Re: Finding "the one"
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.Originally Posted by Strike For The South
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.
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.
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?
For the infidelity, that statistic is everywhere, as the statistics correlate adequately. If you wish to check it, do so, and believe me, you will not find lower numbers, at least not likely. The 1/4 statistic for marital infidelity is very conservative - not only because it is low, as far as other studies go, but also because its method of data collection is rather unique - 1/4 of the divorces were found to have been caused by male infidelity. This leaves out the millions who manage keep the affairs secret, who have not yet spilled the secret, and those who decided to stay together even in the face of infidelity.
The quick answer would be the February 2006 National Geographic article 'Love: The Chemical Reaction''. If NG does not satisfy you, which is understandable, since it is no scientific journal, much less a peer-review one, it is possible to examine the sources cited by the article. But this is chemistry observations, and it is difficult to go wrong here - or at least in comparison to a very impure and subtle science of sociology.
Yes, of course, I agree with that. Stimuli must be present to ensure the biological act of reproduction and the care for the offspring.
Right. My point was that this attraction is arbitrary - in the sense that it is not so much the physical/personality traits that affect us, but the circumstance as well.
Heh, you are a sharp one, eh? You are correct, but the mechanism which ensures genetic diversity is not played on the personal level, but on the societal one. Well, mostly.
We have the basic aversion to incest, which is the result of the Westermarck effect - which is the aversion to erotic attachments to the persons with which the subject has/had close contact with in the first few years of one's own life. Basically, it is the sexual desensitisation to the people in your family (including the extended one). This phenomenon is very much present in relatively small, close tribal-like structures, most notably the kibbutz. This instinct in effect shields the child from reproduction with the people he is close to - evolution presumed it would likely be one's own intimate genetic relatives.
But really, on a larger scale, it is played out through the practise of exogamy, where one has to seek a mate outside of the tribe - and this is a societal pressure, because the genetics do not discriminate on such a macro-level (we are programmed to seek certain traits, but those traits are universally shared - we show no particular affinity for people with apparent genetic differences). This societal pressure, however, does not normally cause particularly asymmetric bonds, in the genetic sense. That would be too troublesome. In fact, just the opposite happens - the basic human personality trait of being comfortable around like individuals ensures that we do not socialise too much with people unlike ourselves. To sum it up, we are fine-tuned to where the chances of marriages to relatives are highly unlikely, but once that danger passes, we show no preference for genetic strangers.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks