3 ms·

>> the key to staying married is having two people who are committed to staying married This is all it is. Too many people focus on instant gratification and s

>> the key to staying married is having two people who are committed to staying married This is all it is. Too many people focus on instant gratification and short-term expectations. Most failed marriages (well, long-term relationships in general) happen due to boredom and the inventing of excuses to be unhappy, simply because the honeymoon period is over. Well guess what? If you give up on one relationship because it got "boring", you're in for a wake up call when that becomes the case with every subsequent relationship. Barring exceptions such as abusive relationships, the grass will not be greener on the other side with a new relationship. The grass will become the same shade of green you already had. The path to success is learning how to fertilize the grass you already have, instead of replacing the grass every time it starts to turn brown.

kelnos 9y ago
> Most failed marriages (well, long-term relationships in general) happen due to boredom and the inventing of excuses to be unhappy, simply because the honeymoon period is over. I'm actually curious as to whether or not this is true. It's certainly true in some cases, but the absence of the honeymoon period is absolutely necessary to determine if a relationship has long-term potential. We're completely incapable of making a rational determination of that while in the honeymoon phase. I suspect that many relationships end after the honeymoon phase more because one or both parties realize that, after the hormones have died down a bit, they just don't have enough else in common (beyond their initial emotional attachment) to forge a lasting relationship. And that's ok! It's good to figure that out, especially if you can do so before you've made a long-term commitment. I absolutely agree that "having two people who are committed to staying married" is certainly a way to staying married, but that's like saying "the key to being ok with keeping your hand on a hot stove is being committed to not caring how much it hurts". It's true because it's something of a tautology, not because it's a good idea. Being committed to staying married when there are better alternatives might keep you married, but at what cost?
- developer2 9y ago
  >> they just don't have enough else in common (beyond their initial emotional attachment) to forge a lasting relationship This is the fallacy. That somehow there is a magical formula that determines "compatibility". I'm of the opinion that nearly any two people, put together, should be capable of making a lifelong relationship work. Outside of one of the people being completely hopeless, such that they would be incapable of ever maintaining any meaningful relationship. The way you get to grow old with a partner is obtained by the very simple means of having a committed partner. And therein lies the secret sauce. You don't look for the "perfect match". You match with anyone willing to have a go at life together, and you ride out the long and hard journey. The way to win is to realize that life is mostly made up of shit circumstances, and that life is too short to be lonely. You're better off having someone, anyone, rather than having nobody.
  - kelnos 9y ago
    > This is the fallacy. That somehow there is a magical formula that determines "compatibility". I never suggested there was, and agree with you that there isn't. A ton of things go into compatibility, and determining the compatibility between two people is a case-by-case, very personal thing. > I'm of the opinion that nearly any two people, put together, should be capable of making a lifelong relationship work. I think we're going to have to just disagree, then, because I don't share that opinion. I of course don't believe in something silly like soulmates, and I do think people can be compatible with many more people than they think they could be, but it's a matter of degree, and I think most arbitrary/random pairings likely won't/can't turn out well. Put another way, perhaps nearly any two people put together could make it work... but at what cost to both of them? For some pairings it would be low cost, and for others drastically higher. Why would that cost always be worthwhile, just for the sake of having a long-term relationship?
  - ionised 9y ago
    > You're better off having someone, anyone, rather than having nobody. Is this really how you feel? I find that incredibly sad to be honest. I absolutely do not agree with that. I've been in a relationship before with someone was absolutely disastrous for my mental health. No chance in hell I would choose a life with her over a life of solitude, given the choice.
- sheepmullet 9y ago
  > Being committed to staying married when there are better alternatives might keep you married, but at what cost? The evidence shows, on average, divorcees end up poorer and less happy than couples who stick together through tough times. The evidence shows, again on average, the children of divorcees are worse off. The problem is people are amazing at self-deception. They are terrible judges as to whether they are going to be happier/better off post-divorce. I don't have all the answers. But its clear that sticking together is more often than not the right strategy.
  - kelnos 9y ago
    > The evidence shows, on average, divorcees end up poorer and less happy than couples who stick together through tough times. How do you even measure the latter bit? Happiness is entirely based on self-reporting, and a divorcee can't say "I would have been happier had I stayed together", because they literally cannot know that. Likewise, someone who stuck it out can't say "I would have ended up less happy had we broken up", because, again, that's unknowable. They can guess, and of course people will want to believe they made the right choice sticking it out, so I could see why they'd report greater happiness. I think your point about people being great at self-deception cuts both ways: they may not be able to accurately predict whether or not a divorce will make them happy in the future, but they're also likely to rationalize the decision to stay as being better when they have no real basis in doing so. Regarding poorness and: > The evidence shows, again on average, the children of divorcees are worse off. I think it's worthwhile examining why that is the case. It's telling that we say that people who have divorced have "failed" marriages. It's a negative. It creates shame, and people feel pressured, due to religion or other social reasons, to stay together. Could it not be that people end up poorer and children end of worse off after a divorce mainly because we as a society do not have the proper support structures in place to keep divorcees from experiencing negative outcomes? And hell, a decent amount of the "poorer" bit could be ascribed to the cost of the divorce itself, including court fees, lawyers, etc. Alimony also ends up being "inefficient": a friend of mine got divorced a few years ago and was required to pay alimony to his former spouse. The end result was the the money was not enough to bring her up to her standard of living during marriage, and the expense on his side was enough to drag his standard of living down as well. As an aside, do you have any references that support your claims? I'm very interested in reading them.

