Divorce rate

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
vernhart said:
That is a nice sentiment, but just isn't true of history.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. And yes it is. Your opinion is your opinion. That doesn't make it true.
 
Mad Jack said:
I addressed things more directly in my follow-up post.
Click to expand...

I don't know when the Protestant Reformation was, or when divorce became acceptable, but I do know you don't know the subject and are attempting to 'guess your way with an air of legitimacy' in regards to your participation here.
 
Mad Jack said:
... when your life expectancy is 38, a totally different thing when it's 78.
Click to expand...

Just a statistical nitpick: Life expectancy being 38 was mostly due to infant mortality rather than the average age a person lived if they survived at least to age 5. We decreased infant deaths and "raised life expectancy" to ~80.
 
maundy said:
Yes it is. And yes it is. Your opinion is your opinion. That doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...
Lol History books are not my opinion. Recently, yes you could argue it is more about love. But throughout most of its history it was used as a bartering tool so families could gain wealth and power.
 
Are we gonna get any more feedback on why psychiatrist have such a high divorce rate? This tread has tuned into pro marriage vs. anti marriage, and no gives a crap about how you feel about marriage.
 
maundy said:
I don't know when the Protestant Reformation was, or when divorce became acceptable, but I do know you don't know the subject and are attempting to 'guess your way with an air of legitimacy' in regards to your participation here.
Click to expand...
I haven't read the full extent of the thread, but Christian marriage is not equal to marriage in the general sense. If you feel it is core to your belief system or whatever, that's one thing. But I'm saying that the tradition predates Christianity and Judaism, and was established at a time during which life was short, and spending your life with someone generally meant about 10-20 years to raise kids and that was it. That arrangement made sense, as it helped children survive to adulthood, but in an age where that is basically a given and in which people can love 50+ years beyond their marriage vows, does the institution make practical (not religious) sense?
 
Mad Jack said:
That's still hardly an argument for marriage. Is it a functional and practical institution? I would argue it was, until our lifespans basically more than doubled. It's one thing to say you'll be with someone forever when your life expectancy is 38, a totally different thing when it's 78. The idea of marriage was conceived when life was short, simple, and uncomplicated. The idea that it is a given in the modern world is rather questionable.
Click to expand...

Hahaha — come on now, I think a group of professionally educated people can make a better argument than this. As if putting in our 9 to 5, setting aside our 6% matched 401k option, and Posting on SDN is so complicated as compared to the “simpletons way back when”. They had life so easy —> eat, provide, or die.
 
psychMDhopefully said:
Are we gonna get any more feedback on why psychiatrist have such a high divorce rate? This tread has tuned into pro marriage vs. anti marriage, and no gives a crap about how you feel about marriage.
Click to expand...
It matters, because we are basically discussing the merits of liberal versus conservative marriage views, and psychiatrists are nearly twice as likely to be liberal, if memory serves me.
 
DisorderedDoc417 said:
Hahaha — come on now, I think a group of professionally educated people can make a better argument than this. As if putting in our 9 to 5, setting aside our 6% matched 401k option, and Posting on SDN is so complicated as compared to the “simpletons way back when”. They had life so easy —> eat, provide, or die.
Click to expand...
I'm really tired- been helping a friend move the last two days and you got me right before bed. I'm pretty damn exhausted. Of note, however: you made zero argument of your own. The point was not that they were simpletons, but that a commitment of ten years is very different than one of sixty, and that the purpose of raising children together is basically exhausted once those children are no longer in tow and you have another 30+ years staring down at you, a situation that was not present when the institution of marriage was founded. "Forever" is admirable when life is short, foolishly optimistic when it is extremely long.
 
Last edited:
vernhart said:
Lol History books are not my opinion. Recently, yes you could argue it is more about love. But throughout most of its history it was used as a bartering tool so families could gain wealth and power.
Click to expand...
Please show me a credible historical record that explains marriage as you just did.

Credible is not "Marxist Review for Social Change Quarterly".

Otherwise I am going to believe you are falsely claiming legitimacy to defend the integrity of your personal viewpoint.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
maundy said:
Please show me a credible historical record that explains marriage as you just did.

Credible is not "Marxist Review for Social Change Quarterly".

