What I learned from two failed marriages is that above all else, you have to pick spouses with whom you can even have the luxury of doing these things. That requires finding someone of vaguely comparable social background and education level.
For a lot of people, this sort of assortative mating happens naturally because they draw on relatively healthy dating pools within their community—college classmates, colleagues, church, etc. Others, however, fall through the cracks. I feel that I did because I dropped out of university at age 20 and left the world of W-2 employment at age 22. What peer group? Solipsistic professional existence in a largely solipsistic and male-dominated profession. That's a very isolating existence and full of wrong turns unless you make strong, proactive efforts to stay in healthy social circles, which the average mid-20s person isn't going to be scrupulously careful about doing. It's very easy to start pulling dating partners from /dev/urandom, particularly amidst the loneliness and angst that eventually catches up to you.
This way lies madness, especially if you try to parlay that into marriage.
The American national mythology teaches us to look at people in highly individualised, democratic don't-judge-me ways, and leaves us blind to the fact that not all people are destined to fruitfully communicate or relate. In more traditional cultures, where social class boundaries are more explicit, this messaging is explicitly woven into people's upbringing. For better or worse, and despite the undeniable drawbacks of "traditional" social strictures, there's a certain timeless wisdom in that. Americans, however, commonly believe that any two people can build a bridge of understanding. In reality, that requires a vaguely comparable level of cultural development and intellectual sophistication. Otherwise, you're going to have to defend every one of the values you hold dear, and you're going to feel like you're having to explain them in crayon for three hours every time you do. And you're still going to fail because you're just not going to see eye-to-eye.
So, from where I sit, this "embrace change" idea is rather high on the — if you will — marital Maslow's Hierarchy. As a first step, make sure you've got basic interpersonal communication and some rudimentary compatibility sorted. For people who have been fortunate or made relatively conventional choices, this may seem an odd preoccupation, but if you've been in a union where that's lacking, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.
> Solipsistic professional existence in a largely solipsistic and male-dominated profession. That's a very isolating existence and full of wrong turns unless you make strong, proactive efforts to stay in healthy social circles, which the average mid-20s person isn't going to be scrupulously careful about doing. It's very easy to start pulling dating partners from /dev/urandom, particularly amidst the loneliness and angst that eventually catches up to you.
And that's how I messed up mine. Profoundly. I suspect it happens to tech people far more than is discussed, as I've seen this antipattern a number of times in lives other than my own.
I also have seen this happen with others, and have met girls who were able to recognize the "depressed and lonely programmer" pattern themselves through many similar dates (of course over dating apps) they had.
Also, it seems only logical that a totally male-dominated lonely and addictive profession that usually encourages and/or requires a lot of dedication even outside of worktime would produce a bunch of solitary men. (And maybe _attract_ a bunch of others.)
Yeah, so what ends up happening is sooner or later one ends up pulling dating partners from eccentric and probably unhealthy places. And the ones most willing to engage have their own reasons for seeking out a lonely programmer.
One can find great partners in such places, but it's really a spin of the Roulette wheel. They lack the proven characteristics of partners from healthy and likeminded peer groups. And they're likely to have fallen off the back of the wagon for their own reasons—sometimes good, but quite often, bad.
Everyone in this thread is talking in rather vague terms. I have a feeling I understand what you mean but I'm not sure. Can you (or anyone else) give an example of what you're referring to?
I don't think we're being deliberately vague, the answer just varies for different people.
Generically, bad places to pull a spouse from: online dating sites/apps, bars, concerts, large parties, etc. Just about anywhere that attracts people from a variety of social strata and offers zero curation for common values, education or habits of mind, and/or doesn't sort people in any way based on useful proxies for those things.
The trouble is that those sources are tempting if you are socially isolated (from the opposite gender) and perceive yourself to have few options, and/or because you're lazy or fatigued from the ever-frustrating chase.
Always bad? No. But the median outcome is going to be worse than with other, more enlightened dating strategies.
Yeah, but when most people think "backfire", they think "painful breakup" backfire. It can get a whole lot worse than that. "Bad dating choices" can be an underwhelming euphemism at times. It all depends on what kind of hornet's nest you get into.
If you marry the wrong person because you dated the wrong person via one of these mechanisms, you can end up in a really dark place.
Uh... you and the rest of the world. You sound like you have some emotional angst about this, so I'll tell you what I learned a few years ago I wrote an HPV epidemiology simulator for a certain large pharmaceutical company (based on the best published studies at the time).
80% of the sexually active population will get at least one strain of HPV in their lifetime. >40% of people in their early 20s have at least one strain of HPV right now. Most people clear HPV (it becomes undetectable) in 1-2 years (mean of 8 months); the cancer cases appear to be the small percentage of unlucky ones whose immune systems don't. There's some debate whether HPV goes dormant or people just get reinfected. It's a hard theory to test because humans are constantly getting exposed to HPV.
