You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

adamzerner comments on Stupid Questions June 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: Gondolinian 31 May 2015 02:14AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (195)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Taa 01 June 2015 12:33:02AM *  2 points [-]

I am a prominent LW poster; this is a through-away account because my girlfriend also uses LW.

I would like to propose to my girlfriend in the near future. For this I would like to use a diamond ring. I have never bought one before, so would appreciate any advice. The main things I would like help with:

  • Not paying extra due to ignorance
  • Ensuring she never has cause to regret the choice of stone/ring.
  • Anything else you think I should know.

Some background in case it helps:

  • I live in NYC, so have access to the diamond district.
  • I am leaning towards an artificial diamond, as it seems hard to guarantee conflict-free otherwise (which does not seem romantic!) and we are both pretty pro-science.
  • My price range is orgjrra bar naq gra gubhfnaq qbyynef, ohg V jbhyq cersre gbjneqf gur ybjre raq bs gur enatr
  • My girlfreind is neither unusually fat nor unusually skinny for an American of marriageable age. She is white.
  • She does not wear much jewelry. The stuff she has is mainly (fake?) yellow gold and silver, mainly gifts.
  • I am probably looking for a relatively simple design, round stone.
Comment author: adamzerner 01 June 2015 06:53:29AM 0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Jiro 01 June 2015 03:36:29PM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: Lumifer 01 June 2015 03:49:39PM *  1 point [-]

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.

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).

Comment author: Jiro 01 June 2015 03:59:20PM 4 points [-]

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.

Comment author: philh 01 June 2015 12:52:05PM 1 point [-]

Do your criticisms also apply to artificial diamonds? It seems likely that ve knows something about the diamond industry, given

I am leaning towards an artificial diamond, as it seems hard to guarantee conflict-free otherwise

Comment author: adamzerner 01 June 2015 01:29:27PM *  0 points [-]

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.