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

What makes for a stable marriage?

randalolson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 142 posts

Re: What makes for a stable marriage?

#101

Post by tjradcliffe »

sreitshamer wrote: post #95

When I told my father I wanted to get married he just asked, "Do you get along?" I think that's the most important question if you're expecting to stay married for the rest of your life. Many of the things cited in TFA are symptoms of not getting along. Also, I recommend always assuming you're the one who's wrong when there's a disagreement. You probably are, and if you're not it still works out better :)

"Getting along" is a key aspect of robustness in a relationship: http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=1021

Robustness is under-rated in the romantic ideals people are sold (and I do mean "sold"), which emphasize "perfection" under various guises.

The romantic ideal is someone who is not just a perfect match for you, but is a unique match for you, not because of your history and shared experiences but because of some supposedly inherent qualities.

The robust ideal is someone you get along with, who you agree with on a few fundamentals--which are mostly about attitude--who you've got enough history with to trust and understand and accept, and who you can negotiate with when you disagree. There could be a million people out there like that if the accidents of history were different, and at least half of those properties are in the relationship, not the person.

Another way I put this is, "You should marry someone you could go through a divorce with and still love them when you're done." I've seen friends with fragile relationships go through horrific divorces, whereas ones with robust relationships, while still unpleasant, generally still love each other when the dust has settled.

Re: What makes for a stable marriage?

#103

Post by disallusioned42 »

linguafranca wrote: post #86
disallusioned42 wrote: post #60

This is a fascinating topic to me. I read it with great interest, and I might even go and do a bunch of my own analysis of the data. But I can't help but think that in a way the whole thing deeply misses the point. My skepticism started when I got to the third point: "How often you go to church". The results seem obvious to me. In general, churches frown on divorce, so of course church goers are going to have lower d…

From my experience, the happiest marriages are of people who don't just "go" to church, but actually try to "live" their church's teachings in all areas of their lives. Churches usually promote selflessness, sacrifice, honesty, gentleness, and sincere love. So it's a recipe for happiness inside or out of marriage, but especially inside marriage.

For the record, I did that. And from the inside it appeared to work. For years I thought I was happy and had a fantastic marriage. But it still didn't prevent us from ultimately coming to the conclusion that staying married was not the best thing for either of us. Now I'm agnostic and MUCH happier.

Re: What makes for a stable marriage?

#104

Post by tjradcliffe »

ChiperSoft wrote: post #100
disallusioned42 wrote: post #60

This is a fascinating topic to me. I read it with great interest, and I might even go and do a bunch of my own analysis of the data. But I can't help but think that in a way the whole thing deeply misses the point. My skepticism started when I got to the third point: "How often you go to church". The results seem obvious to me. In general, churches frown on divorce, so of course church goers are going to have lower d…

Also people who stay together for their kids.

Anyone thinking about "staying together for their kids" should talk to people whose parents divorced and ask them, "Were you happier before or after your parents split?" Cases vary, but the people I've had that conversation with have all said their parent's divorce was a relief.

I know there are people who claim "divorce as such" is bad for kids but I'm very doubtful about that. Divorce can be good or bad depending on how it's done, and how interested both the parents are in their kid's well-being.

Re: What makes for a stable marriage?

#105

Post by ScottBurson »

About a decade ago, the gossip on everyone’s lips was that “1/2 of all marriages in the U.S. end in divorce.” That factoid was later disproven[0]

Whoa, not so fast. If you follow the link, you'll see that it wasn't disproven at all. Rather, the linked article attempts to supplant this statistic with a different one: the fraction of people who get married who ever divorce.

The difference between the two statistics comes, of course, from the existence of serial divorcers. It's reasonable to offer a different statistic that filters those people out. But the original statistic is actually correct as stated: about half of all marriages end in divorce.

[0] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/health/19divo.html

Re: What makes for a stable marriage?

#106

Post by disallusioned42 »

ChiperSoft wrote: post #100
disallusioned42 wrote: post #60

This is a fascinating topic to me. I read it with great interest, and I might even go and do a bunch of my own analysis of the data. But I can't help but think that in a way the whole thing deeply misses the point. My skepticism started when I got to the third point: "How often you go to church". The results seem obvious to me. In general, churches frown on divorce, so of course church goers are going to have lower d…

Also people who stay together for their kids.

Yeah, that's definitely a common reason. But I actually feel that it's one of the worst ones, and that kids would be much better off if the parents calmly explaining their decision to the kids in a positive way, thereby sparing them the pain, conflict, and at the very least unhapiness that staying together would likely bring.

Re: What makes for a stable marriage?

#107

Post by tjradcliffe »

Wintamute wrote: post #68

Slightly off topic, but I'm genuinely curious why forward-thinking secular people in the west still want to get married. Historically, and still in many parts of the world, its arguably an incredibly sexist tradition that has its roots in religious and patriarchal control. In many ways it has been completely re-defined, at least in the west, and doesn't have any/many of those connotations any more - but it begs the q…

Marriage ensures that both parents have equal and well-defined legal status, particularly with respect to their children. It also serves as a formal, public declaration of intent to stay together for life, and possibly to have children together.