Otherwise I am going to believe you are falsely claiming legitimacy to defend the integrity of your personal viewpoint.
Click to expand...


You're the same girl that got the other thread closed, could you please go troll somewhere else.
 
Mad Jack said:
I haven't read the full extent of the thread, but Christian marriage is not equal to marriage in the general sense. If you feel it is core to your belief system or whatever, that's one thing. But I'm saying that the tradition predates Christianity and Judaism, and was established at a time during which life was short, and spending your life with someone generally meant about 10-20 years to raise kids and that was it. That arrangement made sense, as it helped children survive to adulthood, but in an age where that is basically a given and in which people can love 50+ years beyond their marriage vows, does the institution make practical (not religious) sense?
Click to expand...

Marriage as the bedrock for a stable family unit leading to cohesive structured social identity enabling a functional rules based civilization is not new.

The survival of any species is due to procreation.

Two foxes having a monogamous bond is not marriage. It is instinctive. They have elevated levels of vassopressin and oxytocin compared to say, skinks.

As previously touched upon, marriage is recognition and amplification of human nature. That acknowledgement has lead to a higher level of consciousness and IS NOT comparable to long lasting pair bonds by lesser animals.

Marriage is reflective of civilization. Pair bonding and collective response is not. Termites work together too.

You clearly have no idea what the subject is.
 
psychMDhopefully said:
Are we gonna get any more feedback on why psychiatrist have such a high divorce rate? This tread has tuned into pro marriage vs. anti marriage, and no gives a crap about how you feel about marriage.
Click to expand...
The direction of this thread may perhaps help you explain some of the variance in the divorce statistics.
 
Mad Jack said:
That's still hardly an argument for marriage. Is it a functional and practical institution? I would argue it was, until our lifespans basically more than doubled. It's one thing to say you'll be with someone forever when your life expectancy is 38, a totally different thing when it's 78. The idea of marriage was conceived when life was short, simple, and uncomplicated. The idea that it is a given in the modern world is rather questionable.
Click to expand...
I would be curious where the basis of the assumption that life was short, simple, and uncomplicated, came from.
 
maundy said:
Marriage as the bedrock for a stable family unit leading to cohesive structured social identity enabling a functional rules based civilization is not new.

The survival of any species is due to procreation.

Two foxes having a monogamous bond is not marriage. It is instinctive. They have elevated levels of vassopressin and oxytocin compared to say, skinks.

As previously touched upon, marriage is recognition and amplification of human nature. That acknowledgement has lead to a higher level of consciousness and IS NOT comparable to long lasting pair bonds by lesser animals.

Marriage is reflective of civilization. Pair bonding is not.

You clearly have no idea what the subject is.
Click to expand...
I just believe you romanticize the human condition. Marriage is not a aingular institution, and has many forms spread throughout many cultures. Some of these are transactional, with brides treated as property to be traded. Some are romantic, as the modern Judeo-Christian model supports. Some are very unusual, such as the Mongol women that can haven many husbands or the Islamic states that allow husbands to have many wives. Marriage represents nothing more than a power structure that differs by culture, an artificial creation made by governments, churches, or tribes that often has functions far removed from reproduction or family rearing, but which is primarily centered around these activities. There could be any number of alternatives devised, it's not some magical given that many paint it out to be.
 
Mad Jack said:
I just believe you romanticize the human condition. Marriage is not a aingular institution, and has many forms spread throughout many cultures. Some of these are transactional, with brides treated as property to be traded. Some are romantic, as the modern Judeo-Christian model supports. Some are very unusual, such as the Mongol women that can haven many husbands or the Islamic states that allow husbands to have many wives. Marriage represents nothing more than a power structure that differs by culture, an artificial creation made by governments, churches, or tribes that often has functions far removed from reproduction or family rearing, but which is primarily centered around these activities. There could be any number of alternatives devised, it's not some magical given that many paint it out to be.
Click to expand...

