= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
adamzerner comments on Stupid Questions June 2015 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (195)
If you're not familiar with the diamond industry, you may want to read Diamonds are Bullshit (or watch this less formal video.
I don't mean for this to be offensive, but I've always disapproved of the idea of purchasing diamonds, especially for an engagement.
There's a lot of abuse, fraud and mistreatment that happens throughout their production and distribution (then again, this is true for a lot of industries...). From a physical standpoint, it's x thousand dollars for a shiny rock (money that could have been used to do good). I get that people see it as a symbol of love and that it's reasonable to pay that amount of money for the symbolic meaning you get in return. I just find it odd that people derive such meaning, given the realities that exist beneath the surface.
The point of the diamond is to be a costly signal of commitment. In order to be a good signal, the shiny rock has to be useless. If it provided x thousand dollars of value, it would inherently be a poor signal.
Using the x thousands of dollars to do good might work as a signal if you wouldn't have spent the money on doing good otherwise.
Not quite. Don't forget that the guy gives the diamond to the girl. It becomes her property -- there is a transfer of value ($) happening.
One of the signals there is "Look how large/expensive a rock I can afford" (which doesn't require the rock to be useless) and another signal is "Look how much value I'm willing to give to you just in exchange for your goodwill and favour" (which also does not require the rock to be useless).
It's a signal on both sides. She accepts the rock rather than telling you to give her x thousands of useful goods to show that what she wants from the process is commitment, not money.
Do your criticisms also apply to artificial diamonds? It seems likely that ve knows something about the diamond industry, given
Woops, I missed that statement. My apologies.
There's still a lot of stuff "beneath the surface", and so I still think my criticisms still apply, but obviously a lot less so if they're truly conflict-free.