12 ms·

Marriage and luxury beliefs at the United Nations

128 points by pyuser583 5y ago

stereo 5y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20220419055458/https://publica.org.au/marriage-beliefs-un/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220419055458/https://publica.o...
probably_wrong 5y ago
For those who missed it, this article was referenced in a more general article titled "No one expects young men to do anything and they are responding by doing nothing", which was discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31143279 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31143279
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
zozbot234 5y ago
Earlier discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31143279 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31143279
seu 5y ago
So the author initially laments the lack of thought diversity in the expert group (most participants work at English speaking, western universities), but then complains about them not agreeing with his data, which is only from English speaking western countries, so also not diverse at all. Looks like he should make up his mind.
- hef19898 5y ago
  He did, and has a strong opinion now.
  - blitzar 5y ago
    > Professor Patrick Parkinson AM is the Executive Director of Publica Sounds like an elite to me.
    - throwaway6734 5y ago
      No you see to be an elite means you have to have a viewpoint I dislike and the more I dislike it the more elite you are
      - blitzar 5y ago
        Damn so that makes me a small time elite.
      - geoduck14 5y ago
        >No you see to be an elite means you have to have a viewpoint I dislike and the more I dislike it the more elite you are Oh! We should have opinions so that we can disagree with each other and become elite. I'll start All cows are spheres and have uniform density. These 2 properties make them BEAUTIFUL!
        hef19898 5y ago
        Only Elitists would say so! Cows are clearly cube shaped, or how would they fit into Tetra packs?
- im3w1l 5y ago
  Yeah, this is a pretty good point. That marriage "works" better in a given time and place doesn't translate into a universal law that it always works better. And in particular it may be the case that alternative relationships can be made to work if other supporting cultural changes happen.
michaelt 5y ago
> The odds of a cohabiting couple with children breaking up was more than seven times as high as for a married couple who had not lived together before marriage, and more than four times as high as for those who had lived together but went on to marry. I wonder how the researchers control for the effects of external factors, like the family's economic wellbeing? After all, a family that is struggling financially might be less able to afford a wedding; might have more to get into arguments about; and might have less money to spend on their children. But I'm not sure how easy it would be to control for that.
- AndrewDucker 5y ago
  Does this take into account different laws around divorce in different countries? (And also - having seen children whose parents refuse to divorce when they clearly don't like each other, please please please get divorced, for the sake of the children!)
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    > Does this take into account different laws around divorce in different countries? Don't forget welfare and child support rules/laws which can penalize marriage and reward separation/divorce.
- rmbyrro 5y ago
  Just note that marriage != wedding. A couple can get married without a wedding. On the same amount of money they would need to move in together and split the bills.
  - Cthulhu_ 5y ago
    I mean marriage is free on tuesdays around here, you just go to the county and sign some paperwork. Marriage is a legal process, any embellishment or celebration is by choice.
    - rjmunro 5y ago
tsupiroti 5y ago
> We could agree that marriage, everywhere in the Western world, is declining in popularity, and non-marital cohabitation rising. This is especially true of Europe. In my experience, many young couples in western Europe don't see marriage as signifying that a relationship is stabler. It's something you just do after you've been living together for a while since it simplifies some bureaucracy (especially if moving outside the EU) and it's a good reason to have a party. In many countries being in a domestic partnership is very similar to being married from a legal perspective.
- hef19898 5y ago
  Don't forget tax reasons. And yes, you can get a lot of marriage like benefits by registering your partnership. Notable exceptions are adoption and shared custody of children. Especially for same sex couples.
  - vasco 5y ago
    In 3 countries I've lived in Europe taxes are the same if you're married or not if you make a similar amount as your partner. Only when one of the partners makes much less, it ends up being "beneficial" as the one making more gets the average "pulled down" as the allowance is 2x but income isn't 2x. If both make the same, all the tax rates and allowances would generally be the same, married or not. Most people I know in Europe that got married did it because of kids, as the bureaucracy is much simpler in terms of legal protections for the child if anything bad happens to either one of the parents.
    - hef19898 5y ago
      Yep, if the salaries are the same, no benefits. In our case we married because of taxes and inheritence. Both came with a house, being married reduced any inheritence tax loads and meant that the living partner ended up in sole ownership of the house, otherwise parts would go to the children, which would have required the involvement of courts (children under 18) or childrens approval (over 18) for selling of the house and so on. Which would truely suck, especially the first part.
thriftwy 5y ago
https://quillette.com/2019/11/16/thorstein-veblens-theory-of-the-leisure-class-a-status-update/ https://quillette.com/2019/11/16/thorstein-veblens-theory-of... was very interesting (from the same article) and it would actually load as of now. Turns out, all these modern left ideas are not incompetence, and not malice, and not virtue signalling, but fitness signalling: if you can advocate for polyamory and not ruin your life, you are very fit indeed. But most of your population, they try running into the ground.
- WithinReason 5y ago
  I like this theory!
- dale_glass 5y ago
