tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post7083731826711552459..comments2024-03-18T20:24:18.935-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Cohabitation, marital quality and resistance to reasonAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-67730705031945639722007-10-24T22:31:00.000-05:002007-10-24T22:31:00.000-05:00Chauncey:This is a good question. In the post I a...Chauncey:<BR/><BR/>This is a good question. In the post I allude to a correlation between cohabitation and poorer marital interaction styles. This was a due to a study that found a link between cohabitation and poorer communication methods (e.g., being more controlling, or making more negative remarks). Intuitively, this should in turn be linked with lower marital satisfaction, and I think I once did come across a study that showed a correlation between cohabitation and lower marital satisfaction.<BR/><BR/>One subtlety that I haven't mentioned in the post (but which I do go into in class) is that some of the apparently better studies find that it matters a lot whether the cohabitation was with the same person one is married to or with someone else. According to two studies, at least one of which was excellent, cohabitation <EM>with the person that one then marries</EM> does not correlate with a higher (or lower) divorce rate. And according to one study, cohabitation after engagement is not correlated with poorer marital communication, except in respect to the quantity of negative comments.<BR/><BR/>So there is a correlation between divorce and cohabitation, as well as between divorce and poorer marital communication. In the divorce case, most of the correlation seems to be due to a strong correlation between divorce and cohabitation-with-someone-other-than-the-spouse. If the latter correlation is causal, then this may give a reason not to cohabitate unless one knows that one will marry the person. In particular, it then gives a reason not to cohabitate just to try things out, since then <EM>ex hypothesi</EM> one does <EM>not</EM> know that one will marry the person. (I am not saying that cohabitation with the person one will marry is a good idea, but simply that these studies do not say that it's not.)<BR/><BR/>My excuse for not mentioning the subtlety, apart from issues of length, is that even with the subtlety, the statistics do not bear out the notion that cohabitation as a trial marriage is a good idea, and suggest that it's not.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-82012532300596806732007-10-24T20:20:00.000-05:002007-10-24T20:20:00.000-05:00I have not read the studies. And I do not want to...I have not read the studies. And I do not want to question their results. However, I wonder whether there is more specific data that attempts to measure the quality or satisfaction in the marriages of cohabitaters and non-cohabitaters. We can agree that divorce and non-divorce are one indicator of "marital prospects", but surely there are others. Such date could afford a potential rebuttal of Alex's strong "no reason to believe" claim. Specifically, if cohabs are generally happier than non-cohabs, even though they have a higher divorce rate, then there is a relevant and robust sense in which there is *a* reason to think cohabitating helps.<BR/><BR/>Notice also that it's possible (even plausible) that the people who are inclined to non-cohab are also people inclined to avoid divorce when the marriage gets difficult; conversely, people that are inclined to cohab are also people that are inclined to divorce when things get difficult. If this were true, it would assist in understanding or explaining the discrepancy in the data groups. I would imagine the researchers address this. I think this would further problematize Alex's "no reason to believe" claim, which would be based on a problematic comparison.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-17812021802155947982007-10-23T04:24:00.000-05:002007-10-23T04:24:00.000-05:00I can't help but suspect that, in many such cases,...I can't help but suspect that, in many such cases, the "deeply ingrained social beliefs" are functioning as a rationalization for one's wants.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-71841749912692276002007-10-22T22:57:00.000-05:002007-10-22T22:57:00.000-05:00I think that marriage is so worldview influenced t...I think that marriage is so worldview influenced that studying certain specific aspects of it will always give you interesting data but no real causal answers. I know that is simple, but my own Christian worldview offers a very limited set of conditions where marriage is ended absent of violating moral duties I understand to wiegh on my actions. Because I must make the marriage "work" I do not do 100 other things in the course of our daily life together that I might otherwise do. For example, I do not have a win at all cost attitude about arguments because arguments are not a zero sum game. Certain lines are forever watched and I am mindful of them in all that we do. I dearly love my wife, but I also understand myself to be committed to her in way that is not a reality for a materialist or even a cultural Christian.<BR/><BR/>I guess that is stating the extremely obvious, but the same moral intuitions that lead someone to NOT cohabitate ultimately should most often coincide with the moral intuitions that lead them to take the details that might threaten their committed relationship more seriously.<BR/><BR/>That seems to speak as to why those who are not seeing a moral component to cohabitation, which is increasingly common in the young Christians that I work with in ministry, can not make a personal connection with statistic norms. They seem to feel that cohabitation is not a moral issue, but a hang up of a an older generation similar to Southern Baptist restrictions on dancing. So they fail to see a connection with cohabitation, which they see as harmless and practical, and divorce, which most of the young people I talk to still see in moral terms. Though even with divorce, the moral dut is a bit more relaxed. <BR/><BR/>For what it is worth.<BR/><BR/>Great post by the way.Jay Wattshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11298001988620531769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-51121159603061842362007-10-22T16:09:00.000-05:002007-10-22T16:09:00.000-05:00Lydia:You're right, of course, if "common sense" h...Lydia:<BR/><BR/>You're right, of course, if "common sense" has either some evaluative meaning, or else is not relativized to a time or culture.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-84649319266269404052007-10-22T14:13:00.000-05:002007-10-22T14:13:00.000-05:00And the whole "try it first" attitude to cohabitat...And the whole "try it first" attitude to cohabitation really _isn't_ common sense, anyway. It's what you might call "faux common sense." Nobody thought it was common sense 100 years ago, because people realized, by common sense, that sex and marriage aren't like buying a car.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-41894805456930679602007-10-22T11:29:00.000-05:002007-10-22T11:29:00.000-05:00Yes, cognitive dissonance is a serious issue here....Yes, cognitive dissonance is a serious issue here. I begin the discussion in class with talking how some results of scientific research are really counterintuitive and go against common sense. That maybe helps reduce cognitive dissonance, by warning one against bias, but it obviously doesn't do enough.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, it is a healthy attitude to be cautious about recent scientific results that contradict common sense. If a study just came out showing that the healthiest diet consists simply in drinking coke--no solids, no fruit, just coke--it would be stupid to give up on a common-sensical balanced diet. Still, when study after study has essentially the same result, and the question is an empirically accessible one, eventually we have to conclude that common sense is wrong, and the earth isn't flat or immobile.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-42524124095614438572007-10-22T11:16:00.000-05:002007-10-22T11:16:00.000-05:00Alex,Do you know a mechanism called the reduction ...Alex,<BR/><BR/>Do you know a mechanism called the reduction of cognitive dissonance? It could be efficient here, and also in every dispute about issues that matters, e.g. philosophical, religious, ethical or sexual issues. See http://www.ou.edu/ouphil/faculty/<BR/>chris/crmscreen.pdf , chapter 19.Vlastimil Vohánkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12544439495032316597noreply@blogger.com