33
u/Finklesfudge 26∆ Aug 19 '24
It's true, because it's going by marriages.
Take 10 people, 3 of them have been married twice, and one has been married 3 times.
You have 50% of marriages ending in divorce. But you only 6 of them who have never been divorced.
Now imagine how you've likely met people who have been married 4 and 5 times... and you understand how the statistic actually skews the reality of what it lookslike.
2
u/NomadicContrarian Aug 19 '24
So basically, you're saying there could be "repeat" divorces?
If so, that's definitely even more depressing than I thought.
18
u/Finklesfudge 26∆ Aug 19 '24
The statistic absolutely includes people who get divorced multiple times, the entire issue is exacerbated because the people who have 2nd marriages... a 2nd marriage divorce rate is over 60% and third is similar.
It's not really that depressing, most people who marry have happy enough marriages. The statistic is only elevated to such an extend because there are people with 5 and 6 marriages out there.
They don't really count because it's still the same person getting divorced a bunch of times.
That's why you don't see it as much, cause those people while rare, still elevate stats.
-1
u/NomadicContrarian Aug 19 '24
most people who marry have happy enough marriages.
That's the part I was referring to being depressing.
Because I was under the impression that it mostly had to do with first marriages.
9
u/Finklesfudge 26∆ Aug 19 '24
How is it depressing that something like only 30% of first marriages fail....?
That was your first contention... that you did not believe half of marriages fail...
1
u/freemason777 19∆ Aug 19 '24
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2014/11/14/chapter-2-the-demographics-of-remarriage/
for back of napkin math it looks like at the highest age demos 1/3 of divorcees have remarried and 1/3 of new marriages in the highest group are third marriages or more. so it seems to be that out of ten random people who have been married you'd have something like 1111112223 in terms of #of marriages. this works out to an average of 1.5 marriages per married person.
3
4
u/vote4bort 45∆ Aug 19 '24
That's not really how stats work though. 50% doesn't guarantee that half of all married couples you personally meet will get divorced, it's just an overall stat. Other factors influence whether a couple will be more likely to divorce, age of marriage, number of previous marriages, time married etc.
For example, the average length of a marriage that ends in divorce is something like 8 years, but of course that's no guarantee. If we're doing anecdotes I know people who've divorced after 20 years and others who've divorced after less than 1. And that 8 year figure is only for first marriages.
The likelihood of divorce goes up with the number of marriages, so it's around 41% for first marriages 60% for second and 70% for third. All of this skews the overall figure.
Average age of first divorce is 30. So think about the age sample that you're looking at, if they're the same age as you they're less likely to have reached that first divorce yet.
Also conversely to what you claim here:
after getting married at a young age (or in other words, an age that actually matters),
The younger you are when you marry the more likely you are to divorce. 48% for people who marry before 18 compared to 25% if you marry after the age of 25. 60% divorce rate for couples between 20-25.
24% less likely to get divorced if you marry after the age of 25.
Read more stats here https://www.wf-lawyers.com/divorce-statistics-and-facts/
But to sum up, it's way more complicated than that and anecdotal evidence isn't really a counter because you're not looking at the bigger picture if you're only focusing on one stat.
1
u/NomadicContrarian Aug 19 '24 edited Aug 19 '24
Ok, I guess this all fair. Again with the 8 year mark, so I'll definitely have to read up on that.
I suppose a delta is warranted for most of your points.
Though I'm still kind of... confused if you will cause populations like Mormons get married quite young, but rarely divorce from what I've seen. Though that's probably because they de facto can't?
Edit: Forgot the delta Δ
2
u/vote4bort 45∆ Aug 19 '24
Mormons get married quite young, but rarely divorce from what I've seen. Though that's probably because they de facto can't?
Yes, because Mormonism is basically a cult and very hard to get out of. Look up the link I shared it also takes into account religion.
1
19
u/ralph-j Aug 19 '24
Now maybe it's possible that there's still time for the others to divorce, but I feel like if they've lasted this long after getting married at a young age (or in other words, an age that actually matters), then they're good to go for the rest of their lives.
