Shit like that is why I think neuro-atypical people might actually be the correct psychological state and everyone else is just a “normal” animal.
An AuDHD perspective: Neurotypicals tend to lack curiosity and passion for interests. They’re less in-touch with their senses, sometimes needing mind-altering substances in order to appreciate basic sensory stimuli. Not only that, but they are overly-invested in “following the group” and “blending in,” even if it ends up harming them.
So yeah, you might be onto something.
I like to call it Attention Surplus Disorder. It’s crazy to me how most people can just focus on something for 50 hours a week that they’re not interested in at all, and this doesn’t set off warning bells in their head.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s plenty of antiwork neurotypucals, but it seems weird how many people actively support it.
I think for most people it’s just a matter of tradeoffs. You don’t have to be interested in the act of doing something in order to be interested in the consequence of doing that thing.
Someone who doesn’t like driving may still drive, and concentrate on driving the entire time, to get to a destination where they want to end up. For someone who doesn’t like to cook but wants to eat hot food, cooking is a means to that end.
Now, if you’re saying that you don’t think that tradeoff is worth it to you, maybe that’s true of them if they stop to think about it, too. But I’m not sure that’s what’s going on for most people who continue to work jobs they don’t like.
What self-important bullshit 🤣
That’ll be the autism.
Says the guy who just had his feeling of superiority threatened.
Average neurotypical reaction. Can’t expect them to understand 🤷
You literally can not expect them to understand.
Imagine thinking normal people don’t have hobbies and then acting superior about it on the Internet…
Imagine
No no you guys have hobbies! You’re valuable members of society and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
Neurotypicals tend to lack curiosity and passion for interests.
When the interest at issue is human relationships and social norms, I think it flips the other way around.
Better to characterize things by what type of interests tend to appeal to which.
Idk, dude. I’ve met people I swear are autistic but social but they’re overly rigid about social norms and being polite. I don’t buy itwhat you’re saying. Anyone can be interested in anything.
Anyone can be interested in anything.
Yeah, but I’m responding to a comment that says that neurotypical people aren’t curious or passionate about the things they’re interested in, and I think that’s too narrow of a way to define “interest.”
I’d reject that way of thinking because that principle could be weaponized to accuse some neurodivergent people of not caring about people by misreading why they might not be great with social cues or things like that.
That’d be a problem if people were using blanket statements, but that’s not how the comment is worded.
If someone said, “Autistic people tend to have strong, specific interests,” nobody would be getting insulted. We’d be like, “Yeah, that tracks.” Even if somebody autistic lacked that particular trait, the phrase “tend to” allows for exceptions to the statement - it’d be understood that not every autistic individual fits that description, but many often do.
Which is why it’s interesting that when an autistic person flips that exact same sentiment around to show what “normal” people look like from their perspective, neurotypicals are taken aback.
Is this supposed to be a description about a person with adhd or a person without cuz that description was spot on for some of my relatives with adhd in that they can’t hold attention on one thing too long so passion and interest was very brief. And if we’re studying one relative I had in particular, she was constantly trying to fit in, follow groups, cults and buy things to fill a void. It did much harm. ADHD was only one of the comorbidity she was struggling with along with addictive personality.
As far as drugs, she was into them in spades. Went most her life undiagnosed so she self medicated with drugs. Probably even more so than the neurotypical in the fam who could hold interest for long periods of time as they don’t require medications to get through studies.
Perhaps the people you are witnessing whom you assume are neurotypical and self medicating with mind altering drugs are secretly struggling with something mental or behavioural that hasn’t been diagnosed yet. Addiction is often hand in hand with undiagnosed depression as well. And people who are vulnerable and trying to blend in or follow the herd, join cults etc are often overlooked when it comes to proper help. That is often an outcome of family abuse or very low self esteem or both which can make a person very susceptible to gangs and cults.
might not watch tv and buy a diamond but If anything being atypical can make a person more vulnerable as they can be a target quite easily by local predatory con artists looking to pay a bit of attention and help a person fit in.
It’s a description of “neurotypical people” from the perspective of somebody who has autism/ADHD.
