Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by corethree 1014 days ago
You don't need research. It's common sense. You're human so it's easy to figure out. It's possible that our modern woke culture makes this harder analyze because it's very one sided in terms of gender. It's completely obvious why diamonds are coveted, but you'll still see a lot of attempts by to rationalize a different reason. What I'm about to describe is something that is completely obvious to everyone and something you likely already know but find hard to articulate:

Desire for diamonds is centered around women. It's part of human mating rituals.

A lot of women demand sacrifice or some sort of proof that the man loves her and is willing to sacrifice resources to take care of her. Romance is 100 percent what this is. It's always a man putting in a romantic gesture and a woman making a practical decision based on that gesture(s). Society often gets these roles reversed but in actuality: men are the romantic sex, women are the practical sex. I like to note here that a woman is not consciously thinking this is a practical choice, but rather her instincts drive her in this direction as much as a man's instincts drive him to make irrational tributes to her.

One form of this sacrifice comes in the form of material jewelery. First the sacrifice needs to be a literal "sacrifice" or basically useless in terms of utility. Second it needs to be "showable" meaning the woman can use the thing and "show" other people that a man sacrificed a huge amount of money just for her.

Diamonds fulfill the above request more than anything else. If a woman has a house it's not clear whether the house was a sacrifice just for her or for him as well, but if she has a diamond it is 100 percent clear it was for her and nothing else. This is why the zero utility aspect is important. It is the ultimate way to communicate the nature of the "sacrifice". It is not a coincidence why a bouquet flowers also fills this role of "tribute". Cut Flowers are both useless and ephemeral communicating the act of "sacrifice" unequivocally.

So that's where it comes from. Human mating rituals. Diamonds are pleasing to the eye but there plenty of cheap forms of gemstones that are pleasing to the eye too and you don't see women coveting that stuff. The rarity and mostly zero utility nature of a diamond ring makes it an object ideal for tribute.

It is a shame, but you can't deny human nature. Women want tribute from men and they want to put that tribute on display to show off their status. Men will as a result fight tooth and nail for the status and the ability to provide a high value woman with that tribute. Entire businesses will spawn and form around this human behavioral quirk and one of these industries is the diamond industry.

That's the way the world works. Let me be clear though. If diamonds didn't exist... something else would fill this role of tribute. There will be an entire industry spawned around some other useless thing and women will highly covet that thing as tribute. It's not purely the fault of the diamond industry as many people seem to think. The diamond industry is simply filling a niche that if they didn't fill, would've been filled by something else.

2 comments

Your comments reek of pseudosciency pop evolutionary biology bullshit. Human behavior is way more complicated than you would hope. Explanations like these that make intuitive sense but are not backed by any real science have been used to condone harmful behavior in the past. We can, and always end up doing better.

Also diamonds are not rare. Look into the history of the diamond industry. It didn't spawn because society needed to use something for "mating rituals", they advertised their way to become that.

>Your comments reek of pseudosciency pop evolutionary biology bullshit. Human behavior is way more complicated than you would hope.

It's not "pop" shit. It's from a field called evolutionary psychology. A very real field in academia.

By the nature of what's being studied evolutionary psychology is harder to statistically quantify things as they do in the hard science like physics and chemistry. What they do is they study commonalities between multiple cultures and come up with qualitative conclusions based off of the most likely inductive and logical explanation for those observed commonalities. This is quite common in the soft social sciences.

Tribute to women and other mating displays from males... aka "romance" is across the board found in many divergent cultures. It is even found in animals.

In animals generally the female species is the one being courted or romanced. This occurs because the female is the one that carries the child so she is the "gatekeeper".

It is real and there are authoritative sources that illustrate what I say. There are many sources where you can read about this stuff.

Here's one: The Moral Animal: Why We Are, the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology https://a.co/d/01Caa1v

>Also diamonds are not rare.

Rare enough such that diamonds can fill the role of a tribute object. Yes advertising does play a part but if diamonds were so abundant that they're only 10 bucks a pop women wouldn't care for one at all. Of course with the advent of synthetic diamonds the market value of diamonds is now largely artificial.

All of this, however, does not detract from my point. If it's.not diamonds, it'd be something else.

Interesting community, this HackerNews site... I'm not sure I agree with everything you said, but I think I agree with a lot of it. Not long ago a book titled "12 Rules to Live By" (peterson) was mentioned and spoke highly about so I've started reading it based on HN recommendations. I say "interesting community" because a lot of what you posted is in line with the first chapter in that book, yet here you are recieving downvotes.
It's because it clashes with liberal ideologies which is the dominant culture on HN, colleges and california. What I'm saying comes from a field called evolutionary psychology. I believe Jordan Peterson gets a lot of his knowledge from there. But also what I'm saying is stupendously obvious.

HN does have a scientific slant for sure but unbeknownst to it's very users they also have a extreme liberal bias among certain users as well.

I would say I have a roughly equal amount of upvotes and downvotes. At one point my post was up by 3 and now it's at 0.

Its Science and evolutionary psychology vs. extreme liberalism.

In extreme liberalism Basically all genders are equal and reasonable there can be no major differences or negative things said about either. Feelings are more important then reality as evolutionary psychology has a lot of negative things to say about the human experience that make genders unequal in even taboo places like "intelligence"

I've talked about this stuff before in other venues that are in person where people who disagree have to be mostly polite. What I have found is that men largely agree while women do not. Even though I'm basically calling men irrational creatures fighting like idiots for women's approval, men are generally more accepting of that negative label then women are of being called the "practical" sex. I thought women would be more accepting of that label given they've been stereotyped as "emotional" since the dawn of time. Being practical tends to be a compliment... But anyway...

This explains the 50-50 thing I'm seeing going on here with the votes. The line is probably divided between gender... Women and very liberal people tend to not agree while most Men do agree.

I can tell you've had to articulate this before. I admire your courage in the year 2020+ to discuss the topic. This explanation makes sense.