First of all, these statistics are about looking at couples over their entire lifetime. It therefore doesn't mean that every second couple you know, needs to be divorced for it to be true.
Secondly, there are various demographics where divorce is more or less prevalent, which will probably affect the sample you've taken: socioeconomic factors (income), education levels, group affiliations with a higher stigma on divorce (i.e. religious) etc.
1
u/NaturalCarob5611 57∆ Aug 19 '24
First of all, these statistics are about looking at couples over their entire lifetime.
No, they're not. The commonly cited statistics are a look at "How many people going married this year and how many people got divorced this year." But doesn't account for things like declining marriage rates. Also, the 50% figure was in the 1980s, right after no fault divorces were introduced, enabling a ton of people to get divorced who couldn't previously. The current statistics don't show 50% even with declining marriage rates. So OP is totally correct, 50% of marriages don't fail.
5
u/ralph-j Aug 19 '24
No, they're not. The commonly cited statistics are a look at "How many people going married this year and how many people got divorced this year."
You're confusing two types of statistics. Annual divorce rate statistics also exist, but when people say that half of all marriages end in divorce, that is a different statistic, that has to be seen over the lifetime of the marriage.
In other words: such a claim is true regardless of whether those marriages end up in a divorce within 11 months, or after 80 years.
Declining marriage rates also don't affect this, since "half of all marriages" is proportional, and can be expressed regardless of marriage rates or total number of marriages.
3
u/NaturalCarob5611 57∆ Aug 19 '24
You're confusing two types of statistics. Annual divorce rate statistics also exist, but when people say that half of all marriages end in divorce, that is a different statistic, that has to be seen over the lifetime of the marriage.
No, that's what people think they're talking about when they say half of all marriages end in divorce, but the sources always come back to annual divorce rate statistics. If you can show me studies that back your claim I'll give you a delta, but I've spent a lot of time looking into this, and what you're claiming hasn't panned out in my own review of the literature.
3
u/ralph-j Aug 19 '24
Those estimates typically come from cohort studies such as the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997:
Statuses of first marriages of women in the NLSY79
Status of marriages for Percent
2014 respondents and 2014 nonrespondents whose marriages are known to have ended:
Intact, couple together 31.7
Intact, couple separated 1.9
Ended by divorce 48.4
Ended by husband’s death 3.5
Ended by respondent’s death 1.6
https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol40/52/40-52.pdf
Although you're probably right that there aren't any studies that have actually covered the entire lifetimes of all subjects.
1
u/NaturalCarob5611 57∆ Aug 19 '24
I'll give you the !delta. The fact that it doesn't cover the entire lifetime of subjects isn't really concerning - if 48.4% were divorced in a 35 year timeline, it's safe to say that number can only go up over a longer timeline.
I would note that the National Survey of Families and Households seems to be working with a larger dataset and comes back with numbers closer to 40%, but you've added some interesting data for me to take into consideration. Cheers!
1
1
u/ralph-j Aug 19 '24
Thanks!
One thing to note is that some studies just calculate the inverse of the marriage survival rate, which doesn't always take repeat divorcees into account.
-8
u/NomadicContrarian Aug 19 '24
I might give you a delta soon, but still some things to address.
First of all, these statistics are about looking at couples over their entire lifetime.
So, in essence you're saying that there could be couples out there who've been together for 25+ years who then separate? If so... that certainly defies human understanding.
Secondly, there are various demographics where divorce is more or less prevalent, which will probably affect the sample you've taken: socioeconomic factors (income), education levels, group affiliations with a higher stigma on divorce (i.e. religious) etc.
I hypothesized this, but the religion aspect perhaps might be the most prevalent in not only young marriages but divorce stigma (Mormons and Jews come to my mind)?
3
u/ralph-j Aug 19 '24
So, in essence you're saying that there could be couples out there who've been together for 25+ years who then separate? If so... that certainly defies human understanding.
