I read another article that stated 75% of divorces in the U.S. are initiated by the woman! The article (which I can't seem to find at the moment but will look for it) also stated that 54% of American marriages end in divorce, 60% of Americans dislike their job, and 65% of Americans are obese. Now, I'm not going to guarantee the preciseness of any of these percentages, but I don't really see them being too far off. By the way, it was around July 4th when I read this article and the author wrote the sarcastic piece ending with "oh its great to be an American. Happy Birthday America".
I'm going to use that Star War's quote again: "Passion clouds judgment". Why not sign a prenup? According to this article when marriage is on the mind, divorce of course is the last thing on the mind. That's obvious. But, people change, situations change. Think about it. In every other facet of our lives when we enter a high-stakes agreement/deal there is usually some sort of insurance involved. Own a car? Do you have insurance? Own a home? Do you have insurance? Have a kid? Do you have insurance? Get married? Did you sign a prenup? The thinking is "oh, of course not. Not us. Divorce? Neeever". The simple fact of the matter is that you never know what is going to happen in the future. Step out of love for a minute and think.
I honestly don't see why more people don't sign prenups. Think about it: 54% chance of divorce. I feel like there should be a coin toss at the end of marriage ceremonies. I honestly don't know why that number isn't higher. I would guess it is due to the fact that some people cannot fathom the cost of divorce, both monetarily and emotionally on the family so they would rather stay unhappily married than divorced. Is going into a marriage likely to be a successful endeavor? I don't know about you, but I don't generally partake in activities where it is shown that a greater than 50% failure is to be expected and if you do fail you lose 50% of your belongings. Do I condone divorce? Well I generally agree that people should maximize their happiness. Let's try the example thing again.
Imagine instead of saying "I want to marry this man" or "I want to marry this woman" you say to yourself "I want to marry
Did you find a good word? If you did, I'd like to know. Can you name any single thing that is not physically attached to you that you would want to have for the rest of your life? Let's say that you did find something, and say that you do want to maximize your happiness. Suppose that over time the thing you chose became less and less appealing and that you are becoming less happy/satisfied. Now if you saw something else that you could get that you would consider an upgrade, and would make you happier, would you go for that upgrade and leave the original thing?
Ok, let's take the flip side and say you are completely satisfied and happy with the original. If you saw the upgrade would you still not go for it? Or would you say, no, I have the original so I'm going to stick with it now matter how much those others could make me even happier. That is one of the points made in the article. I'm not trying to make divorce sound like a good thing or a bad thing. I just think that it is human nature to try to maximize your own happiness. If that means making a change then that means making a change.
3 comments:
Another interesting article:
Can university romances survive?
Well, I wrote that post based on the assumption that people try to maximize their own happiness. So by "upgrade" I mean more of changing something in your life to maximize your own happiness, rather than finding Person B who is an "upgrade" compared to Person A i.e. someone who is younger, makes more money, looks better etc. So I'm not trying to compare Person A and B and say one is an upgrade over the other in the general sense of the term, rather I'm trying to say that Person B might help you attain greater happiness than Person A so in that sense is an "upgrade" to you. Remember this is all on a personal basis and what it means to you as an individual, just like the human life worth post.
I know that people in general don't like to compare human beings with material things or situations in concept/theory, but it happens. Let's first leave human relationships out for just a quick second. Personally, the thing that gets me up every morning is the possibility of improving some aspect of my life or if nothing else experiencing something else different. We all make decisions by evaluating the pros and cons. In general you make your choice based on what will result in a positive outcome, whatever you define that to be. In this case let's say it is to increase your own personal happiness.
Say you choose your job. It is a relationship. You have chosen it based on the ones you applied to AND of those, the ones that have accepted you. You had a search criteria and evaluate the pros and cons of the possibilities. You then choose and wait for them to choose you. This is sort of like a human relationship. A friendship is mutual, so your friends are those who you have chosen to befriend, but also those who have reciprocated. Now you may in fact have two offers that you think will help you equally maintain you greatest happiness. But you have to choose one. So you do based on another decision.
