Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Case for Getting Married Young

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 61 posts

Re: The Case for Getting Married Young

#51

Post by kscaldef »

jessriedel wrote: post #23
kscaldef wrote: post #12

"Unmarried twenty-somethings are more likely to be depressed, drink excessively, and report lower levels of satisfaction than their married counterparts" Let's all say it together: Correlation is not causation.

As I posted elsewhere, you might be interested in some strong evidence for the causal relationship as described by economist Bryan Caplan: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/03/22_short_argume....

I'm sorry, but that seems to be about earnings, not about happiness or drinking habits. Am I missing something? (It also says that women experience a penalty, whereas the original article asserts positive correlations for both men and women.)

Re: The Case for Getting Married Young

#52

Post by jessriedel »

kscaldef wrote: post #51
jessriedel wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I posted elsewhere, you might be interested in some strong evidence for the causal relationship as described by economist Bryan Caplan: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/03/22_short_argume....

I'm sorry, but that seems to be about earnings, not about happiness or drinking habits. Am I missing something? (It also says that women experience a penalty, whereas the original article asserts positive correlations for both men and women.)

The alternative theory being (1) that marriage causes men to invest more in their jobs and women to invest more in children, but (2) that the correlation between women's marriage with happiness, and between the historical decline of marriage and raising of children with increasing female unhappiness, is acausal?

Re: The Case for Getting Married Young

#54

Post by kscaldef »

jessriedel wrote: post #52
kscaldef wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but that seems to be about earnings, not about happiness or drinking habits. Am I missing something? (It also says that women experience a penalty, whereas the original article asserts positive correlations for both men and women.)

The alternative theory being (1) that marriage causes men to invest more in their jobs and women to invest more in children, but (2) that the correlation between women's marriage with happiness, and between the historical decline of marriage and raising of children with increasing female unhappiness, is acausal?

Are you attempting to make an argument of the form: A is correlated with B, and A causes C, therefore A causes B?

Re: The Case for Getting Married Young

#55

Post by jessriedel »

kscaldef wrote: post #54
jessriedel wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative theory being (1) that marriage causes men to invest more in their jobs and women to invest more in children, but (2) that the correlation between women's marriage with happiness, and between the historical decline of marriage and raising of children with increasing female unhappiness, is acausal?

Are you attempting to make an argument of the form: A is correlated with B, and A causes C, therefore A causes B?

Unfortunately, making understanding the real world is not easily reducible to propositional logic. Since you seem interested in pedantry, the technical thing to say is that you must use Bayesian inference and reasonable priors.

In this case, explanations for A and C being correlated without A causing C are strongly related to explanations for why A and B might be correlated without A causing B. (E.g., people who get married are predisposed to be successful.) Evidence, which necessarily can't be in the form of a randomized controlled experiment and yet can still be very strong, that A in fact causes B greatly reduces ones belief that A might not be causing C. My previous comment was asking whether you would defend alternatives that I find to be very unlikely, like a hypothetical predisposition for people to both get married and be happy but which is completely independent from the increase in earnings.

Re: The Case for Getting Married Young

#56

Post by kscaldef »

jessriedel wrote: post #55
kscaldef wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you attempting to make an argument of the form: A is correlated with B, and A causes C, therefore A causes B?

Unfortunately, making understanding the real world is not easily reducible to propositional logic. Since you seem interested in pedantry, the technical thing to say is that you must use Bayesian inference and reasonable priors. In this case, explanations for A and C being correlated without A causing C are strongly related to explanations for why A and B might be correlated without A causing B. (E.g., people who get…

Since we're talking about belief rather than what we can prove, I think it's extremely plausible for the causation in question to go the other way. Given the choice, would you rather date / marry someone who was happy and healthy or someone who was depressed and drinks too much?