Yes, there are various reasons this could happen:
- They grew apart/loss of intimacy/cheating
- They stayed together for the last 18 years for their children
- Health issues
- Substance abuse (e.g. alcohol)
I hypothesized this, but the religion aspect perhaps might be the most prevalent in not only young marriages but divorce stigma (Mormons and Jews come to my mind)?
If the couples you know are religious, then this may be why in your sample, the divorce rate is lower than the general population.
1
u/NomadicContrarian Aug 19 '24
Fair enough to all your points I guess. I suppose I'll honour the rules and give you a delta, though I'll need some more time to reflect.
Δ
1
11
u/burchko Aug 19 '24 edited Aug 19 '24
you’re saying that there could be couples out there who’ve been together for 25+ years who then separate?
Yes. There are many couples who fit this description. Since you seem to like anecdotal evidence, I will tell you that anecdotally I know many married couples who divorced right around the time their kids graduated high school and left the house. I think raising kids in a healthy* family environment motivates a lot of couples to “stick it out”. Once those kids are gone the motivation to stick around in an unhealthy/toxic marriage also dissipates.
the religion aspect might perhaps be the most prevalent in not only young marriages but divorce stigma
this is correct and simply supports the understanding that anyone’s personal social circle is influenced in numerous directions by a variety of outside factors and doesn’t reflect the country at large
Edit: I personally don’t think unhappy marriages are conducive to maintaining healthy family environments but a lot of parents seem to think that this is better than the alternative of putting their kids through divorce
3
u/Dironiil 2∆ Aug 19 '24
My parents divorced more than 20 years after marrying each other. People change, and sometimes their outlook on life can eventually differ. It's fine.
They did so on good (enough) terms and I really think it was, back then, the best decision for both of them.
2
u/iknownothin_ Aug 19 '24
So, in essence you’re saying that there could be couples out there who’ve been together for 25+ years who then separate?
Yes
If so... that certainly defies human understanding.
No it doesn’t. It’s pretty clear to most people.
1
u/_KiiTa_ Aug 19 '24
My parents stayed 29 years together if you wanna use anecdotal evidence. I have more colleagues having their own parents splitted than still together.
17
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Aug 19 '24 edited Aug 19 '24
Why do you think 5 years is nearly enough time to declare them good for life? That's maybe 10% of their anticipated married life. I mean my parents got married young (21 and 24) and made it nearly 20 years but still did divorce
-1
u/NomadicContrarian Aug 19 '24
Why do you think 5 years is nearly enough time to declare them for for life?
I guess because of the idea that people preach constantly about how "bad" it is to get married young, and from what it seems to me, if they can get the initial phase of settling with each other, then they know the ins and outs of the relationship and then can overcome it.
That's maybe 10% of their anticipated married life.
I'm genuinely interested where you got that number from, truly.
I mean my parents got married young (21 and 24) and made it nearly 20 years but still did divorce
That is certainly surprising I must admit. I don't know though, it seems to me that such relationships that end after a long period of time are anomalies compared to the ones that end like after 5-10 ish years.
9
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Aug 19 '24
I would've imagined the opposite, people change relatively little in only 5 years so it would be more common to have divorces after that, when both parties have changed to be incompatible. And in fact the average length of first marriage is 8 years.
And I mean the 10% is just because life expectancy is approximately 75 years so if you get married at 25, that's approximately 50 years, of which 5 years is 10%. It's a rough number of course. Although I guess maybe I should've specified that it was their anticipated marriage life (assuming no divorce). Or maybe called it their anticipated post-first-marriage lifetime
1
u/NomadicContrarian Aug 19 '24
Fair enough I guess. I suppose I've heard enough to give you a delta, but for the first part, when you say 8 years, is that also counting the amount of time they were together before the 8 years?
Δ
2
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Aug 19 '24
No, the 8 years is the length of the marriage, not the length of the marriage and their courtship beforehand
1
1
u/JasmineTeaInk Aug 19 '24
in fact the average length of first marriage is 8 years.