Just quickly, the first statement in your post appears to be referring to a dowry. It is too simplistic to view such an arrangement as transactional and not as families working together to assist with social inclusiveness.
 
st2205 said:
I would be curious where the basis of the assumption that life was short, simple, and uncomplicated, came from.
Click to expand...
Human+life+expectancy+at+birth+(average+life+span:+years).jpg

As to simplicity, I'm actually headed off to sleep now, so I'm not digging too deep into it, but if you read any historical and evolutionary anthropology, tribal societies were far more simple, as each person had a very limited number of possible tasks- hunt, gather, religious duties, that's basically it. Life expectancy was around 18 years of age, so you'd hunt, gather, marry, engage with your one belief system, and die within a very brief period of time. Marriage was a short arrangement, as life was a short one as well. There weren't thousands of belief systems to engage with, thousands of jobs to choose from, billions of potential partners, hundreds of thousands of locations to settle within, hundreds of political parties, etc etc. You were born, you did the basics to survive, you procreated, and you died, to say that was as complex as the modern world or that people lived as long as today is just objectively incorrect.
 
Can you please source your information. Not all sources are equal.
 
I find it amusing that much of the criticism of marriage as a social construct seems to be that it has been a different social construct than it is currently. It also seems that there is a presumption that all people who would think that marriage could be a good thing for society must have a very narrow view that is mired in a current fundamental Christian right-wing belief. Perhaps this difficulty with understanding the role of ritual and ceremony in society and too much focus on the individual points to the problem with high divorce rate.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
First, let me say that I admire nitemagi's heroic efforts to try to keep this thread on topic. I can't speak to marriage, but I have found that psychiatry residency has definitely shifted my view of human nature. Obviously, the patient population we encounter is somewhat of a skewed sample, but I have become convinced that human beings in general are about 10% more selfish and manipulative than I had originally believed. In short, I don't trust people as much as I did, say, five years ago. In fact, I have held back on dating for this reason. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has had this experience with psychiatry. Perhaps it's a factor in the divorce statistics...? I don't know. Now back to your regularly scheduled debate on the value of marriage...
 
LasVagus said:
First, let me say that I admire nitemagi's heroic efforts to try to keep this thread on topic. I can't speak to marriage, but I have found that psychiatry residency has definitely shifted my view of human nature. Obviously, the patient population we encounter is somewhat of a skewed sample, but I have become convinced that human beings in general are about 10% more selfish and manipulative than I had originally believed. In short, I don't trust people as much as I did, say, five years ago. In fact, I have held back on dating for this reason. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has had this experience with psychiatry. Perhaps it's a factor in the divorce statistics...? I don't know. Now back to your regularly scheduled debate on the value of marriage...
Click to expand...

I've never trusted people, and know that majority of things are done for selfish reasons. I had a pretty hard upbringing so I learned these things young. You must have had a sheltered upbringing to be figuring this out in residency.
 
splik said:
this thread is something else lol. i dont see how people can blame psychiatry for their relationship problems. that is your attachment disorder. sure you can become jaded in this kind of work but i evaluate murderers, rapists, pedophiles, rogue physicians etc i see the very worst of what humans can do to each other more so than most psychiatrists and if anything it has underscored that i believe in human kindness and the transformative power of love. there are some terrible people out there (and psychiatrists are not immune from choosing psychopaths as romantic partners) but not everyone is out to screw you. i dont believe in marriage but that's me personally and nothing to do with me being a psychiatrist.
Click to expand...

How does seeing all these things lead you to the conclusion humans are kind?
 
maundy said:
What is deluded about marriage? It's a human construct that amplifies base human nature (emotional attachment, care giving, ownership, property rights) and therefore is naturally relatable to and has enabled the attainment of a higher social consciousness.

What's the point of getting a high paying job? Nice homes, cars and clothes fit in to that same delusion you are referring to.

A home is a place to sleep, a car is a car whether a Honda or a Maserati and a pair of $80 Levi's look like jeans, just like the $500 Hugo Boss jeans. And with mass expansion of the airline and holiday industries a cafe worker can afford a month long holiday to France.

The 'nice' things and striving for them are a part of that same delusion. It's about accepting and identifying with those facets of society that got us to where we are today.

That is the capitalist system and I have no idea why anyone is opposed to it. Esteeming brands and other cultural icons (such as wealth through work), and having people striving for them sustains the development of society. It stops it stagnating and essentially is what civilization is. Bettering oneself and society and taking pride in our achievements.