Neurotypicals tend to lack curiosity and passion for interests.
This is opposed to autistic people “having intense interests.” If a high level of interest in a particular topic is my “normal,” then other people’s levels of interests seem very low by comparison.
They’re less in-touch with their senses, sometimes needing mind-altering substances in order to appreciate basic sensory stimuli.
This is opposed to autistic people “stimming” in various forms. Exploring textures, staring at interesting lights, engaging in repetitive physical movements, and more are all examples of “stimming.” A lot of neurotypical people wouldn’t wave their hands between their eyes and a light just to enjoy the visual (and physical) sensations that arise from it - unless they’re tripping balls. Some people can’t seem to appreciate a super soft blanket, or how strange their own body feels, until they’ve taken some kind of mind-altering substance that heightens their sensory experience. Even just on thoughts and ideas alone, I can’t count how many times I’ve said things that made people go, “What are you smoking? (And are you willing to share?)”
Not only that, but they are overly-invested in “following the group” and “blending in,” even if it ends up harming them.
When you’ve always stuck out, the idea of “blending in” is laughable. I’ve never had the luxury of being a wallflower. I’ve come across so many people who have had good reason to speak up or stand out, yet they’d been terrified of breaking from conformity. From the perspective of someone who lacks the compulsive need to align themselves with an in-group, being so scared of “standing out” feels rather silly.
Does that help make more sense?
lacks the compulsive need to align themselves with an in-group
Don’t hold back. Just come out and say it that you think people who can actually hold a conversation with each other are just pathetic and you look down on them.
Not that distant from what an incel would write.
AuDHD refers to simultaneous autism + ADHD.
Some symptoms appear to “cancel out” each other from an external perspective.
my neighbour’s son has autism with adhd. Their son was preyed upon by a gang. and my nephew has autism with adhd but presents very differently. Hopefully he will grow to not be so easily taken as the neighbour’s son. it’s so tragic.
my niece has adhd. Their father had adhd but again, very different.
No two are exactly the same.
It’s a massive stretch to say simply being atypical means you’re invulnerable to peer pressure. If anything it’s been quite the opposite.
And as per my question above regarding descriptive criteria of atypical, are we or are we not including even just adhd as part of the argument here for what is described as ‘neurotypical’? Cuz if so I would beg to differ that we’re just randomly calling out criteria of what defines as ‘neurotypical’ such as drug use and predatory cults. My friends and relatives with adhd (struggling with addiction) would be the last to use ‘neurotypical’ to describe their experiences when it comes to how it’s been diagnosed and picked out in school years.
Neurotypical // Neurodivergent
I often forget the term and end up using atypical.
I don’t listen to hip-hop.
I gotta be honest, some of you people barely seem conscious.
The suffering has absolutely nothing to do with their value. It’s shit like this dilutes the water of topical debate. But why does that matter when you can hitch your agenda to a sting of words that sound deep and impactful.
Here is a simple and easy to understand unbiased explanation of why diamonds are valuable.
“the suffering is what makes it special” is a simplified way of saying “the de Beers company ran hundreds of advertising campaigns with the express purpose of convincing people that lab diamonds, which can be made perfect in every way, are inferior to the products of their blood diamond monopoly, and since the resulting stone is the exact same the only thing we can assume they mean makes it better is the slave-labor used in their extraction”
This. If you really want an economical alternative, moissanite is a great option. Obviously not 1 for 1, but pretty damn close for jewelry.
They arguably refract better and don’t have a history of slavery and death.
Bought my wife a big old man made diamond necklace in the early 2000s from an ad in Popular Science. She was aware but loved it. She especially liked when other women would ask her if she was afraid to wear it out, for fear of losing it. Best $70 I spent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
A Veblen good is a type of luxury good, named after American economist Thorstein Veblen, for which the demand increases as the price increases, in apparent contradiction of the law of demand, resulting in an upward-sloping demand curve. The higher prices of Veblen goods may make them desirable as a status symbol in the practices of conspicuous consumption and conspicuous leisure. A product may be a Veblen good because it is a positional good, something few others can own.