Being "HPV+" is not like being "HIV+". It is not rare or permanent, and if you're out of your teens you can pretty much assume that 2/3 of the people you meet are also "HPV+". Unfortunately some strains increase the probability of certain cancers, and it's very much worth vaccinating against them EARLY. But you pretty much can't avoid HPV unless you become a hermit.
Hey, thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge. I am aware of how common it is.
I mentioned it now mostly because I am sure I have exposed myself to risky situations (that could have gotten me a way worse outcome than HPV) out of trying to "solve" loneliness, as we are discussing here. (And I ended up being one of the unlucky with persistent high risk strain, had a couple of cauterizations done.)
I mentioned it now mostly because I am sure I have exposed myself to risky situations (that could have gotten me a way worse outcome than HPV) out of trying to "solve" loneliness
Yep. Same here, for exact same reasons.
Coming from a somewhat sheltered (or at least, exposed to different kinds of problems) university background, I was not adept at identifying dangerous situations as they relate to drugs, disease and mental health in other segments of society. Missed or downplayed the red flags. Got lonely, walked right into dealing with uh, other segments of society. Learned the hard way. I do, as you do, count myself very lucky. I lost a lot, but at least I'm alive.
In as a non value added way possible I want to add that the roulette wheel analogy holds really well - sometimes, only sometimes, the wheel pays out a HUGE win to a really lucky couple.
What a beautiful and well-articulated comment! The issue of value-compatibility (cultural, social, psychological) for successful communication/relationship is immensely underestimated and there is therefore a huge lack of guidance and sensible warnings for a human starting their mating lives outside of circles perpetuating traditions. Many of us get eaten in that jungle and wake up mamed a couple of decades later... I hope your comment helps someone out there realize how important it is to spend energy on "finding your tribe" in order to "date your species" as Reid Mihalko puts it.
>That requires finding someone of vaguely comparable social background and education level.
Westerners are always shocked that even educated people get arranged marriages in India. This is precisely why it works, all the groundwork is done for you. You are raised with similar memes, your arranged partner has been programmed into similar groves as you. Top that with a conformist culture where people try to fit than stand out, chances of finding something truly surprising about your partner are super rare. No amount of dating, living together can match this.
I used to find arranged marriages disgusting and backwards but now I have come full circle having looked at many of my close friends with successful marriages ( there is also aspect of higher social stigma of divorce, but thats another topic).
There is indeed a great deal of rationality to these traditions.
I myself am half-Armenian, and while that is not a culture that has arranged marriage, it's got the common folklore of quasi-oriental clan civilisation. Parents are going to have a lot of input into just about anyone's marital choices, and it is understood on all sides that you're not marrying the spouse - you're joining families. So, there is a lot of opportunity for elders to object if a match patently doesn't make cultural (one might even say "civilisational" in extreme cases) sense.
That's what we don't have here. You're expected to dig out a partner from whatever corner of society you like, and if they suit you, great! There is something to be said for a paternalistic curation function, despite the annoyances and drawbacks of such a meddlesome way of living.
One of the drawbacks of a culture where, on the one hand, family input is very important, but on the other hand, arranged marriage as such is not a thing, is that it's all too easy for relatives to fall into the pattern of pushing the veto lever without proactively introducing you to someone themselves. If everyone's wrong for me, who's right? :) The fact that families have a matchmaking responsibility is an appealing virtue of arranged marriage culture.
While it might seem true, arranged marriages seem to me kind of like adopting children.
There's a million variables to consider when having your own children, when you're adopting children you're adding many more. Sure, it could all work out wonderfully, but you're just increasing the random factor. See the recent movie "Lion" for examples of randomness, both good and bad.
What's wrong with having the same culture you mention, except for the fact that people can marry freely? You'd have the same benefits but hopefully with lower risk. If you want to work in the same cultural limits, just ask for advice (from your family, friends, etc.) before marrying and try to follow that advice.
A lot of more traditional places work that way, e.g. Southern and Eastern Europe.
Of course, the general problem is that you're asking 20s-something people in the throes of hot, passionate romantic love and attraction (in cultures which also celebrate romantic love!) to voluntarily submit to a plethora of mood-killing "cultural limits". Boo!
But it's probably still better than the American approach of, "look ma, no hands!" :-)
I would say that temperament is very important too, though not explicitly mentioned by you.
For example: When putting together furniture, do you like to read the instructions, or just dive right in?
It is important to do at least some projects together, and take some trips where you face at least a little adversity to get a good measure of how well you two can work together.
Doing that can also help you find other potential problem areas, like differences in communication style. You will inevitably have conflict, the question is how will you work things out.
> and take some trips where you face at least a little adversity to get a good measure of how well you two can work together.
While I agree with this and do it in my own life, I don't think that taking a trip is enough to ensure a relationship is a success.
As an example: my partner and I have been on several trips to other continents. We've managed to make it through these trips without breaking up, and while having a reasonably fun time.