  Or you can take it a step further, and see what it actually is: a honest opinion with no particular agenda. I'm fine with polyamory and would support it in a social context not because it's an expression of my social class or a way to pick up girls, but because that's simply my honest opinion: we spend too much time poking our nose in other people's business and should do it less. If you want a standard marriage, that's fine. If you honestly want to raise a child alone, that's fine too. And if you manage to successfully create some hybrid structure with 3 men and 3 women having sex with each other and get that to work, more power to you, and no need for anyone to have a problem with that.
  - mrtranscendence 5y ago
    > And if you manage to successfully create some hybrid structure The problem I have with that stance is the difficulty of "manag[ing] to successfully create some hybrid structure". Personally I've never seen polyamory succeed over multiple attempts, and each time results in at least one person being hurt. There's something to be said for discouraging activities that are unlikely to work out and can potentially be damaging.
woolion 5y ago
Summary of the article: Author notes a diversity of viewpoints are represented at UN (South America, Africa, ...), but not all, notably East-Asia, e.g. China. Yet the author notes that very disproportionately the representatives are people educated in US universities and living out of their constituency. The author says data shows overwhelmingly that 'normative' family (stable family formed by the two biological parents leads to much less child abuse, and therefore lower rates of mental illness in the raised children etc. Despite that, author notes that the 'inclusive' viewpoint from the UN would rather say that "all family structures are equal". When this is discussed no data is not considered for philosophical reasons like women's rights and equality trump such concerns. The author then says somebody who vehemently opposed his viewpoint privately agreed and apparently detailed how much she believed it in her own life. Nonetheless "she suggested jokingly that I had better leave now". The author concludes that the UN representatives are elites that do not believe what they profess. --- Without considering the ideological battle, I'm wondering how the UN could give "universal recommendations", knowing how diverse the viewpoints from each culture may be. Let us consider that what the author says is true in his country, and therefore encouraging "non-traditional family structures" creates more child abuse. Suppose also that might be entirely false in some other country (author does not provide any such data). Isn't it profoundly evil to make a "universal" statement that refuses to consider that? One point the author insists on is that his African colleagues consider what he considers a "traditional family structure" to not be a norm. If pushing such family structure on these communities created more child abuse in these communities, doing so would be an evil thing, or there does not exist any evil in this world.
- verisimi 5y ago
- phkahler 5y ago
  This notion that every viewpoint is equally valid has to go. maybe every one should be considered/heard, but that is different than being accepted or equivalent. Some ideas are based on falsehoods and need to be outright rejected regardless of whose feelings get hurt.
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
Weird that 'elite' has become a right-wing term recently. Is that a good thing? Have reactionary forces lost control of the elites after centuries? Are they now at least having to pretend they care about data rather than raw power? That meritocracy wasn't working after all? Or is this just the latest variation on "the Jews who claim to want democracy and human rights are really going to eat your children" and it doesn't really need to be internally consistent?
- dontlaugh 5y ago
  I think definitely a variation of the latter. The bourgeoisie have their own disagreements and factions, which show up more clearly during periods of crisis.
- thriftwy 5y ago
  [flagged]
- mnd999 5y ago
  I would define it as “someone I disagree with and I would like you to disagree with too because they are not like us”. Essentially another approach to trying to create division and tribalism in discourse where it suits the person using it to do so.
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    In this specific case, the argument seems to be we should disagree with them because they are too like us (US educated UN Ambassadors), and that the whole concept of human rights is cultural imperialism. Which is one of many recent right-wing stances I’d applaud as very 'woke' and sophisticated takes on complex issues if I didn't think they were just lying about caring about it in order to justify something horrible they do actually want to do.
    - zozbot234 5y ago
      Are you saying that the UN has come up with a novel "human right" to having dysfunctional families around? I wasn't aware of that, but it makes a lot of sense now! The UN itself is certainly dysfunctional enough.
earthbee 5y ago
Honestly, I'm not sure why these articles are getting posted recently or what point they're trying to make so maybe this post is besides the point, if so then ignore it. I didn't look super deep into this but I quickly looked up the data for my country the UK, and also the US. In both countries the percentage of people getting married is dropping and the percentage of children in single parent homes is also dropping. So less marriage = more two parent families?
- dc-programmer 5y ago
  The answer is extremely dumb - US culture wars. Unless I’m missing some hidden connection between familial structure and tech
  - d3nj4l 5y ago
    Yes, basically this. HN basically has one of these threads hit the frontpage every day, and they're always from one side of the culture war. No points for guessing which of course, as the author of this piece is an out and out homophobe and transphobe: No, you see, it's about the family!
- pyuser583 5y ago
  I posted the article because it shows a decision making process empty of data and filled with groupthink. It’s meant as a caution to people employed in the tech industry. It’s very tempting to view “data less” decisions as the product of stupidity or lack or critical though. This shows how educated, smart, diverse group ends up worshipping the “idols of the tribe.”
barry-cotter 5y ago
