Finding "the one"

[Strike For The South]

Aww, come on, you cannot discount all of statistics in that manner. It does not work like this. You are no expert yourself, either, to have the authority to say whether there is a statistical fallacy here. Professionals already examined the study and found its conclusions satisfactory. Parroting the same phrase over and over stops working at a certain point - although I do admit you had a very valid point about divorce taboos causing faulty correlation - a point which was considered by the researchers as well. Arranged marriages work, and that is a sociology 101 fact, and not just a bunch of studies or obscure facts. The evidence is too overwhelming - mainly the statistics, which differ very significantly from the average society based on romantic love. I am aware of the taboo on divorce in those societies, but once again, if you read more carefully, the marriages are overall defined as more successful. Jesus, I should not even be arguing this. You are still in the Uni - go to your resident sociology/psychology professor and ask him.

Idk about happiness but Ill just say the when people come from these socities they almost all choose the romantic love aspect. It is one of the first part of there culture that is shed and as a middle class emerges in India there is less an less of the old rules.

Perhaps romantic love is only for the decadent?

You failed to read my qualification. I said so myself, that it is not a recent invention - the most ancient myths mention plethoras of love stories. No, my point was that romantic love was never practised on a cultural scale. There were always a number of ramifications which led to what is usually termed as an arranged marriage. Now, I cannot speak for every single society, but at the very least, the civilised societies did not feature romantic love as a valid method of marrying off the daughters. I am pretty sure the Minoans were not an exception to that either, despite their somewhat matriarchal culture.

The plebs of acinet Greece and Rome all had arranged marriges?

Gah, did you even read my post? So far, all the things you have said show more misunderstandings on your part as opposed to possible holes in my argument. Not to mention, you really misused that statistic there. That is the divorce rate per 1,000 people, meaning all people - people who die early, children, elderly, mentally retarded, incarcerated individuals, etc, etc. That divorce rate does not even discriminate between married and non-married persons. But that is fine if you expected me to divide the latter statistic by the former. Even if you do that, you will get 50% (rounded from 49.something) total divorce rate in proportion to the total marriage rate.

However, I am not done yet. Due to the fact you seemingly did not read my post, you missed out an important qualification - namely, the one where I pointed out the divorce rate of over 60% is found in first-time marriages. ('The chance of a couple ending the first marriage in a divorce, in US, is higher than 60%' - AP). Therefore, almost precisely half of the US marriages end in a divorce, but the second-time marriages fail at a significantly lower rate than the first-time ones, which answers for the >60% statistic. Since second marriages are quite relatively common in US, my qualification had a crucial effect.

All the data seems to contradict you. The more you get married the more likely the divorce is.

http://www.divorcestatistics.org/



Hmm, an unsupported assertion... You do not think that factor, namely the factor of the divorce taboo never crossed the minds of the sociologist researchers? At least one study, (but undoubtedly at least several more analogous studies existed) I remember, focused on parent-arranged marriages in the Western society. Variables were taken into account.



Nothing, especially on such large scale, is that simple. Logic, stereotypes, cultural assumptions, guesswork, and 'common' sense do not substitute for statistics emanating from peer-reviewed scientific studies.

You are joking me, right? You downplay my statistics in every manner, inquire on the sources, examine for variables/biases, cite the causation-correlation problem, nitpick (all of which is perfectly understandable) and now you say this??? Not funny. 'Cause ancient literature is a scientifically, statistically rigorous source. Without a doubt there are plenty of people who get the short end of the stick in such situations, but mentioning ancient myths is about as accurate as personal experiences. Not anywhere close to valid in the eyes of a sociologist, in other words. A historian has the license to interpret and cite such evidence as a valid support for his/her own hypotheses on the ancient societies, but a sociologist is no historian, not even close in this regard. Of all the things, why mention matters millennia-old? You do not think the treatment of women changed since then?

You dont have established links or sources, your only stats are the ones you choose to give us. Which is fine (and I consider NG repuetable for a debate likes this) but clearly both of us are seeing what we want to see

[Aemilius Paulus]

The plebs of acinet Greece and Rome all had arranged marriges?

Of course . Did you honestly think they married for love? I see why you would reason in this manner, as arranged marriage sounds like something that is more or less an upper-class thing, but I can assure you, it is not. You need to polish up your history before invoking it in a debate...

All the data seems to contradict you. The more you get married the more likely the divorce is.

What do you mean, you just supported my own point?! Yes, a second marriage is more likely to end in a divorce, but there are less of those than the first marriages. When I said the rate is lower, I meant the gross number, not the percentage. As a percentage of all marriages, the first ones fail more - because there are more of them. That was my point. The statistic is in relation to the total number of marriages, and not the number of first marriages. Same topic, different method. But I was indeed wrong about 60% 'all marriage' statistic. It is 50%, and it looks as if I read the marriage statistics in the past and confused the second marriage statistic as the total divorce rate.

You dont have established links or sources, your only stats are the ones you choose to give us. Which is fine (and I consider NG repuetable for a debate likes this) but clearly both of us are seeing what we want to see

OK, so I admitted I was mistaken about the 60%. But what other statistics do you doubt? I gave you what I read in sociology textbooks, which you can check any time you pick one up. You gave me a vague reference to ancient Indian myths, which you have not read (perhaps a few excerpts, but certainly not the entire vegas or other epics), and which I will not read, and which I may not even be able to access.