Celebrating marriage fits in there.

I can identify these icons of social success as artificial constructs. That doesn't mean that they are pointless things.

Like appreciating art. At the end of the day fine art is pointless and unwarranted. Until you see what it has done for your mind.
Click to expand...

I was being glib. It was a joke. Marriage seems like a deluded dream when you place all the importance on it that you mention, and you end up gutted for it. No one is giving you back those years of your life.

Like any dream, it's great in the pursuit and great while it's good. Then if it turns out badly you end up rethinking a few things.

Marriage is naturally relatable and does all those things you mention which is why society supports it.

Society is an outgrowth of and supports Mother Nature. It's all about reproduction. It actually doesn't make that much difference if you end up happy going with the master plan. Salmon swim upstream and die horribly. End of day, that's why an institution rife with hardship, misery, adultery, all sort of mental and physical abuse, lies, and desperate bids to not be left alone, etc etc, is bought into and supported even when it has a 50% failure rate. Yes, you don't have to get married to get all that. That's the human mating game. Some people end up mated for life like swans and it all looks so peaceful. Power to them.

Some people ride high on all this. Others don't. I won't tell people they aren't living their dream if they don't tell me I'm not living mine.

I could wax poetic, but here I'm not. Catch me on a better day.
 
NontradCA said:
Single parent householders who are women have stigma and financial struggle. Not men. There is a large amount of data on this. It’s also easier for men to remarry. The only reason they’re a newer thing is because women have decided they want to be equal partners in a relationship. We’ll get there. Until then marriage is just about control and status for men. The societal pressure to get married is not a good thing, for women at least.
Click to expand...

I really don't agree with this. Sounds like some sort of feminist non-sense. Marriage has all sorts of benefits for women, and I think that's true outside of what benefits it has under the "patriarchy."
 
maundy said:
Marriage was never a business deal. I don't know why this has become political. It's a celebration and formalization of two people being in love.

I don't know why you would want to create a narrative designed to take that away from people.
Click to expand...

At least in Western civilization, this wasn't true at all until around the 1800s. Look up "Romanticism" and "romantic novel." Also "chivalry."

I agree historically marriage has mostly been about practical matters. Between 2 social equals not high up in the economic or power structure of a society, frequently matches were made with the hope that the couple would be fruitful and like living together. +/- love. That's sort of love, right? If two people like having sex together and eating dinner together? Sometimes 2 people fell in love and got married easily with the family's blessing.

At other levels of society, love was very much a business transaction. Lol, just study English history.

I have a grandmother and great grandmother (different sides) that would tell you they were *sold* to their husbands at the age of 16 by their families. But no, the narrative of marriage frequently being a business arrangement.....
 
Merely said:
Why do psychiatrists have the best lifestyle yet the highest divorce rate of any specialty? Seems paradoxical...insights please
Click to expand...

Their wives meet their neurosurgeon friends and leave the psych for the $$$ realizing that the neurosurgeon will also not be home all day giving the wife more time to be with her yoga instructor for "Extra" coaching.
 
CaptainJackSparrow83 said:
Their wives meet their neurosurgeon friends and leave the psych for the $$$ realizing that the neurosurgeon will also not be home all day giving the wife more time to be with her yoga instructor for "Extra" coaching.
Click to expand...

this implies that male psychiatrist make up most of the field and divorce stat....

what about the female psychiatrist?
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Mad Jack said:
Human+life+expectancy+at+birth+(average+life+span:+years).jpg
Click to expand...
As someone else already pointed out but you didn't address, life expectancy at birth is the wrong metric to look at. People who lived long enough to get married were not dying off in huge numbers just years later.
 
hamstergang said:
As someone else already pointed out but you didn't address, life expectancy at birth is the wrong metric to look at. People who lived long enough to get married were not dying off in huge numbers just years later.
Click to expand...
The life expectancy of those that survived childhood was still only mid-thirties to mid-forties, depending in the time period. That still amounts to a very different agreement than today
 
From what I see, the a lot of the older male psychiatrists who were married are divorced. I don't know the details. But they are either remarried to someone younger or are dating someone younger. I do have to commend the male psychiatrists, as they do well for themselves, are well put-together, and keep fit.