> cohabiting relationships are less stable than marriage, and suggests that the growth of cohabitation leads to fewer children having the benefits of living with both parents. > In the overwhelming majority of countries, the most educated cohabiting parents still have a far higher rate of break-up than the lowest educated married couples. > There were some countries like the United States and the United Kingdom where the advantage associated with marriage was smaller at low maternal education levels, but it was still quite sizable: children were 57 and 69 percent (respectively) more likely to see their parents split before age 12 if their parents were cohabiting rather than married at the time of their birth. > as cohabitation becomes more common, does it become more similar to marriage in terms of stability for children? Unfortunately, the answer is no. The stability advantage associated with marriage varies a lot between countries, but it is not smaller where cohabiting births are more normative. https://ifstudies.org/blog/cohabitation-contributes-to-family-instability-across-the-globe https://ifstudies.org/blog/cohabitation-contributes-to-famil...
i5heu 5y ago
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc
- pyuser583 5y ago
  What are you saying? I studied years of Latin, and have no idea what your sentences means. Literally, “With this, therefore that.” I know it’s a fallacy, but fallacies need to be shown, not cited.
  - roel_v 5y ago
    Your translation doesn't include 'propter'. A more accurate translation is 'with this, therefore because of this'. Which is a pretty intuitive description of the fallacy it describes.
    - pyuser583 5y ago
      My apologies. I was confused “propter” and “propterea.” Mea culpa.
  - i5heu 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_cau...
  - mrtranscendence 5y ago
    ... if you know enough to realize it's referring to a fallacy, then you must surely know what the sentence means.
helpfulmandrill 5y ago
It seems to me like the effects of "normative" family structures might be different and better in countries that tolerate divorce. Where divorce is tolerated and non-stigmatised, those families that remain "normative" are, almost by definition, the most stable and healthy ones. If divorce were forbidden or stigmatized, then many more families would remain together where parents are always in conflict or where there is spousal abuse. So it is possible that the apparent benefits of normative family structures are only apparent in societies that tolerate "non-normative" family structures, and would disappear in less tolerant societies.
- refurb 5y ago
  I would imagine that broadly applies to most social norms - you need to the find the "sweet spot" that reinforces positive behavior, without introducing rules that end up being counter-productive and creating new problems. You can see that in action in terms of drug use - the ideal is that people don't use drugs in a socially (as well as individually) harmful way. Putting people in prison for using drugs likely causes more harm than good (even beyond the person in jail). Having an entirely permissive approach where showing up at work intoxicated probably causes more harm than good as well (again, even beyond the person intoxicated). So the question is at what point can society get the most optimal outcome? Not an easy question to answer and likely one that changes over time (since there are feedback loops and changes to underlying, but related social beliefs).
  - vladvasiliu 5y ago
    While I agree with your point, I think we already have examples of this particular issue being solved: alcohol. It's legal for me to go and buy alcohol, and it's also probably legal for my employer to fire me if I show up drunk to work. There's of course nothing preventing me from drinking so much that I die, but then again I can also jump out the window of my apartment, no substance required. I can see that being the same with other drugs. Maybe even mandate testing for certain jobs (operating heavy machinery, driving a bus, etc).
    - 5y ago
julienreszka 5y ago
Page doesn't load
im3w1l 5y ago
This woman privately believed that marriage is good. But her public statement was that it doesn't matter. Consider why. Why would she lie like that? The answer is expediency. She wants political support, or at least avoid picking a battle. This is noteworthy. Similar to Gell-Mann amnesia, we should keep this effect in mind in other questions. When people say "trust the experts" we should keep it mind. Is this an actual expert opinion, or is it an expedient lie. That doesn't mean that it is a lie every time. Clearly these people do a balancing act between truth and realpolitik.
angry_octet 5y ago
- haltingproblem 5y ago
  You are proposing a dangerous standard. Does every atheist, mormon, polyamorist and satanist now be obligated to disclose their beliefs? He made a data driven argument so lets stay at that rather than a he professes a personal virtuosity that I agree/disagree with kinda of argument.
  - andrewclunn 5y ago
    Ad hominems (or attacks on the person or source rather than the argument) are only logical fallacies when applied to people on "my team." Please update your "Rational Skepticism Operating System" to the current year version.
    - haltingproblem 5y ago
      Ran the update, locked my brain and I am now fixated on biting coins.
  - angry_octet 5y ago
    His argument is far from data driven, just the opposite: he interprets data to suit his argument. And indeed, if someone is a prominent Satanist, but describes themselves as a simple kind hearted participant on a UN panel, and decides that the true outcome of the meeting is that people love Satan and need black magic in their lives to PROTECT THE CHILDREN then yes, omitting their selling their soul at the crossroads at midnight is quite a deceitful omission. The omission here is the context free nature of links on HN. We are urged to assess the words of people without context, without knowing that they have a history of the most wild and divisive rhetoric, where the dice are loaded with depleted uranium. No, that does not make sense.
    - zaphar 5y ago
      You have not yet demonstrated that his interpretation is incorrect. The data won't change so you should be able to do so. This page is full of folks making data driven arguments to that effect and they probably do more to make your point than this does.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
merricksb 5y ago
Cached version: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fZeFSLRfhpYJ:https://publica.org.au/marriage-beliefs-un/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fZeFSL...