That said, part of the problem with lab-grown diamonds is that they’re not competing against a rare commodity. They’re competing against a powerful vertically integrated cartel. There isn’t any real diamond shortage, just a supply-side monopoly. There isn’t a natural high demand for diamonds, just a market saturated with aggressive advertising. There isn’t a wholesale diamond exchange judging the rocks objectively on their quality, just a series of elaborate marketing gimmicks and scammy sales goons trying to upsell you.
Diamonds have always been a racket. The one blessing of manufactured diamonds is that they’re no longer a racket putting market pressure on industrial grade diamond equipment. But the jewelry exists to separate gullible superficial status-fixated people from their money. Ethics was never part of the equation.
So the answer is just to buy a lab-grown diamond, and then tell everyone it’s real, because once the poors have it, it won’t be cool anymore
The issue is he cartel. Telling people “I overpaid for a blood diamond” and flashing them your big rock does nothing to undermine the cartel in the long run.
@Infynis@midwest.social has a great point. If you, the pleb, wears an artificial diamond and ruin the mood for the people who overpay for the blood diamonds, does devalue the status symbol.
It is the same reason why clothing brands fight so eagerly against cheap knockoffs, even if the knockoffs can be identified easily.
Best comment that I also hated reading all month.
Cool-ass economics fun fact, hell yeah
or not so fun
The dismal science
They aren’t that much cheaper
Getting there, but not down to what I’d call cheaper yet
1/10 to 1/20 the price. Literally an order of magnitude cheaper. I bought a bunch of people diamonds for Christmas this year.
1/10 the price of what though? Retail, wholesale, or something like that , I assume.
Which is fine, since you were responding to a vague two sentence comment. I should have done my usual long comment instead, it just isn’t something I really care about, so I kept it short. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t in that regard. Go mid to long, you have morons whining about the Kenney length. Go short, and someone is going to poke at it in one way or another.
I’m just glad the person poking at it was neutral to friendly about it :)
But, 1/10 the price of mined diamonds is still 1/10 the grossly inflated price of mined diamonds, not what they should cost based on a semi-fair market rather than the bullshit the diamond market is.
Making the diamonds still isn’t cheaper than pulling them out of the ground. I’m not aware of energy usage, environmental impact, or anything like that, but in terms of the production costs only.
That’s why man-made is cheaper; they’re competing against a rigidly corrupt and price fixed market.
Mind you, I also couldn’t tell you what the cost of mining the diamonds would be if slave labor wasn’t involved either. Could be that with fair wages, safety measures, etc, manmade would totally undercut natural again.
There, that’s the ten cent version instead of the penny cent version. Not gonna waste anyone’s time on the buck fifty version because I doubt anyone else cares, and I don’t care enough :)
As a rule of thumb, man-made diamonds on average sell for about 10% the cost of natural diamonds. A year ago, they cost about 20%-30% of the price, according to Diamond Hedge.
A natural 2-carat, round-cut diamond with a high-quality color and clarity rating costs about $13,000-14,000, whereas the equivalent lab-grown diamond sells for about $1,000, according to Sompura.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cost-natural-lab-diamond/
Edit: That article is a year old. It could be down to 5% now at the rate it dropped already.
For April Fools, Cards Against Humanity was literally selling diamond studded potatoes for $69.99 (USD) - and claimed a $1000 value, which I’m sure they would be at retail prices.
The FAQ said they had thousands of them, but I didn’t get there in time.
I like diamonds, my wife calls me a magpie. I buy her jewelry so I get to look at it while she wears it. That being said, I only buy jewelry with artificial diamonds for my better half. She jokingly reacts affronted when I tell her, with an incredulous face she will go “What? No children died for this? Some husband you are!”
Your wife sounds absolutely lovely.
That’s an adorable nickname
For a few years I’ve saved this pic from previous similar posts in various places, no need even for freaking diamonds
Is that a difference in the material, or is the Moissanite cut differently?
If Moissanaite just does that, then damn, that’s pretty.