You start out thinking you will like the job. After a few years you begin to dislike it. It is because either you have changed, your job has changed, or both have changed. The relationship has changed. In this case obviously, only one party, you, have feelings. In the case of a human relationship both parties have feelings.
Do you stay at your job and say "let's tough it out, there's going to be rough times". Well, some might, but others will look for a new job because they want to improve their situation. That might be an easy decision to make. In a human relationship one part might want to work things out and the other might not.
Now back to relationships. People break up all the time. All I am saying is that I can see why it happens. People are just being logical. If the relationship is not working i.e. in general you are not happy, and you've found another relationship that will make you happier then why not change? Consider the flip case. Let us say that again you think people should maximize their own happiness and that you really really care about the person you are in a relationship with. Let's say that THEY, not you, found someone else that would help them increase their happiness. Would it not make sense for them to do so under those assumptions? Should you stay in a relationship with someone just because you "found them first"?
In marriage it is harder. There are lots more financial aspects involved and if the couple has children it makes even harder. So, some choose to remain married even though they are unhappy because it is the easier course of action. Like you said people like to take the easy way out.
Of course of course there will ALWAYS be the possibility of finding someone else that will help you to maximize your happiness and the search could go on indefinitely. When you feel like you are done searching then this is when as the saying goes "you need to settle down". Some people choose to settle down earlier than others.
In general I see that sometimes there is little thought given to the decision (the top 10 questions weren't discussed and as a result the >50% failure rate). I think the issue at hand with divorces is that people realize that they did not do enough searching and they have made a decision that at the time looked good, but now they are not happy with. Then why of course remain unhappy? People change and situations change. Do I mean change on a whim? Absolutely not. You have to try to resolve problems. But when do you take a step back and see that something plainly is not working and that "staying the course" is NOT the solution? (hint: see President Bush and Iraq). If you've made a decision that you thought was initially good and you've worked with it, and now is not, does it necessarily have to be irreversible?
There are two trains of thought. One is that some people believe that there exists "the one", i.e. the perfect match. Others do not. I prescribe to the second. There are too many people in this world and too many variables involved. So you basically choose what you perceive to be the best match out of the people you come into contact with over your lifetime. Again, one could theoretically go an entire lifetime without finding a match. Some people cannot live with this fact. Some people also cannot fathom not being with someone, so sometimes it seems forced.
When you feel like you are done searching then you choose. Then two things happen. You feel like you never want to search again (maybe because it is too much work? you are content at the moment? who knows), and that by being with this person your search is done. Gone is the possibility that things will not work out or that this person will leave you (could be by death as well), or that you will no longer be happy. If this situation happens then what? Did you ever consider it? And most people when they are in love don't like to think about it. Understandable. Smart? Probably not. Understandable? Yes. "Passion clouds judgment".
I am pretty sure my happiness argument has been used before by some ancient philosopher. Kant maybe? I'll have to look it up.
So, why do people get married in the first place? Because both parties feel that they will be happier than if they weren't together, right? Why do you choose Person A over someone else and why did Person A choose you over someone else? There was an evaluation that took place and both decided on this relationship because it would maximize each persons' own happiness. I think that makes sense. Do people marry for the "wrong" reason? I'm not sure what "wrong" means. Let's take money for example. (See the NY Times article). The warm and fuzzy saying is that "money doesn't by happiness". I would say that this is true, don't get me wrong. But if you take a person who is extremely poor and unhappy, you can't tell me that they would choose not to be poor and happy. If Person A is poor and unhappy, and marries Person B because Person B has money does this make it "wrong"? I am not saying this is wrong or right. Person A made a choice in the hopes of increasing his/her happiness. As the saying goes "whatever floats your boat". My point is everyone has reasons for being in a relationship and whatever those reasons might be, whether they are material or otherwise, I would contend it is for the very reason of maximizing your own happiness. That is of course unless you think that people like to live in misery and don't do things in their own best interest (another theory which I remember from college but I can't remember whose it is...)
