Which explains why those in certain Blue states are so miserable.

Fat and Happy.

fat, happy, and married is not a bad way to get through life :)

This is a perfect example of restriction error.

Unless one happens to believe that women are utterly inept at selecting mates, and therefore men become husbands randomly, then women statistically marry more fit men, and reject less fit men.

As a knock-on effect, since there are fewer fit men then women, women, less fit themselves, will also remain unmarried.

Therefore, the married and unmarried populations are differentially restricted subsets, making direct comparisons suspect, at least.

Using similar reasoning, one might conclude that being an NFL player makes American men taller, heavier, and richer.

Jeff:

Only someone who's married would think that evolution had selected against the unmarried.

Jeff, based on my experience I think that you give too much credit to women on their selectiveness.

Marriage was for most of human history a near universal institution, I don't think that there have been too many men or women in history who couldn't find a spouse, eventually. Especially nowadays, singleness is a self-selected trait, for the most part. It is a preference, not a fate to be endured.

Jeff;

"Unless one happens to believe that women are utterly inept at selecting mates,..."

Don't most married women think that?

Robert:

Most of human history is irrelevant. The study is contemporary. I know an unfortunately large number of women who did not get married because nothing met their selection criteria.

Considering the differences cited in the study, the bias towards effective mate selection doesn't have to be very great.

OJ:

My comment had nothing to do with evolution, only the very real likelihood that this study probably failed to in any way account for range restriction error. There are a lot of homeless men in this country. Do you think they are living long lives, or are in danger of getting married anytime soon?

Peter:

Absolutely. Until they meet another woman's husband who is even worse.

Jeff:

Most probably are, were, or will be married. homelessness is a temporary problem.

OJ:

That doesn't matter. The unmarried population is different from the married population in ways sufficiently different to skew the outcomes through range restriction error. Frequently enough the sort of behavior that leads to breaking up marriages is precisely the same that leads to shorter lives. That, often enough for the differences in this study, makes marriage a proxy for other things, not a cause.

No amount of handwaving will change that.

Jeff:

No it isn't. The unmarried population is identical, just unhappy because divergent from God's plan for them.

Wrong.

I'll bet the alcoholism rate is higher among unmarried men. Both because their affliction prevented them getting married, and the rest because their affliction destroyed the marriage.

Schizophrenic men strongly tend not to get married.

There are two examples, and there are many more, as to why the unmarried population has different characteristics, and, unless accounted for, cannot help but render the findings suspect.

God's plan for schizophrenics is apparently for them to be unmarried, BTW. Plus other, even more nasty, things.

You're confusing cause and effect where alcohol is concerned.

Most schizophrenics marry.

OJ:

With comparison to the rest of the population, schizophrenics are substantially less likely to get married. And cause/effect is also beside the point--the two populations are sufficiently different in just the characteristics one is trying to measure that the results are suspect.

BTW--like schizophrenics, I'll bet God, in his infinite mercy, takes it upon himself to afflict a select few with alcoholism. Nice.

Most alcoholics marry too.

But if they marry at lower rates than the rest of the population, and get divorced more often then the rest, the study suffers from range restriction error.

Which mean it, at least in part, is using marriage as a proxy to indicate that being unhealthy is unhealthy.

Jeff:

They don't.

Most of human history is irrelevant. The study is contemporary. I know an unfortunately large number of women who did not get married because nothing met their selection criteria.

Then obviously their selection criteria is too restrictive. This doesn't contradict my statement that singleness is a preference. These women would prefer to remain single then "settle". I'm sure that the women who settled would value many of the same criteria that the single by preference women do, but in the end valued the married life higher. And the statistics show that, on average, they made the right choice.

OJ:

Alcoholics aren't more likely to get divorced than the sober? Compulsive gamblers?

Robert:

That is as may be--my only point is that the two populations under the consideration are not the same; therefore, treating them as if they are introduces noise. Surely there are some human characteristics that are both antagonistic towards marriage and also antagonistic towards healthy lives.

To the extent that combination exists--do you choose to argue there isn't such a combination?--the study overstates its case by confusing its conclusions with a proxy for underlying common mode problems.

Jeff,
Using your assumption, you would have to say that the decision to remain single is in an of itself a condition that precludes the kind of health and happiness outcomes displayed by married men and women. But, speaking as a married man, do you truly believe that the experience of marriage is a net neutral on happiness and well being?

Robert:

No, I don't believe that. What I do believe is that this study failed to account for range restriction errors, and therefore has a bias of unknown magnitude in the results.

For people who can be happily married, it is an endless treasure.

But there are those out there for whom marriage is impossible for precisely the same reasons that also lead to very unhealthy outcomes.

For that group--and it certainly exists--being unmarried isn't a cause, it is a proxy.

Similarly posed studies proclaim that two parent households are best for children, because the children of such families have far better outcomes.

Of course.

But these studies make the same mistake. There are no happily married people who get divorced; therefore, the population of two parent families is different from divorced families in ways that would lead to worse outcomes for those unfortunate kids even if their parents were forced to remain married.

I'm not arguing over the general conclusion, only suggesting some naivete is required to take those numbers at face value.

Happily married people get divorced all the time, because we've made divorce easy.

Prove it.

27% of divorced couples get remarried.

Happily married people get divorced all the time...

27% of divorced couples get remarried.

Next time I have trouble with the whole concept of non-sequitor, I'll just remember those two statements.

Why not save them the trouble of remarrying each other by not letting them unmarry?

Which 27%?

My point remains though, people happily married to each other do not get divorced, making them a distinct population from those who do.

Then why do they remarry each other?

OJ:

Dunno. But they weren't happily married when they got divorced.

But that is beside the point. Ignoring range restriction error leads to silly conclusions. All studies of divorce show the children with higher rates of bad things. Undoubtedly, divorce does have bad effects, but since the population is divorced population is different, divorce is also a proxy for other problems.

If you were to make divorce absolutely impossible tomorrow, those bad effects wouldn't disappear.

The children of married people would have higher rates of bad things.

Jeff:

Sure they were.

At any rate though, happionerss is not the test of whether a marriage should or could endure.

OJ:

How do you know?

I didn't way whether it was. Remember, my whole point all along is that it pays to beware range restriction errors on studies like this; I had no point to make about divorce studies, other than they also are rife with the same error.

Jeff:

Know divorced people.