128 points by pyuser583 5y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20220419055458/https://publica.org.au/marriage-beliefs-un/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220419055458/https://publica.o...

probably_wrong 5y ago

For those who missed it, this article was referenced in a more general article titled "No one expects young men to do anything and they are responding by doing nothing", which was discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31143279 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31143279

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

zozbot234 5y ago

Earlier discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31143279 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31143279

seu 5y ago

So the author initially laments the lack of thought diversity in the expert group (most participants work at English speaking, western universities), but then complains about them not agreeing with his data, which is only from English speaking western countries, so also not diverse at all. Looks like he should make up his mind.

hef19898 5y ago
He did, and has a strong opinion now.
- blitzar 5y ago
  > Professor Patrick Parkinson AM is the Executive Director of Publica Sounds like an elite to me.
  - throwaway6734 5y ago
    No you see to be an elite means you have to have a viewpoint I dislike and the more I dislike it the more elite you are
    - blitzar 5y ago
      Damn so that makes me a small time elite.
    - geoduck14 5y ago
      >No you see to be an elite means you have to have a viewpoint I dislike and the more I dislike it the more elite you are Oh! We should have opinions so that we can disagree with each other and become elite. I'll start All cows are spheres and have uniform density. These 2 properties make them BEAUTIFUL!
      - hef19898 5y ago
        Only Elitists would say so! Cows are clearly cube shaped, or how would they fit into Tetra packs?
im3w1l 5y ago
Yeah, this is a pretty good point. That marriage "works" better in a given time and place doesn't translate into a universal law that it always works better. And in particular it may be the case that alternative relationships can be made to work if other supporting cultural changes happen.

michaelt 5y ago

> The odds of a cohabiting couple with children breaking up was more than seven times as high as for a married couple who had not lived together before marriage, and more than four times as high as for those who had lived together but went on to marry. I wonder how the researchers control for the effects of external factors, like the family's economic wellbeing? After all, a family that is struggling financially might be less able to afford a wedding; might have more to get into arguments about; and might have less money to spend on their children. But I'm not sure how easy it would be to control for that.

