4 ms·
There is a fairly strong heuristic for measuring who is less likely to be an anti-social maniac like the one in the article -- marriage. Throughout history and
by ihsw2 8y ago
There is a fairly strong heuristic for measuring who is less likely to be an anti-social maniac like the one in the article -- marriage.
Throughout history and across the world, married men (and women) are universally much less likely to be exhibit anti-social behavior to the point where it is an enduring fixture (if not the enduring fixture) in the civilizing process.
- yorwba 8y agoAre you basing this on actual data or is that just your opinion? I'm under the impression that for most of history, marriage status was determined by one's age and social status rather than a choice that would allow conclusions about personality traits.
- ionised 8y agoOr that those people are more likely to conform to whatever ideal society expects of them at that time, marriage included.
- astura 8y agoIt appears that its probably a little of column A; a little of column B http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/07/why-married-men-are-less-anti-social/ http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/07/why-married-men-are-le...
- mistersquid 8y agoWithout data, your statement is tantamount to discrimination based on marital status which is problematic in the context of a thread regarding employee dismissal. Off the top of my head, I can think of a number of quite anti-social people (for different values of anti-social) that are married. For example, Joseph James DeAngelo (Golden State Killer) was once married, has adult children, but his anti-social behavior is well documented. [0] In another example Jennifer Hart and Sarah Hart were married and had many adoptee children. Hardly the stereotype of antisociality. And yet, in their private lives they very likely abused their adoptive children to the point of killing all their children as well as themselves. [1] Another example is David and Louise Turpin who imprisoned 13 children in their home. [2] In fact, there have been a number of high-profile survivor tales in the last several years of children escaping abusive parents. One news outlet gathers up a number of similar past cases with many of the offenders being married people. My aim in discussing these cases is neither to provoke nor sustain prurient interest in the antisocial behavior of married people. Nor is my aim to claim that married people are more likely to engage in abusive, antisocial behavior toward children. My aim is to destabilize your claim that "married men (and women) are universally much less likely to be exhibit anti-social behavior" which claim you make without providing a single shred of proof. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/25/us/golden-state-killer-serial.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/25/us/golden-state-killer-se... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/27/us/hart-family-crash.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/27/us/hart-family-crash.html [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TnYoss0eiM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TnYoss0eiM [3] https://www.news24.com/World/News/children-held-captive-previous-infamous-cases-20180116 https://www.news24.com/World/News/children-held-captive-prev... EDIT: Recast direct object in second sentence of third paragraph. Recast relative clause in last sentence.
- fenwick67 8y ago[citation needed] and are you seriously suggesting discriminating against people based on marital status?