Moissanite is a completely different substance than diamond, it’s a silicon carbide crystal, and it’s also made synthetically so no worries about exploitation mining, it’s also cheaper
no worries about exploitation
Until De Beers starts synthesizing it.
Yeah what conditions are these scientists working under?
I’m asking about the light. The lightshow produced by a crystal is down to both the optical properties of the material, but also the geometry of how it was cut.
The image is really cool, but it only demonstrates a difference if the moissanite was cut into the exact same shape as the diamonds.
A prism doesn’t split light because of the material its made of, but because of its shape.
Ah, i misunderstood, yeah, there’s got to be some rigging in that demo pic now that you mention it, however if Moissanite is essentially a drop-in replacement for diamonds in jewelry that is cheaper and looks even slightly nicer, which seems to be the case, then all should be well, doubly so if it kills the profits of De Beers. I’d ask to see the contrast IN PERSON if i was shopping for rings today though, nothing beats that.
Isn’t it both shape and material? The refractive index of the material is important in determining how much the light bends at the interface.
Yes, but a clear crystal is a clear crystal.
If you want to split light you can do what regardless of refractive index (as long as it isn’t zero), you’d just need to cut different angles and/or project the light onto a surface that’s closer/farther to get the same effect using a different material.
Yes, but a clear crystal is a clear crystal.
No, different materials have different refractive indices, even if they’re both “clear crystals.” Maybe the examples given are very close in refractive index, but they still differ, therefore split light differently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_refractive_indices
I’m not saying it’s the entire difference, but it certainly comes into play. It could be that the more “explosive” light example is cut identically, but held slightly askew versus the others.
Point is, it’s not just the cut that impacts the result.
…
That’s literally my point.
I’m saying you can’t tell the difference between two materials unless they are cut the same.
If they are cut differently to achieve the results you are seeing, you can’t tell whether the difference is because of the cut, or because of the material.
Moissanite has a marginally higher index of refraction than diamond so the “ideal” cutting geometry would be different. This looks like a misleading demonstration intended to market something. They appear nearly identical in normal conditions
That’s what I was immediately thinking.
Getting pretty colors out of a clear crystal is more about how it was cut, than what it’s made of.
Unless it’s something like opal that produces lightshows through completely different optical effects.
Really? I (and I say this as someone who hates diamonds and the diamond industry) always thought it looked gaudy. Maybe that’s because most the ones I see are comically large ones that would cost more than an SUV if they were diamond.
Like, as much as I hate diamonds, I think a modest diamond ring looks better/more tasteful than a giant moissanite one. More reasonably sized ones probably look better.
I honestly couldn’t care less about the actual rocks.
But pretty colors are pretty colors.
Moisannaite gives the most rainbows, and I think they are gorgeous.
But I do love the sparkle of diamonds, and sometimes prefer it. Fortunately synthetic ones are easy to come by.
The fact that the human race sees scarcity as a good thing…
Is everything I need to justify misanthropy in its most literal form (Hatred of humanity)
Scarcity of what? Food, water, sanitary infrastructure, shelter, healthcare? Yeah that is bad.
Scarcity of pretty rocks, some people want to wear as accessoires? Fine whatever. Also i wouldn’t mind the mining of scarce and pretty rocks, if it wouldn’t go with the destruction of the environment and human rights abuses.
Scarcity of anything is a bad idea. Shouldn’t we WANT to live in a land of plenty?
Well, if we had less oil, gas and coal it could make things a lot better with climate change.
Abundance can also lead to wastefullness. But generally speaking it just doesn’t matter if pretty rocks are scarce or not, if they don’t have any value in fulfilling human needs.
“Fine whatever” until someone thinks that the pretty rock that we used to base the entire financial system around is what we still should base it around again, despite the fact that the whole economy could crash if someone digs a hole in the right place or develops some new refining technology.
The whole economy has already crashed multiple times, based on frivolous financial speculation on a massive scale with fiat currency. Gold, which is not a rock by the way, is at the very least finite so it inhibits the ability of these people to print fake money and burn it up, destroying people’s lives in the process. I’m not saying a gold standard would be preferable, but I do believe the question to be far more nuanced than “idiots wanna base money off of rocks, instead of just feels as we do currently”.
