As it turns out, diamonds fall into a particularly important category of objects which are both (A) Expensive to purchase, but simultaneously (B) Have little resale value.
It is these properties that make them ideal in the context of a marriage proposal. From a game theoretic position, it demonstrates serious intent on the part of the proposer, in that they can't afford to propose to many partners, while, at the same time, protecting (mostly) the proposer from gold diggers, as the person being proposed to will not be able to resell that ring to others.
People who buy diamond rings, therefore, are actually rational actors.
Let's discuss the requirements for an ideal marriage proposal gift:
1. Provides a physical, wearable symbol of commitment.
2. Is impossible to resell.
3. Represents a significant economic expenditure.
Mutual tattoos, for instance, satisfy 1 and 2 much better than diamonds, while compromising significantly on 3. But what 3 is really getting at is a demonstration of commitment, and on that count tattoos are even better. You might be able to scrape up more money to buy a ring and propose to another partner later, but unlike diamonds, tattoos really are forever.
The problem with diamonds is that, especially if you follow the old guideline that an engagement ring should cost two months' salary (!), they only demonstrate to a gold digger how much wealth she will be able to extort in the future. Besides, gold diggers will generally enjoy diamonds purely as a status symbol and will generally waste your money on dumb shit that's more similar to diamonds than, say, mutual funds. Her inability to resell the diamond doesn't really factor much into her consideration; the diamond already is what she wants, not the sentiment behind it or the economic power to spend your wealth any more sensibly than that.
Actually - I like the tattoo concept. In order for it to be effective, it's not that it has to "Represent a significant economic expenditure" - rather, it has to be something that makes it infeasible for the proposer to do many times. A large economic (for the proposer) commitment is one way of doing this - but tattoos (or better yet, branding/scarring) would be even better.
With regards to the problems with diamonds. Totally agree, I think they are absolutely stupid. In a reasonable/responsible world, the proposer would have to demonstrate the ability to provide material food/water/energy/shelter security. Now that, has "real" value to me.
But, I'm clearly not the target for an engagement ring.
> People who buy diamond rings, therefore, are actually rational actors.
Don't they stop being so once they are aware of the diamond market. Isn't it more rational at that point to pay off student loans or put a down-payment on a house?
If something that can be A) expensive to purchase and B) has little resale value is needed why not an expensive trip to Bora Bora? It fact it has 0 resale value because you only come back with pictures and a tan from it.
Regarding whether it would be more responsible to pay down student loans/down payment/pretty much anything other than a diamond - absolutely.
But, if your goal is to demonstrate commitment to the betrothal - the Diamond ring does the job.
The Diamond has the additional (and important) aspect of being a demonstrable and physical artifact of the proposers intent. Plus, it's sparkly.
The vacation doesn't serve our purpose as well, because the proposer will get significant utility value out of the trip. But you are on the right track.
Indeed - a lot of diamond knockers haven't really looked at a nice diamond in the sunlight. They are true wonders of light refraction.
In your vacation example - it's impossible for the casual onlooker to know that the tan and relaxed demeanour came from a trip to Bora Bora, rather than a golfing trip to Arizona. The important point for the diamond wearer is the the long-term appearance of having found someone willing to waste money on a useless item.
A large part of the use of the diamond is the social proof - any casual observance of the behaviour of females comparing engagement rings. Yes, it is totally irrational. Yes, it is manipulated by marketing. Yes, it is what it is. If you go mental at every irrational (as far as the purchase goes) act caused by marketing controlling social norms, well, you'll go insane. Human nature is obsessed with status symbols - always has and always will - these impulses are there for marketers to interpret and direct. Always have and always will.
Yes, it is totally irrational. Yes, it is manipulated by marketing. Yes, it is what it is. If you go mental at every irrational (as far as the purchase goes) act caused by marketing controlling social norms, well, you'll go insane. Human nature is obsessed with status symbols - always has and always will - these impulses are there for marketers to interpret and direct.
+1 ... HN is full of engineers who like to think that we are superior because we are not susceptible (ha!) to this irrationality. But of course we live in the human, social world, and it's good to understand these things, even if we seek to push back against them.
It is these properties that make them ideal in the context of a marriage proposal. From a game theoretic position, it demonstrates serious intent on the part of the proposer, in that they can't afford to propose to many partners, while, at the same time, protecting (mostly) the proposer from gold diggers, as the person being proposed to will not be able to resell that ring to others.
People who buy diamond rings, therefore, are actually rational actors.