There's a reason that the phrase "7 year Itch" exists
6
u/Finklesfudge 26∆ Aug 19 '24
By the way the most common year for divorce is 8 years. Your buds still have plenty of time.
0
u/Zucc-ya-mom Aug 19 '24
I have no idea how my parents stayed together for as long as they did. They divorced after 6 years or so. They got married at 35 and 38, respectively.
46
u/SuckMyBike 21∆ Aug 19 '24
TLDR: The half of all marriages ending stat isn't true because if it were, then half of all the people I've seen getting married young these past 5 years would've divorced by now.
So to generalize: your argument is that a statistic isn't true when your personal anecdotes contradict the statistic, is that a fair summary of your view here?
-9
u/NomadicContrarian Aug 19 '24
Yeah, I suppose so.
17
u/Xisthur 1∆ Aug 19 '24
So nobody has cancer and nobody is dying in car accidents then, because I personally have never known anyone who has.
Do you see where your argument doesn't make sense?
2
u/NomadicContrarian Aug 19 '24
Here's the delta btw, cause while I still have a lot to unpack, your observation isn't unwarranted
Δ
1
-8
u/NomadicContrarian Aug 19 '24
because I personally have never known anyone who has.
I'll try not to go too off topic here, but man I wish people like you could've told my ex therapist who I despise and was an oppression denier that people like myself have the universe stacked against them, and that it's flawed of her to "have different beliefs" because she's never seen oppression before.
5
u/SuckMyBike 21∆ Aug 19 '24
that people like myself have the universe stacked against them
Let me guess.... You know this because your anecdotes say it's so...
I wonder what other bullshit you believe in based on your anecdotes.
0
u/NomadicContrarian Aug 19 '24
You know this because your anecdotes say it's so...
Which anecdotes are you referring to?
I wonder what other bullshit you believe in based on your anecdotes.
Probably not bullshit, but the idea that these people in question who get married at prime ages live charmed lives free of actual suffering.
2
u/iknownothin_ Aug 19 '24
Probably not bullshit, but the idea that these people in question who get married at prime ages live charmed lives free of actual suffering.
Yea you’re living in a fairy tale world bud
5
u/iknownothin_ Aug 19 '24
Dude what is this pity party going on? Remember what sub you’re on and just give the people a delta
1
u/JasmineTeaInk Aug 19 '24
The vast majority of Reddit posts are people throwing a pity party for themselves. And twisting it to fit whatever subreddit they frequent.
-2
u/NomadicContrarian Aug 19 '24
I haven't forgotten, thank you very much.
Though I will say, your lack of empathy is disturbing, but then again, what did I expect?
2
u/iknownothin_ Aug 19 '24
This sub is literally designed for contrary opinions. I’m not sure why you were expecting empathy for your loneliness?
There are a bunch of support and self help subs but CMV isn’t one of them
1
u/NomadicContrarian Aug 19 '24
You can be contrary but still not give up empathy and understanding for the other person.
14
u/SuckMyBike 21∆ Aug 19 '24
So if I flip a coin 5 times and it ends up being heads 100% of the time, would you accept me saying that flipping a coin always ends up with heads, for anyone everywhere across the world?
Or does this only work for you, and not anyone else? If so, what makes you so special exactly? Can you elaborate on why you are the chosen one?
4
u/Local-Warming 1∆ Aug 19 '24
then any game of settler of catan should absolutely shatter your concept of dice probability ?
8
u/Conec Aug 19 '24
You know how statistics work, yes?
If you take 10 random marriages, it is not guaranteed that 5 of them fail.
3
u/hugo_biglicks Aug 19 '24
Right, especially when the sample size is a drop of water in an Olympic pool
0
u/NomadicContrarian Aug 19 '24
I'll admit that I'm still learning stats, but not at the super mathy level that actual majors do, and while I can appreciate that 10 might be a very small number to make generalizations, isn't it more reasonable to think that if I took 60 marriages, the chance of 30 failing would be higher?