AndrewDucker 5y ago
Does this take into account different laws around divorce in different countries? (And also - having seen children whose parents refuse to divorce when they clearly don't like each other, please please please get divorced, for the sake of the children!)
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  > Does this take into account different laws around divorce in different countries? Don't forget welfare and child support rules/laws which can penalize marriage and reward separation/divorce.
rmbyrro 5y ago
Just note that marriage != wedding. A couple can get married without a wedding. On the same amount of money they would need to move in together and split the bills.
- Cthulhu_ 5y ago
  I mean marriage is free on tuesdays around here, you just go to the county and sign some paperwork. Marriage is a legal process, any embellishment or celebration is by choice.
  - rjmunro 5y ago

tsupiroti 5y ago

> We could agree that marriage, everywhere in the Western world, is declining in popularity, and non-marital cohabitation rising. This is especially true of Europe. In my experience, many young couples in western Europe don't see marriage as signifying that a relationship is stabler. It's something you just do after you've been living together for a while since it simplifies some bureaucracy (especially if moving outside the EU) and it's a good reason to have a party. In many countries being in a domestic partnership is very similar to being married from a legal perspective.

hef19898 5y ago
Don't forget tax reasons. And yes, you can get a lot of marriage like benefits by registering your partnership. Notable exceptions are adoption and shared custody of children. Especially for same sex couples.
- vasco 5y ago
  In 3 countries I've lived in Europe taxes are the same if you're married or not if you make a similar amount as your partner. Only when one of the partners makes much less, it ends up being "beneficial" as the one making more gets the average "pulled down" as the allowance is 2x but income isn't 2x. If both make the same, all the tax rates and allowances would generally be the same, married or not. Most people I know in Europe that got married did it because of kids, as the bureaucracy is much simpler in terms of legal protections for the child if anything bad happens to either one of the parents.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    Yep, if the salaries are the same, no benefits. In our case we married because of taxes and inheritence. Both came with a house, being married reduced any inheritence tax loads and meant that the living partner ended up in sole ownership of the house, otherwise parts would go to the children, which would have required the involvement of courts (children under 18) or childrens approval (over 18) for selling of the house and so on. Which would truely suck, especially the first part.

thriftwy 5y ago

https://quillette.com/2019/11/16/thorstein-veblens-theory-of-the-leisure-class-a-status-update/ https://quillette.com/2019/11/16/thorstein-veblens-theory-of... was very interesting (from the same article) and it would actually load as of now. Turns out, all these modern left ideas are not incompetence, and not malice, and not virtue signalling, but fitness signalling: if you can advocate for polyamory and not ruin your life, you are very fit indeed. But most of your population, they try running into the ground.

WithinReason 5y ago
I like this theory!
dale_glass 5y ago
Or you can take it a step further, and see what it actually is: a honest opinion with no particular agenda. I'm fine with polyamory and would support it in a social context not because it's an expression of my social class or a way to pick up girls, but because that's simply my honest opinion: we spend too much time poking our nose in other people's business and should do it less. If you want a standard marriage, that's fine. If you honestly want to raise a child alone, that's fine too. And if you manage to successfully create some hybrid structure with 3 men and 3 women having sex with each other and get that to work, more power to you, and no need for anyone to have a problem with that.
- mrtranscendence 5y ago
  > And if you manage to successfully create some hybrid structure The problem I have with that stance is the difficulty of "manag[ing] to successfully create some hybrid structure". Personally I've never seen polyamory succeed over multiple attempts, and each time results in at least one person being hurt. There's something to be said for discouraging activities that are unlikely to work out and can potentially be damaging.

