Not that it totally undermines the potential validity of the study, or the value of the lessens that can be drawn from it. But IMO it is worth noting that it was conducted by the Wheatley...
Not that it totally undermines the potential validity of the study, or the value of the lessens that can be drawn from it. But IMO it is worth noting that it was conducted by the Wheatley Institute, a religious conservative think tank whose mission is to "lift society by preserving and strengthening its core institutions" ("core institutions" typically being a euphemism for conservative religious values, "traditional" family structures, and marriage between a cis man and a cis woman). And the think tank is also being operated by Brigham Young University, a Mormon educational institution.
So there is likely some bias at play, at least in how the results were interpreted. Although their research partner, the University of Alberta, isn't known for being particularly socially conservative even though it's located in our most big C-Conservative Province. So take all that for what you will.
Edit to add more info: Adam M Galovan, the assistant professor at UofA co-author of the study, also went to BYU. And, interestingly, also worked for the Institute for Research and Evaluation, a non-profit that advocates for "sexual risk avoidance/abstinence education interventions" sex education curriculum. So even if UofA isn't known for being particularly socially conservative, that ass. prof appears to be very much one. Again, take all that for what you will.
p.s. And just to be clear about my own personal biases. Can you tell I'm not a big fan of Mormonism? I'm queer and still hold a grudge over Prop 8, which the LDS Church threw insane amounts of money toward supporting. So I'm instinctually wary of anything they're associated with as a result.
All fair things to point out. And Im not Mormon but definitely from a conservative background so the article aligns with my own beliefs, just to be clear about my own biases. But now Im curious to...
All fair things to point out. And Im not Mormon but definitely from a conservative background so the article aligns with my own beliefs, just to be clear about my own biases.
But now Im curious to know from your perspective, respectfully, if you agree or disagree with the findings of the researchers if we were to hide the sources or any mention of marriage and spouses and apply the same findings to any committed relationships and partners, straight or queer? Would you say the following are true or not true of all committed relationships?
Partners in high-connection relationships have a nearly three times higher average percentile score on commitment to their relationship than do partners in low-connection relationships.
The average percentile score on personal virtues, such as other-centeredness and compassion, is nearly three times higher for partners in highly connected relationships compared to those in low-connection relationships
High-connection relationships have more than three times high scores on proactive behaviors than low connection partners, specifically in spending meaning time together, doing acts of kindness for each other
Partners in high-connection marriages score nearly twice as high as partners in lowconnection relationships on relationship maintenance behaviors, such as addressing problems and finding ways to strengthen their relationship together
Partners in high-connection relationships score more than twice as high as partners in low-connection relationships on their ratings of their current levels of life satisfaction and the amount of meaning and purpose they have in their lives
That is, would the findings be any different if they were studying any committed relationship, regardless of the descriptors put on it?
One of the major reasons I started my comment off with the caveat about how nothing I said next "undermines the potential validity of the study, or the value of the lessens that can be drawn from...
One of the major reasons I started my comment off with the caveat about how nothing I said next "undermines the potential validity of the study, or the value of the lessens that can be drawn from it", is precisely because (even putting aside the traditional marriage focus of the study) most of their conclusions actually do align with what I personally believe about healthy relationships. So much so that, TBH, the whole thing feels like a bit of a "No duh!" study to me. :P
E.g. People who are more committed to their relationships, more other-centered, and more compassionate tend to have more successful relationships. No duh!
People who spend more meaningful time together, regularly commit acts of kindness, are more forgiving of offenses, and are proactive in maintaining their relationships tend to have more successful relationships. No duh!
Etc.
p.s. Since I don't believe in "destiny" or "soulmates", that is probably why most of their conclusions aligned with my already established beliefs about relationships.
However, where they lost me is when they started going outside the scope of their own study, and talking about modern dating culture and the "Erosion of Courtship", which is when I think their conservative religious ideology came into play a bit more. Especially since, rather than drawing those conclusions from data collected during their own study, it felt mostly like speculation and moralizing at that point, with them suddenly starting to heavily rely on "other studies have shown" to supposedly back up their conclusions. Which then makes it hard to verify if what they're preaching (which is what it felt like they were doing at that point) is actually based on solid evidence or not, without digging into the dozens of other studies they cited. And I ain't about to spend the next week going over every cited study for this. I don't care about the subject that much. LOL
So, I guess, all I was really trying to get at by mentioning the somewhat dubious sources behind the study, was to just provide a warning for people to take all their conclusions with a grain of salt. They're not necessarily wrong, but their motivations are somewhat questionable, and their biases worth considering too. I probably could have made that more clear though.
I feel like this article was just a very long-winded way of saying that you have to put effort into a relationship in order for it to be successful and fulfilling, as opposed to just assuming that...
I feel like this article was just a very long-winded way of saying that you have to put effort into a relationship in order for it to be successful and fulfilling, as opposed to just assuming that your relationship will be fine and dandy because you were "meant to be".