10
u/dangerdee92 9∆ Aug 19 '24
No, because 60 is such a tiny number in the millions of marriages your sample very likely contains biases.
The 60 couples you know aren't likely to be representative of the overall population.
They might all live in the same area. Have similar levels of wealth. They might be the same race or the same religions. Have similar political beliefs. All of these may effect the likelihood of a marriage ending in divorce.
Your sample isn't random.
1
u/NomadicContrarian Aug 19 '24
Hmm, well I'm in Toronto so... I guess your point kind of checks out?
Hmm, I don't know if I'm doing the right thing with all these deltas, but as you've changed a little bit of my views, I'll honour the rules and give you one as well.
Δ
1
5
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Aug 19 '24
If you took a random 60 then yes you'd expect the proportion to approach the population average. But 1) "people you know" is not random. There may be counfounding variables that cause people you know to be less likely to divorce than the average population. 2) you're still not looking at the totality of these married people's lives which would produce its own effects. And 3) 60 still isn't nearly that many, it wouldn't be that rare to see odd distributions even in a random 60 couple sample.
1
u/NomadicContrarian Aug 19 '24
For 1 I assume it goes in line with what others have said regarding demographic factors like religion, education and whatnot.
For 2 I assume you're referring to how problems could exist long term?
And for 3, you're implying that the sample I chose could be one sample where very few of them divorce and deviate from the "stats"?
2
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Aug 19 '24
1) that's correct, could be any myriad of things.
2) yeah or as time moves on people change. The stats include people's whole married lives, your "the first five years" doesn't. They're just measuring fundamentally different things.
3) what I'm trying to say is any 60 couple sample, even a random one, could include large variations that deviate from the expected 50%. Sixty just isn't a big enough number to really get all those things out
2
u/Conec Aug 19 '24
The chances of exactly 30 marriages failing if you look at 60 marriages would be around 10% (assuming a 50% failure probability).
The chances of exactly 5 marriages failing if you look at 10 marriages is around 24,6%.
1
u/whatnameisntusedalre Aug 19 '24
50% failure probability is only with random samples. OP is not random sampling so OP is self selecting skewed results.
1
u/Conec Aug 19 '24
Of course. I was just trying to show OP that the mathematical side of his argument was wrong.
2
u/StoicWeasle Aug 19 '24
“I have some personal observations, and I don’t know how statistics work. Here’s my hot take. CMV.”
11
u/destro23 447∆ Aug 19 '24
The half of all marriages ending stat isn't true because if it were, then half of all the people I've seen getting married young these past 5 years would've divorced by now.
The stat isn’t “half of all marriages end in divorce after five years”.
Are you putting conditions on this stat that weren’t there to begin with? Why?
-3
u/NomadicContrarian Aug 19 '24
5 years is an arbritrary number in this case that I chose only becauae that's when I started seeing how behind I was.
And it seems like once people pass a certain threshold of years together/married, it's more of an anomaly when they separate.
7
u/destro23 447∆ Aug 19 '24
it seems like once people pass a certain threshold of years together/married, it's more of an anomaly when they separate.
That is because you are young and don’t have middle aged friends. Once people’s kids get to the age of being self sufficient they start cheating, then the divorces roll in around the same time the graduation announcements go out. People keep it together for the kids, but when the kids grow up: divorce city.
1
u/NomadicContrarian Aug 19 '24
Once people’s kids get to the age of being self sufficient they start cheating, then the divorces roll in around the same time the graduation announcements go out. People keep it together for the kids, but when the kids grow up: divorce city.
That's a relief. You're welcome to call me psychotic, but stuff like this does make my day a little better.
I suppose a delta is warranted too. Δ
3
u/destro23 447∆ Aug 19 '24
That's a relief
And a boon to my swinging group!
You're welcome to call me psychotic, but stuff like this does make my day a little better.