Re: The Case for Getting Married Young

#57

Post by jessriedel »

kscaldef wrote: post #56
jessriedel wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, making understanding the real world is not easily reducible to propositional logic. Since you seem interested in pedantry, the technical thing to say is that you must use Bayesian inference and reasonable priors. In this case, explanations for A and C being correlated without A causing C are strongly related to explanations for why A and B might be correlated without A causing B. (E.g., people who get…

Since we're talking about belief rather than what we can prove, I think it's extremely plausible for the causation in question to go the other way. Given the choice, would you rather date / marry someone who was happy and healthy or someone who was depressed and drinks too much?

All science is about belief. Randomized controlled trials are useful not because they convey mathematical proof, but because they give strong evidence for beliefs.

Your question doesn't help. For the sake of argument we have granted that marriage causes men to earn more money. And yet, I would still prefer to marry someone who was earning more money (or who had the potential to earn more in the future), all else being equal. This preference doesn't dispute the causation.

Re: The Case for Getting Married Young

#58

Post by pbhjpbhj »

Contero wrote: post #43
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a hypothesis why "happiness" would correlate with marriage without their being any causative relationship? Correlation does suggest causation though. Isn't it generally sound to assume causation until the position can be falsified?

The causation could easily be backwards. Who wants to marry a depressed, unsatisfied drinker? > Isn't it generally sound to assume causation until the position can be falsified? Not really, no. Would you assume causation in the case of cereal consumption typically increasing 30% on the first Tuesday after a heavy rainfall? There are many similarly insane correlations that you wouldn't be so quick to assume causation…

>Would you assume causation in the case of cereal consumption typically increasing 30% on the first Tuesday after a heavy rainfall? //

I can't really conjure an imaginary causation because for your imagined one [?] I'm not sure what your claim is - do you mean 30% more breakfast cereal is eaten (as opposed to purchased) on the Tuesday following heavy rain, in all areas (globally??). If it were a local statistic to the USA then one could argue that when the weather is bad people stay in at the weekends and drink more, then they miss breakfast on a Monday because they're hungover, then on Tuesday they resolve to better health and so eat breakfast cereals, they of course give up on Wednesday on the whole and the cycle repeats.

There are no real causes for imagined realities so there is no gain in asking - or answering - the question if it is indeed made up.

It's entirely plausible that there is an explanation for a similarly absurd sounding but real statistic that relies on causation.

>you wouldn't be so quick to assume //

You're right, I try not assume much but FWIW I only asked if it were sound or not, not if one were likely to do it.

You say it's "biased", I don't understand what you mean. If you always assumed a causative chain when first encountering [direct, gross, longitudinal] correlation where would the bias lie?

Re: The Case for Getting Married Young

#59

Post by pbhjpbhj »

abduhl wrote: post #41
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a hypothesis why "happiness" would correlate with marriage without their being any causative relationship? Correlation does suggest causation though. Isn't it generally sound to assume causation until the position can be falsified?

Absolutely not as assuming causation implies you know the directionality of the relationship. Cancer correlates pretty well with old age but you'd be pretty silly to assume that it causes old age.

By "assume causation" I meant "assume there is a causative link", which for cancer appears to be true to a degree. So if I specify and say "is it sound to assume a causative link [without specifying the cause and effect direction or that link] where a strong direct correlation is observed" (or similar wording) would you go for that?

There are many examples of course to prompt this clarification - fatness causes over-eating, bruises cause people to get hit, et cetera. There are also likely many examples where the direction of the causation is not clear - poverty and [minor] theft say.

Can you [or anyone] give an example where a causative relationship as a first hypothesis is ludicrous without questioning direction of the relationship?

Re: The Case for Getting Married Young

#60

Post by pbhjpbhj »

Samuel_Michon wrote: post #32
simonsarris wrote: post #11

Color me unconvinced of marriage per se. Literally zero of the things in the author's marriage are necessarily attributable to the marriage itself, or necessarily consequences of marriage for that matter. And never mind co-habitating, all of the transformative stuff could have happened regardless while simply living with an upbeat roommate. "The case for living with or near positive people that share similar ideals"…

I made a little graph of how I think this works: http://i.imgur.com/2rWGO4y.png

Did you base it on any data?
Post reply on HN