Why then, can this only happen once in a person's life? Does a decision you make in one point of your life, in which you "stick with it", necessarily need to dictate the rest of your life? All I am saying is that people make mistakes. Divorce makes sense to me because it is two people making a choice in the best interest of both. Just like marriage. Not necessarily admitting that it was a mistake, because at the time it was thought to be a good decision. But now the situation has changed, everyone involved has changed, you've tried your best to solve the problem, but something needs to be done. Makes sense. (side note: why does it seem like I'm talking about Bush-Iraq policy? :)
Anyway, if you are a prescriber to "the soulmate" philosophy, if this so called "soulmate" leaves you either by choice or by death does this mean that you should not try to form another relationship with someone else? If you are a prescriber, then I would argue that you would answer no, because you think there is one, and only one person for you. I'm just asking a question. That's all I've ever tried to do here, and never to offend anyone. It is not a personal attack by any means, I just observe then ask questions and think/reason. For the marriage topic, I am no happier for two people when they get married as I am for when two people get divorced. Why? Because in both cases each party is trying to maximize their happiness and made a decision based on this. "We are better off together" or "We are better off apart". Again, not good or bad, just a choice people make based on reasoning.
Why think and reason? Because that is what as humans sets us apart from every other species on this planet. The ability to think and reason. Why do we discourage kids from just memorizing facts and answers in school? Because it hampers their ability to reason. Why do we discourage people from getting drunk? Because it hampers their ability to reason. Why do we tell people to live by what is written in a "holy" book? Because it contains words by which in an "ideal" world we would like people to act/live by. In my opinion children should be taught about all religions and when they are of age let them choose for themselves.
I think that holy books are basically rule books. They try to get people to act in a certain way, which is good for most people because they, under their own accord, would not ordinarily act this way. Just like laws. But why do some people follow the teachings in these books without question? It is because they are promised something in return if they do and are promised punishment if they don't. The basic incentive theory. If you believe in the afterlife it goes something like this: If you live by the book in your human state, then once you die you will go to heaven (or where that someplace nice is) and not hell. So people live by the book. Why? Out of possible consequence. Cause and effect. Why do I obey the speed limit? Because if I go much faster I might get in an accident. Because I might get a ticket. At "judgment day" a religious person wants to know that he/she will be HAPPY in the afterlife. It is a form of obedience in my opinion. Obedience to serve a "higher" being. Again is this right or wrong? Who knows. Just stop and question it for one second.
So, what is the enemy of obedience? Free and independent thinking. People who question what is told by others to them that "this is what is good for you" or by some words in a book. (Why does the U.S. tell Iraq what is good for it?) Why does history herald what we consider "great thinkers" and "great minds"? If a government is trying to exert its rule over a people, what is its worst enemy? People who question the authority. People who question the status quo. Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X (autobiography of which I am reading now). We recognize these people because they were able to think for themselves, not do what someone else or some book tells them to do. Question. Reason. Think. People who are so resolute and passionate about something lose this ability because they become blinded by what they want to hear and see. As you can tell, I try to get people who like to use "always" and "never" to think about a case that might break this train of thought, because like I've said all it takes is one counter-example to disprove a proof/theorem.
People don't want to think about the worst-case scenario because it is unpleasant. As a consultant, I have learned to consider all possibilities. Evaluate and choose "the best" based on a set of criteria. People are risk-adverse. Simple concept. You live with uncertainty and try to plan for it because even though the chances are slim, it could happen. (See insurance/prenup). Some people can't live with uncertainty so they turn to a religion that helps answer their questions and fill a void. Others are content without knowing and thrive on this uncertainty by trying to plan and by living each day working towards making tomorrow better than today.
Post a Comment