about making other women feel inadequate. Or showing off their diamonds. Many are actually just as disgusted as men are about it. And they prefer men who have that conscious, and will put some thought into an alternative.

However... Your last suggestion, I grant you, has merit.

How is that any different?

Or, maybe they actually care ..

My wife and I eschewed engagement rings or expensive wedding rings (her's was a little pricey, but from an artisan jeweler, but not a lot of bling), instead we opted for spending the money on property (not our main residence). At the least, despite ups and downs here in the states, it has held it's value.

Charities or other personal investments really are a better option than the bling. That said, some people like the material status comparison.

How do you put charities on the same level as personal investments?

If you make an investment you have something that theoretically might increase in value (as your example "spending money on property"). If you give it to charity you feel good but that's not something that's not something you can retire on or insure the financial well being of your family (or pay for your children's college).

Yes, one is giving to others, one is giving to the couple. My point was, don't throw the money away on baubles.

This is actually a very interesting idea. It has I guess a few complications--are we comfortable with making generosity a commodity? I'm not at all, actually--but at the very least it would be preferable to diamond rings.

As much as I think it'd be a great alternative to diamonds, my feelings on the matter have quickly been drawn to the same cynicism about diamonds.

It's a problem that we want to flaunt our wealth, _however_ we do it. It's the root problem.

The diamond industry is flawed because it's acting exactly as desired: to fulfill our need for vacuous display.

And flaunting your moral superiority? Well, that's not as bad as flaunting your wealth, but only because it's less practical. People notice and _hate_ when you're morally superior.

Isn't that a sad commentary? That when bragging about morals is more easily attacked than bragging about wealth?

There's something interesting in how when the social drive to appear wealthy approaches appearing moral, it is diluted and weakened. Just mere contact with the idea of morality is enough to lose our respect for the egregious use of wealth.

Buying a ring, having a fancy sports car, owning a nice house, coming from a prestigious university... these are signals for sexual reproduction. "Look at me, look at what I can afford to do!"

It does signal financial irresponsibility. Who can demonstrate such a thing? Those who are actually financially secure. But then it gets to be backwards, as those who can barely afford to live paycheck to paycheck seek out these red herrings, these peacock's tails, before actual wealth and stability.

Same thing with ties. Those used to be signals of wealth. They evolved from the cravate, used by nobility to protect their shirts whilst eating. Being wealthy, these embryonic ties, the cravates, would be made of expensive materials. When those who weren't so wealthy got ahold of them and started using them as a display, it became backwards.

We now take off our ties, or toss them over our shirts to protect from getting dirty when we eat, because they're often quite expensive!

So, yeah. Diamonds signal financial security by being financially irresponsible. We're a species evolved to pay attention to status, to these symbols more so than the real value behind such things.

"Wasting" resources is one of the ways to make sure that the signal (of fitness -- financial security for example) is honest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle

Not if you have assets that are considerably greater (have accumulated) than whatever your "salary" is.

When I was single, I found the Epstein article compelling. Then, I met the right woman, and I realized the article missed the point. If a woman you love feels good because you got her a diamond ring, then the diamond has served its purpose (to communicate that you listened to what she wanted, and got it, and that she is important). I listened to my wife, I got her a diamond ring she liked, and she has fond memories of our engagement.

My sister wanted a ring that didn't have diamonds. My brother-in-law wisely listened, got her one without diamonds, and she was happy.

If you got a great marriage out of it, and your wife has fond memories of getting engaged, then nothing about the ring really matters. If you can overpay a few thousand dollars for a ring, and get a great marriage in return, you just made the best trade of your life. What matters is that you listen to what your fiance wants, and got her something that communicates your attentiveness to her.

Whether the ring has real financial value, or diamonds are a marketing invention, is entirely irrelevant.

You COULD not get your wife a diamond ring, you COULD not take her out for Valentine's day because it's a made-up holiday, you COULD not get her a Christmas present because you think it's a commercial holiday, etc. But... well good luck with that.

Women can't talk for themselves? Do women still want a man who is financially secure? What about independent women? How many women have posted in this thread (compared to HN's overall male-female posting ratio)?

