I think it was Schelling who argued that the tradition of pricey engagement rings makes commitment credible, abandonment requires significant expenditure on another ring. Rings can be returned of course but cut flowers and fancy meals can't, so become routine courtship activities.
I tried to trace the first claim that expensive rings are signals, but I didn’t come across Schelling. It wouldn’t surprise me if he got there first, as he did with so much. Colin Camerer has a piece on this topic in 1988, but I’m biased in terms of the credit because, full disclosure, Coin and I go way back. Here is the cite but as I say I wouldn’t be surprised if the argument was made previously: Camerer, C. (1988). Gifts as economic signals and social symbols. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Suppl), 180–214.
Could well have been Colin (or Bob Frank, or Jack Hirschleifer, or Ted Bergstrom). It's possible I heard it at a talk or in a conversation with Bergstom, and he got it from the paper you mentioned. Memory failing me but it's a striking example.
Memory getting a bit less foggy, I think I heard it from Bergstrom, who got it from Carmichael and MacLeod, who in turn got it from Camerer, lots of interesting discussion here:
As a biology person, I would argue that the purpose of love is to keep the male partner around to provide for and protect his offspring. Human infants are costly. It is not possible for a mother to care for her child and support herself at the same time without help. The biological adaptation that has evolved is love. Cultural ones include marriage customs and strict gender roles in (virtually?) all traditional cultures which force male/female cooperation.
Thanks for the comment. I view myself as a biology person myself, and certainly some have argued that love is designed to support biparental investment in humans. I think—but I am not sure—that an early version of this argument appears in Helen Fisher’s excellent book, Anatomy of Love: The Natural History of Monogamy, Adultery, and Divorce. If someone has a better source or citation, please let us know!
What makes this a little complicated is that love can be interpreted as getting but also as giving. I think you her focus on the craving, getting, keeping element, but I think real love also implies giving, also implies a level of self-sacrifice and it is somewhat mysterious how these two elements play together.
I think it was Schelling who argued that the tradition of pricey engagement rings makes commitment credible, abandonment requires significant expenditure on another ring. Rings can be returned of course but cut flowers and fancy meals can't, so become routine courtship activities.
I tried to trace the first claim that expensive rings are signals, but I didn’t come across Schelling. It wouldn’t surprise me if he got there first, as he did with so much. Colin Camerer has a piece on this topic in 1988, but I’m biased in terms of the credit because, full disclosure, Coin and I go way back. Here is the cite but as I say I wouldn’t be surprised if the argument was made previously: Camerer, C. (1988). Gifts as economic signals and social symbols. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Suppl), 180–214.
Could well have been Colin (or Bob Frank, or Jack Hirschleifer, or Ted Bergstrom). It's possible I heard it at a talk or in a conversation with Bergstom, and he got it from the paper you mentioned. Memory failing me but it's a striking example.
Memory getting a bit less foggy, I think I heard it from Bergstrom, who got it from Carmichael and MacLeod, who in turn got it from Camerer, lots of interesting discussion here:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1574003X97800190
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2527277
As a biology person, I would argue that the purpose of love is to keep the male partner around to provide for and protect his offspring. Human infants are costly. It is not possible for a mother to care for her child and support herself at the same time without help. The biological adaptation that has evolved is love. Cultural ones include marriage customs and strict gender roles in (virtually?) all traditional cultures which force male/female cooperation.
Thanks for the comment. I view myself as a biology person myself, and certainly some have argued that love is designed to support biparental investment in humans. I think—but I am not sure—that an early version of this argument appears in Helen Fisher’s excellent book, Anatomy of Love: The Natural History of Monogamy, Adultery, and Divorce. If someone has a better source or citation, please let us know!
Love is experienced in men and women differently. Women love until they get the man invested (and wasted) and men love once they are invested.
What makes this a little complicated is that love can be interpreted as getting but also as giving. I think you her focus on the craving, getting, keeping element, but I think real love also implies giving, also implies a level of self-sacrifice and it is somewhat mysterious how these two elements play together.
snap but not snap
https://whyweshould.substack.com/p/worlding-and-the-sentimental-theory
romancing the romantic means it is a subset of home and play and worlding