3 ms·

> What we find in the corrected analysis is we still see evidence that when wives become sick marriages are at an elevated risk of divorce, whereas we don’t see

> What we find in the corrected analysis is we still see evidence that when wives become sick marriages are at an elevated risk of divorce, whereas we don’t see any relationship between divorce and husbands’ illness. We see this in a very specific case, which is in the onset of heart problems. So basically its a more nuanced finding. The finding is not quite as strong. I take issue with this framing. Starting with saying that when women get sick, risk of divorce elevates, immediately followed by saying this happens only in one type of sickness is still very misleading. The entire first sentence is misrepresenting the actual findings.

bbor 2y ago
It's possible that for experienced researchers, "heart problems" is a more universal category than we're treating it here. AKA a rough analog for "life-threatening"? I'm under the impression basically all deaths due to senescence (old age) occur from heart failures (potentially in turn caused by other things), so "you're cancer has advanced so far that it now is threatening your heart function" seems like something that might happen frequently. Thus, they're defending the smaller "husbands leave their worryingly sick wives", abandoning whatever previous categorization they have for "serious illness" in the original paper Pure speculation, ofc ;)