woolion 5y ago

Summary of the article: Author notes a diversity of viewpoints are represented at UN (South America, Africa, ...), but not all, notably East-Asia, e.g. China. Yet the author notes that very disproportionately the representatives are people educated in US universities and living out of their constituency. The author says data shows overwhelmingly that 'normative' family (stable family formed by the two biological parents leads to much less child abuse, and therefore lower rates of mental illness in the raised children etc. Despite that, author notes that the 'inclusive' viewpoint from the UN would rather say that "all family structures are equal". When this is discussed no data is not considered for philosophical reasons like women's rights and equality trump such concerns. The author then says somebody who vehemently opposed his viewpoint privately agreed and apparently detailed how much she believed it in her own life. Nonetheless "she suggested jokingly that I had better leave now". The author concludes that the UN representatives are elites that do not believe what they profess. --- Without considering the ideological battle, I'm wondering how the UN could give "universal recommendations", knowing how diverse the viewpoints from each culture may be. Let us consider that what the author says is true in his country, and therefore encouraging "non-traditional family structures" creates more child abuse. Suppose also that might be entirely false in some other country (author does not provide any such data). Isn't it profoundly evil to make a "universal" statement that refuses to consider that? One point the author insists on is that his African colleagues consider what he considers a "traditional family structure" to not be a norm. If pushing such family structure on these communities created more child abuse in these communities, doing so would be an evil thing, or there does not exist any evil in this world.

verisimi 5y ago
phkahler 5y ago
This notion that every viewpoint is equally valid has to go. maybe every one should be considered/heard, but that is different than being accepted or equivalent. Some ideas are based on falsehoods and need to be outright rejected regardless of whose feelings get hurt.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

Weird that 'elite' has become a right-wing term recently. Is that a good thing? Have reactionary forces lost control of the elites after centuries? Are they now at least having to pretend they care about data rather than raw power? That meritocracy wasn't working after all? Or is this just the latest variation on "the Jews who claim to want democracy and human rights are really going to eat your children" and it doesn't really need to be internally consistent?

dontlaugh 5y ago
I think definitely a variation of the latter. The bourgeoisie have their own disagreements and factions, which show up more clearly during periods of crisis.
thriftwy 5y ago
[flagged]
mnd999 5y ago
I would define it as “someone I disagree with and I would like you to disagree with too because they are not like us”. Essentially another approach to trying to create division and tribalism in discourse where it suits the person using it to do so.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  In this specific case, the argument seems to be we should disagree with them because they are too like us (US educated UN Ambassadors), and that the whole concept of human rights is cultural imperialism. Which is one of many recent right-wing stances I’d applaud as very 'woke' and sophisticated takes on complex issues if I didn't think they were just lying about caring about it in order to justify something horrible they do actually want to do.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    Are you saying that the UN has come up with a novel "human right" to having dysfunctional families around? I wasn't aware of that, but it makes a lot of sense now! The UN itself is certainly dysfunctional enough.

earthbee 5y ago

Honestly, I'm not sure why these articles are getting posted recently or what point they're trying to make so maybe this post is besides the point, if so then ignore it. I didn't look super deep into this but I quickly looked up the data for my country the UK, and also the US. In both countries the percentage of people getting married is dropping and the percentage of children in single parent homes is also dropping. So less marriage = more two parent families?

dc-programmer 5y ago
The answer is extremely dumb - US culture wars. Unless I’m missing some hidden connection between familial structure and tech
- d3nj4l 5y ago
  Yes, basically this. HN basically has one of these threads hit the frontpage every day, and they're always from one side of the culture war. No points for guessing which of course, as the author of this piece is an out and out homophobe and transphobe: No, you see, it's about the family!
pyuser583 5y ago
I posted the article because it shows a decision making process empty of data and filled with groupthink. It’s meant as a caution to people employed in the tech industry. It’s very tempting to view “data less” decisions as the product of stupidity or lack or critical though. This shows how educated, smart, diverse group ends up worshipping the “idols of the tribe.”

barry-cotter 5y ago

> cohabiting relationships are less stable than marriage, and suggests that the growth of cohabitation leads to fewer children having the benefits of living with both parents. > In the overwhelming majority of countries, the most educated cohabiting parents still have a far higher rate of break-up than the lowest educated married couples. > There were some countries like the United States and the United Kingdom where the advantage associated with marriage was smaller at low maternal education levels, but it was still quite sizable: children were 57 and 69 percent (respectively) more likely to see their parents split before age 12 if their parents were cohabiting rather than married at the time of their birth. > as cohabitation becomes more common, does it become more similar to marriage in terms of stability for children? Unfortunately, the answer is no. The stability advantage associated with marriage varies a lot between countries, but it is not smaller where cohabiting births are more normative. https://ifstudies.org/blog/cohabitation-contributes-to-family-instability-across-the-globe https://ifstudies.org/blog/cohabitation-contributes-to-famil...

