
Why Marriages Fail - skwiggle
http://www.shrinktalk.net/archives/why_marriages_fail_1.phtml
======
plinkplonk
Ok I might be downmodded to hell for this, but hey I can afford the karma and
this needs to be said so here goes,

I believe this article shouldn't be on Hacker News. At what point does
"interesting to hackers" become "interesting to some subset of people and has
nothing to do with hacking per se"? Yes yes hackers get married/have
relationships too so this is possibly of interest to them, but then everything
in the world that concerns life is possibly interesting and should be posted
on HN.At which point there is no difference between HN and say reddit. At
least reddit has subreddits.

My heartfelt wish is that these junk articles don't make the front page of HN.
So what's next on HN? raising children (hackers have kids too) , home decor
(hackers have homes too), politics(hey, hackers vote), sex positions (hackers
have sex too ( ;-)) and are possibly interested in "hacking"/evaluating
positions) ...

~~~
pg
The rules about what's on topic explicitly say that articles don't have to be
about hacking. They just have to be interesting to the intellectually curious.
An article on _any_ topic could be if it was sufficiently insightful. This one
seems pretty insightful. Not overwhelmingly so, but it's certainly not a junk
article.

~~~
plinkplonk
pg said

" This one seems pretty insightful. Not overwhelmingly so, but it's certainly
not a junk article."

fair enough. differing perceptions and all that. I think (note: _I_ think) it
was a trashy article, not worth my time I spent in reading it (which is my
working definition of "junk") and _I_ don't want to see such articles on the
front page so I did my part by (a) flagging it (b) explaining my thought
process.

It is upto the rest of the HN community to confirm or reject my perception.
And I am completely fine with that. I can always start reading from teh second
article from the top :-)

PS: I noticed that the article disappeared from the front page("Dead" ed) and
then came back a few minutes later. How does that happen? Just curious.

~~~
falsestprophet
Your comment brakes the rules, the article is within their bounds.

Of course it is not worth anyone's time to read your bitching about this
article's relevance, especially considering someone or another posts your same
urgent insight on every tenth article that reaches the front page. I really
wish you all would stop.

~~~
plinkplonk
"Your comment brakes the rules, the article is within their bounds."

I assume you meant "breaks". You are completely right. Here is the guideline I
violated.

"Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate
for the site. If you think something is spam or egregiously offtopic, you can
flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users
will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please
don't also comment that you did. "

While I am not sure, if this guideline is a good one, using a forum such as
this implies acceptance of the rules. I was ignorant of this guideline, but
the fact remains that I have violated this guideline twice. Once by mentioning
the inappropriateness of a submission and then my mentioning I flagged it.

Apologies to everyone. I'll be more careful in the future.

~~~
thorax
Would be kind of nice if the "flag" link went to "approved" after a moderator
deemed it worthy. That way we wouldn't keep flagging it after we know the mods
had already reviewed it for worthiness.

------
ChrisXYZ
I don't have any deep or insightful comments to make on this article.

I just want to say I read it a month or so ago and was really impressed with
it at the time. It's a really intelligent, well written list of reasons why
relationship don't work out, and what it takes to make them succeed. It also
gives some good insights into couple's counseling.

I hope it does okay on this site, and doesn't get ignored because it's not the
usual fare here.

~~~
sidsavara
I actually think people on HN _will_ enjoy it, because it takes a rather
emotional topic and breaks it down into what are the primary reasons he has
seen for marriages failing in what, I assume is, his professional opinion.

I think people like me enjoy hard problems, finding out the root cause, and
determining a solution. From that perspective, I thoroughly enjoyed this
article as it presented some salient causes for a fairly difficult problem
(keeping a marriage/relationship going).

It wasn't full of platitude and suggestions to "date once a week" etc - it was
a solid breakdown of causes. Coupled with the recent discussion of the
bachelor paradox, I really enjoyed the diversion.

------
tokenadult
Because the author of the submitted article seems to fall for a common error
in statistical reasoning about the divorce rate in the United States, I'll
post a link to a detailed discussion of that fallacy here.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/health/19divo.html>

------
benhoyt
My maternal grandparents are in their 90s, have been married for 68 years, and
are still going strong. (Okay, so I'm proud of them.) They relate a story of
how they were called up once by a guy doing some research on _why couples stay
together._

My grandparents rightly noted that while people are constantly doing studies
on "why marriages fail", hardly anyone ever looks at the long-lasting
marriages and asks why they _work_.