kelnos 9y ago

> Most failed marriages (well, long-term relationships in general) happen due to boredom and the inventing of excuses to be unhappy, simply because the honeymoon period is over. I'm actually curious as to whether or not this is true. It's certainly true in some cases, but the absence of the honeymoon period is absolutely necessary to determine if a relationship has long-term potential. We're completely incapable of making a rational determination of that while in the honeymoon phase. I suspect that many relationships end after the honeymoon phase more because one or both parties realize that, after the hormones have died down a bit, they just don't have enough else in common (beyond their initial emotional attachment) to forge a lasting relationship. And that's ok! It's good to figure that out, especially if you can do so before you've made a long-term commitment. I absolutely agree that "having two people who are committed to staying married" is certainly a way to staying married, but that's like saying "the key to being ok with keeping your hand on a hot stove is being committed to not caring how much it hurts". It's true because it's something of a tautology, not because it's a good idea. Being committed to staying married when there are better alternatives might keep you married, but at what cost?

developer2 9y ago
>> they just don't have enough else in common (beyond their initial emotional attachment) to forge a lasting relationship This is the fallacy. That somehow there is a magical formula that determines "compatibility". I'm of the opinion that nearly any two people, put together, should be capable of making a lifelong relationship work. Outside of one of the people being completely hopeless, such that they would be incapable of ever maintaining any meaningful relationship. The way you get to grow old with a partner is obtained by the very simple means of having a committed partner. And therein lies the secret sauce. You don't look for the "perfect match". You match with anyone willing to have a go at life together, and you ride out the long and hard journey. The way to win is to realize that life is mostly made up of shit circumstances, and that life is too short to be lonely. You're better off having someone, anyone, rather than having nobody.
- kelnos 9y ago
  > This is the fallacy. That somehow there is a magical formula that determines "compatibility". I never suggested there was, and agree with you that there isn't. A ton of things go into compatibility, and determining the compatibility between two people is a case-by-case, very personal thing. > I'm of the opinion that nearly any two people, put together, should be capable of making a lifelong relationship work. I think we're going to have to just disagree, then, because I don't share that opinion. I of course don't believe in something silly like soulmates, and I do think people can be compatible with many more people than they think they could be, but it's a matter of degree, and I think most arbitrary/random pairings likely won't/can't turn out well. Put another way, perhaps nearly any two people put together could make it work... but at what cost to both of them? For some pairings it would be low cost, and for others drastically higher. Why would that cost always be worthwhile, just for the sake of having a long-term relationship?
- ionised 9y ago
  > You're better off having someone, anyone, rather than having nobody. Is this really how you feel? I find that incredibly sad to be honest. I absolutely do not agree with that. I've been in a relationship before with someone was absolutely disastrous for my mental health. No chance in hell I would choose a life with her over a life of solitude, given the choice.
sheepmullet 9y ago
> Being committed to staying married when there are better alternatives might keep you married, but at what cost? The evidence shows, on average, divorcees end up poorer and less happy than couples who stick together through tough times. The evidence shows, again on average, the children of divorcees are worse off. The problem is people are amazing at self-deception. They are terrible judges as to whether they are going to be happier/better off post-divorce. I don't have all the answers. But its clear that sticking together is more often than not the right strategy.
- kelnos 9y ago
  > The evidence shows, on average, divorcees end up poorer and less happy than couples who stick together through tough times. How do you even measure the latter bit? Happiness is entirely based on self-reporting, and a divorcee can't say "I would have been happier had I stayed together", because they literally cannot know that. Likewise, someone who stuck it out can't say "I would have ended up less happy had we broken up", because, again, that's unknowable. They can guess, and of course people will want to believe they made the right choice sticking it out, so I could see why they'd report greater happiness. I think your point about people being great at self-deception cuts both ways: they may not be able to accurately predict whether or not a divorce will make them happy in the future, but they're also likely to rationalize the decision to stay as being better when they have no real basis in doing so. Regarding poorness and: > The evidence shows, again on average, the children of divorcees are worse off. I think it's worthwhile examining why that is the case. It's telling that we say that people who have divorced have "failed" marriages. It's a negative. It creates shame, and people feel pressured, due to religion or other social reasons, to stay together. Could it not be that people end up poorer and children end of worse off after a divorce mainly because we as a society do not have the proper support structures in place to keep divorcees from experiencing negative outcomes? And hell, a decent amount of the "poorer" bit could be ascribed to the cost of the divorce itself, including court fees, lawyers, etc. Alimony also ends up being "inefficient": a friend of mine got divorced a few years ago and was required to pay alimony to his former spouse. The end result was the the money was not enough to bring her up to her standard of living during marriage, and the expense on his side was enough to drag his standard of living down as well. As an aside, do you have any references that support your claims? I'm very interested in reading them.