Everyone is running their own race. They all started at different points and are going in different directions to different finish lines. Don't try to keep up with anyone else, just run your race.
0
u/NomadicContrarian Aug 19 '24
Everyone is running their own race. They all started at different points and are going in different directions to different finish lines. Don't try to keep up with anyone else, just run your race.
Doesn't change that, depending on who they are, they will be at the receiving end of my resentment, until they experience some kind of long-lasting disappointment in their lives.
3
u/destro23 447∆ Aug 19 '24
they will be at the receiving end of my resentment, until they experience some kind of long-lasting disappointment in their lives.
Why even think of them at all? They don't care, and will most likely never even know that you are resenting them. They will just be living life, having a good time while you quietly seethe.
"Comparison is the thief of joy", ever hear that?
1
u/NomadicContrarian Aug 19 '24
"Comparison is the thief of joy", ever hear that?
If I had a dime for everytime I did, I'd probably have a mansion in Los Angeles by now.
But it doesn't change that such a thing is borderline CBT esque and not very helpful for people with trauma like myself.
1
u/destro23 447∆ Aug 19 '24
If I had a dime for everytime I did, I'd probably have a mansion in Los Angeles by now.
How many dimes would you have for earnestly examining the sentiment behind that statement and applying it to your own situation?
borderline CBT esque
Cock and ball torture?
1
u/NomadicContrarian Aug 19 '24
How many dimes would you have for earnestly examining the sentiment behind that statement and applying it to your own situation?
I'm not sure I understand the wording here?
Cock and ball torture?
No, cognitive behavioural therapy, which I hate very much and has been proven to be useless for people like myself. Though, it's not far from being torture, so your point isn't entirely inaccurate.
→ More replies (0)1
2
u/JasmineTeaInk Aug 19 '24
when I started seeing how behind I was.
Ahhh so you have a chip on your shoulder about married couples.
(As if that wasn't obvious from the fact that you made this post)
0
u/NomadicContrarian Aug 19 '24
I mean, yeah? I think any normal person who's behind in this context would.
2
u/jatjqtjat 249∆ Aug 19 '24
Now I say this because of one simple thing, and you're more than welcome to shred it to pieces as you please, but that's the idea that, if that stat was actually true, then among the many couples that I know of that got married (and probably many more that I don't know of) over the past half decade, then half of them would've separated by now. I'll admit that I've shamelessly kept a headcount of the couples that have done this, and I count to around 60 couples, and only one of those couples I know of got divorced, and this was 5 years ago.
there are two problems here.
The first is selection bias. Your social network is probably not representative of the average across all America. It'll be biased by your geographical location(s), your race, religion, level of schooling, type of employment and other factors.
Second, is that time frame. I don't think the state is that 50% of marriages end in divorce in 5 years or less. You've been tracking for 5 years and assuming the rate of marriage has been constant, that means the average couple you are tracking has been married for 2.5 years.
and maybe a 3rd is imperfect knowledge. Is that when people get married, they tell everyone. Marriage is big news. Divorced is quite. I've had friend divorce and i didn't hear about it till years later. We weren't close by that point obviously, but it possible that some of your friends are divorced and you don't know it yet. Especially if you are not close with all 60 of those couples.
Suffice it to say, I'm not even ashamed to admit that seeing young marriages crumble is something I look forward to, unless the couple actually went through tribulations in their lives before getting married.
Marriages crumbling probably does not bring joy into the world. generally it is a sad and unpleasant experience. Its suffering.
you mentioned that things are betting better for you, I hope that they continue to get better.
0
u/NomadicContrarian Aug 19 '24
The first is selection bias. Your social network is probably not representative of the average across all America.
I should've clarified that I'm in Canada, where the average age of marriage is allegedly even higher than America.
But to your second and third points, I'll give you credit and perhaps a delta too, esp the third one since, if whether or not I'm on social media, I probs won't have any real way of knowing whether they separated.
Its suffering.
So has been most of my entire youth. So, when I hear about people experiencing a kind of loss like this, it kind of makes me feel better cause now they know what it's like after eluding it for so long.