They told the researcher that theirs worked mainly because they never
considered divorce an option. That's a reflection of their culture and morals,
but also their desire. They expected to stay together, and they did what it
took to stay together. I've only been married for 4 years, but I certainly
want that for my own marriage too. (And I blow raspberries to statistics -- I
was married when I was 23 and my wife 19. :-)

The article had several good points. But I wonder at this: "If people are
miserable together, the shrink's position is to help them separate and live
happier lives apart." Why can't the shrink help them see ways to be un-
miserable together?

~~~
tokenadult
Sometimes an example can go a long way. I grew up in another state than the
one my maternal grandparents lived in, but I did travel to join their sixtieth
wedding anniversary celebration with most of my thirty-four cousins. That's
surely helped me and my wife (whose parents have also been married six decades
now) stay together for more than twenty-five years. She and I grew up in
different countries, speaking different native languages and eating different
foods, and have changed radically from our former selves over the years, but
we are still each other's best friends.

------
visitor4rmindia
>3) There is far too much emphasis on 'weddings' as opposed to 'marriages.'

This is a nice article, but when reading this point I wanted to share a
different perspective.

A colleague of mine got married recently. The marriage lasted 3 days with
unnumerable rituals. It culminated with him and his bride having to sit beside
a fire from 4 in the afternoon to about 3 at night while the pundit recited
slokas.

It was, as you can imagine, an exhausting experience. I don't think he's in
any hurry to get divorced and married again!

~~~
visitor4rmindia
>6) People settle for less than what they want.

Sorry - quick follow up. Many Indians get an "arranged marriage" where you
don't really have great expectations. However, many of them go on to form
happy, stable, marriages. People want to be happy and husbands and wives tend
to grow into each other and find ways to be happy.

~~~
shader
I think this is one of the major reasons that Americans have so many divorces.
They marry for the "feelings", and as soon as those change they want out. The
Indians marry for more than that - financial support, children, family name,
cultural pressure, etc. The end result is that they are interested in making
it happen, and are willing to work for that, whereas Americans think that the
fact that it might require effort proves that they are "incompatible".

Imagine if someone tried to run a startup the way most Americans try to manage
their marriages; they wouldn't last a week before they gave up - the "feeling"
probably wouldn't be there, and there would be something else they'd rather
do.

If both you and your spouse want the marriage to work, it can work, whether
you "feel" for each other or not. The problem is really when they don't want
it to work, and need an excuse.

~~~
dkarl
Divorce means wasted years, loneliness, traumatized children, and yes, even in
America, social stigma. Nobody wants to be on the dating market as a divorcee,
because everybody looks at you and wonders what went wrong and what kind of
baggage you have. As a never-married guy, I can say that despite my best
intentions I view divorcees with suspicion. If you think people take it
lightly, then you're wrong.

In reality, marriage in America illustrates the blade of freedom cutting in
both ways. I would like to point out that traditional marriages, Indian or
otherwise, carry very strong expectations about the partners' roles and the
structure of their home life. If one partner fulfills his or her economic and
social role, the other partner's expectations are fulfilled. In American
marriages, there are fewer culturally determined and socially enforced rules
on who brings what to a marriage. That creates a disorienting number of
possibilities. It is harder for two people to live together when every choice
made by one closes off possibilities for the other. In a marriage where
tradition has already closed off all possibilities except one (if indeed any
other possibilities are imaginable) there is less disappointment and less
reason to resent one's spouse.

Obviously, it would be nice to have a modern marriage contract, a new set of
obligations such that if each spouse fulfills his obligations, then both
spouses share a mutually beneficial marriage that supports, rather than
hinders, their goals in life. That is what traditional marriages offer, but
they are too concrete about household roles and duties. Modern attempts to
define marriage are rather abstract and dependent on interpretation; probably
that's what bothers you when you say that Americans depend on a "feeling"
being there. Modern definitions of marriage are very wishy-washy because
there's no concrete division of duties to found them on.

------
vaksel
because its so easy to get a divorce and there is a huge monetary incentive
for women to walk away at the first sign of trouble.

~~~
ajju
Disclaimer: This is personal opinion

If you are marrying someone who would actually weigh the option of dumping you
for monetary gain, you're doing it wrong. This is probably incredibly hard to
do without _some_ luck, but you should marry someone who would never consider
monetary _gain_ in a decision about the relationship. In more concrete terms,
someone who, even at the point where your relationship is ending (if it comes
to that), is fair-minded enough, has enough self-respect and values your time
together enough to give you a fair share.

Many people try to counter this by saying "People (and by this they mean,
their core principles) change" (in other words people abandon their
principles). I believe there are people who would never abandon their core
principles. Marry one of them.

~~~
cousin_it
Even if financial and legal incencives don't matter for you, they do matter
for many people. If you start rewarding women with money for dumping their
husbands (as vaksel implied US law does), many families that were close to the
brink will disintegrate and many okay families will move that much closer to
the brink. We don't live in a world composed of ideal men and women - that's
why we need laws and money in the first place.

I find your comment similar in spirit to a common pattern of defending the C++
language against criticism: the idea that, if C++ shortcomings worry you, then
the root of your problem is bad design and muddled thinking. It's true, but
the language could work to fix the problem instead of making it worse. So too
with divorce laws.

~~~
ajju
I have no opinion on the quality of US divorce law. I am saying it should be
irrelevant to you if you choose your partner wisely - US divorce law cannot
and does not supercede an amicable separation agreement between two people. We
don't live in a world of ideal people but I have found that there are enough
principled people in the world that with some luck and significant effort you
should be able to find one who is principled.

In the vein of your example, I am saying don't complain about Java's (an
unprincipled spouse) performance on Windows (an imperfect legal system), use
python instead.