This is pretty relevant to the article about the Chinese woman doing speed dating. Maybe part of her issue and the issue of online dating in general is that trying to stumble upon the perfect...
This is pretty relevant to the article about the Chinese woman doing speed dating. Maybe part of her issue and the issue of online dating in general is that trying to stumble upon the perfect partner is a bad strategy for
entering long term relationships.
I spend a lot of my time with young people who are dating/married and I will say that the vast majority of them are just playing out the models they were given for marriage when younger. The men...
I spend a lot of my time with young people who are dating/married and I will say that the vast majority of them are just playing out the models they were given for marriage when younger. The men aren't trying to be themselves, they're trying to be the man they're "Supposed to be," as are the women. It all plays out in a hilariously obvious way to an outside observer, but these people are truly confused when play acting marriage doesn't work. They don't even know how to building something unique to themselves.
There's nothing wrong with trying to be a better version of yourself for someone special, but I know you're talking about something different. It's kinda sad seeing some of my friends end up in...
There's nothing wrong with trying to be a better version of yourself for someone special, but I know you're talking about something different.
It's kinda sad seeing some of my friends end up in broken relationships for the same reason as their parents. One friend insists that "the mystery" is one of the most critical parts of attraction. He keeps dating time bombs, or he loses interest as soon as the new relationship energy is gone...
Totally. Speaking for myself here, but I've found that it seems to follow that what you put in is proportional to what you get out. This is basically the IKEA effect at play where we value things...
Totally. Speaking for myself here, but I've found that it seems to follow that what you put in is proportional to what you get out. This is basically the IKEA effect at play where we value things proportionally to the effort put in. Raising children, doing a jigsaw puzzle, nurturing relationships, grinding in a video game, etc. It all seems to hold true regardless of the pursuit.
I just assumed that she was a serial dater who has no actual intention of having a long-term relationship with any of of the hundreds of people she's gone on dates with.
I just assumed that she was a serial dater who has no actual intention of having a long-term relationship with any of of the hundreds of people she's gone on dates with.
The article seems to try and dichotomize finding 'the one' with a successful long term marriage. Why not both? I would argue that I searched for 'the one' as carefully as anyone has, especially...
The article seems to try and dichotomize finding 'the one' with a successful long term marriage. Why not both?
I would argue that I searched for 'the one' as carefully as anyone has, especially after a failed 22 year marriage. Wasn't about to make that mistake twice. And eventually I found her. After a few years of organized dating (not many people make spreadsheets to track their dating life) and several dozen coffee dates and a few short term relationships, we met and I knew she was the one within minutes. She was definitely different than all the others.
That was 14 years ago and she is indeed still the one. But that doesnt mean we dont do the things this article points out as central to a strong marriage. I think because we both had failed first marriages, that all of those things were evident as necessary for a healthy marriage, and they have all been important to making this one work as well as it does.
Marriage IS work. But my experience is that if you havent found the right person, its far too much work and if you find the one, its not much work at all.
Concur: all the work in the world from one side won't make a relationship if it's all wasted on the wrong person. But. Also that even with the right person there's still work. It won't feel like...
Concur: all the work in the world from one side won't make a relationship if it's all wasted on the wrong person.
But. Also that even with the right person there's still work. It won't feel like work most of the time, like you said, but there might be rough patches where it will feel like work, and that doesn't mean somehow it isn't the right person
Not that it totally undermines the potential validity of the study, or the value of the lessens that can be drawn from it. But IMO it is worth noting that it was conducted by the Wheatley Institute, a religious conservative think tank whose mission is to "lift society by preserving and strengthening its core institutions" ("core institutions" typically being a euphemism for conservative religious values, "traditional" family structures, and marriage between a cis man and a cis woman). And the think tank is also being operated by Brigham Young University, a Mormon educational institution.
So there is likely some bias at play, at least in how the results were interpreted. Although their research partner, the University of Alberta, isn't known for being particularly socially conservative even though it's located in our most big C-Conservative Province. So take all that for what you will.
Edit to add more info: Adam M Galovan, the assistant professor at UofA co-author of the study, also went to BYU. And, interestingly, also worked for the Institute for Research and Evaluation, a non-profit that advocates for "sexual risk avoidance/abstinence education interventions" sex education curriculum. So even if UofA isn't known for being particularly socially conservative, that ass. prof appears to be very much one. Again, take all that for what you will.
p.s. And just to be clear about my own personal biases. Can you tell I'm not a big fan of Mormonism? I'm queer and still hold a grudge over Prop 8, which the LDS Church threw insane amounts of money toward supporting. So I'm instinctually wary of anything they're associated with as a result.
All fair things to point out. And Im not Mormon but definitely from a conservative background so the article aligns with my own beliefs, just to be clear about my own biases.
But now Im curious to know from your perspective, respectfully, if you agree or disagree with the findings of the researchers if we were to hide the sources or any mention of marriage and spouses and apply the same findings to any committed relationships and partners, straight or queer? Would you say the following are true or not true of all committed relationships?
