[pmarreck]

> If current trends continue, nearly two-thirds of marriages will never involve a divorce, according to data from Justin Wolfers, a University of Michigan economist (who also contributes to The Upshot).

"Nearly two-thirds" is, let's say, 60% success rate. Which means 40% failure rate. Which is exactly in the middle of the 30-50% window I mentioned (the fact that it's a window speaks to the effect that all these other variables can have on it).

[zzalpha]

Again, that's across all cohorts, with significant variation by education, income, and age... which is why high-level statistics like that are horribly misleading: it doesn't tell the whole story by a mile.

[creepydata]

Read the second paragraph

"That's for the general population. As mentioned above certain populations (college educated, older, high income) are much less likely to get divorced." Like by a lot! I assume if you are on hacker news you are at least two of the three.

But, yes, people who eschew marriage specifically to make breaking up easy are bad candidates for a successful marriage, almost by definition.

(I married someone who previously went through a divorce)

[pmarreck]

> But, yes, people who eschew marriage specifically to make breaking up easy are bad candidates for a successful marriage, almost by definition.

And people who don't eschew marriage ostensibly because they are ideal non-eschewing candidates still experience a prreeetty significant failure rate, despite apparently never imagining the possibility at inception.

You know who has a 0% divorce rate? People who eschew marriage. Exactly by definition.

To quote WarGames, "The only winning move is not to play."

You're defending driving a car with a 30% serious-accident rate while I choose to bike... Think about it.

[zzalpha]

Why do you keep persisting in quoting that 30% number when it's been repeatedly demonstrated to be misleading?

You don't need to rationalize your choices with bad statistics, or worse, by deriding those who choose to make a different choice.

[pmarreck]

It's not misleading. It's undetailed/undecomposed.

Which is to say, yes, there are some people for which it is on the high end, and other people for which it is on the low end.

But the best evidence I've seen puts the bell-curve window at 30-50%. When you wish to talk about the institution in generalities, you cannot help but describe it according to all its participants. I'm talking about marriage, not white college-educated late marriage or third marriage or single-parent prior to marriage. You would be arguably somewhat correct in attacking generalities (in general). It's debatable. But that is the bound of what we are discussing.

In my case, the stats don't look great. If we take the best possible chance of divorce of 10% (and that is being really optimistic) and double that for an ADHD diagnosis (see: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/may-i-have-your-attenti...) we get 20%. I would not drive a car with a 20% chance of a serious accident, therefore I opt out of a 20% chance to contribute to a $50 billion dollar divorce industry and losing half (or more) of the net worth I have worked hard to accrue in a legal system that is biased against me.

[creepydata]

Why are you in a romantic relationship at all then? Non-marriage romantic relationships have a -MUCH- higher failure rate. At least be ideologically consistent.

You should probably just break up with your girlfriend now because you have some very serious commitment issues.

[pmarreck]

Read this: https://www.good.is/articles/domestic-partnerships-should-be...

Why is your thinking so binary? (Also, false dichotomy fallacy.) Have you been so brainwashed by the all-consuming institution that you have become blind to any other option? I have no issues with commitment, just this institution and its unreasonable expectations of lifetime commitment or else. Especially makes less sense if you don't have kids.