Most of my female friends are professionals (graduate degrees, well-paying jobs, etc). The vast majority of them (literally 90%+) want a man who is financially secure. Part of it is attraction, but it's also part pragmatic. Most women will have kids at some point in their lives (the %-age of women who remain childless by 45 is actually trending down slightly after peaking around 20%), and even in 2013 the burden of child rearing still falls disproportionately on women. Women are still the ones that, disproportionately, compromise their careers to take care of children.[1] Given the statistics, even "independent" women have a rational reason to seek financially secure men.

[1] A longitudinal study of graduates of the UVA Law School class of 1990 found that while women and men went into private practice and to large law firms in similar proportions, after 20 years almost all the men were still working while half the women had either dropped out of practice entirely or were part-time.

Understandable, Why.. Continue reading..

>>Women are still the ones that, disproportionately, compromise their careers to take care of children.

Sorry. women 'want' to compromise their careers and take care of the kids. I'm not saying raising kids isn't tough.

But most men I know will happily stay back at home and take care of the kids, if the their wives would take up all the financial problems/responsibilities of the home.

'Compared'(and compared to raising kids) what you have to do make the financial ends meet. I would say most women will pick raising kids. That's more or less is a no brainer.

I understand the point you're making -- the value of expensive things in signaling to someone you don't know. I can't see the point in marrying someone if I couldn't trust them with my bank account.

Edit: I'm realizing that this is entirely from my perspective. How does a woman without earning potential display her husband's wealth to her family and friends? She asks him to buy her an ornament to prove how much he values her. This puts the man above the woman, inequalizing them.

Is there any custom where a bride and groom exchange gifts of equal value?

No matter how nice a car is, the large-scale social consequences of flashing a status symbol should be considered before purchasing a brand associated with that, especially for a daily driver.

Last week I was in a sales training course where the trainer explained 'leitmotifs' of buyers, one being 'status', his example being 'a guy driving a Porsche and wearing a Rolex'. Of course there was one guy there with a Porsche and a Rolex who then found it necessary to defend his choices as being objective, rational, etc. (He didn't need to, but I guess it's hard not feeling being put on the spot in a situation like that). Still it was funny seeing him squirm while being hit over the head with all sorts of variations of your argument. (not that I disapprove of status symbols or some such thing, I'd buy them if I could afford them I guess :) )

Not sure what you mean here - are you saying 'show everybody the receipt'? That's not signalling, signalling includes 'being socially acceptable', which talking about how money you have or walking around showing your ATM receipts certainly isn't.

(Scroll down for more reporting on how the liberal view and equality mindset might currently clash with reality; the explosion of this comment thread is more evidence of the same phenomena)

Or, as you indicate, perhaps that's just a symptom of the general male-female ratio.

What a quaint and gross way of looking at the world.

Yes, women seek men with status and financial security. I'd give you a pointer to a specific line or paragraph, but its all relevant.

There's a difference between wanting something and demanding it.

You'll find it shocking that in some parts of the world people are happily married without any jewelry at all.

Wanting a mate who is financially secure doesn't make a woman a gold digger. It's no different than the vast majority of men who want a physically attractive mate.

>You'll find it shocking that in some parts of the world people are happily married without any jewelry at all.

Yes, different cultures have different standards (and there are outliers within cultures). In some places a herd of goats functions as a status symbol, in the US a diamond serves this function.

That doesn't mean that every woman here absolutely requires a man who can buy her a diamond, but the majority do.

Not everyone has two SUVs, two kids in private schools, and a vacation home.

>That doesn't mean that every woman here absolutely requires a man who can buy her a diamond, but the majority do.

right after talking about the US--meaning I was discussing women here in the US, where it is demonstrably true that the majority of women demand diamonds.

Is it?

And why exactly is it the man's responsibility to provide financial security for the woman?

And I always thought women wanted equal rights. Its seems they only want a life long vacation at some body else's expense.

I'm sure for most women it's not that it is the man's responsibility to provide financial security, but that the man is going to work with you to be financially secure rather than against.