i5heu 5y ago

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc

pyuser583 5y ago
What are you saying? I studied years of Latin, and have no idea what your sentences means. Literally, “With this, therefore that.” I know it’s a fallacy, but fallacies need to be shown, not cited.
- roel_v 5y ago
  Your translation doesn't include 'propter'. A more accurate translation is 'with this, therefore because of this'. Which is a pretty intuitive description of the fallacy it describes.
  - pyuser583 5y ago
    My apologies. I was confused “propter” and “propterea.” Mea culpa.
- i5heu 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_cau...
- mrtranscendence 5y ago
  ... if you know enough to realize it's referring to a fallacy, then you must surely know what the sentence means.

helpfulmandrill 5y ago

It seems to me like the effects of "normative" family structures might be different and better in countries that tolerate divorce. Where divorce is tolerated and non-stigmatised, those families that remain "normative" are, almost by definition, the most stable and healthy ones. If divorce were forbidden or stigmatized, then many more families would remain together where parents are always in conflict or where there is spousal abuse. So it is possible that the apparent benefits of normative family structures are only apparent in societies that tolerate "non-normative" family structures, and would disappear in less tolerant societies.

refurb 5y ago
I would imagine that broadly applies to most social norms - you need to the find the "sweet spot" that reinforces positive behavior, without introducing rules that end up being counter-productive and creating new problems. You can see that in action in terms of drug use - the ideal is that people don't use drugs in a socially (as well as individually) harmful way. Putting people in prison for using drugs likely causes more harm than good (even beyond the person in jail). Having an entirely permissive approach where showing up at work intoxicated probably causes more harm than good as well (again, even beyond the person intoxicated). So the question is at what point can society get the most optimal outcome? Not an easy question to answer and likely one that changes over time (since there are feedback loops and changes to underlying, but related social beliefs).
- vladvasiliu 5y ago
  While I agree with your point, I think we already have examples of this particular issue being solved: alcohol. It's legal for me to go and buy alcohol, and it's also probably legal for my employer to fire me if I show up drunk to work. There's of course nothing preventing me from drinking so much that I die, but then again I can also jump out the window of my apartment, no substance required. I can see that being the same with other drugs. Maybe even mandate testing for certain jobs (operating heavy machinery, driving a bus, etc).
  - 5y ago

julienreszka 5y ago

Page doesn't load

im3w1l 5y ago

This woman privately believed that marriage is good. But her public statement was that it doesn't matter. Consider why. Why would she lie like that? The answer is expediency. She wants political support, or at least avoid picking a battle. This is noteworthy. Similar to Gell-Mann amnesia, we should keep this effect in mind in other questions. When people say "trust the experts" we should keep it mind. Is this an actual expert opinion, or is it an expedient lie. That doesn't mean that it is a lie every time. Clearly these people do a balancing act between truth and realpolitik.

angry_octet 5y ago

haltingproblem 5y ago
You are proposing a dangerous standard. Does every atheist, mormon, polyamorist and satanist now be obligated to disclose their beliefs? He made a data driven argument so lets stay at that rather than a he professes a personal virtuosity that I agree/disagree with kinda of argument.
- andrewclunn 5y ago
  Ad hominems (or attacks on the person or source rather than the argument) are only logical fallacies when applied to people on "my team." Please update your "Rational Skepticism Operating System" to the current year version.
  - haltingproblem 5y ago
    Ran the update, locked my brain and I am now fixated on biting coins.
- angry_octet 5y ago
  His argument is far from data driven, just the opposite: he interprets data to suit his argument. And indeed, if someone is a prominent Satanist, but describes themselves as a simple kind hearted participant on a UN panel, and decides that the true outcome of the meeting is that people love Satan and need black magic in their lives to PROTECT THE CHILDREN then yes, omitting their selling their soul at the crossroads at midnight is quite a deceitful omission. The omission here is the context free nature of links on HN. We are urged to assess the words of people without context, without knowing that they have a history of the most wild and divisive rhetoric, where the dice are loaded with depleted uranium. No, that does not make sense.
  - zaphar 5y ago
    You have not yet demonstrated that his interpretation is incorrect. The data won't change so you should be able to do so. This page is full of folks making data driven arguments to that effect and they probably do more to make your point than this does.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

merricksb 5y ago

Cached version: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fZeFSLRfhpYJ:https://publica.org.au/marriage-beliefs-un/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fZeFSL...