~~~
cousin_it
In my example the unprincipled spouse corresponded to _muddled thinking_ and
C++ corresponded to the laws. So your advice of "use Python" translates to
"move to another country", quite sensible advice for bachelors in countries
where laws favor women.

And your own example doesn't parse for me: Java should be faster than Python
in most cases.

(Yeah, I'm all for bringing the thread back on topic as a programming
discussion.)

:-)

------
bluishgreen
PlinkPlonk says "My heartfelt wish is that these junk articles don't make the
front page of HN. So what's next on HN? raising children? "

This is not a junk article. And yes, articles about raising kids were
published here and I do not remember any one questioning if it was hacker
news. ( <http://www.paulgraham.com/lies.html>). This is intellectually
interesting and useful. If hacker news wants to be a community where human
beings take part rather than some large drone feeding me with 'programming'
news this article stays.

For that matter this article has more insight than many articles about 'ruby'
on this site, I cringe when articles get in just because it had the word
'programming' in it. There are many programming articles that were a pure
waste of time, did not embody what hackers are about. Hacker is an attitude
and not just programming. Hacker is the quality in programming and not just
the programming. Just dealing with programming is not an automatic pass to be
hacker news (some sites are actually banned!), and by the same account just
that something does not contain the word programming does not mean its not
hacker news.

Guess what, we are programmers and proud ones. But I personally value my
relationships more than my programming abilities (And my girl friend will
never say to me: if you love me stop programming!, she loves me too. Its a
nice arrangement. :P).

The fear or the question "If we let this article where will this stop?"
reminds me of people who ask: If we let gay people marry, then where will this
stop ? If you felt pity for such people who did not have a good appreciation
for dynamic nature of all things nature, then think a bit more. "Where will
this stop?"is not reason enough and is not an automatic pass to raise the
objection "this is not hacker news"

There is room here for more insight. Further I said this some 2 years back on
this site: I will say it again. Dont have a very narrow view of what you are.
Don't define yourself and put your self in such a tiny box "I am a hacker
because I think ruby is not a gem". I feel kinship to the person who designs
good buildings and the one who designs a good meal which is also cheap. In
such a meal I see a succinct program which also is very efficient in terms of
memory.

There are insights to be obtained from all of them for programming itself.
Further only if you expand your world view and talk about problems people face
on a daily basis can you obtain insights into peoples problems that need
solutions. And guess what you will suddenly find a new business instead of
hacking together your one millionth web based todolist with email and sms
feature.

EDIT: adding link to the earlier comment that I refer to
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31799> which was made looong back.

~~~
plinkplonk
" If hacker news wants to be a community where human beings take part rather
than some large drone feeding me with 'programming' " news this article
stays."

false dichotomy alert! A false dichotomy is a rhetorical device to position
your favored option against a rhetorically maligned strawman opposite option.

Given that no one actually wanted "drones feeding me with "programming, , your
statement is not very persuasive.

The _actual_ options are about _preferences for_ "insightful" articles about
marriages, children etc vs "insightful" articles _centered around_
programming, technology, startups etc. On _this_ choice, people can (and do)
differ, and that is perfectly fine.

"If you felt pity for such people who did not have a good appreciation for
dynamic nature of all things nature, then think a bit more"

more putting words is my mouth. Where did _I_ (or anyone else) say I felt
"pity"? You are imagining the unexpressed motivations of others and reacting
to your imagination. In other words, You seem to be setting up straw men and
knocking them down.

More strawmen

" Just dealing with programming is not an automatic pass to be hacker news " -
Nobody claimed this.

" hacking together your one millionth web based todolist with email and sms
feature." - nobody claimed this as a good idea either, especially against "you
will suddenly find a new business" (false dichotomy again).

Nutshell : lots of rhetorical smoke, very little fire.

You make one good point ("Hacker is the quality in programming and not just
the programming.") amongst all this false angst and strawman burning. And it
is a very good one. It makes your post valuable.

I thought the article inappropriate, (still do), flagged it, explained why,
and was overridden. That is all right. Getting into a mud throwing contest
about motivations is not. So I'll stop. I am done with this thread.

------
PonyGumbo
He lost me when he linked to an article by Satoshi Kanazawa.

------
RDobrenski
I wrote this article and, quite honestly, have no idea how it ended up here. I
certainly can't vouche for its place in this particular forum but wanted to
say thank you to anyone who read it and commented, whether that be positive or
negative. If anyone has suggestions for topics that somehow cut across the
hacker/psychology interface, please let me know and I will write about those.

Best, Rob Dobrenski, Ph.D. ShrinkTalk.Net

------
bianco
"Fail" is the wrong term. The sincere love between a "male" and a "female"
human being (if I name them "man" and "woman", maybe you won't understand,
would you?) isn't considered a value anymore...

If it were some business, we would care much much more, and this says it all
about current priorities in "modern" society.

Future generations will write about current society: "They destroyed
themselves by starting to hate, inside of the most atomic value in human
society: The Family..."

------
Enlightenment
Legalize... <http://www.carmanfox.com/meet_vancouver_escorts.htm>

