Quantcast

Posts tagged with marriage

supplysideliberal:

[M]y only qualifications … are having read several books about marriage and experience from my own marriage, now in its 30th year…
  • “… a misconception: … to make a marriage work, you have to find the right person. The fact is, you have to be the right person,…
  • … students … interview friends about their … weaknesses, and discuss what triggers their … reactions … in order to understand their … hot buttons… “Being blind to these causes people to experience problems as due to someone else—not to themselves,” Solomon explains. “We all have triggers, blind spots, growing edges, vulnerabilities. The best thing we can do is be aware of them, take responsibility for them, and learn how to work with them effectively.”

  • … blaming, oversimplifying, and seeing themselves as victims are all common traits of unhappy couples and failed marriages. …
  • frame statements as “X, Y, Z” statements, rather than finger pointing: When you did X, in situation Y, I felt Z….

Here are a few of my own thoughts on marriage: 

  1. There are a huge number of dimensions on which one might wish to be well-matched with one’s spouse. There is no way you are going to be well-matched on all of those dimensions.
  2. The reputation you have built up with your partner for telling the truth about objective facts is a precious asset in any relationship. …[T]here is bound to be some way to tell the truth. (If you can’t think straight, say “I can’t talk about this right now,” rather than lying.) The more subjective realm of revealing what is in your heart is trickier; seize moments when you will be able to express yourself well and be well understood. It is worth working toward being known.
  3. In an argument, if each partner comes back with 101% of the irate heat the other just gave, things will explode. But if each partner ratchets down the intensity to 99% of the intensity of the last remark, things will eventually calm down.* So a small difference in reaction pattern can be the difference between an explosion and something that simmers down.

    

* Math note: To pursue the logic a bit more, if your partner is coming back with 125% intensity on each round, you are going to have to return less than 80% intensity on each round to avoid an explosive chain reaction….

A regular reader writes in:

I tried that for a long time. It was better than escalating in the short term. But I eventually realized that some people like explosions, and created them when they weren’t happening.

…having been married for a long time, I can guarantee you, that no one on the outside has any idea what goes on inside a marriage.

The parts of being married I enjoyed were great. I’ll never do it again.




Estonians are amenable to marriage. They have a liberal, “eh, what the heck” approach to it and see it as a manifestation of romantic love, as opposed to the US where it has been viewed as a phase in life that occurs sometime after a big promotion at work.




[I]n Montaillou [Languedoc, Pyrenees, France] … around 1320 … at a minimum … 10 per cent of couples [were] ‘living in sin’.


Around 1700 … the … bishop of Montpellier … would have been shocked by such a high proportion.


…in the pastures as well as in the town the shepherds did not hesitate to entertain a mistress when the occasion offered. If anyone came across a couple openly living together, the reaction was much the same as it would be today. Were they legally married or not?

Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, author of The French Peasantry 1450-1660

(but this comes from Montaillou: The Promised Land of Error)

(Source: amzn.to)




Most advice for young people is so terrible it makes me want to throw heavy objects at the adviser. Like

But the founder of Wikipedia has chosen advice related to (a) making money and (b) other people trying to get you to give it to them. Maybe it’s his experience with diverse Wikipedians that helps him think outside the rich-person bubble?

In my experience, costs are easier to control than revenues.

Wales’ advice to young people is also similar to advice my great-grandfather gave to my grandfather about work and money.

And it’s similar to my favourite equation from economics, which I summarise as:

image

I know many of you tumblr readers are young and some of you are interested in hearing advice from older people. If you read Wales’, let me know what you think?





Draupadi (द्रौपदी) with her five husbands (the five Pandavas पाण्‍डव).

Draupadi (द्रौपदी) with her five husbands (the five Pandavas पाण्‍डव).


hi-res




One of the important discoveries of the late 1700s and 1800s was that family life in Northwest Europe during this period varied substantially from family life in other parts of the world, such as Russia, The Middle East, China and India.

Compared to family life in many other parts of the world—with extensive family solidarity, little individualism, overwhelming control of parents over adolescent children, a young age at marriage, universal marriage, marriages arranged by parents, and large and extended households—family life in Northwest Europe could be characterized as having relatively little family solidarity, great individualism, little control of parents over adolescent children, an older age at marriage, many people never marrying, marriages arranged by the couple through courtship, and small and nuclear (or stem) households.

—arvind thornton

Hat tip to @mileskimball.

(Source: developmentalidealism.org)




asequeltoallthethingsivedone:

Ex-Boyfriends

They hang around, hitting on your friends
or else you never hear from them again.
They call when they’re drunk, or finally get sober,

they’re passing through town and want dinner,
they take your hand across the table, kiss you
when you come back from the bathroom.

They were your loves, your victims,
your good dogs or bad boys, and they’re over
you now. one writes a book in which a woman

who sounds suspiciously like you
is the first to be sadistically dismembered
by a serial killer. They’re getting married

and want you to be the first to know,
or they’ve been fired and need a loan,
their new girlfriend hates you,

they say they don’t miss you but show up
in your dreams, calling to you from the shoeboxes
where they’re buried in rows in your basement. 