Partners in high-connection relationships have a nearly three times higher average percentile score on commitment to their relationship than do partners in low-connection relationships.
The average percentile score on personal virtues, such as other-centeredness and compassion, is nearly three times higher for partners in highly connected relationships compared to those in low-connection relationships
High-connection relationships have more than three times high scores on proactive behaviors than low connection partners, specifically in spending meaning time together, doing acts of kindness for each other
Partners in high-connection marriages score nearly twice as high as partners in lowconnection relationships on relationship maintenance behaviors, such as addressing problems and finding ways to strengthen their relationship together
Partners in high-connection relationships score more than twice as high as partners in low-connection relationships on their ratings of their current levels of life satisfaction and the amount of meaning and purpose they have in their lives
That is, would the findings be any different if they were studying any committed relationship, regardless of the descriptors put on it?
One of the major reasons I started my comment off with the caveat about how nothing I said next "undermines the potential validity of the study, or the value of the lessens that can be drawn from it", is precisely because (even putting aside the traditional marriage focus of the study) most of their conclusions actually do align with what I personally believe about healthy relationships. So much so that, TBH, the whole thing feels like a bit of a "No duh!" study to me. :P
E.g. People who are more committed to their relationships, more other-centered, and more compassionate tend to have more successful relationships. No duh!
People who spend more meaningful time together, regularly commit acts of kindness, are more forgiving of offenses, and are proactive in maintaining their relationships tend to have more successful relationships. No duh!
Etc.
p.s. Since I don't believe in "destiny" or "soulmates", that is probably why most of their conclusions aligned with my already established beliefs about relationships.
However, where they lost me is when they started going outside the scope of their own study, and talking about modern dating culture and the "Erosion of Courtship", which is when I think their conservative religious ideology came into play a bit more. Especially since, rather than drawing those conclusions from data collected during their own study, it felt mostly like speculation and moralizing at that point, with them suddenly starting to heavily rely on "other studies have shown" to supposedly back up their conclusions. Which then makes it hard to verify if what they're preaching (which is what it felt like they were doing at that point) is actually based on solid evidence or not, without digging into the dozens of other studies they cited. And I ain't about to spend the next week going over every cited study for this. I don't care about the subject that much. LOL
So, I guess, all I was really trying to get at by mentioning the somewhat dubious sources behind the study, was to just provide a warning for people to take all their conclusions with a grain of salt. They're not necessarily wrong, but their motivations are somewhat questionable, and their biases worth considering too. I probably could have made that more clear though.
I feel like this article was just a very long-winded way of saying that you have to put effort into a relationship in order for it to be successful and fulfilling, as opposed to just assuming that your relationship will be fine and dandy because you were "meant to be".
This is pretty relevant to the article about the Chinese woman doing speed dating. Maybe part of her issue and the issue of online dating in general is that trying to stumble upon the perfect partner is a bad strategy for
entering long term relationships.
I spend a lot of my time with young people who are dating/married and I will say that the vast majority of them are just playing out the models they were given for marriage when younger. The men aren't trying to be themselves, they're trying to be the man they're "Supposed to be," as are the women. It all plays out in a hilariously obvious way to an outside observer, but these people are truly confused when play acting marriage doesn't work. They don't even know how to building something unique to themselves.
edit: mistakes
There's nothing wrong with trying to be a better version of yourself for someone special, but I know you're talking about something different.
It's kinda sad seeing some of my friends end up in broken relationships for the same reason as their parents. One friend insists that "the mystery" is one of the most critical parts of attraction. He keeps dating time bombs, or he loses interest as soon as the new relationship energy is gone...
Totally. Speaking for myself here, but I've found that it seems to follow that what you put in is proportional to what you get out. This is basically the IKEA effect at play where we value things proportionally to the effort put in. Raising children, doing a jigsaw puzzle, nurturing relationships, grinding in a video game, etc. It all seems to hold true regardless of the pursuit.
I just assumed that she was a serial dater who has no actual intention of having a long-term relationship with any of of the hundreds of people she's gone on dates with.
The article seems to try and dichotomize finding 'the one' with a successful long term marriage. Why not both?
I would argue that I searched for 'the one' as carefully as anyone has, especially after a failed 22 year marriage. Wasn't about to make that mistake twice. And eventually I found her. After a few years of organized dating (not many people make spreadsheets to track their dating life) and several dozen coffee dates and a few short term relationships, we met and I knew she was the one within minutes. She was definitely different than all the others.
That was 14 years ago and she is indeed still the one. But that doesnt mean we dont do the things this article points out as central to a strong marriage. I think because we both had failed first marriages, that all of those things were evident as necessary for a healthy marriage, and they have all been important to making this one work as well as it does.
Marriage IS work. But my experience is that if you havent found the right person, its far too much work and if you find the one, its not much work at all.
Concur: all the work in the world from one side won't make a relationship if it's all wasted on the wrong person.
But. Also that even with the right person there's still work. It won't feel like work most of the time, like you said, but there might be rough patches where it will feel like work, and that doesn't mean somehow it isn't the right person