- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topic Streams
- Get Help
Mental Health
Addiction
ADHD
Anxiety
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Depression
Eating Disorders
Insomnia
OCDPersonality
Passive Aggression
Personality
ShynessPersonal Growth
Happiness
Goal Setting
Positive PsychologyRelationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
SexEmotion Management
Anger
Procrastination
StressFamily Life
Adolescents
Child Development
Elder Care
Parenting
SiblingsRecently Diagnosed?
Diagnosis Dictionary
- Magazine
- Tests
- Psych Basics
- Experts
A much-read post to this Psychology Today page ran under the subheading: "Massive meta-analysis says marriage reduces depression." I have three problems with that: The review wasn't a meta-analysis, it wasn't massive, and the literature doesn't show that getting married reliably reduces depression. Read More
Ok...
> please spread the word about what the scientific research really does show
What scientific research really shows is: this battle of the studies is about as tedious and irrelevant and uninteresting as medieval theologians discussing how many angels can work their booties on the head of a pin.
People just don't get married (or not get married) because of physical or mental health concerns, such as whether they're going to be more likely to be less depressed, or more likely to live longer.
Must be a girl thing to get all bogged down in relationship minutiae.
used to think so
I, too, used to think that reports of marriage studies don't matter to people's actual life decisions. I started to question that when people would tell me that reading such reports made a difference to them (esp the explosive reports, like the Newsweek claim about the greater likelihood of getting hit by a terrorist attack than getting married after 40 -- which they later took back), but that was just anecdotal. There are now some experimental studies going through the review process (not mine); when they are accepted for publication and in the public domain, I'll blog about them.
To an extent that's true
It seems that in any debate, each side has studies that support their claims. I too question if studies are really as important and definitive and we think. And I agree that people get married primarily for deeper reasons than some study they've read.
However, I do think that studies influence how people think about singleness. Most people still believe that marriage is strongly associated with health and happiness, even if when pressed they admit some are better off single. And these beliefs influence how people perceive and react to the singleness of others and of themselves, even if it isn't the primary motivation behind making the decision.
yes
yes, and those perceptions matter
Alas, details matter in modern life, for all of us.
As a guy myself, but also as an economist, let me try to offer a balanced counter-thought:
I too get impatient with nitnoid details...if it's for things I am not interested in. I too can get those alpha male moments, Grrr, Hulk Smash! Make annoying detail gnats go away! Grrr.
And yet..
There is nothing more spellbinding than sifting through clues that others can't handle, and nothing more energizing than finding that one Truth that no one else had seen before. Especially when it's in the context of a field or problem that you're interested in. And let's face it, in our 21st century civilization, life is complicated, there's a lot of data to sift, and a lot, a LOT of bad interpretations of the data out there. In every field and for every topic of public discourse. More than previous generations, we have to find our own personal way to absorb and accurately sort and understand a great deal of detail. Look at what happened to central bankers in the last couple years. Relying on instinct and summaries passed along like chain letters failed utterly. If only they had looked at the data, unfiltered.
So, I'm glad Dr. DePaulo is sharing the nuggets of new truth that she discovers. If I were her, I'd have as my tongue in cheek motto, "I read the original research, so you don't have to." I'm grateful she does, is all I can say.
Back to my own fascinating details now...
Some people just need to be slapped
Researchers who INTENTIONALLY set aside a part of the population because it won't help them prove what they want to prove.
Reviewers who mislead people on information about what studies say, going so far as to say the OPPOSITE of what's true.
People who actually BELIEVE these 'studies' and rush into marriage.
It's like, come on guys, you coulda had a V8.
*In response to the question in the title of the post, making ANY lifestyle choice will only be toxic to you if it isn't truly what you want to do/how you want to live. Study that.
Wow! "We do not include.." is a mind blower. Wow.
I am blown away by the line:
"We do not include this group because clearly they are not deriving any benefits from marriage."