Some nights you find one floating into bed with you,
propped on an elbow, giving you a look
of fascination, a look that says I can’t believe

I’ve found you
. It’s the same way 
your current boyfriend gazed at you last night,
before he pulled the plug on the tiny white lights 

above the bed, and moved against you in the dark
broken occasionally by the faint restless arcs
of headlights from the freeway’s passing trucks,

the big rigs that travel and travel,
hauling their loads between cities, warehouses,
following the familiar routes of their loneliness.

By Kim Addonizio




whatwoulddondraperdo:

First you have other things to consider—the principal being your father’s money. Does your partner love that? Or your youth, beauty and intelligence? All, some or just one of these reasons is enough for most people, but a true marriage is built on a greater (some say the greatest) thing: a mutual understanding. If you’d like to see a sham destroyed, wait until you see yourself—your true self—reflected in the eyes of another. You’ll see marriage is not an institution. It doesn’t need to answer to history or society. Each marriage is an institution unto itself.




The diamond invention—the creation of the idea that diamonds are rare and valuable, and are essential signs of esteem—is a relatively recent development in the history of the diamond trade. Until the late nineteenth century, diamonds were found only in a few riverbeds in India and in the jungles of Brazil, and the entire world production of gem diamonds amounted to a few pounds a year. In 1870, however, huge diamond mines were discovered near the Orange River, in South Africa, where diamonds were soon being scooped out by the ton. Suddenly, the market was deluged with diamonds. The British financiers who had organized the South African mines quickly realized that their investment was endangered; diamonds had little intrinsic value—and their price depended almost entirely on their scarcity. The financiers feared that when new mines were developed in South Africa, diamonds would become at best only semiprecious gems.

The major investors in the diamond mines realized that they had no alternative but to merge their interests into a single entity that would be powerful enough to control production and perpetuate the illusion of scarcity of diamonds. The instrument they created, in 1888, was called De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd., incorporated in South Africa. As De Beers took control of all aspects of the world diamond trade, it assumed many forms.

The diamond invention is far more than a monopoly for fixing diamond prices; it is a mechanism for converting tiny crystals of carbon into universally recognized tokens of wealth, power, and romance. To achieve this goal, De Beers had to control demand as well as supply. Both women and men had to be made to perceive diamonds not as marketable precious stones but as an inseparable part of courtship and married life. To stabilize the market, De Beers had to endow these stones with a sentiment that would inhibit the public from ever reselling them. The illusion had to be created that diamonds were forever — “forever” in the sense that they should never be resold.

By 1979, N. W. Ayer had helped De Beers expand its sales of diamonds in the United States to more than $2.1 billion, at the wholesale level, compared with a mere $23 million in 1939. In forty years, the value of its sales had increased nearly a hundredfold. The expenditure on advertisements, which began at a level of only $200,000 a year and gradually increased to $10 million, seemed a brilliant investment.

Except for those few stones that have been destroyed, every diamond that has been found and cut into a jewel still exists today and is literally in the public’s hands. Some hundred million women wear diamonds, while millions of others keep them in safe-deposit boxes or strongboxes as family heirlooms. It is conservatively estimated that the public holds more than 500 million carats of gem diamonds, which is more than fifty times the number of gem diamonds produced by the diamond cartel in any given year. Since the quantity of diamonds needed for engagement rings and other jewelry each year is satisfied by the production from the world’s mines, this half-billion-carat supply of diamonds must be prevented from ever being put on the market. The moment a significant portion of the public begins selling diamonds from this inventory, the price of diamonds cannot be sustained. For the diamond invention to survive, the public must be inhibited from ever parting with its diamonds.

EDWARD JAY EPSTEIN, Have you ever tried to sell a diamond? in The Atlantic Monthly

Isn’t it awesome when your views, beliefs, preference, and behaviours were determined by a group of financiers and ad men?




Peter Todd has been misquoted about the mathematics of dating here, here, here (here), here, here, here, herehere, here, here, and in at least five trillion issues of Cosmo. (Surprisingly, this and this did not misquote him.) It’s enough to make me want to write a strongly worded DEAR SIR to the Hearst Tower.

Here is what they say:

  • Only after you’ve dated twelve people, are you ready to decide who’s “The One”!

An even wronger version of the story goes like this:

  • The twelfth guy you date — he’s The One! Science says so! No pressure!!!!!!!

Not only is this wrong, but I’ve heard Peter rant in person, specifically about these misquotations. The problem he studies is known colloquially as "The Search for a Parking Space”.