I am in favour of marriage for anyone who wants to have kids--which of course includes gay people and sterile people, thanks to technology and adoption--because it's a means of recruiting community support. Raising children well is hard, and the more people involved the better. Before the church got involved, this was essentially the purpose of marriage.

Re: What makes for a stable marriage?

#108

Post by disallusioned42 »

okaram wrote: post #92
disallusioned42 wrote: post #60

This is a fascinating topic to me. I read it with great interest, and I might even go and do a bunch of my own analysis of the data. But I can't help but think that in a way the whole thing deeply misses the point. My skepticism started when I got to the third point: "How often you go to church". The results seem obvious to me. In general, churches frown on divorce, so of course church goers are going to have lower d…

The problem is that happiness in a marriage varies heavily over time, and has lots of ups-and-downs. I think a big thing that commitment devices (religion, family ...) help with is that when the going gets touch for a little while, you stay together, which is usually good in the long run. If your marriage sucks for several years, or if there's abuse, then breaking it may be OK; but many of the issues you discard woul…

Yes, I agree that commitment has value. But the standard view promulgated my many religions (and expressed in some of the comments here) that marriage should be almost non-negotiably for life takes this WAY too far. I don't know where the balance is, but I am positive that it is nowhere near where tradition places it.

Re: What makes for a stable marriage?

#109

Post by BruceIV »

phamilton wrote: post #78
chaostheory wrote: post #59

Here's the paper from Emory that the post was based on http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2501480&u... The only thing that was contradictory was the parts about the wedding. How can you not spend 20k or more when there are 200 or more guests?

I had almost 400 guests at my wedding and it cost Venue: grandparent's backyard. Had that not been available a local church's community center would have worked (usually free or "free" with a donation of like $500). Food: simple catered food. The wedding had a picnic theme (summer wedding) so we went w/ sliders and other finger foods. $8/head Chairs and tables: Rented, but set up ourselves. Photographer: Flew in some…

I have a similar experience; my wife and I spent about $4000 on our wedding,and had about 150 guests, and it was a perfectly lovely (if not particularly fancy) ceremony. We got sandwichs, cheese & crackers, and fruit trays (plus some baked goods my wife and some friends made) for the meal, it worked out to about $2 a person, and no one left hungry. The reception was in the church hall, my wife got her dress off Kijiji (think Canadian Craigslist), and I just wore the suit I already owned (why waste enough money to buy a new suit on renting a tux? I looked sharp, and no one cares how the groom's dressed anyway). We bought flowers for the bouquets, but none for decoration (again, why? where does it make the experience better?) Photography was probably our biggest single expense, and we got that cheaply because my wife knew a woman who was just getting her business started and wanted to build a portfolio (our wedding photos are great, and we have digital copies of all of them we can make as many prints of as we want).

The short version is we planned our wedding with a mindset of "we want as many of the people we care about to be able to share this day with us as possible, and since we have a limited budget we're only going to spend it on things that make a positive difference in the day".

Re: What makes for a stable marriage?

#110

Post by billyhoffman »

Anyone who thinks the number of guest at your wedding is one of the "7 biggest factors" of a successful marriage has either never been married, is unfamiliar with the different between causality and correlation, or both.

This article is irritating in its language to the extreme:

"What struck me about this study is that it basically laid out what makes for a stable marriage in the U.S. I’ve highlighted 7 of the biggest factors below."

No you haven't. You cherry picked 7 metrics and mapped them against divorce rates.

"Clearly, this shows us that having a large group of family and friends who support the marriage is critically important to long-term marital stability"

No, it "clearly" doesn't show that at all. I could argue instead that it "clearly means" that most people are highly malleable to peer pressure, and don't want to look stupid/ashamed/embarrassed that they can't make their marriage work, so they stay married (Note, I don't think divorce is about an inability to make a marriage "work", I'm simply pointing out a reasonable reaction for married people to have).

The "goes to church" factor is also very open to interpretation. Are people with strong united faith more likely to stay together? That is probable. Equally likely are that many faiths frown upon or outright forbid the concept of divorce. As my grandmother told me years ago, "Catholics, Billy, do not get divorced."

I appreciate studies that try to collect this information, but these aren't direct factors. They are, at best, secondary metrics that help reveal information about the traits and values of the people getting married. This still valuable, you just need to frame it in the right light.

Married after dating for a month? Hmmm, Sounds like people who aren't thinking things through and considering the long term consequences of their actions.

Lots of family at a wedding? The bride/groom is probably someone who has lots of experience dealing with people they love, but who can be difficult, and where leaving isn't really an option because they are family. Sounds like a good trait to help resolve the issues that will come up in a marriage.

People who aren't superficial about money or looks? Yeah, those are mature people with reasonable expectations in life. Bet they are going to do much better than someone who wants a trophy wife or a gold digger.

Really, this is all just absurd to paint these as "factors" in your marriage.

Post reply on HN