Relationship Win!

[andrewducker]

From a BBC article

Researchers studied interviews of more than 1,500 couples who were married or in a serious relationship.

Five years later, they followed up 1,000 of the couples to see which had lasted.

They found that if the wife was five or more years older than her husband, they were more than three times as likely to divorce than if they were the same age.

If the age gap is reversed, and the man is older than the woman, the odds of marital bliss are higher.

Add in a better education for the woman and the chances of lasting happiness improve further.

From

Comments

[meihua.livejournal.com]

How is this "relationship win"?

[andrewducker]

I'm in a relationship with a younger woman who is in the final year of her PhD. Clearly I am made of win - guaranteed by SCIENCE!

[meihua.livejournal.com]

I see.

[simont]

I wonder if the study captured any information on which partner tended to instigate the split in the various cases. (Er, if that can be sensibly measured in the first place – I could certainly imagine cases in which it wasn't at all obvious, but I've no idea whether such cases would be in the majority or not.)

[andrewducker]

I can't see the reporting there being...accurate.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

Although there might be useful information in what each individual thought had ended the relationship.

[mooism.livejournal.com]

The question is the extent to which this is due to human nature -v- how much is due to cultural factors.

The other question is why men's education doesn't seem to matter.

The other other question is how this works in same sex couples.

[andrewducker]

Oh, there's all sorts of questions. Might be worth digging out the original study and seeing what else is in there.

[meaningrequired.livejournal.com]

I think increased education is likely to be correlated with other factors which probably increase marital happiness.

[meaningrequired.livejournal.com]

In women I mean.

I'm still shocked by how far we've come in 50/60 years in terms of
"what was ok" (and I think we've still got some distance to go). Now we're not allowed to discriminate against women overtly, and publicly. I wonder if the women interviewed are still coming out of the old mentalities.

Also, my gran frequently says "education a woman and you educate a whole family"...

[marrog.livejournal.com]

Of course, none of this information is in any way relevent to a significant portion of the population. Oh how I love being represented by science. Not.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

Also, I don't expect the BBC to acknowledge said gap in the study, but I expect more careful language use from you, generally - relationship win, perhaps, but PC fail.

[andrewducker]

You expect me to critique the reporting of randomly amusing studies that pass me by? Not likely. I found something amused and reposted it. I don't have the time, energy or inclination to take it apart today. If you want to do a post about it on your journal then feel free.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

Not at all - I expect no critique, necessarily, even in passing - that isn't relevant to your point.

I actually meant that I would've expected you to specify 'straight couples' or 'opposite sex couples' or 'married or in a serious hetero relationship' in the first paragraph rather than saying just 'couples', instead of leaving it until the third before introducing 'the wife' and 'her husband'... implying that all couples have 'the woman' and 'the man'. It's blatant and woefully common prejudice by omission, and while I don't expect any more careful language from the BBC, with your readership and friends group I do expect better of you.

[andrewducker]

Aaaah - that's a fair point. I should really have made it clearer that the above is all copy/paste.

Because, you're right, I either would have done that myself, or if I hadn't then I bloody well _should_ have.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

Okay. I'm lowering your "epic PC fail" to a "medium carelessness fail". You can have a slapped wrist instead of a Look, also.

[andrewducker]

Thank you :->

(I've updated the post to make it clearer)

[andrewducker]

Oh - this is exactly the kind of discussion I meant when I mentioned it at the course on Sunday, by the way.

People make assumptions about things, everyone polarises, and then flamewars get started if people aren't careful. I've gotten better at that kind of thing in recent times, but I'm still working on it.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

The important thing, I think, along with all the stuff that should be obvious about respect and making it easy for the other person to concede points should you want them to* ... the important thing is to stick to the point and make it absolutely clear that you know what you're arguing about in the first place. You and I manage to have some pretty heated arguments without falling out, I reckon, and even then we still occasionally lose each other's threads along the way. It's hard not to get sidetracked once you let someone annoy you.


*I've never understood why people on the internet in particular like to try to make it so hard for the other person to give ground and retain their dignity - honestly, what's more important, winning, or humiliation? When I argue I'd much rather have the other person come around to my side graciously and preferably while thinking that they not only came up with this 'new' conclusion themselves, but were particularly sexy, intelligent and mature while doing so.

[andrewducker]

We're both focussed on truth though. I'd much rather have lost - but now be right, than to be victorious, but wrong. I believe you're much the same :->

[marrog.livejournal.com]

Absolutely.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

(Also, I wasn't implying that I thought the study even should have included same-sex couples - I actually don't, although I won't get into why since it's not really the point)

[andrewducker]

I'd agree with you - for the first iteration of a large study like this you go for whatever gives you the largest sample size without causing confusion in the stats. And then you go on to add more complex factors later, so you cn contrast to the initial sample and see where the differences are.

Of course that _could_ be done by including same sex couples and then leaving them out of the first run through of the data, if budgetary constraints would allow that kind of thing. Certainly cheaper than doing two compeltely separate studies.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

Probably. There are so many factors there, though - not least my experience that there are facets of same-sex couple dynamics that frankly could hardly be more different from opposite-sex, and what fascinates me is why that really is, but before we even get to that we'd need an in-depth analysis of what's different. I wouldn't even know where to start.

[lpetrazickis.livejournal.com]

I defy your laughable statistics.

[andrewducker]

Of course - you're a person, not an averaged, homogenised statistic :->