Can one imagine the state of our world if Francis Bacon had said, way back when outlining the scientfic method, "create tables of association and tables of disassociation...and then strike out the lines in the tables you don't want to see."
I hope Dr. DePaulo can use the "We do not include" example when mentoring students. At least it's a great example of how not to do things.
Yep
I agree with Martian Bachelor that the studies are tedious and uninteresting; I go on to assert that they're silly and fatuously motivated. That being said, a lot of people put a lot of stock in them. My mom used to say, when she saw advertising campaigns that she thought were harmful, "They shouldn't say that because Stupid People listen." The people who listen to these studies aren't necessarily stupid, but they're malleable and easily led because they lack any independent thought process or knowledge of their own minds. They wait for The World to show them which way the wind blows.
So Bella's work is necessary and important, and if it seems redundant at times, that's only because there's such an onslaught of crap out there for her to sift through and debunk.
Logic001: Permission to adopt and spread the word "nitnoid?" >: )
Of course! Rumor has it that "nitnoid" is Thai in origin
This could be completely false, but someone told me that "nitnoid" is Thai for "tiny bit" and who knows, maybe that's true. I can't claim creating it.
to Logic001
You're a fan of The Big Bang Theory, aren't you? >: )
Took me a while to get that one -- me as Creator ...
I really need to get more sleep or something, I've been really slow lately getting the right wavelength for written repartee.
All about statistics and what you can do with them!
I'm so reminded of reading the classic book back in Grad School, "How to Lie with Statistics"!
www.ashortguidetoahappymarriage.com
All about statistics and what you can do with them!
I'm so reminded of reading the classic book back in Grad School, "How to Lie with Statistics"!
www.ashortguidetoahappymarriage.com
Are ASSumptions Toxic to Women?
My comment on the ditzy author's site (when I had read all four articles and forgotten I had seen it on Bella's blog, and in referring to Bella's writings was trying to give Kirschner a clue upside the head):
A social scientist should have heard of - and know how to avoid - causation-correlation fallacy. A social scientist should research correlations in the studies claimed to support the statement:
"In other words, married women tend to live longer than single, divorced or widowed gals. Period."
"Period"? A correlation between marital status and longer life leaves an opening for someone to ASSume that marriage causes longer life. Correlation is there - or IS it? - but causation is different. Duh.
Do the studies have the faults of the other "study" showing the correlation (and, of course, the ASSumed) causation between marriage and happiness? Do they have the same flaws? Do they look only at the ages at death of the people married NOW? Do they ignore the ages of people who are single but have previously BEEN married?
What if discrimination against singles causes some of the stress that shortens life? The tax discrimination, the single supplements, the desertion of a widowed (which means formerly MARRIED) women by her coupled friends I read so much about?
Dismissing that out of hand by trivializing it - "Now, how could a silly single supplement shorten someone's life?" - is the same fault, the same assumptions at work, the same refusal to study, that creates myths about people that then require studies to disprove. Even thought they were never proven in the first place.
Then this study goes on and quotes the old saw "Many studies conducted around the world show that married people are more likely to reach the Holy Grail of a longer, healthier life."
This "many studies" quoting each other and going back to one seriously flawed studyis reaching the level of an urban legend, the kind of myth that has people asking questions on Snopes. Read Bella DePaulos' funny and easy-to-follow deconstruction of the numerous flaws in this misused - and misbegotten - study.
I'm not a psychologist.
I'm not a psychologist. One day 4 years ago I ate dinner at a local Mexican restaurant. While eating I picked up a newspaper that showed articles in Spanish and English. It wasn't a noted psychological journal but I remember what the short article said clearly: Married Women were shown to be more depressed than single women. Married women with kids were found to be more depressed than married women. The article mentioned the reason was the added stress from managing a house and being responsible for additional people caused the additional stress and depression. The article made sense. So ladies, if you get married don't expect rainbows and sunshine. Expect added stress, more responsibility and more depression. There is a bilingual newspaper in Frederick, Maryland that says so.
Post new comment