If you've spent your twenties working hard and saving, you probably don't want to marry someone who's spent their twenties running up a credit card bill. You very likely will spend your life together arguing.

Not that a diamond ring is necessarily the best way to demonstrate financial responsibility.

A shiny rock is not a proxy for communication.

Maybe you think that flashing your wealth, not unlike a peacock fanning out their feathers, will get you a mate. It probably will, but it will probably be the kind of mate that is attracted to money.

> If the girl is even slightly intelligent she'll be able to make an assessment without needing a glittery ring.

Because she's clairvoyant? An expensive car can be rented or borrowed, a house can be inherited, bank statements easily faked. Men do these sorts of things. Frequently.

But a ring she has been pining on and on about? A ring she can easily get appraised? No. You can't fake that. You will need to fork over the cash and when all of your money is going toward regular expenses and all of a sudden you have to fork over 10K in cold hard cash, that's a strain and a fine test of a man's ability to withstand financial shock.

Wait til you have a baby. Now that's a real financial shock.

>A ring she can easily get appraised?

right before he talked about how hard it is to fake.

You can't fake a diamond that will fool an appraiser just as easily as a bank statement. It's much easier to covertly verify the value of diamond than the validity of a bank statement.

Without the help of professional services, a layman can be easily fooled in either context.

However, if the layman is going to get the diamond appraised by a professional, then the same standard should be applied to the other task. One can likewise use professional services to accurately determine a person's net worth.

My point remains.

That is simply not possible to do with a bank statement, there is no equivalent easy to use affordable service.

Given equivalent conditions, the two tasks are equally easy.

Hiring a PI to investigate someone is no where near as easy and affordable as dropping off a ring at a jeweler.

A jeweler can appraise a ring in less than an hour for less than $100, a PI will want at least a $500 retainer.

In addition a your average PI is going to have a hard time getting bank account information. His buddy in the police can't get that information without a court order.

>quasi-legal means like social engineering

There is no quasi-legal about it. It is explicitly illegal. And it's going to cost you a hell of a lot more than $100 to get a PI to risk jail time for you.

The only way for a PI to get someone's bank account information is by either pretending to be the person, or knowing someone on the inside. Either way is illegal and could be a huge problem for you if you hired someone to do it. (there are ways to do it legally, there could be public record from old civil proceedings, but that wouldn't tell you the current balance)

Appraising a ring without the giver's knowledge:

1. Drop off ring at jeweler

2. Pay $100

3. Pick up ring the next day

Determining the validity of a bank account without the owner's knowledge:

1. Make appointment with PI

2. Discuss specifics of case with PI

3. PI says he can't take the case because what you're asking is illegal

4. Repeat steps 1, and 2 until you find a PI who will accept

5. Pay PI huge retainer.

6. Wait 2 weeks, and hope law enforcement doesn't find out that you hired someone to break the law for you

It's not sexist or derogatory. Financial security and status are evolutionary concepts that predate the diamond district. Diamonds are just one manifestation of a deeper, hardwired instinct to seek fit and capable mates.

This isn't a cynical concept, it's backed by studies of the entire animal kingdom, not just humans.

For example, demonstrate you can care for a dog goes a long way. Owning and maintaining a house even further.

A friend of mine got married. He could've bought his wife an extravagant engagement ring, but he put it to her in different terms, along the lines of: "Would you like an expensive ring, or what about something symbolic and we'll put the rest into a down-payment on a better house?"

They didn't squander tens of thousands on a wedding, nor went on a lavish honeymoon. They started out with money in the bank and a hefty down-payment made on a new house, not credit-card debt.

I really doubt that a significant percentage of those under ten will even bother with a diamond ring when at the age where they'll be getting engaged. By then they'll either be so saddled with student debt as to make the purchase impractical, or they'll be working two minimum wage jobs just to get by.

Fitness indicators change and trend between civilizations. Right now, with the predominance of capitalism, having a lot of "stuff" or access and ability to acquire "stuff" means you're a worthy sexual partner.