But while trips are stressful and are the ultimate test of your ability to compromise/communicate, it isn't the same as daily life together.
For example, my partner loves to leave dirty dishes in the sink to wash later. I prefer to do the dishes immediately so when I come by later to use the sink, it's not full of dirty dishes. It's small, but persistently annoying. We're both working on our tolerance for dirty dishes. (Before someone suggests buying a dish washer, our European apartment is too small for one, so the sink is the only option).
This not the kind of thing you'd notice on vacation.
I agree. Trips are loads of fun. They can occasionally be stressful, and they can engender certain conflicts of style and priorities, but on the whole they are replete with novelty and distraction. People also have a habit of taking them while they're still in love, during honeymoon periods, etc.
As such, they offer a poor window through which to preview the feasibility of everyday domestic life.
> Otherwise, you're going to have to defend every one of the values you hold dear, and you're going to feel like you're having to explain them in crayon for three hours every time you do. And you're still going to fail because you're just not going to see eye-to-eye.
I'm too young (at least too immature) to have gone through the whole marriage loop, but I recognise this. I'm christian, although progressive, and had a great relationship with a girl who wasn't. We had a great deal in common, but she thought that church was a "weird" institution and I couldn't relate to that experience. Of course I took the easy way out when some shit happened.
We do still talk frequently though, and she's probably the one person who knows me best.
What I have learned from 13 years with the same woman is different. What you say makes sense, and having comparable social and educational background are certainly going to make things simpler.
But above everything, your partner and you need to have compatable sexual drive and desire, compatable ethics, and be willing to communicate and ability to listen to critique. If the relationship lack any of those, it will not last, or it will be one sided.
You can find this outside of "comparable social background and education level", I certainly know many couples that have been married for more than 20 years that don't fit this, and I know even more that meets this criteria that are seperated.
My feeling is that when a topic of discussion finally comes along that you perhaps didn't even realize your mind has been working on for a long time, it just pours out of your fingers like magic.
While it falls short of magic, I suspect, obviously, I've had a lot of opportunity to reflect on why and how I screwed up, to go through cycles of blaming myself, blaming others, chalking it up to "shit happens" cosmic randomness, etc., and ultimately to settle on some sort of stable interpretation. I was looking for love in all the wrong places, as the country song goes...
> Solipsistic professional existence in a largely solipsistic and male-dominated profession. That's a very isolating existence and full of wrong turns unless you make strong, proactive efforts to stay in healthy social circles, which the average mid-20s person isn't going to be scrupulously careful about doing. It's very easy to start pulling dating partners from /dev/urandom, particularly amidst the loneliness and angst that eventually catches up to you.
Yes, this is certainly a thing in the industry (software development, computer engineering). It's happening regardless of the country, culture, or native language. It's happening regardless of the industry the person creates the software for. Now as we identified the problem, can we do something about it? Dating app/website to this particular profile? (from my experience they never work). Is mid-late 30s already too late?
One of the marriages was in a traditional culture (where I have family roots; not _entirely_ what you've got in mind), so I'm the first to say that's not a magic solution. But at least the problem there was framed more explicitly and recognised for what it was. Here in America, it gets lost in a fog of individualistic "nonjudgmental" received truth.
For a lot of people, this sort of assortative mating happens naturally because they draw on relatively healthy dating pools within their community—college classmates, colleagues, church, etc. Others, however, fall through the cracks. I feel that I did because I dropped out of university at age 20 and left the world of W-2 employment at age 22. What peer group? Solipsistic professional existence in a largely solipsistic and male-dominated profession. That's a very isolating existence and full of wrong turns unless you make strong, proactive efforts to stay in healthy social circles, which the average mid-20s person isn't going to be scrupulously careful about doing. It's very easy to start pulling dating partners from /dev/urandom, particularly amidst the loneliness and angst that eventually catches up to you.
This way lies madness, especially if you try to parlay that into marriage.
The American national mythology teaches us to look at people in highly individualised, democratic don't-judge-me ways, and leaves us blind to the fact that not all people are destined to fruitfully communicate or relate. In more traditional cultures, where social class boundaries are more explicit, this messaging is explicitly woven into people's upbringing. For better or worse, and despite the undeniable drawbacks of "traditional" social strictures, there's a certain timeless wisdom in that. Americans, however, commonly believe that any two people can build a bridge of understanding. In reality, that requires a vaguely comparable level of cultural development and intellectual sophistication. Otherwise, you're going to have to defend every one of the values you hold dear, and you're going to feel like you're having to explain them in crayon for three hours every time you do. And you're still going to fail because you're just not going to see eye-to-eye.
So, from where I sit, this "embrace change" idea is rather high on the — if you will — marital Maslow's Hierarchy. As a first step, make sure you've got basic interpersonal communication and some rudimentary compatibility sorted. For people who have been fortunate or made relatively conventional choices, this may seem an odd preoccupation, but if you've been in a union where that's lacking, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.