Most of the older female psychiatrists are married.

It is possible the higher divorce rates stemmed from the earlier practice of sleeping with patients. Long sessions of 1-on-1 time. Revealing secrets and feelings and desires. Imbalance of power. Patient's trusting in authority.
 
Mad Jack said:
The life expectancy of those that survived childhood was still only mid-thirties to mid-forties, depending in the time period. That still amounts to a very different agreement than today
Click to expand...

You still don't understand or are hoping no one knows what they're talking about. From just the 1800s, you had over 40% of the population dying before age 5. Do you think this has a role in something called "Life expectancy at birth", which is simply the mean age you die at if you survived birth? Life expectancy at age 5 was usually 60 to 70. Now if people were marrying in their mid thirties like the relationship nihilists we have today, that's STILL a 30-40 year business transaction, not 10.

upload_2017-11-6_7-7-51.png


Here is a site with a lot of pretty graphs: Child Mortality

And everyone's favorite academic source of truth:
upload_2017-11-6_7-14-13.png
 
sluox said:
I cannot BELIEVE this thread went on for THIS LONG debating 20 year old data that's likely no longer true.
Click to expand...

This is SDN, doesn't surprise me at all. Threads with outdated, or no data at all, like this thread abound. I'm more surprised that Godwin's Law wasn't invoked at some point.
 
vernhart said:
That is a nice sentiment, but just isn't true of history.
Click to expand...

There are cultural traditions, legal, and societal pieces. It was not proposed stric
darknecrosforte said:
Just a statistical nitpick: Life expectancy being 38 was mostly due to infant mortality rather than the average age a person lived if they survived at least to age 5. We decreased infant deaths and "raised life expectancy" to ~80.
Click to expand...


Truth.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
WisNeuro said:
This is SDN, doesn't surprise me at all. Threads with outdated, or no data at all, like this thread abound. I'm more surprised that Godwin's Law wasn't invoked at some point.
Click to expand...


You know who also hated irrelevant and poorly-supported threads?

Hitler.
 
clausewitz2 said:
You know who also hated irrelevant and poorly-supported threads?

Hitler.
Click to expand...

Little known fact, the Nazis largely succeeded in the Polish Blitzkrieg due to their superior citation skills.

Also, partially due to tanks, air power, and speed of attacks. Those played a small role, too.
 
darknecrosforte said:
You still don't understand or are hoping no one knows what they're talking about. From just the 1800s, you had over 40% of the population dying before age 5. Do you think this has a role in something called "Life expectancy at birth", which is simply the mean age you die at if you survived birth? Life expectancy at age 5 was usually 60 to 70. Now if people were marrying in their mid thirties like the relationship nihilists we have today, that's STILL a 30-40 year business transaction, not 10.

View attachment 225126

Here is a site with a lot of pretty graphs: Child Mortality

And everyone's favorite academic source of truth:
View attachment 225127
Click to expand...
I concede you are correct up to all available data. I still highly doubt tribal hunter-gatherer societies had people living into their 70s, but they didn't exactly keep adequate records.
sluox said:
I cannot BELIEVE this thread went on for THIS LONG debating 20 year old data that's likely no longer true.
Click to expand...
A study of 1,100 physicians spanning 30 years is decent data. There is no objective data that would lead me to believe that medicine has changed so substantially in the last 20 years to completely invalidate the most comprehensive study on the subject to date.
 
Mad Jack said:
I concede you are correct up to all available data. I still highly doubt tribal hunter-gatherer societies had people living into their 70s, but they didn't exactly keep adequate records.

A study of 1,100 physicians spanning 30 years is decent data. There is no objective data that would lead me to believe that medicine has changed so substantially in the last 20 years to completely invalidate the most comprehensive study on the subject to date.
Click to expand...

Not really. How many of those 1100 are psychiatrists? Small sample, type I error.

Also, divorce rates have changed QUITE a bit in the last 20 years, especially if you consider college graduation as a covariate. Without new data, you really can't say much about the divorce rate of psychiatrists in the last 20 years.

