Did you write this one backwards? I'd imagine cohabitating before marriage to be protective against divorce (or lead to break up before marriage and hence no divorce).
Admittedly, I didn't do any research on this and don't know/care what the numbers are. I think this is absolutely wrong. Living with someone is a BIG deal and some people are just incompatible. You need to live with someone before marriage to know if you can live with them for a lifetime.
The research actually does show that co-habitation before marriage is more highly correlated with divorce. I wanted my wife and I to move in together before getting engaged to make sure we could live together, but both her parents and her were insistent we get engaged before moving in together (and her parents didn't even like that). I think there are probably more confounding factors that were poorly addressed, but I did look this up after my wife's family brought this up, as it seems incredibly counter-intuitive to me.
I agree with all that was said about overachievers marrying people with lower educational level. because lower educational level means they won't have as much student loans to overwork their ass off, their job hours might be more flexible and they would be more able to clear their schedule on your behalf, understanding that we have more hectic lives.
Many doctors I know. (the ones putting in the good hours and making the real money) usually have a housewife, who takes care of the kids, and provide the emotional support needed when and/if they are home and those wives were people with a very submissive personality. I'm pretty sure it can be seen the other way around as well.
And in my personal experience, after dating those overachievers residents, when I have a lot on my plate as well,and having them ask me to be more "submissive" and be there for whenever the time was suitable for "them" to provide the attention, communication and among other things you should have in a healthy relationship. I knew it wasn't going to work for me. At least not with workaholics.
I do believe men in position of power (doctors, lawyers) are appealing to us, probably future power females as well; under the illusion of making a "power couple" or maybe only "evolutionary theories" but I don't know in reality how achievable it is. ( it would become a threeway with your relationship and each other careers in the middle, and that's without counting the fact of the kids and all of that) everyone in the relationship would need to be understanding and meeting each other requirements in terms of (time, communication, emotional needs) without hindering the other person ability to be the best they can be in their field so no one would have regret later...
Personally I believe the reasons my long term marriage is still intact include similar level of intelligence but more importantly having the same baseline core values and financial philosophy. We have had plenty of insignificant spats but have never disagreed about what is appropriate behavior or our spending habits even when our finances were tight.
The bolded is something I think most people don't realize until they're well into the marriage. When one person is financially conservative and likes to have a solid emergency fund while the other is a spendthrift who uses shopping as their primary form of therapy, it's not a a situation conducive to a successful marriage.
I’ve actually noticed this as well with my high-achieving female friends... not dating low achievers necessarily, but people not at their level.
I’ve always wondered if high-achieving women face:
1) a problem finding someone at their level who isn’t already taken, a narcissist, or someone who wants to slow them down.
2) simply don’t consider achievement (degrees, money, prestige etc...) when they get into relationships because it would severely narrow their options.
I think there's a few dynamics at play there.
@BellaPinhaMD mentioned the idea of "power couples" earlier and I think they are typically unrealistic for a few reasons. In order for a power couple to work, you either have to have 2 individuals who understand that career is important and are okay with understanding that they will be sacrificing some emotional connection for career. I would think these would be the more detached/distant individuals who are fine with having a companion that is okay with a more detached/distant partner. I don't think these are great relationships, as it takes a pretty high level of understanding and trust that both will remain loyal. The other possibility is two extremely well-adjusted, organized, high-functioning, and driven individuals who can legitimately make time for both career and their SO. I'd also guess that these would typically be individuals who either don't want kids or are willing to delay their career pursuit until their kids are older.
As to the reason high-powered women would end up with low-achieving males, I think it has to do with power dynamic. High-powered women are more likely to be more of the Type A, driven personalities. This can be both intimidating to men and inconvenient for those wanting to have a family. Additionally, if the woman wants to start a family, she'd have to find a man who is willing to make major sacrifices in their careers to put the family first while the wife brings in the money. I'd guess that many of these women who end up with low-achievers do it out of convenience. It's easier to find a submissive, Type B guy who isn't much of an achiever and pursue their careers than it is to make a relationship with everything they hope for with another high achiever without making major sacrifices themselves. There's also the idea that some women end up with scummy guys because those guys can talk the talk and superficially give her what she needs while just coasting themselves.
This is a lot of speculation and talk and I don't really have data to back it up other than the few irl instances I've seen. Also, I those dynamics go both ways as well and can be seen with many high-achieving men as well. I think that historically though, the submissive house-wife has been an accepted societal role for women and is seen as a form of success for women. Whereas the submissive role for males has typically been seen as the male being weak or a failure, and I think there are fewer of the "well-adjusted" submissive males who are willing to just be house-husbands than the Type B females willing to take on the family care-giver role. There's been an obvious shift in societal expectations in modern times, but historically I think this still has an impact in these types of dynamics.
Edit: Sorry for the ramblings, that ended up being much longer than expected...