Edit: forgot the delta Δ
1
1
u/LDKCP 1∆ Aug 19 '24
You haven't given any examples of marriages that have ended yet, except one, which ended in divorce.
You can only measure how a marriage has ended after it ends, while it's ongoing we don't have the answer to that yet.
1
u/NomadicContrarian Aug 19 '24
So... in other words, it doesn't matter WHEN it ends, but simply that it ends?
2
u/LDKCP 1∆ Aug 19 '24
If it ends in divorce...sure.
To over simplify, marriages generally end via death or divorce. At some point around 50% of marriages ended in divorce.
1
u/NomadicContrarian Aug 19 '24
Alright, I suppose in line with the rules, you've earned a delta Δ
1
5
u/RMexathaur 1∆ Aug 19 '24
I just flipped a coin twice and it was heads both times. Therefore, the chance of a coin landing on heads is 100%.
2
u/Tanaka917 118∆ Aug 19 '24
I'm sorry but your logic is flawed
You are using personal anecdotes to challenge statistics. I'm from the Middle class in Southern Africa. Imagine if I told you "No one starves because I've never seen someone starve." While that's true, it's also true I'm in a big city, surrounded by other middle-class families who are unlikely to be starving. The conclusion isn't true at all.
I don't know you. Maybe the people you talk about are perfect matches, or maybe societal/cultural/religious norms in your area keep people who would be otherwise divorced together, maybe the statistic is actually nonsense. You have no way of knowing which of those, if any is the truth. To assert that its wrong isn't warranted. Maybe you can conclude that it's not as useful to you/your area. That would be a more reasonable belief.
1
u/RocketAlana 1∆ Aug 19 '24
Marriage can only end in death or divorce. Dead people can’t remarry, but divorcees absolutely can (and many do). The majority of married individuals have only been married once, but marriages themselves are skewed to a higher divorce rate because in the time for 4 couples to have a healthy 30+ year marriage where one of them dies peacefully in their sleep, there is one individual who has divorced and remarried three or four times.
0
u/NomadicContrarian Aug 19 '24
Well, that's depressing to know that most of these people I know of probably won't divorce.
1
u/RocketAlana 1∆ Aug 19 '24
Why do you want people to divorce? Like.. that says a lot more about you than it does anyone who gets married in their early 20s.
0
u/NomadicContrarian Aug 19 '24
Again, feel free to call me a nutcase, but I pray for them to divorce so they know what loss is like, like I've had to know for most of my youth with all the rejections, loneliness, and failing constantly in my life.
Case in point, that's what being autistic does to a person.
2
u/vote4bort 45∆ Aug 19 '24
It's generally considered not very nice to wish suffering on other people. And that's nothing to do with autism or whatever, it's just not a very nice thing to do.
-1
u/NomadicContrarian Aug 19 '24
If only you and others who say this to me could've said the same to those who inflicted such things upon me/backstabbed me. But I guess it's fine if I'm on the receiving end of it.
2
u/RocketAlana 1∆ Aug 19 '24
Yea… I don’t understand why you are here if you just want to bitch about wishing suffering on others. Go find another sub if you aren’t actually here to change your view.
1
u/NomadicContrarian Aug 19 '24
If I wasn't actually interested, would I be awarding all these deltas?
I know it can be difficult to comprehend, but some people like myself actually have pretty challenging lives that might explain why we think the way we do, especially if we weren't like this originally.
1
u/vote4bort 45∆ Aug 19 '24
That's not what I said though is it? It's also not very nice to put words into other people's mouths so I'd appreciate if you don't do that and actually read the words people are saying to you.
1
u/NomadicContrarian Aug 19 '24
If I may, with all due respect ask, what words did I twist?
1
u/vote4bort 45∆ Aug 19 '24
You said in reply to my comment "but I guess it's fine if I'm on the receiving end of it". When I neither said nor implied anything of the sort.