Yet very pervasive.

* A minority of men are truly financially secure, doesn't seem to stop couples from marrying

* Lots of people marry when young, a time when financial situations tend to be weak/modest.

* With this kind of reasoning you might as well extend the 'what's the point to marriage' to include those who are financially secure, it's ridiculous

* A woman, calculating enough to decide the decision on whether to marry on the current finances of a man, is just as likely to assess a broad range of factors, such as health and future earning potential.

If you're going to take a sober point of view, a more convincing case is this: The social norms are that diamond rings are part of the marrying process, people, on the whole, tend to stick to the social norms. It's what is expected, it's cultural and doing feels 'wrong' and maybe even shameful. There's potential pain involved in not following the expected course of action. This is why people who go into extra debt to purchase an expensive ring, it's what it means if you don't get it.

If you have a couple that clouds their better judgment to meet expectations set by culture and by conforming to norms like a sheep, what's the point.

In my experience women (and men) want to feel special. If you are able to make your partner feel special on an ongoing basis, you have pretty good odds to create a meaningful partnership. A diamond ring purchase is not a reliable indicator of said ability (it may be indicative of the opposite, but that's another matter).

It's a valid point, yes -- but kyrra couldn't have missed it, because no one had made it before you did.

It's a great test for gold-diggers, though.

[1] http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond.html

It's not rational; it's an emotional. Society has a tremendous emotional investment in the concept of the diamond engagement ring.

What other manufactured fairy tales have huge quantities of humans swallowed hook line and sinker?

If you blind taste test wines, it looks like there's nearly no correlation between price and quality above $5-$10 a bottle.

Now, there is a lot of bull inovlved in some wine places, but don't commit the baby and bathwater fallacy by saying it's all rubbish!

How do you know that after "honing your palate" you you'll calibrate your sense of taste to actual quality of wine, rather than to whatever the difference is between more and less expensive ones? People can learn to see any kind of patterns if they try hard enough, but that doesn't mean those patterns are in any way useful or relevant.

I frequently prefer cheaper wines to more expensive ones, and agree price-quality correlation is not good, depending on what your wine source is, but at the same time you're going to have to find good data to demonstrate no correlation: for price is one (flawed but still input-data-rich) indicator!

We do fool ourselves with patterns, but also we do not. AFAIK there is not enough research to rove it either way, but qualitative methods can point us to better theories to work with until we have good enough constructs for quantitative analysis for our minds' perceptions.

I don't understand this. Flavourful chemicals aren't a scarce resource to "go around" -- they're organic compounds plants synthesise "from scratch" (or their reaction products, after aging). Perhaps scarce soil nutrients influence this, for better or worse (I don't know), but this isn't a priori obvious.

Wikipedia didn't help me resolve this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_(wine)#Yield_as_an_indic...

I tried and failed (wikipedia) -- can you point me to something informative? I don't know what I'm looking for.

There is a finite number of nutrients in the soil, and the plant can make a finite amount of such things out of these nutrients (like phenols in the grape skins and... er.. this is not my subject, but I can look it up again myself should I have to).

In general they're not finite. Phenols are just C,H,O -- they're made from water and CO2. All of these compounds, as far as I can tell:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenolic_content_in_wine

I haven't found anything that says that, for example, soil nutrients correlate with phenol concentrations in vines (for example). It's not obvious.

I'm interested to see how they did it. I'm open to new data and changing my mind (I have done several times already, and used to be insufferable!) but I want to see several studies with good method.

I see you're not denying that more expensive wine can taste better, and I misread this at first to think that you were denying any possible objective (conventionally-agreed at least) values for "higher quality" wine and that it was all bull. You haven't said that, and so I think you're not contesting that, but just noting the market's strangeness, that there is no relation in price and a wine's agreed quality.

Correct! Price correlates with rarity and place of origin and all sorts of other neat stuff, but as far as 'will I like this wine?', ain't no there there.

That said, individual people should buy based on their tastes - but a $20 bottle of Burgundy wine has even odds to be better than a $40 bottle of Burgundy. The only way is to try it!