Marriage Isn’t Dead — Yet

This thread is emblematic of the current tendency of #fakenews headlines: inappropriate interpretation of low quality data from a single study that is never replicated --> wild speculation on the mechanism of the effect when the supposed effect itself is not even firmly established --> politically motivated interventions supposedly designed to address the impact of the effect but is really manipulated through partisan agenda
 
sluox said:
Not really. How many of those 1100 are psychiatrists? Small sample, type I error.

Also, divorce rates have changed QUITE a bit in the last 20 years, especially if you consider college graduation as a covariate. Without new data, you really can't say much about the divorce rate of psychiatrists in the last 20 years.

Marriage Isn’t Dead — Yet

This thread is emblematic of the current tendency of #fakenews headlines: inappropriate interpretation of low quality data from a single study that is never replicated --> wild speculation on the mechanism of the effect when the supposed effect itself is not even firmly established --> politically motivated interventions supposedly designed to address the impact of the effect but is really manipulated through partisan agenda
Click to expand...
If you would like a larger study, Medscape has data covering psychiatrist divorce rates from 2012. It found psychiatrists to be more likely to be remarried, divorced, and separated than physicians in general and most other specialties by a good margin. The downside to the study is that it is not longitudinal, serving as a brief snapshot of psychiatrists at varying points in their career rather than following them for thirty years.

Medscape: Medscape Access
 
Mad Jack said:
If you would like a larger study, Medscape has data covering psychiatrist divorce rates from 2012. It found psychiatrists to be more likely to be remarried, divorced, and separated than physicians in general and most other specialties by a good margin. The downside to the study is that it is not longitudinal, serving as a brief snapshot of psychiatrists at varying points in their career rather than following them for thirty years.

Medscape: Medscape Access
Click to expand...
That data isn't very impressive compared to the original 1997 NEJM article that started this discussion. That Medscape data has 77% of psychiatrists married compared to 81% of all physicians. 5.7% of psychiatrists were divorced/separated compared to 8% of all physicians. Assuming this is a representative sample relative to the NEJM sample, the trend is steeply down for psychiatrists of divorce relative to other physicians over only a 15 year period.
 
sluox said:
You are doubling down on a 2% difference in divorce rate. Don't give a damn what the causal mechanism mediates that effect because I'm pretty sure it'll be meaningless.
Click to expand...
That's the divorced but not remarried statistic only, as the way the study was designed you could only select one of six options (single, divorced, separated, married, remarried, or living with a partner). It does not include those that are remarried, which psychiatry has a higher proportion of than other specialties at 14%, for a total divorced+divorced and remarried total of 22%, versus the average divorced percentage for men at 3%+remarried for male physicians at 13% for a total of 16%, or for females, divorced 7%+remarried 8% for a total of 15%. Psychiatrists were also more likely than the average man, but equally as likely as the average woman, to be living with a partner but not married. Given that many of these are early and mid-career psychiatrists, the percentage is going to be lower than if the study only examined late-career psychiatrists, but still shows that even with a mix of ages, psychiatrists have a RR of divorce of 1.38 versus their male colleagues and 1.47 versus their female colleagues in other specialties. I'd say that qualifies as significant.
 
Mad Jack said:
...even with a mix of ages, psychiatrists have a RR of divorce of 1.38 versus their male colleagues and 1.47 versus their female colleagues in other specialties. I'd say that qualifies as significant.
Click to expand...
"Significant" depends on the confidence interval.
 
So far what I'm getting from this thread is psychiatrists are usually more liberal, and not very likely to see marriage as some holy contract between god, woman, and man so they are more likely to break it off if things start to get rough, or not get married at all. But I would think a psychiatrist has the knowledge of conflict resolution and listening skills to stop things from going south. Guess not.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
renegotiating insurance rate.
Replies
5
Views
873
Sushirolls
Sushirolls
Cath Up
Overnight call rate
Replies
39
Views
4K
ridethecliche
ridethecliche
calvinhobbes
Hourly rate part time ?
Replies
4
Views
1K
mistafab
mistafab
C
Good rate for PHP evals?
Replies
18
Views
2K
Celexa
C
Asklepian
Inpatient psych call rate
2
Replies
51
Views
6K
clozareal
clozareal
Top Bottom