  1. When you arrive at the movie theatre, you circle around the car park until you see an opening. (Let’s assume it’s below freezing outside.)
  2. When you see that opening, you can immediately tell how far away it is from the theatre. So you know how far you will have to walk in the cold.
  3. At that moment, you have to decide whether to drive on (keep looking for somewhere closer) or accept the probably-imperfect husband — oops, I mean parking space — that you’re staring straight in the face (oops, I mean tarmac).
  4. You can’t back up; you can’t see ahead; all you can do is remember the past, guess about the future, and assess the situation you’re in. That’s all you’ve got to go on. Try to solve that problem optimally.

The paper that’s being referenced (though apparently not read) in these magazines deals with an even stricter problem, known as "The Vizier Wants to Keep His Head":

  1. In this version of the blind forward-search problem, the greedy, vindictive, lazy Prince has to choose a wife.
  2. Being lazy, he tasks the Vizier with solving his problem. Being vindictive, if the Vizier gets it wrong, the Vizier loses his head. Being greedy, the Prince wants the Vizier to find him the wife with the richest dowry.

    (I believe dowry is chosen because it’s seen as a one-dimensional, objectively valuable quantity — as opposed to beauty, which is multifaceted and arguable. If we’re talking about various land holdings, I think dowry would also be multifaceted; that things have a single price is an illusion <link> of simplistic economic thinking.

    Imagine a woman whose family had holdings in modern-day Lebrija, Huelva, Palma del Condado, Aracena, and Ayamonte. Each taxable area will bring in unpredictable revenues year upon year, and the natural beauty of each estate is just as disputatious as a woman’s face. So how is that a one-dimensional value? Oh, well. The point is to assign a scalar to each woman.)
     

  3. The debutantes enter the Prince’s chamber one at a time; as each enters, a courtier reads her name and family holdings. So the Prince and Vizier assign a scalar to that maiden. Then the Prince either proposes marriage or declines.

  4.  Once an heiress has been declined, the Prince can’t call her back. In other words, even if he thinks to himself: “Crap! B_tch Number 37 had a nice rack and a fabulous estate in Milano. I should have gone with her!”, that’s just too bad. Even a handsome, powerful, jerk of a Prince can’t un-dump a ladyfriend.

  5. So the Vizier is set up a similar, but more constrained, problem to the Car Park Dilemma. Except the Prince can’t circle around the way a driver could.

  6. Also, this is important: exactly one-hundred dames will appear before the prince. The solution changes if an infinite progression of dames (or even just all the singles in your greater metropolitan region of choice) paraded before him.

  7. If a richer girl is to be found among either the post-wife sequence of the pre-wife sequence of heiresses, off with the Vizier’s head. 

Given that problem: pick the highest scalar from a forward-blind, one-by-one sequence of scalars, the Vizier maximises his probability of living past the ritual (to something like 30%) with the following strategy:

  1. Observe the wealth / beauty / scalar value of the first 12 women.
  2. Whatever is the highest wealth / beauty / scalar out of that group, becomes your “aspiration level” A.
  3. As soon as you see an heiress with wealth/beauty/scalar ≥A, tell the Prince to marry her.

Again, that strategy doesn’t make the Vizier win (i.e., it doesn’t make you pick the perfect boyfriend every time); it merely maximises the chances of maximisation, within this narrowly specified problem.

So here are the reasons the magazines & blogs are wrong:

  • A boyfriend is not a scalar.
  • Who says that a date equals a sample? I’ve been getting to know the human race my whole life. Every day I spend single, married, or it’s complicated — I am learning more information that can be used to set my aspiration level for a partner.
  • You can go back sometimes — either to rekindle a relationship that, in retrospect, was red-hot, or to revisit a crush you didn’t get far enough with to make things awkward.
  • There aren’t just 100 boys to look through. Let’s face it, there might as well be an infinite number of fish in the sea.
  • Um: a boyfriend is not a scalar. Love depends on you as well; if you could reduce your feelings to a scalar, you’d still want to model the relationship as a 2-equation dynamical system. Interplay; choices; reactions.

SCIENCE IS MORE EXCITING THAN MAGAZINE HYPE

The original paper is called “Satisficing in Mate Search”. (I couldn’t find it online). Here is much, much more material on both data on dating and the science of thinking smarter by Dr. Todd.

You can also read Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart (it’s on my to-read list — and it contains “Satisficing in Mate Search”), and if you look at Amazon’s similar books for the title you’ll come across all kinds of fascinating stuff: about Bayes’ rule, thinking from the gut, less is more, why it’s good to be stupid, willpower, and even an intro to game theory. (I haven’t read that particular treatment, but I do recommend reading just-a-little-bit of game theory as an awesome way to expand your imagination.)

You can get instant gratification with a free chapter of each, so these popular treatments are just as candy-like as Wired or Cosmo.

MORAL OF THE STORY

Just like with modern physics, this modern psychological science is super interesting. Way too interesting to justify wasting time on false and farcical narratives that totally miss the point.

To gild refined gold, to paint the lily, to throw perfume on a violet, … is wasteful and ridiculous excess. —King John