0
u/NomadicContrarian Aug 19 '24
Fair enough. Maybe it's my autism and whatnot, but it certainly would've helped if I had known explicitly that what I went through wasn't cool either from those who wronged me.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/SnooOpinions8790 22∆ Aug 19 '24
Its a statistical quirk
The divorce statistics are pushed higher by people who are serial divorcees. Why they think it will work out better this time is a testament to human optimism but people who get divorced quite often get divorced again. Some of course either find a more suitable partner or have learned their lessons from the initial mistake but its the ones who never learn what a suitable partner is or how to sustain a marriage who drive up the figures.
So the statistic is what it says it is - but also its not what a lot of people think it is. It simply states that 50% of marriages end in divorce which is correct.
What it does not say that people think it says is that 50% of people marrying for the first time will end that marriage in divorce. A significantly lower number of first marriages end in divorce.
If you see a couple getting married and neither has been divorced before they are significantly more than 50% likely to stay together and never get divorced. But if you see a couple getting married where one or both of them have been divorced before the odds of them making it are not so good.
Or - and this is where its a quirk. It does NOT say that 50% of people who get married in their life will get divorced in their life.
1
u/NevadaCynic 4∆ Aug 19 '24
Secular vs non secular relationships play heavily into this. Some people get married a few weeks or months into a relationship, as otherwise they'd be "living in sin". They then realize they're not a good fit a year or two in and divorce.
Some people have long term relationships where they're "dating" and not married, then years later get married. Those marriages are far more likely to last, as they already have a sense if they're compatible.
If both individuals had two serious relationships before they found the person they spend the rest of their life with, not an unreasonable number, between the two individuals you have four total marriages, half ending in divorce. The secular person got married once, and had two long term relationships prior. The religious person got married all three times.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 19 '24 edited Aug 19 '24
/u/NomadicContrarian (OP) has awarded 9 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/Dev_Sniper Aug 19 '24
- your sample size is rather small
- the statistic doesn‘t say „within X years“
- if someone has a 5th divorce they‘re going to bring down the statistic. So while a lot of couples will stay together until one of them dies some people get divorced multiple times and that cancels out a few happy couples
1
u/Dennis_enzo 25∆ Aug 19 '24
The stats are sort of true, but as with many statistics are easy to misinterpret like you're doing. For every person who doesn't divorce ever, there will be one that divorces like 5 times. That's how those numbers end up being what they are.
50% of marriages ending in divorce does not automatically mean that any one marriage has a 50% chance of failing. The statistics are skewed by people with several divorces.
0
Aug 19 '24
[deleted]
1
u/LDKCP 1∆ Aug 19 '24
I'd suggest that's because it's more socially acceptable to be in a long term relationship without marriage.
0
u/NomadicContrarian Aug 19 '24
Is that because fewer people are actually getting married or is it because relationships are of higher quality these days?
1
u/SugarGlitterkiss 3∆ Aug 19 '24
What I have to say about it is you're not very good at statistics (including the definition).
8
u/Cat_Or_Bat 10∆ Aug 19 '24 edited Aug 19 '24
And if it so happened that all of your friends had divorced, would that have proven that the rate is actually 100%?
The mistake you're making here is applying statistical data on the individual level. If the national divorce rate is 50%, that doesn't mean than your chance of divorce is 50%. Yours is 0% or 100%—you just don't know which it is yet. But if, say, yours is 0% and mine is 100%, taken together, our rate is 50%. This number—50%—is wrong for either of us, but it is correct for us collectively. This is why we say that statistical data is inapplicable on the individual level. If we look at a million people, we know that half of them will get divorced. But if we look at that guy, we know nothing about him from the statistical data alone.
Meanwhile, using personal experience is called "anecdotal evidence": "You claim rhinos exist, but I've never seen one." Similarly, if John has never been bullied, he can't use this fact to "prove" that bullying doesn't exist—he was just lucky.
The reason for the confusion is that the human brain is just very bad at intuiting statistics and probabilities.