I want to be clear I'm not talking about your wife, because I don't know her obviously. But the women who "don't care" or would be against buying a diamond tend to fall into two categories. The first is relatively privileged women whose avoidance of diamonds is a status symbol in and of itself, often accompanied with some woke virtue signaling. And the second group is low status and she secretly wants a big rock but knows she won't get it, so she attempts to send the same signals as the privileged woman.

Everyone cares about status symbols. And engagement rings is one of the most prolific. It goes right next to fancy vacations, fancy cars, and fancy coffee.

I disagree with this. I don't think my wife falls into either of these categories and we consciously chose moissanite instead of diamond.

Our choice was mostly founded in finance, but because we thought it was a waste of money not because we couldn't afford it. She also had no interest in walking around with a $5k+ insurance liability on her finger, but she enjoyed the aesthetic of a clear centre stone. The small stones in both her engagement and wedding bands are diamonds because they are cheaper due to being more readily available.

We don't use it as a status symbol or for virtue signalling. Neither of us are active on social media, and I don't even think there is a photo of it online. She normally doesn't even wear the engagement ring, just the wedding band (which is very thin and basic). Our friends are aware it isn't a diamond, but because they asked not because we forced it on them. People who don't ask can think it's whatever they want, neither of us derive our self worth from whether her ring is perceived to be a particular type of stone.

Do you disagree with this Nobel Laureate Economist?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-psychology-of....

>...apart from economic payoffs, social status seems to be the most important incentive and motivating force of social behavior.” The more noticeable status disparities are, the more concerned with status people become, and the differences between the haves and have-nots have been extremely pronounced during the economic recession of recent years.

It's important to recognize we're talking about generalities here. But status symbols are one of the most important motivating factors in social behavior. Sure, maybe for your wife that's not a status symbol she particularly cares about, but do you really believe that's the majority case?

This might be hard to accept if you're a status-game player, but some people don't play, or if they do play, they know it is silly and try to minimize it. I could give examples, but you'd mistake them for some sort of signalling.

I'm curious about your thoughts on the remarks by this Nobel Laureate Economist on status and behaviors:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-psychology-of...

>...apart from economic payoffs, social status seems to be the most important incentive and motivating force of social behavior.” The more noticeable status disparities are, the more concerned with status people become, and the differences between the haves and have-nots have been extremely pronounced during the economic recession of recent years.

I'm not claiming there are no status games. I'm claiming that it is possible to see them for the empty thing they are and opt out, and that some do to an extent, without that opting-out really being just another status signalling game.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

I provided a citation that clearly explains status symbols are the second biggest motivator for social activity. Can you provide a citation around what percentage of the population consistently opts out of status symbol behaviors?

I claimed some people don't play status games and their opting out is not some other type of signalling.

If we can agree that one hermit, living alone in the woods, exists somewhere in the world, then we can agree that my claim is true: Some percentage (percentages do not imply whole numbers) of people opt out of status games.

You are being very condescending.