Did you really just do an ‘um askshully’ because I called gold a rock?
So typical for you to just ignore the whole content of the comment pointing out your asinine argument thinking you’re conveying some deep reasoning, just in order to be able to reply to a tiny shred of it like an internet smart ass. Just Squid things, it turns out it’s useless to hope for you to say anything non-pathetic, that’s just who you keep insisting on being. Good for you big guy! Merry Christmas.
That escalated quickly.
Just curious: was the passive-aggressive “Merry Christmas” because I’m Jewish?
I was as unaware of your self-proclaimed Jewish heritage, just like I was of your supposed terminal illness you hid behind the last time. You sure seem to like to view yourself as a missile-seeking target it seems. With an uncanny ability to lower the bar to boot. Kudos.
Incorrect. Scarcity refers to quantity, not quality.
Well, we do label everything nice as “exclusive”, as in excluding others from ownership. So how nice things are deemed to be seems to be fuelled by pure spite for other people. You can’t have it, so it’s “exclusive”, meaning good and desirable. Our values in modern societies are just awful and misanthropic.
It’s not so much people being attracted to scarcity, but decades of diamond industry propaganda having an effect on our culture. Even now there’s an active effort being put by the diamond industry into keeping natural diamonds the “forever gem” while artificial gems made in a lab are being portrayed as “everyday gems”, as in less prestigious.
At this point you’re not paying money for a diamond, you’re paying money for a certificate.
If you want to know how much a diamond is really worth, go to any jewelry store and ask them to appraise the resell value of your natural diamond ring with certificate and all, no matter how much you paid for it, they’re probably going to tell you only the precious metal setting is worth any money, and the rock itself is utterly worthless the second you received it.
Which makes diamond a terrible symbol for love.
Considering more than 50% of marriages end in divorce, maybe a worthless symbol is fitting.
Initially inflated and overwhelming, then completely ordinary with little value beyond how you feel about it.
“See, our love is just like a diamond: Turns to coal under high pressure and to smoke when heated.”
Diamonds turn to coal under pressure? I thought it was the other way around. i.e. formed from coal under high pressure.
The fact diamonds can burn is pretty crazy, but it makes sense since they’re mostly (entirely?) carbon.
It’s actually the diamond industry that keeps pushing that narrative as -obviously- they want to be the sole supplier
It was weird to me, when I was looking for rings and jewelry that there are gems that have a higher brilliance and luster than diamonds (and unlike super-fancy bright glass is actually robust enough for typical use). And yet, the folks that want diamonds want diamonds. Since around 2016 after seeing the Mnuchins in the news, it felt like conflict diamonds and slave-mined diamonds are in.
it’s the suffering that makes them special.
Same with vehicles
I prefer lab grown vehicle to the ones mined out of the ground.
I gave my wife a natural diamond engagement ring, but it belonged to my great-grandmother, so I felt that it was ethical enough. You can’t really do much about suffering 120 years ago (or whatever it was) and probably everyone involved in making that ring was treated like shit in one way or another because it was 1904 and everyone who wasn’t white, male and rich suffered.
My brain; “120 years? So the mid 1800s right?..”
How many world wars were fought in the last century? The answer might surprise you!
If by last century, you mean 1900-1999; 2
If you mean in the last 100 years; 1. Which is honestly impressive all things considered.
Yeah only question for me right now is if it will go to 0 or 2 before going back to 1.
Don’t limit yourself, could go to 2 and then 3 instead of back to 1.
We still have the Bell riots and WW3 to get through before the cashless society
The most suffering-free and eco-friendly ring is the one already made, so, you did the best thing!
I think so too, thank you.
I’m not even sure where the need for an expensive gem stone came from, diamond or otherwise.
My wedding/engagement ring came from an artist and the bands are sculpted and fit together. It’s beautiful and I never have to worry about the stone falling out of the setting, plus it was in our price range. Gem stones can be nice, not arguing against them, but rings without them can be just as pretty and more affordable.
It was a marketing campaign from De Beers. Where else would it have come from.
